Did the end of the episode happen like in the book?
Not exactly. In the book you see Bree talking to Bonnet and seeing the ring then it moves on to Bree looking for her parents. The description of her encounter with Bonnet doesnât get described until later when she is discussing it with Claire.
Thanks. It was jarring. It also didnât make sense that Roger would leave her all alone, no matter how angry they were. Heâd have known itâs dangerous and no matter how angry wouldnât have made her run such risks.
I also donât like Brianna and Roger much.
Spoilers
^
^
^
^
^
^
The book is much more graffic. I doubt they could have shown the assault as it was portrayed in the book. As it was shown it is left to ones imagination which was bad enough. I was surprised they showed the assault by BJ Randall on Jamie. That was difficult to watch. As far as Roger leaving. In the book he left to get gem stones so they could return to their time. She didnât want to wait because she knew where her father was supposed to be in a few days and she wanted to get there. The fight did occur but they left out the fact Roger was going to see if he could get gems (from Bonnet).
Thanks for the information. I didnât watch the Jamie/BJ Randall scene, it was too much and Iâm glad they didnât show anything else for Brianna. In those days, rape probably wasnât a rare occurence (ie., women as property to be used for menâs needs or as signs of power) yet the rape of a visibly high-born woman would likely cause a stir due to order depending on class respect, right - or is she not sufficiently identifiable as high-born, or is Bonnet supposed to yield enough power or scare people enough that it wouldnât matter?
The reason Roger left in the book (get the gems) made more sense.
I liked this episode better than the last few. Iâm not a big fan of TV Bree and especially Roger. They are nothing like the book, IMO. However, I did like the looks of Roger better in this century. I like his hair more.
Anyway, I thought they did a nice job with them.
That was the best one yet! Stayed true to the main storyline, with adjustments to fit it all in only.
I agree with @conmama. That episode was very true to the book in most of the ways that mattered to me. I thought the acting was very good-much better than we had seen from Sophie Skelton previously. The Jamie/Brianna meeting was very touching imo.
And kudos to the makeup artists that made Roger really look like he had his face beaten to a pulp!
Yep they did an excellent job with this episode. I loved the acting, the emotion and just how they did the story. There were a few things I liked better than the way the book handled things :o! I think it was the best acting of the season by everyone.
Liked it way way way more than the last episode. Good one.
Well, I thought this last one was sort of boring. Hate Briannaâs voice. I love LJG in the books, I even have a bit of a crush on him. TV Grey looks like a vampire to me for some reason. The only thing I liked about this episode was Aunt Jocasta.
Agree it was just OK. I think itâs Greyâs hair/wig that does that - kind of a Dracula hairline.
I wasnât really looking forward to this episode as after two weeks of reunions and getting to know one another we have conflict, anger, desperation etc. (same in the book for the most part). There are some parts that make me wonder, what were they thinking?. That character would not act that way in someones home so indiscreetly. I realize it was done to make a point but stay true to the character. Others were done very well. What Iâm most curious is how will they complete 1/3 of the material in the books into 2 episodes. It will be interesting.
I honestly canât remember-in the book, did Brianna witness LJG having sex with a man and subsequently attempt to blackmail him into marrying her?
Bree sees LJG coming out of the slave quarters and puts 2 + 2 together. She doesnât walk in on directly anything in the book.
I donât know how they are going to get through the rest of the book in 2 episodes either. Havenât been thrilled with this season.
@Nrdsb4 I donât think so. And according to the after-episode chat with the writers, the entire psychology dinner/parlor game thing was not from the books either but rather a way to get a lot of plot points done in a shorter time.
This wasnât one of my favorite books. So the show is doing pretty well with it, IMO.
I did enjoy the scene where Claire reassures Jamie that she doesnât blame him for Roger and Bree didnât mean what she said and all that. One of the better JC scenes for me this season.
I do find I donât really care of Roger is getting beaten up. Iâm still mad at him for being a jerk to her after the handfast time when he gets all âyouâre my wife do what I sayâ.
âyouâre my wife do what I sayâ.
How did that work out for him! 
@lvvcsf - KARMA! 
Iâve actually enjoyed this season more than the book. It wasnât an awful book, just not one of my favorites, so Iâve been fine with the season as adapted, especially the Murtagh angle.
I like the Murtagh angle, too, and seeing both Fergus and Marsali able to do things.
I do dread the time when neither Claire nor Jamie will be part of the story because the two actors are really good.
Lord John Grey would be 50 or so, right? And Brianna 20? Because JG is so awesome and clearly played by an actor in his late 30s it doesnât âfeelâ as wrong but in real life itâd look lie Brianna is marrying her grandfather. I know it was common then but the optics are softened for us due to how âyoungâ and handsome the LJG actor is.
SPOILERS
WHY did Brianna go see Bonnet in jail? To tell him sheâs forgiven him and feel superior? What kind of twisted thing is this? I donât get it.
That key laying there + seeing the boom but not any body means someoneâs not dead. Because: TV.
(Also, I doubt theyâd have planned mass murdering all the people inside the jail so it really was an explosion for distraction and thus not planned to kill and therefore heâs escaped.)
Roger is growing a bit but I am in disbelief that a history professor (who would have gone straight from grammar school to A-levels to university, no need for ECs and he clearly wasnât on the rugby team) would have that much physical strength. Most men would be terribly weakened at that point, let alone someone whoâs not exercised much previously and has a broken arm.
The priest sounded fanatical to me, especially that baptizing a baby would NOT condamn the babyâs soul (in fact I believe that in emergency any Catholic can baptize a child), whereas NOT baptizing the child would send the babyâs soul to a special baby purgatory for souls that have not sinned yet havenât had time to be baptized. However probably priests in the 18th century would seem fanatical to us - they believed in blasphemy laws back then, right, and in all sorts of punishments for it⊠Native Americans must have been so puzzled to be called savages by Europeans.
I liked seeing the Mohawk village. Iâm assuming they did meticulous research.
Why donât we learn more about Native American cultures in K-12, at a minimum Native American cultures of the area where we currently live?