I tried this once before in a previous seasons and got burned for doing what I am about to do but I am an old combat Marine and I am not afraid of a little fire so I will try it once again this season. I have found the titles of this season to be both interesting and informative to some degree. This coming episode, "Perpetual Adoration", which to a Catholic like myself has a specific meaning, those who are Catholic will know what i mean but I don't think that meaning applies here. According to the On Demand for Starz description for this coming episode, when the militia arrives in Hillsborough they discover that Governor Tryon has proposed a rather unorthodox solution to deal with the threat of the Regulators as a way to resolve the growing political crisis. Now I find that interesting for a few reasons. First it seems to to suggests that Jamie might be let off the hook in some way from hunting Murtagh. Perhaps it means also that a deal may be struck with the Regulators, perhaps though Murtagh which brings peace. Now I know that may be a stretch but then it leads me to the 6th episode, "Better to Marry than Burn", which I find very interesting. This title leads me to these two questions, who is it that is most likely, of all the characters, to get burned and who stands to benefit from a marriage? My guess is that it might be Murtagh. Jacasta said that Duncan proposed marriage but she did not give him an answer and we have not seen Duncan in any way. I wonder if Jacasta has cooked something up and proposed it to Tryon to save Murtagh and Jamie, I mean she was pretty clever with Roger concerning his son. Jocasta has shown herself to be quite clever. Perhaps the writers have found a way though this unorthodox plan to let Murtagh take the place of a minor character in the book (Duncan) who indeed does marry Jocasta thus allowing him to survive, find peace and see the Regulators cause resolved peacefully, at least until the American Revolution in 1776. Well I know I am doing a lot of guessing and may be burned once again but what do you think?
All posts by Romantic54
Pratt261: My comment was not to accuse but to point out that it is our 21st century mindset and sense of morality that causes us to be challenged by visual shock of such brutality. In part it is because in our society we are insulated from it by sanitizing things like this in our day to day lives. However on the other side of this, if you could have seen the kind of horrific death and destruction as I have seen on a battle field, you can easily become numb to it, becoming unsympathetic. Thank God I worked through that. And there is the value in this scene, that whether we are challenged or unsympathetic it is important to see such things in order to codify our humanity. Yes it bothered me, flashing ugly and unpleasant images in my mind, but in that moment I was able to affirm my humanity.
While the execution scene was difficult to experience it was not out of character to the times. In addition if you were in Jamie's shoes or the shoes of the the others who love Claire and have seen how she was brutalized and raped, immediate justice was deemed normal for them especially knowing how much she had given so much care to so many in the area. After all in the colonies life, safety and justice was extremely hard and harsh because it was a matter of survival.
Keeping our 21st century moral mindset set aside for a moment can anyone say Lionel didn't deserved the justice Marsali dished out? As a clergyman I uphold that the highest moral standard should upheld. The issue in this scene however is that it is easy to put our 21st century morality on a 19th century world and when we do we will always be offended. Frankly if we are honest and look at our world today and use the same measure of moral outrage (avoiding anything political here and allowing you to use your imaginationas to what I may be referring to) can we say we are any better really.
Frankly having Claire being pregnant does not help the storylines of what is to come in the next books and would in fact make many of the most important aspects to the life of the Fraser family in those books impossible. On the subject of why Claire didn't have protection in order to prevent her from becoming pregnant, well all I can say is what Bree said, "I didn't think I needed to pack condoms momma." At her age, menopause is more plausible and probable. This episode was very good, but nearly 16 minutes of the episode was dedicated to the repetitive disassociation image. Frankly after the second or third disassociation image, I got the picture and after that it seemed overplayed. Don't get me wrong, I'm a combat veteran and I get why she went into this state and why we needed to see it as she saw it because I have experienced it too and know how valuable disassociation is for an individual who is trying to survive a severe trauma. As a result I would like to have seen more interaction between the other characters, especially Roger and Bree or between Marsali and Fergus who aren't utilized near enough. It might be just me but I thought Marsali's portrayal was outstanding.
What an ending! I was pleased as well to see Roger and Bree once again in the same timeline as Jamie and Claire, though honestly I wasn't surprised. I had been thinking that, 'what if they go forward only a few minutes and it's Ian that Jemmy sees' and sure enough that was the reality. Now some important Fraser and Mackenzie stories and timelines can be developed as the books portray. I do have one minor issue about this episode however. The constant flashforward to the the 1970's, which was meant to portray Claire's defense mechanism, was in my estimation overdone. As a combat veteran I understand the importance of mechanisms to insulate yourself from fear and trauma, but for the sake of a show that is only 1 hour long, they could have shown the flashforward only a couple of times and the premise would have been established then more time could have ben used for more storyline and Claire's recovery. But overall a great ending but sadly now the looong dark Droughtlander time is upon us. Come on Diane we need a book too get us through.
I wondered if they, the Mackenzies, just traveled a short time into the future and sure enough they went forward only a few minutes and the timeline is once again back to the books.
I agree with you Queen TD, I dread this upcoming Droughtlander time, which will be epic and excruciating for all Outlanders, however it will demonstrate the loyalty of its fans.
Like you, I too look forward to "Go tell the Bees." I hope the book comes out by Christmas time so I can sit down in my easy chair near the fire place feeling cozy and warm during the long and cold Wyoming winter nights, listening to a little soft Beethoven or Mozart, sipping on a dram or two of Dalwhinnie Scotch Whisky reading "Go tell the Bees." In a state of internal and external warmth I will allow myself to become unencumbered by space and time of this life and instead allow myself to become enthralled in the time and space of the new unfolding story of the Fraser/Mackenzie family love stories. I will enjoy reading how their love triumphs over all adversity that unfolds in those printed words as they plays out in my mind. Love conquering all the negative odds, that is what I like about Outlander. I hope this time with the new book will mitigate the impact of Droughtlander.
I also agree with you about guys and Outlander. Outlander is not just a woman's book or series. I am a guy and I love the books and the TV series. I really love the books and all the novellas because they develop so much depth and context about the characters and their interactions with one another and their time line they are living in. On the other hand the series brings faces and the actors personality portrayals to the characters by providing us with visual human interaction that a book cannot portray. From now on when I read the books, the characters will have a face in my mind. In some ways I bet when the new book comes out, when people read the book my bet is that as they read it they will visualize the applicable TV series characters as the faces of the book characters.
Just wanted you to know that I agree with you!
Queen TD I agree, I hope "Go tell the Bees" comes out by Christmas time so I can sit down by the fire in my recliner during the cold winter nights here in Wyoming, relaxing warm and cozy sipping a dram of Dalwhinnie Scotch Whisky while reading about the new and endearing Fraser/Mackenzie family love story and trusting that it will keep me motivated during this excruciating looooong drought. I might even have to read it a couple of times and then watch all 5 seasons once again, what ever it takes to get me to the next season.
This season has been so unpredictable because it includes elements of two books that are months and years apart in story and events. By combining these elements as they have, bringing future events into the past, (and yes I get that Outlander is about time travel and so this intermingling of time lines is not completely out of character), but there are things in book 6, "Breath of Snow and Ashes," that are important to the basic "Fraser" storyline that have not been pursued yet and they include Roger, Bree and the "kids" (yes kids plural) in late 1775 and 1776, not to mention interactions these characters have with other core characters, ie., Lord John and Willie to name a few that define that Fraser storyline. So I am inclined to think that they have not gone into the future yet, at least not far into the future, this would explain Roger's shocked words as he and Bree stare in front of them after they passed through the stones, and he says, "What the devil...?" They are not "when" they expected to be but to what "when" they are in, well I am not sure but I hope it keeps them in the past until their child Mandy is born, since she is the real reason, according to the book (Mandy's heart) that causes them to return to their time in 1980 and then back to Lallybroch. I only hope that whatever it is, it is resolved one way or another in the next episode and not leaving us in suspense since we may not have a season in 2021 and must endure the agony of uncertainty around this curiosity while we now prepare for the longest Droughtlander of all time due to the current WORLD crisis.
Just checked the credits and I was correct, Graham McTavish did play the part of Buck MacKenzie.
One more note, I am sticking to my prediction that the man hanging is Roger and that he is not dead but is only unconscious.
BTW: Did anyone happen to notice that when Roger was hugging Mrs. MacKenzie who her husband was played by? None other than Grahm Mctavish I believe (the actor for Dogal MacKenzie). They may have put long hair on him and a long dark scraggly beard but they couldn't hide his distinctive voice and accent.
Well I just watched the promo for the next episode and I think I may be all wet about the man hanging from the tree...maybe?
You will need to read one of Dianna Gabaldon's novellas. In a couple of them you get a picture of Jamie when he was in his teens. In one he and Ian are wild young bucks sowing their oats in France as mercenary soldiers. That is when Ian looses his leg.
In the last scene of "The Ballad of Roger Mac," did you happen to notice that the man hanging from the tree, who supposedly is Roger, that one of his hands is under the death shroud that is over his head? (Spoiler alert) In the book he was hanged because he was turned over as a regulator to the militia. As a result he suffers with severely damaged vocal cord and Bree trys to rescue him from the trauma (PTSD) he suffers from as a result of the hanging. That is what I think Bree means in the preview for the next episode when she says, "I just want to get Roger back," or words to that effect.
Well it appears that I was partially right. I was a bit surprised to discover that "Perpetual Adoration" did indeed relate to the Catholic understanding of the phrase, 24/7 Adoration of the Eucharistic Lord. The context for this centered around Mr. Minzzie's timeless love for his wife, feeling close to her when he was close to the Lord, that their love was timeless, and then there was Claire's reflection on her life and on just how interconnected we are through a chain of events and relationships. There is much more that can be said on this but I will do so in another thread. Over all a great episode. I still think Murtagh will be pardoned because of a marriage to Jocasta but how this will come about I am not sure. That's my guess and I'm sticking to it.
I am happy to see that the program is only teasing Steven Bonnet just to keep his persona alive in the main characters lives but one thing is for sure, they haven't learned much from the last time they kept secrets from one another. The interpersonal relationship between Marsali and Bree when Jemmy seemed to be missing, fearing Bonnet was near, well the segment was very nice. Outside of that the time with Jamie and Claire in the woods at night is the best part of the episode though there are several parts that are very nice. Jamie once again demonstrates selfless love offering to take on the Beardsley child or attempting to have one of their own for Claire's sake is very sweet and Claire's response was equally sweet.
Stensman Cosplay, "Thou shall do no harm," that is part of the hippocratic oath which Claire swore to. Claire is remaining true to that oath. Some people find it easy to compromise an oath that they swear to but Claire is not one of them nor is Jamie, they are of sound principled character, selfless and caring. This is one of the hallmarks in Dianna Gabaldon's books. All the enduring characters have it to some varying degree, sadly a trait that seems to have diminished over time even unto today, where we live imaginary lives, shallow and somewhat empty. But I digress. As for Mr. Beardsley, Claire knows there is no hope for the wretched man, not because of his foot, which if removed would have given him a better than 50/50 chance of survival even in those times. The amputation was not the problem, the dilemma for her was the severity of his stroke (apoplexy) which concerns her. She knows they can't take him with them, that he is helpless and as a result death is at his door and even with her 20th century medical knowledge with 18th century medicine cannot change that. Jamie on the other hand, unlike Claire has made no such oath, and both of them have free will to act in accordance to their conscience and their time period sense of morality. So Claire chooses to let Jamie act upon his in the matter of Mr. Beardsley trusting that he will make the right decision, she knows she is not God. Jamie does act by hesitantly asking if Beardsley he wants him to end his suffering, then asking him if he wants to seek God's forgiveness. When he refuses forgiveness. Beardsley exercised his free will by continuing on his path of evil thus freeing Jamie of guilt in exorcising his free will.
(I have read all the books and all the novellas too.)
You are most welcome! Perhaps there is a bit of Jamie in me 🤔 ...Nah just me...😎
You are most welcome! Perhaps there is a bit of Jamie in