Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Athena

S04.E10: The Deep Heart's Core

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, toolazy said:

 

I've never been raped (thank god) but I've got to think that feeling like "soiled goods" is a common reaction, even today. Our reactions to trauma are not rational - they're emotional and unpredictable. While it isn't likely that Roger wouldn't want her, it's more than plausible that she fears that he wouldn't. She's probably projecting her own feeling of violation onto Roger.

Yes I agree. Also this attitude wasn’t that uncommon even in the 1960’s. I’m not suggesting that Frank or Claire would ever teach Brianna such a thing, but a woman of that time was still considered “desirable for marriage” based on her “purity”.

Being a woman that had sex with a man not her husband (or more liberally her fiancé) made her “loose” by the standards of a Roger type (he said as much a few episodes ago- no sex unless they were engaged). 

 

Her feelings were very understandable, poor thing. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 2019-01-06 at 9:46 AM, GingerMarie said:

I am ticked off at Claire for not defending Jamie when Brianna said she did not trust him and Ian to do the right thing when tring to find Roger.

I think that it's a good thing Claire is going as she is the only one who knows Roger & that he will trust now, after the way Jamie & Ian treated him. But you were right I was annoyed at Claire being pissy with Jamie, couldn't she have defended him to Bree.

Edited by Cdh20 · Reason: Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

Dropping in here to say that Diana is mean- must she make all her leading men suffer so much? 

When you write your own book/characters -- you can have your male (and females) live in a cushy world where nothing bad ever happens!

Win win!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I liked some of the changes - the whole big argument Bree and Jamie had before she even finds out about Roger being cut makes sense given how it makes Jamie appear but I miss him going to Claire for advice after and being told apologise which does actually work.

And I wish they hadn't had Jamie claim Ian has a crush on Brianna which kind of undercuts his proposal being a way of making it up to her because they've now had it be all him selling Roger to the Mohawk which I think also undercuts him volunteering to be the one adopted by the Mohawk which in the books I think he does as much for Jamie not to have to do it and miss out out on his wife and daughter as to make up for his part in things. It's a lot easier for Ian to make a new life for himself after all.  

I assume Claire didn't defend Ian and Jamie so that they could have the next big misunderstanding where Jamie spends the journey to the Mohawk wondering if Claire would prefer Frank to him just like Brianna. But actually, I've never really considered did Claire tell Jamie about to her promise to Frank to not look for him while Frank was alive? I know he later finds out Frank wasn't the best husband - I think Claire and her glass face give a bit away when he is talking about Laoghaire and how things were between them. Because otherwise given Claires timing - coming back after Frank's death Jamie could think he was second best. (Rare moment of insecurity for the King of Men there.) 

Roger does have a reason to stay in the show at least - in the books he knows he was beaten and sold to the Mohawk by Jamie Fraser and up until they come to rescue him he worries Bree was so mad she was in on it. In the show he just got jumped by a random bloke - I do think there is a resemblance between Sam and Sophie but it's  not the eerie book resemblance where Jamie is obviously her Dad so Roger can want to get back to her without thinking she had this set up for him as he worries in the books.  

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I think that it's a good thing Claire is going as she is the only one who knows Roger & that he will trust now, after the way Jamie & Ian treated him.

When Brianna showed Claire the drawing she made of Roger I expected Claire to say "Hey, you forgot his beard. Oh, did he shave off the beard?" Because . . . Claire has no way of knowing Roger shaved his beard. It even took me a minute to figure out what was different about him after he did it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

One of my favorite moments in this episode is when Claire tells Jamie in that cold voice "You told me you hit a tree."  

Yo, Jamie, I seem to recall a conversation 20 years ago that included the words "secrets but not lies."  Whoops I guess Jamie remembers it too because he immediately tries to say "No, YOU said that and I just didn't correct you."  So he didn't lie right Claire?  Claire?

I'm betting Jamie is getting NO campfire-side loving on THIS trip.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I think that it's a good thing Claire is going as she is the only one who knows Roger & that he will trust now, after the way Jamie & Ian treated him. But you were right I was annoyed at Claire being pissy with Jamie, couldn't she have defended him to Bree.

I had no issues with Claire not outright defending Jamie to Bree, but she really didn't verbally defend Bree either.  She just quietly made sure Bree knew her mom was there to help her get through this. Otherwise, Bree would have felt her parents were basically "ganging up" on her. Claire probably feels some guilt along with being angry at Jamie and I feel her anger is justified. As a mom to a daughter myself, I would probably react just like Claire.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, rxpert14 said:

I had no issues with Claire not outright defending Jamie to Bree, but she really didn't verbally defend Bree either.  She just quietly made sure Bree knew her mom was there to help her get through this. Otherwise, Bree would have felt her parents were basically "ganging up" on her. Claire probably feels some guilt along with being angry at Jamie and I feel her anger is justified. As a mom to a daughter myself, I would probably react just like Claire.

Fair enough, it was good for Claire to keep quiet. I am sure her & Jamie will hash it out on the road! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, snowbryneich said:

Roger does have a reason to stay in the show at least - in the books he knows he was beaten and sold to the Mohawk by Jamie Fraser and up until they come to rescue him he worries Bree was so mad she was in on it. In the show he just got jumped by a random bloke - I do think there is a resemblance between Sam and Sophie but it's  not the eerie book resemblance where Jamie is obviously her Dad so Roger can want to get back to her without thinking she had this set up for him as he worries in the books.  

Plus Roger barely got a look at Jamie before he was flattened - another piece of book stupidity made slightly more palatable by the show. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

One of my favorite moments in this episode is when Claire tells Jamie in that cold voice "You told me you hit a tree."  

Yo, Jamie, I seem to recall a conversation 20 years ago that included the words "secrets but not lies."  Whoops I guess Jamie remembers it too because he immediately tries to say "No, YOU said that and I just didn't correct you."  So he didn't lie right Claire?  Claire?

I'm betting Jamie is getting NO campfire-side loving on THIS trip.

I do wonder if Jamie ever worries about Claire leaving him, because if she wants to she could go to 1970whatever, it's not like it's just another town! I know she promised she wouldn't leave again, but anything could happen.

Edited by Cdh20
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand not spelling "Laoghaire" correctly, but........

It's Jamie, NOT Jaime, and Roger, NOT Rodger.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
On 07/01/2019 at 8:20 AM, WatchrTina said:

At first I was shocked and disapproving when Brianna mentioned Jamie’s having been raped.  I don’t recall that from the book (I don’t recall Brianna knowing those intimate details of the Jamie/Jack Randall story).

Yeah I don't recall it in the books either.  But I reasoned that Claire may have told Bree with no expectation that she would ever meet Jamie.

11 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

One of my favorite moments in this episode is when Claire tells Jamie in that cold voice "You told me you hit a tree."  

That was one of my faves too.  Oh Jamie, haven't you learned yet?

Did anyone catch how the other prisoner died?  I thought initially of natural causes (exposure, dehydration) but then one of the Mohawk says something about moving quicker without him, which made me think that they might have killed him, but I suppose the comment works either way.

Wee Ian was so perfect in this episode, I absolutely adore him.  Sophie still seems to struggle a bit with the quieter moments but she's getting really good at the anger/stubbornness playing off Claire and Jamie.

Really liking the back half of this season and how they're making the idiocy in the book more palatable.  And Murtagh has to survive his inevitable confrontation with Bonnet because he and Aunt Jocasta are going to be absolutely delicious.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Some of the non book readers were talking about how ridiculous it was for Brianna to think she could fight off a vicious pirate who easily dragged her across the floor like a sack of potatoes but victims of sexual assault often blame themselves, even children. I guess it might have made more sense visually if we had powerful looking bookBriana than petite and pretty show Brianna. I hated this episode but it is because I hate this plot line, which is not the show’s fault. I also hate that in tv people get brutally beaten up and just have a few black eyes and bruises to show for it. There is no way Roger could be beaten that badly by Jaimie and survived that hellish trek with the Mohawks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, carolibra said:

I can understand not spelling "Laoghaire" correctly, but........

It's Jamie, NOT Jaime, and Roger, NOT Rodger.

Jaime is spelled that way in GoT, so it could be either autocorrect or just confusing the names.  For Rodger I've got nothing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, carolibra said:

I can understand not spelling "Laoghaire" correctly, but........

It's Jamie, NOT Jaime, and Roger, NOT Rodger.

And there's no 'i' in Fraser. I understand that words are spelled differently in America v. Europe v. Canada (i.e. color v. colour, etc.), but it's pretty clear how Jamie Fraser is spelled and how Roger Wakefield MacKenzie (no 's', but a 'z')is spelled. And I regularly CURSE "Autocorrect" on a daily basis. Talk about an oxymoron!

58 minutes ago, pootlus said:

 

That was one of my faves too.  Oh Jamie, haven't you learned yet?

Did anyone catch how the other prisoner died?  I thought initially of natural causes (exposure, dehydration) but then one of the Mohawk says something about moving quicker without him, which made me think that they might have killed him, but I suppose the comment works either way.

You know, I didn't see Claire accusing Jamie of lying "you told me you hit a tree" as something she said "coldly", but as a...'wait a minute! You didn't tell me you fought someone' kind of way. I didn't get any vibe that she's going to give him the cold shoulder over this. Knowing and loving Jamie, KNOWING how he would feel about his daughter being raped and him not able to prevent it, what Jamie did was SO JAMIE. He broke his word about killing RapingratbastardprickRandall because that arsehole raped Fergus. Claire can't hold something against Jamie that is such a part of the man.

As for the other hostage that died? I think he was sick. He was coughing and generally unwell. And not being treated for it. So I think he just died as a result of that. I don't think the Mohawks killed him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, pootlus said:
On 1/6/2019 at 4:20 PM, WatchrTina said:

At first I was shocked and disapproving when Brianna mentioned Jamie’s having been raped.  I don’t recall that from the book (I don’t recall Brianna knowing those intimate details of the Jamie/Jack Randall story).

Yeah I don't recall it in the books either.  But I reasoned that Claire may have told Bree with no expectation that she would ever meet Jamie.

It's directly from the book.  The difference is that book Bree is very aware of how uncomfortable her bringing the subject up is for Jamie and is almost apologetic about it in telling him that Claire told her back in the future before they had any notion Bree might ever meet him.  It still feels like an odd thing to tell your child about their other parent if your account is all they're ever going to know about them, no matter how heroic she wishes to paint it, but whatever.  Claire apparently also mentioned the duel where Jamie later tried to kill Black Jack but failed to tell her that it was another rape that triggered it.  In light of how Jamie responded to who he thought Roger was, that seems like kind of pertinent information too.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 1:18 PM, taanja said:

When you write your own book/characters -- you can have your male (and females) live in a cushy world where nothing bad ever happens!

Win win!

Except that no one will want to read it!

Edited by Cdh20 · Reason: spelling-damn autocorrect!
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, iMonrey said:

On the flip side I really enjoyed Roger's escape from the Mohawks. I was on the edge of my seat and my jaw dropped when he found the Stone! Now, you want to see great acting? Look no further than Richard Rankin in this scene, with his face racing through about a hundred different emotions at once to the point of breaking down into tears. Wow did I feel for him at that moment. The cliff-hanger drove me nuts (they always do) but I loved the whole scene. 

I agree. Sophie as "Bree" is surrounded by actors who are so expressive that I find it to be distracting. I compare this to Richard who broke my heart in this scene (and it took me a minute to make the connection that he had found a way back to his time). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Sophie still seems to struggle a bit with the quieter moments but she's getting really good at the anger/stubbornness playing off Claire and Jamie.

For me, it's the opposite. She hasn't really had to do much heavy lifting up until now so I've never really had a problem with her before. It was during her yelly-shouty scenes in this episode where I found her lacking and noticeably out-acted by everyone else.

Quote

When you write your own book/characters -- you can have your male (and females) live in a cushy world where nothing bad ever happens!

I realize you are being facetious but this is what's known as a "strawman argument." Nobody is proposing that nothing bad should ever happen to the characters. There can be a compromise between all tragedy, all the time and nothing bad ever happening. It's not an either-or situation. Diana Gabaldon and the people who produce this show don't have to have their characters raped, beaten and brutalized every five minutes. They could cut back on that a tad. It's not like the only other option is "nothing bad ever happens." 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/8/2019 at 2:04 AM, carolibra said:

I can understand not spelling "Laoghaire" correctly, but........

It's Jamie, NOT Jaime, and Roger, NOT Rodger.

Maybe sometimes folks are rushed or aren't awesome at proofing their own writing (raises hand; the eye "autocorrects" when you know what you intended to type) or don't feel like looking up the correct spelling of the person's name? I'm personally not exercised by the occasional typo.

 

ETA: In looking at other comments, it occurs to me that this criticism was aimed at the folks doing the closed captioning, who I agree should be more careful. I had thought it might be directed at posters here.

Edited by AD55
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I loved the conversation between Claire and Brianna about the things they missed from the 20th century. Although I was a tad surprised they didn't mention a washing machine while they were folding laundry.  Washing clothes by hand was not only hard work, but very time consuming. If it were me, I'd be missing showers.  I love showers.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

For me, it's the opposite. She hasn't really had to do much heavy lifting up until now so I've never really had a problem with her before. It was during her yelly-shouty scenes in this episode where I found her lacking and noticeably out-acted by everyone else.

I realize you are being facetious but this is what's known as a "strawman argument." Nobody is proposing that nothing bad should ever happen to the characters. There can be a compromise between all tragedy, all the time and nothing bad ever happening. It's not an either-or situation. Diana Gabaldon and the people who produce this show don't have to have their characters raped, beaten and brutalized every five minutes. They could cut back on that a tad. It's not like the only other option is "nothing bad ever happens." 

I have no problem with the little actress playing Bree-- she's doing a fine job. IMO

I also have no problem with the way this author has chosen to give her characters a myriad of tragedies and rape and beatings and basically a life of brutal violence. Hell! I wouldn't watch this specific show if I objected such things.

I was replying to someone who (sarcastically I am sure) who was bemoaning the fact that Diana Gabaldon makes all her male characters suffer. I say-- Bring on the pain!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, taanja said:

I have no problem with the little actress playing Bree-- she's doing a fine job. IMO

I also have no problem with the way this author has chosen to give her characters a myriad of tragedies and rape and beatings and basically a life of brutal violence. Hell! I wouldn't watch this specific show if I objected such things.

I was replying to someone who (sarcastically I am sure) who was bemoaning the fact that Diana Gabaldon makes all her male characters suffer. I say-- Bring on the pain!

It was me-no doubt she made those men suffer long & hard to turn them into the wonderful husbands they become! I do not object to the violence in the show either, obviously I am a fan, but I do make sure I warn others about it when recommending it. I do have a  few friends that could not stomach it, which is a shame they miss out on a good story, great characters.

Edited by Cdh20
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

It was me-no doubt she made those men suffer long & hard to turn them into the wonderful husbands they become!

I don't think she needed to put both Jamie and Roger through all that to accomplish her goal. There was no need to have had Jamie raped and tortured in order for him to be a good husband. That's like saying they would have turned into assholes, putting them through so much was the way to make sure they wouldn't.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don't think she needed to put both Jamie and Roger through all that to accomplish her goal. There was no need to have had Jamie raped and tortured in order for him to be a good husband. That's like saying they would have turned into assholes, putting them through so much was the way to make sure they wouldn't.

Jamie’s life has been exceptionally difficult, but to be fair even the women do suffer quite a bit too.  I think Diana is a bit of a sadist. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Really, if I was Bree, I would have ended this episode like "You know what...fuck this stupid fucking time period, I am finding my boyfriend, and we are getting the fuck back to 1971 faster than you can say stones. I am heading back to a time where its not socially acceptable to sell people and fuck your cousins!!! Flushing toilets, here I come, bitches!"

I mean, I kid, but it really sucks to be Roger and Bree this episode. Like, holy crap. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

I am in the book thread here so I will guess that Bree & Roger’s stupid storyline was written so they’d have to stay in the past for a long time? Forever? The only good thing  in that is Jamie & Claire getting to see their grandchild. If I was them I’d be hightailing back to 1971 as fast as I could.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Really, if I was Bree, I would have ended this episode like "You know what...fuck this stupid fucking time period, I am finding my boyfriend, and we are getting the fuck back to 1971 faster than you can say stones. I am heading back to a time where its not socially acceptable to sell people and fuck your cousins!!! Flushing toilets, here I come, bitches!"

I mean, I kid, but it really sucks to be Roger and Bree this episode.

LOL.  I've been rewatching this with my husband as he gets caught up and he's said a lot of the same thing.  It's really a hoot.  He generally likes Roger and finds his inclusion as a relatively modern man with a decidedly not brute strength or physical labor career path thrust into this world interesting, but he was yelling at him to run as fast and as hard as he could at the stones at the end because "They beat you and sold you for a necklace to people who are probably going to drag you on foot halfway to Canada if they don't kill you first.  You can always meet another girl when you get back if she won't come."  Earlier in the episode when Ian was saying the Mohawk likely wouldn't kill Roger if he was useful to them, he was all "Oh, God, he's dead isn't he?  I'm sure the Mohawk are going to find a white academic to be highly useful."

Mostly he's just on the side of flush toilets.  "You guys know you all can go back to where that's a thing, right?"  

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

Jamie’s life has been exceptionally difficult, but to be fair even the women do suffer quite a bit too.  I think Diana is a bit of a sadist. 

True, but I was responding to your comment that seemed to imply that being raped and tortured made Jamie and Roger good husbands. And I don’t agree with that.

1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

I am in the book thread here so I will guess that Bree & Roger’s stupid storyline was written so they’d have to stay in the past for a long time? Forever? The only good thing  in that is Jamie & Claire getting to see their grandchild. If I was them I’d be hightailing back to 1971 as fast as I could.

Well (putting in spoilers because this goes beyond this buik(click at your own risk)

They do go back to the present, but ultimately go BACK to the past and that’s where Gabaldon ended buik eight.

Who knows when she’ll get around to finishing Nine.

Share this post


Link to post

Haven’t read through all the comments yet, but this was a good episode. Everyone was on point with their acting skills. But I have to say the thing that made me smile most was that baby goat jumping around. 

Edited by taurusrose
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

LOL.  I've been rewatching this with my husband as he gets caught up and he's said a lot of the same thing.  It's really a hoot.  He generally likes Roger and finds his inclusion as a relatively modern man with a decidedly not brute strength or physical labor career path thrust into this world interesting, but he was yelling at him to run as fast and as hard as he could at the stones at the end because "They beat you and sold you for a necklace to people who are probably going to drag you on foot halfway to Canada if they don't kill you first.  You can always meet another girl when you get back if she won't come."  Earlier in the episode when Ian was saying the Mohawk likely wouldn't kill Roger if he was useful to them, he was all "Oh, God, he's dead isn't he?  I'm sure the Mohawk are going to find a white academic to be highly useful."

Mostly he's just on the side of flush toilets.  "You guys know you all can go back to where that's a thing, right?"  

Why is it that husbands can always bring up the practical things & ruin the fantasy? Mine is always good for a laugh, but usually at inappropriate times!

Share this post


Link to post

Great performances from everyone this week, as usual, and I really liked the scene in the woods with Jamie and Bree. I mean, Jamie kind of goading her into admitting she couldn't have faught him off and grabbing her was pretty over the top, but he was at least trying to make a point. Sadly, I think its pretty common for survivors of rape and sexual assault to blame themselves for what happened, even if in their head, they know that it isnt true. Some of it might be the loss of power it could make people feel, like it could somehow give them some agency back to think that they COULD have stopped it, on some level. Its awful that people feel that way, so why its sad to Bree struggling so much, it makes sense. 

However, I have no clue why Claire would have told Bree about what happened to Jamie. Its not like Bree had been assaulted at that time, so it wouldn't have been a "this is what helped your father when he went through this" kind of story, and its not like she ever even thought she would see Jamie again anyway. Its a really horrifying, tragic story, and one that isnt even really Claire's to tell, and while I dont know if I would want Claire to hide what happened or be ashamed (because, like Jamie said, it wasn't anything that she or Jamie did wrong) I dont know why she brought it up. Unless she was talking about Black Jack, which isnt really an awesome topic either. The story of how her one dads ancestor who looked just like him tortured and raped her bio dad isnt a super fun tale on any level. 

Poor Roger is just always going from one awful situation to the next. Loved the whole scene where he found the stones, it was very magical feeling and interestingly shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

True, but I was responding to your comment that seemed to imply that being raped and tortured made Jamie and Roger good husbands. And I don’t agree with that

You don't think Jamie is a more sensitive husband/human because of what he endured? I think he is.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Haleth said:

Jaime is spelled that way in GoT, so it could be either autocorrect or just confusing the names.  For Rodger I've got nothing.

Yes, it is. But the male variation is spelled J-A-M-I-E.  I noticed the misspelling on close caption and thought the transcriber was an idiot.  Since then I've checked the books and GRRM did use the J-A-I-M-E spelling.  Maybe GRRM intentionally used the female spelling for style or maybe he's an idiot, too.  Otherwise, I've got nothing.  

On 1/7/2019 at 3:01 PM, Scarlett45 said:

Yes I agree. Also this attitude wasn’t that uncommon even in the 1960’s. I’m not suggesting that Frank or Claire would ever teach Brianna such a thing, but a woman of that time was still considered “desirable for marriage” based on her “purity”.

Being a woman that had sex with a man not her husband (or more liberally her fiancé) made her “loose” by the standards of a Roger type (he said as much a few episodes ago- no sex unless they were engaged). 

 

Her feelings were very understandable, poor thing. 

Attitudes toward unwed mothers or victims of rape (and babies born of rape) were not all that charitable during the '60s for many people, not just the "Roger" type and in many places.  As for Lizzie, I don't like her and never have.  She's way too involved in Brianna's life and should have received some of the wrath Brianna rained on Jamie and Ian since she was talking out of her ass.  

Edited by taurusrose
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

You don't think Jamie is a more sensitive husband/human because of what he endured? I think he is.

No. He was already a sensitive and enlightened man before he was first whipped/tortured and then raped. What he was put through didn’t make him the man he became. At least not as far as I’m concerned.

RapingratbastardprickRandall stole so MUCH from him and nearly destroyed Jamie. It’s a wonder he is the man he is. Claire’s love and refusal to give up on him played a big part of that.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

However, I have no clue why Claire would have told Bree about what happened to Jamie. Its not like Bree had been assaulted at that time, so it wouldn't have been a "this is what helped your father when he went through this" kind of story, and its not like she ever even thought she would see Jamie again anyway. Its a really horrifying, tragic story, and one that isnt even really Claire's to tell, and while I dont know if I would want Claire to hide what happened or be ashamed (because, like Jamie said, it wasn't anything that she or Jamie did wrong) I dont know why she brought it up. Unless she was talking about Black Jack, which isnt really an awesome topic either. The story of how her one dads ancestor who looked just like him tortured and raped her bio dad isnt a super fun tale on any level. 

 

My assumption is that Claire told Bree the entire story in ep 213 once Bree figured out Frank could not be her bio-father. At that time, Claire assumed Jamie was dead and Bree would never meet him. So why not tell Bree of Jamie's heroic sacrifice to save her mother?

 

I personally had no issue with Claire telling Bree.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I do not object to the violence in the show either, obviously I am a fan, but I do make sure I warn others about it when recommending it. I do have a  few friends that could not stomach it, which is a shame they miss out on a good story, great characters.

Same.  I do not appreciate some of the violence in the book or on the show.  I love the story, so I accept it, but I would love the story so much more without it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Claire’s love and refusal to give up on him played a big part of that.

No doubt being with Claire influenced the man he became as well!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

LOL.  I've been rewatching this with my husband as he gets caught up and he's said a lot of the same thing.  It's really a hoot.  He generally likes Roger and finds his inclusion as a relatively modern man with a decidedly not brute strength or physical labor career path thrust into this world interesting, but he was yelling at him to run as fast and as hard as he could at the stones at the end because "They beat you and sold you for a necklace to people who are probably going to drag you on foot halfway to Canada if they don't kill you first.  You can always meet another girl when you get back if she won't come."  Earlier in the episode when Ian was saying the Mohawk likely wouldn't kill Roger if he was useful to them, he was all "Oh, God, he's dead isn't he?  I'm sure the Mohawk are going to find a white academic to be highly useful."

Mostly he's just on the side of flush toilets.  "You guys know you all can go back to where that's a thing, right?"  

This had me laughing out loud, especially the bolded bit. That was also my first thought when Ian was attempting to look on the bright side of life (and I've read the books!).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Pingaponga said:

I loved the conversation between Claire and Brianna about the things they missed from the 20th century. Although I was a tad surprised they didn't mention a washing machine while they were folding laundry.  Washing clothes by hand was not only hard work, but very time consuming. If it were me, I'd be missing showers.  I love showers.

I'm right with you for the showers.  I'll take the toilet and the washing machine too.

 

I do like how they've managed to make a lot of the stupid things in the book less stupid for this plot.

The whole beginning of the episode, I was so distracted by the heavy eye makeup on Bree.  Later in the episode it was gone.  They are usually so much better with the details.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2019 at 3:28 PM, Nidratime said:

What I want to know is, where are those stones located in 20th Century America? Is there a highway there? A shopping center? Someone's backyard? Is it a National Park Service Monument? Do you only hear the buzz if the stones still exist in multiple planes, so that they're operational? What if they exist up to a point, but not in the time period to which you want to travel?

That's what I'm thinking. The buzzing is the stones' version of a dial tone. My question has always been whether all stones do the same thing. What if these stones send Roger far into the future or further back in the past? We don't know if these ones were just going to send Roger to the 70s.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

That's what I'm thinking. The buzzing is the stones' version of a dial tone. My question has always been whether all stones do the same thing. What if these stones send Roger far into the future or further back in the past? We don't know if these ones were just going to send Roger to the 70s.

The stones send you to whatever time you are thinking about when you cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The stones send you to whatever time you are thinking about when you cross.

The question is, though, if the "stones" send you to the exact spot that you left from, centuries later, does that mean the stones must physically exist in the latter time or could they've been destroyed and the area redeveloped. The stones are not exactly the vehicle that transports a person, but are the markers that indicate where these portals are located. Correct? (That is, there weren't stones in that cave in Jamaica, just an underground pool. So, they are not a necessary condition.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

The question is, though, if the "stones" send you to the exact spot that you left from, centuries later, does that mean the stones must physically exist in the latter time or could they've been destroyed and the area redeveloped. The stones are not exactly the vehicle that transports a person, but are the markers that indicate where these portals are located. Correct? (That is, there weren't stones in that cave in Jamaica, just an underground pool. So, they are not a necessary condition.)

Honestly, that conundrum has not come up yet in the books (so far).

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Yes, it is. But the male variation is spelled J-A-M-I-E.  I noticed the misspelling on close caption and thought the transcriber was an idiot.  Since then I've checked the books and GRRM did use the J-A-I-M-E spelling.  Maybe GRRM intentionally used the female spelling for style or maybe he's an idiot, too.  Otherwise, I've got nothing.  

My male dentist is named Jaime. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, AEMom said:

The stones send you to whatever time you are thinking about when you cross.

Maybe.  Unless like in the case of Roger in the last book you're thinking you're looking for your son who hasn't actually time traveled at all and you get sent to an entirely different much earlier time to another person with the same name.  For every "rule" our characters think they've figured out, there always seems to be a glaring exception or two.  It seems to work mostly however the plot needs it to at the time.  This is why my resident sci-fi geek gets so animated in his insistence that Gabaldon hasn't really thought through time travel at all.

It's kind of a style thing that GRRM uses a lot of alternative spellings of proper names and titles.  He apparently loves to change random vowels.  As much as the old school copy editor in me cringes when I see a name misspelled, I also can't get all that assed about it in the age of auto correct. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Mostly he's just on the side of flush toilets.  "You guys know you all can go back to where that's a thing, right?"  

 

I'm with him.  Flush toilets and antibiotics!  :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

It's kind of a style thing that GRRM uses a lot of alternative spellings of proper names and titles.  He apparently loves to change random vowels.  As much as the old school copy editor in me cringes when I see a name misspelled, I also can't get all that assed about it in the age of auto correct. 

I agree with this except for the part in bold. A part of me wishes I could dismiss “autocorrects” so easily, but the other part of me sees this as another example of humans growing lazy and complacent, because of our dependence on technology. The more we stop using our minds, the more I’m reminded of an old Star Trek episode. Kirk and Spock encountered a race of beings who were nothing more than consciousness trapped in some sort of globe. They were without physical form because they’d stop using their bodies eons ago and had evolved into nothing but intellect. Sadly, I don’t see it going as well for us. Okay, back to discussing this episode of Outlander. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/7/2019 at 8:34 AM, Haleth said:

In all her righteous outrage Bree never considered her own role in Mohawkgate.  She shares the blame by not telling Lizzie what really happened and letting Lizzie fill in the blanks.  They were all stupid in this situation, except Murtagh who decided it was a good time to see a man about a horse.

This.  Murtagh is my favorite.  And everyone has always annoyed me in this whole situation, but I'm really not liking ShowLizzie very much.  I don't remember her much from the book; I think I mostly ignored her parts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Yes, it is. But the male variation is spelled J-A-M-I-E.  I noticed the misspelling on close caption and thought the transcriber was an idiot.  Since then I've checked the books and GRRM did use the J-A-I-M-E spelling.  Maybe GRRM intentionally used the female spelling for style or maybe he's an idiot, too.  Otherwise, I've got nothing.  

GRRM uses the unconventional spelling for nearly all of his names, at least the names that are recognizable as "real" names - Jaime, Jon, Robb, Catelyn, etc.  He also often changes just one letter to make a recognizable name into something he made up - Theon (Theo), Joffrey (Jeffrey), etc.  IMO, he clearly does it for style; I wouldn't call him an idiot.  

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×