S04.E13: Man of Worth

[Blakeston]

I'm not a big fan of Roger, but I don't fault him at all for choosing not to give Jamie an immediate answer to the question of, "Are you going to marry Brianna and raise this child?"

Whether you'll raise a child who is very likely the product of your significant other's rape is a complex question that requires a lot of thought. I wouldn't expect anyone to answer that without thinking about it first.

That said...it shouldn't have taken him so long to come up with an answer that he didn't even arrive at the same time as Jamie and Claire.

[Kirsty]

Ian got a great ending. I loved that.

Unfortunately, I don't find Brianna to be a compelling character. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the actress, maybe the character is too cute and sweet, maybe it's because she doesn't have any real driving motivation? Like, when Claire first went back through the stones, she had professional expertise that she used often and in urgent situations. Her role as healer has always been a key element of her identity. And she was driven to get home. By contrast, what does Brianna care about or do with her time?

When I think about it, I prefer Marsali to Brianna, but you'd still need to have a good strong storyline if you were going to spend as much time with Marsali as we spent with Brianna this season. I guess Marsali is tough, and she doesn't get the princess treatment that Brianna sometimes gets on the show.

The other problem is that Roger lost me after the second big row with Brianna (the one in Wilmington). I just had enough of his bullshit at that point. I like the actor, but the character of Roger was never more than nice and dull. He isn't interesting enough to get away with being such a tremendous jerk. So I wanted Brianna to find a better romantic prospect in the past, as her mother had done. I'd rather Roger hadn't followed her through the stones in the first place.

Basically, I'm not invested in them or in their relationship. Brianna seems very young, Roger is the first person she has slept with, I say chalk it up to experience and move on! But obviously the show is going with Brianna and Roger as soul mates. And I'm less interested in the show when it focuses on this pair. I don't know if I'm up for another season of Brianna & Roger, so I'm disappointed.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Kirsty

[chaifan]

I get Outlander via Netflix, so very late to the game here.  First, I'm surprised I'm as late as I am - anyone know why it takes 2 years (!) for Netflix to get a new season?  I was shocked to see comments from Jan 2019 here!  I thought I was only 6-12 months behind everyone else.  (I only started watching Outlander last year, so I don't know what the normal lag time has been.)  I'm also surprised that no other Netflix viewers are commenting - season 4 threads have been quiet for a long time.   OK, all that said & done...

I liked this season, but at the same time felt it was a little all over the place.  It took 1/2 way through the season for things to really start to gel for me.  I am not a fan of Sophie S. at all.  I feel a little bad for the beating she gets in this forum, but she just really isn't very good and almost every scene with her is grating.  For the amazing job at casting this show has done in every other role, I really don't know how she got through.  So her being in so much of this season was not a plus for me.  I did like that she gave a good reason for Lord John to be back on screen.  But I liked the return of Roger.  The character can be a real ass, but the actor is great.  I'm glad they worked Murtagh back in.  I wish we had more Ian, and am ok that he stayed with the Mohawk.  Bonnet made a decent villian.  Fergus and Marcie (sorry, can't figure out how to spell her full name) are the best couple in the season. 

So so so many questions about the last episode...  I have to assume Roger traveled back most of the way with Claire and Jamie - how else would he have known the way and been able to survive on his own for 2 month trek through the wilderness?  Did he show them where the stones are?  How could they not want to figure that out and map it out for future use?  I know they don't know whether Brianna and Roger could travel back with a child, but who knows what will happen.  Also, if it were me I'd at least test it out - try to go through with a cat or something, see if that works, if so, grab someone who's willing to try (maybe someone just about to die who doesn't have anything to lose?), see if I can pull them through.  Anyways...  So why was Roger a few days behind Claire & Jamie?  Certainly he had 2 months to think things over - I totally get him not being able to make a life changing decision 10 minutes after being rescued from the Mohawks, but they had a long ride home.  Did he still need more time to make a decision?  And the whole reunion scene was ridiculous - first, how could Brianna tell that was Roger from that distance?  Second, how in the world does a woman who recently gave birth run that far, in full 18th century woolen garb, and not be one little bit out of breath?  I could probably get 10 feet down the path before having to collapse!  I'd be all damn, Roger, you're on a horse, you can come to me. 

I was certain Ulysses was going to turn out to be a time traveler.  His accent was very modern day American.  I don't think in 1771 there was any such thing as an "American" accent, or at least it wouldn't be anywhere close to what we sound like now.  And it wasn't just his accent, a few times just the way he spoke seemed very modern.  I thought he would have picked up on Brianna's accent, tossed out a few modern references to test her, and they would have discovered each other's secret that way.  But, I guess I was wrong...

I loved the intro of George & Martha Washington.  Funny that Jamie practically threw George under the bus as a possible informant.  It would have been very easy to say "looks like you've got a mole in your organization", and just left it at that.  I still don't understand why Jamie and Claire chose to settle in N. Carolina, knowing the war is coming.  (OK, I know, plot.)  I would have made my way a little north and as west as possible.  Like others, I would have thought becoming part of the Underground Railroad would have made sense for them.  I would have aimed for southern Ohio, or maybe as far as Indiana.

OK, I just put Season 5 on hold at my library - not waiting 2 more years to find out what happens next!

 

 

 

 

 

[SassAndSnacks]

6 hours ago, chaifan said:

I still don't understand why Jamie and Claire chose to settle in N. Carolina, knowing the war is coming.  (OK, I know, plot.)  I would have made my way a little north and as west as possible.  Like others, I would have thought becoming part of the Underground Railroad would have made sense for them.  I would have aimed for southern Ohio, or maybe as far as Indiana.

The story at this point is still Colonial America, so there really wasn’t an Ohio and certainly not an Indiana. Both would have been quite far into the frontier. There was actually a treaty line that the British government had set up with the Native Americans stating that settlers wouldn’t cross west farther than the original 13 colonies, as they were originally mapped out (borders changed and expanded over time of course). Naturally, some settlers did cross over the line, but at that point, most stayed closer to the coast or what is now the central regions of those states. 

A large number of Scottish immigrants settled in North Carolina following the Rising. Nova Scotia in Canada was also a prime destination. I think that’s why the author of the source material saw fit to place them in NC, as opposed to more notable Colonial locations like Boston or Philadelphia. 

[chaifan]

1 hour ago, SassAndSnacks said:

The story at this point is still Colonial America, so there really wasn’t an Ohio and certainly not an Indiana. Both would have been quite far into the frontier. There was actually a treaty line that the British government had set up with the Native Americans stating that settlers wouldn’t cross west farther than the original 13 colonies, as they were originally mapped out (borders changed and expanded over time of course). Naturally, some settlers did cross over the line, but at that point, most stayed closer to the coast or what is now the central regions of those states.

Yes, I meant the areas now known as Ohio or Indiana.  I'm just saying that with Claire's knowledge of what would be happening, and with the next two generations in tow (Ian, Fergus & Marcie, and their baby), it would have made more sense for her to insist on settling in an area that would not only get them (mostly) out of harms way for the Revolutionary War, but also in areas that would be abolitionist friendly, becoming "free states".  I don't expect Claire to be an expert on the Revolutionary War, but she would at least know to get as far north and west as possible.  It just didn't seem to be in line with her character to say, yeah, let's put down roots in the middle of what is going to be a major battle zone in 5 years, just because it had a pretty view. 

 

 

[nodorothyparker]

Claire knows hilariously little about the specifics of the war, but even she would know from having lived in Boston in the "modern" timeline that much of the early war was fought in the north. The British did a lot of their staging in Canada and marched south from there to fight. Backwoods North Carolina seems relatively safe in comparison and out of the way from what little she remembers.

There's also the issue of finances. They wash up on shore at the end of season 3 presumably all but broke. It takes money for supplies, horses, etc., to travel or set up somewhere new, even far into the frontier. At the beginning of this season, they've obviously scraped together a little something, either for passage back home to Scotland or to travel on to Jocasta but then are robbed of even that. There's an offer of much free land right there, which is still their Plan B until they determine that living off of Jocasta's largesse is entirely unpalatable to them.

[Ziggy]

12 hours ago, chaifan said:

Yes, I meant the areas now known as Ohio or Indiana.  I'm just saying that with Claire's knowledge of what would be happening, and with the next two generations in tow (Ian, Fergus & Marcie, and their baby), it would have made more sense for her to insist on settling in an area that would not only get them (mostly) out of harms way for the Revolutionary War, but also in areas that would be abolitionist friendly, becoming "free states".  I don't expect Claire to be an expert on the Revolutionary War, but she would at least know to get as far north and west as possible.  It just didn't seem to be in line with her character to say, yeah, let's put down roots in the middle of what is going to be a major battle zone in 5 years, just because it had a pretty view.

I get where you're coming from.  I think Claire was really letting Jamie take the lead here.  She knew she would be able to practice medicine just about anywhere, and she would be ok as long as he was by her side.  I suspect Jamie really wanted to settle near other Scots and not too terrible far from his aunt.  As much of a character as she is, she's family, and she will do just about anything for him.  She had connections.

[Camera One]

This finale was alright, though not great.

Why on earth would Claire wear that stone around her neck right into an indigenous village?  For all she knew, it was a burial tradition and she was disrespecting the dead by taking their skull and the rock inside.  

They surround Claire, Jaime and Ian with weapons pointed, demanding the stone, and next thing you know, they all sit in a circle and participate in storytime?  LOL!

It was really sad they lost Ian, but it was well done and heartbreaking to see the sacrifice.  And Ian had always been interested in that society, so I think he will fit in well, and will be in a good position to help Jaime out of a scrape sooner or later.

Roger's drawn-out fight with Jaime and finding out about the rape wasn't great payoff.  I can't see a modern person like Roger responding in that way, even though he was angry or his whole time in captivity "changed" him or whatever he said last episode.  They really did a number on his character this season.  Even a charismatic actor (which he is) can't really rise above the personality traits they've lobbed on him since his marriage proposal was rejected.  I also found Jaime's attitude irritating.  Roger could have gone through the stones while he was captive.  Maybe he needed to spell out that he chose not to leave.  

Take that ridiculous writing of the reunion, for example.  What was the point of the fake-out with Claire and Jaime arriving without him?  That just damaged his character further.  Yet they wanted a big dramatic running across the field reunion.  Those two things don't compute.  Why not just have Brianna outside when Jaime, Claire and Roger ride up to the estate?  I agree with the above that they gave short-shrift to River Run at the end, with no mention of Ian, skipping Jaime reconciling with Brianna, Roger explaining to Brianna why he left her, etc.  

I'm not big on Murtaugh as a fugitive, or Jaime being recruited to hunt him down, or the inevitable re-appearance of Bonnet.

Overall, this season had its up's and down's much like the last two seasons.  I think Brianna and Roger were generally good additions, despite their somewhat frustrating storylines... their re-introductions sort of added the spark back into this season with time travel.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Camera One

[gingerella]

I am rather glad this season is now over for me, and hopefully my viewing companions. And not for nothing but also those old timers who've slogged through this crapfest to accompany us newbies on our viewing journey this season. A gigantic shit burger is what this season was for me. Let's get on with it, shall we (in no particular order of annoyance)?

Things I did not care for at all

The Mohawk 'chief' is perhaps the world's worst actor who ever portrayed a Native American in TV or film, like ever in the history of entertainment. My god! I assume he is Native American too, how could he not turn in a better performance? I kept thinking his accent was so modern American mainstream that that's all I could think about when he was flapping his gums.

So first we're still losing Roger but then OH NO! We're losing Jamie...AGAIN...fuck that shit! But OH NO! Now we're losing Ian AND Rolo? Are you kidding me? The only two characters that literally never disappoint A Viewer? Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ on a cracker! This is madness writers, utter madness. Ian is fabulous, the actor is fabulous, he's the only actor who always delivers, and now we're squirreling him away with the Mohawks? Hopefully we will see what happens with him next season, and I assume he'll return to the main story, hopefully sooner rather than later but let's take guesses at what will happen to Ian and Rolo, shall we? I predict he assimilates well into the tribe because it's a great adventure to him and he's always been enamored of the Native American culture, I mean he speaks pretty fluent Mohawk and he spoke whatever the language was of the tribe nearest to Fraser's Ridge too. And he's mentioned the beauty of Native American women so I predict he'll marry a Mohawk gal, she'll die giving birth and they'll feel sorry for him and let him go. Because this story isn't big on huge surprise twists.

The whole story time jamboree and subsequent lousy attempt to free Roger. That little Mohawk crew should have gone back and freed Roger themselves and brought him to J & C, they could have done that a helluva lot more stealthily than having two white folks in tow with them. DUH.

The punching bag fight between J & R was just dumb. I mean, I get it, but it went on for far too long and also, Roger was barely able to walk but he's suddenly able to beat the hell out of a man like JAMMF? Come the hell on people, J could have knocked his lights out in one punch.

Also, so you mean to tell me Show, that the Mohawks just decide, "Oh hey, let's make this white person into a Mohawk, mmmkay?" Considering how aggressive them come across this seems bizarre to me. WHY would they want a white person as a member of their tribe?

Things that made  me think 'WTF?!'

When J & C & I waltz into the Mohawk camp, they have exactly one horse with them. WTF?! Where are their other horses? Don't they need at least three to ride literally months north? This sort of thing just takes me completely out of the moment. And when they're leaving without Roger now they have two horses, the black and the white, where is Ian's mount? Surely he didn't walk for two months north did he? Continuity Department.....Hello????

When C asks J what he's going to tell Jenny about Ian and he says, "Och, she'll understand, she knows her son and how stubborn he is when he gets something in his head...Besides, he's always longed for adventure..." A GIGANTIC WHAT.THE.FUCK thought bubble exploded inside my head! Yeah, sure Jamie, like Jenny's gonna say that when she finds out you let her son live in servitude more or less with a Mohawk tribe. Riiiiight! That was one of the dumbest lines in this show thus far.

So Claire knows that the now dead Mohawk was a time traveler because she saw his teeth fillings. Why didn't she ask them 'did he have gold in his mouth, do you know?' Because she could have said that he did come from the future as did she, and he was right, the Native Tribes will indeed suffer if they don't do something differently NOW. Maybe that would have made them revere here more and allowed them to take Roger without any substitute hostage? And why wouldn't they explain about the terrible mix up and that Roger is the husband of their daughter and they didn't know this and it's another man they are after (Bonnet). Is it lazy story telling or the Show editing the source material? I have no idea which but these are large story gaps that just don't make sense.

The few things I actually liked

Any scene with Murtagh in it! I loved the scenes with M & B, and the scenes with M & Jocasta was lovely. I'd like more from those two please.

That's all I got right now friends...Well, that and the idea from @chaifan that I can rent S05 from my library, which I hadn't thought about until I read that, THANK YOU for saving me from signing up with Starz before S06 airs! I owe you one...so welcome to our little newbie watch party, here's a wee dram of whisky for ye' to warm yerself...

[SassAndSnacks]

20 hours ago, gingerella said:

Now we're losing Ian AND Rolo? Are you kidding me? The only two characters that literally never disappoint A Viewer? Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ on a cracker! This is madness writers, utter madness. Ian is fabulous, the actor is fabulous, he's the only actor who always delivers, and now we're squirreling him away with the Mohawks?

An Ian/Rollo spinoff is what the world needs right now.  

20 hours ago, gingerella said:

Also, so you mean to tell me Show, that the Mohawks just decide, "Oh hey, let's make this white person into a Mohawk, mmmkay?" Considering how aggressive them come across this seems bizarre to me. WHY would they want a white person as a member of their tribe?

Admittedly, this area of my knowledge of history is fuzzy, but I do think that the Iroquois often "adopted" others into their communities and I don't think race, nationality, etc. was a factor.  I may be confusing the Iroquois with another nation, but I believe they welcomed the Tuscarora into their communities when that population was dwindling, so I don't think it was completely out of the ordinary, but I do see your point.  I always thought that was the importance of the gauntlet they made Roger and then Ian run - it was to prove their prowess or worthiness in joining the Mohawk.  Roger didn't make it = he wasn't worthy or suited to join them.  Ian made it so he was. 

20 hours ago, gingerella said:

When C asks J what he's going to tell Jenny about Ian and he says, "Och, she'll understand, she knows her son and how stubborn he is when he gets something in his head...Besides, he's always longed for adventure..." A GIGANTIC WHAT.THE.FUCK thought bubble exploded inside my head! Yeah, sure Jamie, like Jenny's gonna say that when she finds out you let her son live in servitude more or less with a Mohawk tribe. Riiiiight! That was one of the dumbest lines in this show thus far.

100% agree.  The Jenny I ken would have flipped her freaking lid and hopped on the first boat out of Inverness to come to upstate NY and find her boy.  

Also, you mercifully didn't touch on this and I thank you for that, but I'll do it just for argument's sake.  I hated the cheeseball ending of Brianna running to Roger.  Gag-inducing.  The really juvenile, blah writing of this season was specially highlighted in that one final scene of her running to him.  Outlander Season 4 - bad wigs and bad writing.  But at least we have Jotaugh (Murcasta?) to love and adore.  

 

[Constant Viewer]

11 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Admittedly, this area of my knowledge of history is fuzzy, but I do think that the Iroquois often "adopted" others into their communities and I don't think race, nationality, etc. was a factor.  I may be confusing the Iroquois with another nation, but I believe they welcomed the Tuscarora into their communities when that population was dwindling, so I don't think it was completely out of the ordinary,

I have read about this as well. They would adopt people when they had lost others. It happened quite a bit during the French and Indian War, like with Mary Jemison. 

[Anothermi]

On 11/8/2021 at 11:18 AM, gingerella said:

Also, so you mean to tell me Show, that the Mohawks just decide, "Oh hey, let's make this white person into a Mohawk, mmmkay?" Considering how aggressive them come across this seems bizarre to me. WHY would they want a white person as a member of their tribe?

Seeing as this is the current topic, this is what I found on a website called  Iroquois Confederacy - History, Relations with Non-Native  Americans.

https://www.everyculture.com/multi/Ha-La/Iroquois-Confederacy.html

Quote

These seventeenth century population devastations prompted the Iroquois people to turn increasingly to their traditional practice of adopting outsiders into their tribes to replace members who had died from violence or illness. While some captives were tortured unmercifully to death, others were adopted into Iroquois families (the leading clanswomen decided prisoners' fates, sometimes basing their decision on the manner in which a relative of theirs had been killed). The adopted person, who was sometimes the opposite gender or of a significantly different age than the deceased Indian he replaced, was treated with the same affection, given the same rights, and expected to fulfill the same duties as his predecessor.

What was missing from the show was identifying that there was a need to adopt someone. Either when Roger arrived or when Ian made his pitch. Actually I think some character or other DID mention the practice of adoption but it was never clear why.

What I did like about this "adoption" was that the trope of Jamie sacrificing himself for someone he loves was turned on its head by Young Ian who 1) actually spoke the language; and 2) actually wanted to learn to live like an Indian.  Jamie and Claire were so used to Ian following their instructions that they were blindsided when they realized that Ian had bargained his own prisoner swap.  Ian was the obvious choice and he knew it.  He was more prepared than either Roger or Jamie to "win" the gauntlet game. He understood the goal. He didn't need to kill anyone—which Jamie would have thought he'd have to do—he just had to survive reaching the chief. I'm sure having badass Rollo as his familiar was another thing in his favour.

[gingerella]

4 hours ago, Anothermi said:

Seeing as this is the current topic, this is what I found on a website called  Iroquois Confederacy - History, Relations with Non-Native  Americans.

https://www.everyculture.com/multi/Ha-La/Iroquois-Confederacy.html

What was missing from the show was identifying that there was a need to adopt someone. Either when Roger arrived or when Ian made his pitch. Actually I think some character or other DID mention the practice of adoption but it was never clear why.

What I did like about this "adoption" was that the trope of Jamie sacrificing himself for someone he loves was turned on its head by Young Ian who 1) actually spoke the language; and 2) actually wanted to learn to live like an Indian.  Jamie and Claire were so used to Ian following their instructions that they were blindsided when they realized that Ian had bargained his own prisoner swap.  Ian was the obvious choice and he knew it.  He was more prepared than either Roger or Jamie to "win" the gauntlet game. He understood the goal. He didn't need to kill anyone—which Jamie would have thought he'd have to do—he just had to survive reaching the chief. I'm sure having badass Rollo as his familiar was another thing in his favour.

@Anothermi, your synopsis makes.si much more sense and adds much more depth to thidnpart of this episode. Thank you!

[Anothermi]

One more thing I forgot to mention about Ian being adopted into the Mohawk tribe:

The Mohawk (for the most part) fought on the side of the British in the up coming Revolutionary War.  One of the last things we see in this Season Final is Jamie being ordered to  muster troops on behalf of the British.  Something tells me neither of them are going to be OK with that.  🤣🤣

[Anothermi]

On 11/8/2021 at 11:18 AM, gingerella said:

The Mohawk 'chief' is perhaps the world's worst actor who ever portrayed a Native American in TV or film, like ever in the history of entertainment. My god! I assume he is Native American too, how could he not turn in a better performance? I kept thinking his accent was so modern American mainstream that that's all I could think about when he was flapping his gums.

I can't let this pass—if only to defend my country's honour. 😉

I was very happy when I saw that Canadian, Tom Jackson, was cast as the Mohawk Chieftain  in this show (which was during the previous episode where he 1st appeared). He is a well known singer as well as an actor. (Perhaps best know for his version—at least in Canada—of the Huron Carol.  see below)        

I will admit that he is not an actor skilled in a variety of ways of portraying characters, but he seems to have become an actor because of that one persona.

The late, witty Dorothy Parker quipped, regarding Kathrine Hepburn's acting skill, "(she runs) the gamut of emotions from A to B."  This can be applied  to Mr. Jackson as well. But it is his style and most likely why he was chosen to portray the Mohawk Chief.  

You are, of course, entitled to hate him as much as I love him. Keeps our discussions lively.

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Anothermi

[Anothermi]

On 11/8/2021 at 11:18 AM, gingerella said:

The punching bag fight between J & R was just dumb. I mean, I get it, but it went on for far too long and also, Roger was barely able to walk but he's suddenly able to beat the hell out of a man like JAMMF? Come the hell on people, J could have knocked his lights out in one punch.

Here we agree. I, too, get it, but it really DID go on waaaaay too long. AND Roger's recovery from barely being able to walk was nothing short of a miracle. Perhaps it was Claire's life force he stole while she was propping him up during the madcap 🙄 escape?

But I understood why Roger was able to beat the hell out of Jamie. It was because Jamie barely fought back at all. He knew Roger had to fight to regain his honour, his manhood.  He knew he wanted to do the same thing to BJR, and Roger's only experience with Jamie was not completely dissimilar to Jamie's 1st experience with BJR (except that Jamie is not a sadist power tripper). Also, remember Murtagh belting Jamie in France after being told the time-travel story about Claire?  It's expected.

On 11/8/2021 at 11:18 AM, gingerella said:

When J & C & I waltz into the Mohawk camp, they have exactly one horse with them. WTF?! Where are their other horses? Don't they need at least three to ride literally months north? This sort of thing just takes me completely out of the moment. And when they're leaving without Roger now they have two horses, the black and the white, where is Ian's mount? Surely he didn't walk for two months north did he? Continuity Department.....Hello????

You always make me rewatch! Luckily this bit was only 3.5 minutes in. Jamie is scouting. He hears a sound but sees nothing (he is being watched) so he returns to Claire and Ian who are loading the black horse with the goods they plan to trade for Roger.  For a very brief shot you can see the two white horses tied to the trees behind them.  They left those horses there. Why? No idea. I can only guess they expected to walk out of there with Roger on the one horse—should he need it.  🤪

What was surprising to me was that after the R & J fight ended there was a shot of not 3 but 4 horses at their camp. Two white, one black and one brown!!! I don't plan to go back and review previous episodes, but it actually makes sense that they'd have 4 horses. They expected to bring Roger on the months long trek back with them. 

On 11/8/2021 at 11:18 AM, gingerella said:

So Claire knows that the now dead Mohawk was a time traveler because she saw his teeth fillings. Why didn't she ask them 'did he have gold in his mouth, do you know?' Because she could have said that he did come from the future as did she, and he was right, the Native Tribes will indeed suffer if they don't do something differently NOW. Maybe that would have made them revere here more and allowed them to take Roger without any substitute hostage? And why wouldn't they explain about the terrible mix up and that Roger is the husband of their daughter and they didn't know this and it's another man they are after (Bonnet). Is it lazy story telling or the Show editing the source material? I have no idea which but these are large story gaps that just don't make sense.

I was glad we—finally—got to learn about the mysterious time traveller who led her back to Jamie when she was lost in the woods. We only got a very brief glimpse of him in the future—right after the opening credits. From the woman's clothing in that snippet I'd say he was coming from some time in the 1960's. Like Geillis Duncan.

 I just reviewed that to see if I could find a date—but nada. This time, however, I noticed the stone pendant he was wearing. I kept wracking my brain to remember where Claire got that pendant because I don't remember her wearing it recently and I missed it on the guy in "our" time first viewing. Of course it  WAS covered by Claire's scarf so that might explain  why I didn't see it. Show sure expects us to retain minute bits of information for a very long time. When did that time traveller actually first appear?  

I don't agree that Claire should have revealed herself as a traveller from the future. She doesn't know enough about these people and their beliefs.  Her destiny is to live to be a great—and old—healer. Or that's what I think right now.  Besides, from her own attempts to change the past she knew it would be futile to inform them of what was coming for them.

I can't help but believe that DG would have written a bit more about him  than we got in show. The story the Mohawk told about him, and his clear Geillis-like mission to change the past, don't make sense in relation to his spirit guiding Claire back to Jamie.  

However, due to the rewatch @gingerella made me do  😜,  I noted the conversation between Claire and the woman who followed "Otter Tooth" and his prophesies.  Makes more sense in hindsight:

Wahkatiiosta: It is said that one who possesses the stone has the power to see how my people's story will end and that Otter Tooth's ghost walks with whoever carries it. Has he appeared to you?  (my question: does that stone have anything to do with travelling through the stones on this side of the Atlantic? Or was that the implication regarding why it was Claire who found both the skull and the stone?)

Claire: Yes.  I was lost in a storm, and I took cover under a fallen tree.  That is when he came to me. I believe that ghosts only exist when there is something to be remembered, a story worth telling, or a message... worth relaying.  Do you believe this Otter Tooth to be right?

Wahkatiiosta: Yes. I believe he came to warn my people and the stone will enable us to see what is coming.

Claire: If you help us... rescue the man that we came to take back... Then we will help you preserve the memory of the man who fought for your future. Help us. The stone will be yours.

So, Claire didn't tell any of them about time-travel, but that told us that she finally understood why "Otter Tooth" appeared to her to help her. (see bolded passage)

So, Ging. Thanks for getting me to rewatch. 

On 11/8/2021 at 11:18 AM, gingerella said:

Any scene with Murtagh in it! I loved the scenes with M & B, and the scenes with M & Jocasta was lovely. I'd like more from those two please.

100% agree with this. (As if it even needs to be said. ) Finally something to 🥰.

[Cdh20]

2 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I can't let this pass—if only to defend my country's honour. 😉

I was very happy when I saw that Canadian, Tom Jackson, was cast as the Mohawk Chieftain  in this show (which was during the previous episode where he 1st appeared). He is a well known singer as well as an actor. (Perhaps best know for his version—at least in Canada—of the Huron Carol.  see below)        

I will admit that he is not an actor skilled in a variety of ways of portraying characters, but he seems to have become an actor because of that one persona.

The late, witty Dorothy Parker quipped, regarding Kathrine Hepburn's acting skill, "(she runs) the gamut of emotions from A to B."  This can be applied  to Mr. Jackson as well. But it is his style and most likely why he was chosen to portray the Mohawk Chief.  

You are, of course, entitled to hate him as much as I love him. Keeps our discussions lively.

 

In case you are interested- all the indigenous actors were from Canada! 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

On 2/21/2021 at 2:57 PM, chaifan said:

I get Outlander via Netflix, so very late to the game here.  

I was certain Ulysses was going to turn out to be a time traveler.  His accent was very modern day American.  I don't think in 1771 there was any such thing as an "American" accent, or at least it wouldn't be anywhere close to what we sound like now.  And it wasn't just his accent, a few times just the way he spoke seemed very modern.  I thought he would have picked up on Brianna's accent, tossed out a few modern references to test her, and they would have discovered each other's secret that way.  But, I guess I was wrong...

Even later to the game that you are, courtesy of a Netflix binge. 

I too feel like there's something more to Ulysses. In a time when it was illegal to teach slaves how to read or write, he's literate, well-spoken, and debonair. Where (or when) did he come from?

[Pickleinthemiddle]

1 hour ago, Sheikh Yerbouti said:

Even later to the game that you are, courtesy of a Netflix binge. 

I too feel like there's something more to Ulysses. In a time when it was illegal to teach slaves how to read or write, he's literate, well-spoken, and debonair. Where (or when) did he come from?

In the books it explains why he is educated and well spoken.  Not sure which book it's in, but I don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't read it yet.

[Scarlett45]

On 7/10/2022 at 10:42 PM, Sheikh Yerbouti said:

Even later to the game that you are, courtesy of a Netflix binge. 

I too feel like there's something more to Ulysses. In a time when it was illegal to teach slaves how to read or write, he's literate, well-spoken, and debonair. Where (or when) did he come from?

It wasn’t illegal to teach enslaved people to read or write in the territory of North Carolina at this time.
 

Additionally, when it was illegal, many people still did it because 1. They wanted their slaves to be able to perform work that required literacy, 2. Enslaved people would teach each other because knowledge is power.