S04.E13: Man of Worth

[tennisgurl]

That was some impressive dramatic running, and I kept thinking of how Bree must have some amazing eyesight! She recognized Roger from across an entire plantation! Maybe when the revolution breaks out, she can get her sharpshooter on!

[shelen]

With the letter from Tryon dated 4 June, 1770, and Brianna saying Little No Name is two months old (born early April), and the Frasers having made it to New York state and back in 7-8 months, would they not have gone through a cold, snowy winter?  It seems as if it was perpetually autumn most of the year.   

[toolazy]

9 hours ago, shelen said:

With the letter from Tryon dated 4 June, 1770, and Brianna saying Little No Name is two months old (born early April), and the Frasers having made it to New York state and back in 7-8 months, would they not have gone through a cold, snowy winter?  It seems as if it was perpetually autumn most of the year.   

The producers said that they were basically going to ignore weather. It's a variable they can't control and they will never get NC weather in Scotland anyway so they didn't even try. But excellent point!

[shelen]

That makes sense.  You can't control Mother Nature. 

It was all this talk about the Polar Vortex that made me start wondering about weather and time frame in the show.  Who knows how long it would have taken the merry band of Frasers if they had to battle through something like that.  Little No Name would be sliding down Jocasta's banisters by the time they returned.

[AD55]

Someone posted a page from the scene when Roger returns to Bree in DG's twitter feed (I assume it's authentic, but I didn't do any research to see). The following line from the original script was cut: "I rode to the circle of stones, but as soon as I saw them, I knew I never could go." This is followed by "I love you. I always will," which obviously was retained. Missing is the line "I'm stubborn, but I'm no a fool."

I think this is an interesting choice. I noticed in the no book thread that folks seem to think Roger accompanied Claire and Jamie for two months and then needed an additional two days to mull his decision, which makes Roger look like an indecisive asshole. The omitted line follows the book in showing he separated from them, probably right away, to visit the stones and would have been following about two days behind them. (Well, it doesn't quite follow the book, since Roger and his infected foot arrived at Fraser's Ridge several weeks after Jamie and Claire, IIRC.)

When I first heard it, I found the "I'm stubborn, but I'm not a fool" line confusing. Stubborn about what? Since he's talking to Bree, you would assume it has to do with her, but that makes no sense. He wouldn't be hearkening back to their posthandfast fight, since he decided to return to her almost right away but then was forced to accompany SB. Bree doesn't know this, but she knows he was on his way to Fraser's Ridge when he was waylaid by Jamie and Ian. Stubborn is an odd word to use to characterize his need to be sure that he can commit to living in the C18th. I then reckoned he must be talking about Jamie, and his stubbornness was a reference to his not appreciating being ordered to make a decision posthaste by the man who beat the crap out of him.

I wonder why and by whom that change was made. Does anyone know if it came up in the podcast? It's a small edit that has, l think, somewhat major implications for how Roger is perceived going forward by nonbook readers. He will forever now be known as the jerk who needed over two months to decide whether he loved his wife enough to commit to her and her son. 

[Ziggy]

2 hours ago, AD55 said:

When I first heard it, I found the "I'm stubborn, but I'm not a fool" line confusing. Stubborn about what?

When I read your post, my first thought in hearing that line was that Roger was so mad about everything that happened to him that he just wanted to leave the 18th century behind despite the fact that that also meant leaving Bree behind.  He's not fool, because he knows that leaving her behind would be a huge mistake.  I could be totally wrong.  That was just my first thought.

[AD55]

5 hours ago, Ziggy said:

When I read your post, my first thought in hearing that line was that Roger was so mad about everything that happened to him that he just wanted to leave the 18th century behind despite the fact that that also meant leaving Bree behind.  He's not fool, because he knows that leaving her behind would be a huge mistake.  I could be totally wrong.  That was just my first thought.

I don't think there's a right or wrong interpretation--it's left ambiguous. "Stubborn" struck me as an odd word to use in the moment, but that doesn't mean it is.  I'm mainly curious whether other folks think the change potentially changes how Roger is perceived.

In my original post, I said it took two months for Claire and Jamie to get to River Run after they rescued Roger. I realize that's not correct--I was thinking of how old Gizmo was when they arrived. The actual trip must have taken longer.

[CABINET]

I think the people that make this show like to refer back to the book when it's easy to do so.  Stubborn is one of those words that Diana seems to like using to describe her characters.  It doesn't apply in this situation but never mind that.

[fishpan]

16 hours ago, AD55 said:

 

When I first heard it, I found the "I'm stubborn, but I'm not a fool" line confusing. Stubborn about what? Since he's talking to Bree, you would assume it has to do with her, but that makes no sense. He wouldn't be hearkening back to their posthandfast fight, since he decided to return to her almost right away but then was forced to accompany SB. Bree doesn't know this, but she knows he was on his way to Fraser's Ridge when he was waylaid by Jamie and Ian. Stubborn is an odd word to use to characterize his need to be sure that he can commit to living in the C18th. I then reckoned he must be talking about Jamie, and his stubbornness was a reference to his not appreciating being ordered to make a decision posthaste by the man who beat the crap out of him.

 

See I took it that he meant Jamie, because Jamie when he told Roger and then started ordering him around in the show 'NOT HELPFUL'.  Even if Roger had been absolutely perfect, Jamie was not being helpful.

Don't get me wrong, I got that Jamie changed tact after he learned that Roger left Bree because in a way Roger thought she sort of wanted him to go.  Instead of half minding to drag the guy back even if he didn't want to come after that lumping him 'that last unanswered blow' he started taking the same tact he would with Fergus or Ian on Roger when he started going on about if Roger  'could you go back to her, live with her'.  Basically when he uses reverse psychology on the boys to manipulate them into doing what they have had half a mind to do in the first place, then telling Roger by that Bree doesn't need a coward.  And I got completely Roger's 'What?' in response or as in 21st century terms 'What the fuck are you on pal?' Because to Roger what had Jamie losing Ian or Jamie's view of cowardice to do with his decision about giving up everything he ever knew to live in an era a couple of hundred years before he was born?

There could have been a line about Bree saying Jamie had said Roger didn't say he was coming back, or them taking out the stubborn part and made their reunion just about them.  But I suppose they are trying to set up Roger's side over him and Jamie butting heads a bit next season what with I can't see Jamie not being pissed over Ian still.

Edited February 2, 2019 by fishpan

[WebosFritos]

I listened to the podcast and they mentioned that Jamie was supposed to hold his grandson. But the baby started crying whenever he got near Sam Heughan.

 

15 hours ago, AD55 said:

I think this is an interesting choice. I noticed in the no book thread that folks seem to think Roger accompanied Claire and Jamie for two months and then needed an additional two days to mull his decision, which makes Roger look like an indecisive asshole. The omitted line follows the book in showing he separated from them, probably right away, to visit the stones and would have been following about two days behind them. (Well, it doesn't quite follow the book, since Roger and his infected foot arrived at Fraser's Ridge several weeks after Jamie and Claire, IIRC.)

When I first heard it, I found the "I'm stubborn, but I'm not a fool" line confusing. Stubborn about what? Since he's talking to Bree, you would assume it has to do with her, but that makes no sense. He wouldn't be hearkening back to their posthandfast fight, since he decided to return to her almost right away but then was forced to accompany SB. Bree doesn't know this, but she knows he was on his way to Fraser's Ridge when he was waylaid by Jamie and Ian. Stubborn is an odd word to use to characterize his need to be sure that he can commit to living in the C18th. I then reckoned he must be talking about Jamie, and his stubbornness was a reference to his not appreciating being ordered to make a decision posthaste by the man who beat the crap out of him.

I wonder why and by whom that change was made. Does anyone know if it came up in the podcast? It's a small edit that has, l think, somewhat major implications for how Roger is perceived going forward by nonbook readers. He will forever now be known as the jerk who needed over two months to decide whether he loved his wife enough to commit to her and her son. 

 

They mention that Roger was supposed to ride off on a horse as soon as the conversation with Claire and Jamie was over. But apparently the actor had a lot of trouble climbing quickly on the horse since Roger's arm was broken and in a sling. Which makes sense to me, it must have looked ridiculous.

When he returns to Brianna, they don't mention any script changes. However, they think that Roger's decision was about choosing to stay in the 18th century forever.

Edited February 2, 2019 by WebosFritos

[Haleth]

On 1/31/2019 at 6:52 PM, toolazy said:

And her shoes were probably weird, too.  Were they making left and right-shaped shoes yet in 1770?  I would have tripped over a petticoat and gone sprawling.

If not, she probably made herself a pair. <eyeroll>

 

On 1/31/2019 at 9:32 PM, shelen said:

With the letter from Tryon dated 4 June, 1770, and Brianna saying Little No Name is two months old (born early April), and the Frasers having made it to New York state and back in 7-8 months, would they not have gone through a cold, snowy winter?  It seems as if it was perpetually autumn most of the year.   

I don't know why they didn't make their way down to NYC and take a ship to Wilmington.  They might have made it home in time for the birth.

[Nidratime]

Quote

I don't know why they didn't make their way down to NYC and take a ship to Wilmington.  They might have made it home in time for the birth.

Expense? Having to leave their horses behind?

[Haleth]

Sell the horses. Attend the birth of your grandchild.

[Nidratime]

Maybe they still wouldn't have gotten there on time. Who knows? It didn't happen.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

My favorite historical touch is that when Jamie is using the spyglass, you can briefly see a couple of Mohawk playing lacrosse in the background.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I'm not certain if it's been mentioned before, but the folks at Go Fug Yourself (mostly a fashion blog) have been doing some funny and good recaps of Outlander.  Here's the one for this episode:  https://www.gofugyourself.com/outlander-finale-recap-the-ballad-of-murcasta-01-2019

I do enjoy these recaps but this one raises an interesting question. Since Murtagh is dead in the books, how does this book end?

[toolazy]

20 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I do enjoy these recaps but this one raises an interesting question. Since Murtagh is dead in the books, how does this book end?

 

A lot of people answered that question in the comments, but tread warily if you are sensitive because the comments are very critical of almost everything except Murtagh & Jocasta.

[Kim0820]

On 1/27/2019 at 10:36 AM, cesstar said:

I felt that the episode lacked some kind of reconciliation between Bree and Jamie at the end, particularly after their conflict drove the action for the latter part of tge season.

On 1/27/2019 at 11:19 AM, Future Cat Lady said:

Jamie and Claire should’ve been at Jem’s birth.

They should've cut a lot of the walking to the Mohawk village to get time for the Fraser family reunion. 

And Jamie didn't get to hold is grandchild? WTF!

Yes, I was annoyed extremely at Claire for giving the baby to Jocasta.  WTF?  That was absurd.  Why would Claire do such a despicable thing?  And they should have wrapped it up between Jamie and Brianna - the whole season led to the payoff of their meeting.

On 1/27/2019 at 11:36 AM, nodorothyparker said:

Quote

 

As it is, this felt like a speed reader's version of events where the show couldn't be bothered to pause to give Jamie time to make up with his daughter or give him more than a glance to the newest member of his family who won't be immediately snatched away from him.  It couldn't take the time to give Roger even a cursory look at this child that he was willingly giving up his entire life in his own time for.  I'm okay with skipping the book version of the birth which always feels weirdly anachronistic but replace it with something that conveys the weight of how much it means to finally have this family all together all in one time and place.

Still, they were all awfully cavalier about their actions getting the poor Mohawk woman kicked out of her tribe.  It's all very well and good to make promises beforehand about how you'll "help" if they do you a solid first, but they seemingly walked away with nary a thought about the destruction their rescue attempt caused.  

 

 

 

Yes, Roger should have held the baby, too. 

I had predicted they would include the exiled Mohawk woman and it was a surprise they did not run into her.  I don't think they would go look for her but of all the coincidences in the plot, their running into her would have been an expected one.

Brianna has a temper and cools off, I guess, she doesn’t recall now she was so mad at Roger she broke up with him on their wedding night because he did not tell her about the obituary.  And he didn’t get to explain he was about to when he found out she had already gone to visit her mother.  Because she found out about it on her own.  

So she will cool off against Jamie too.  But this is supposed to be because she is like Jamie.  Yet I don’t recall Jamie having these types of flares of temper.  With him, it is more a big mouth (like getting into the fight with the McDonalds after the duel) or justifiable revenge, like BJR.  I guess he got mad at Claire for leaving when he went off to see Horrocks, but they argued it out right after.  And that wasn't unreasonable as Brianna's flare ups are shown to be. 

The Mohawk village is a marvelous set.  Must have been expensive.   Though the portrayal of the Native Americans is a problem as they are consistently cruel and unreasonable every time they appear.  DG/script shows them like another set of redcoats, always wrong and always cruel. 

It was a change that the set of redcoats that came at the end didn't arrest Jamie for once.  I was ready for them to take him off after the twist that they wanted him rather than Murtagh.  

 

 

[LilJen]

On 2/2/2019 at 7:45 AM, WebosFritos said:

I listened to the podcast and they mentioned that Jamie was supposed to hold his grandson. But the baby started crying whenever he got near Sam Heughan.

WHAT?  A human that didn't fawn over Sam Heughan? Unthinkable. 🙂