The natural reaction to Wilmington is to discuss the rape of Brianna. Horrifying but boldly told. Watching all those people sit around and ignore what was happening; apparently, there are few men like Jamie Fraser in the 18th century.
Still I thought we could talk Brianna and Roger's fight. Many seem to condemn Brianna for her anger while others seem upset at Roger for even leaving Brianna but the basis of the fight. To me the entire spiraling out of control of their emotions was at fault. Neither one was willing to see the others side of things which will always lead to a blown up. My issue was Roger's belief that there was nothing to be done to save Claire and Jamie.
He tells Bree Claire had been dead for 200 years. But does this apply when you can literally transverse those years? Granted they are messing with history but if it were 200 miles and they knew something would happen wouldn't they warn them? Roger's argument seems flawed in this regard. Yes, the passage is dangerous but they have the capability to cross the divide.
He says it wrong to save the lives of only those they loves but what about the countless others they don't know? Did Roger not save baby Jemmy onboard the Glorianna? Had he not been in the past would baby Jemmy have been tossed overboard? Has Claire not saved countless lives in the 18th century which wouldn't have been saved if she'd stayed in the 20th century?
As a historian does Roger believe time can't be changed, something he never addresses? Claire and Jamie speculated about this when trying to stop Culloden and yet they were unable to prevent Culloden from happening. But is something as big as a war impossible to stop whereas preventing the deaths of two people seem much simpler and possible?
Roger and Bree's fight escalated so fast and didn't really delve into what the other was thinking about traveling. Roger seems to believe saving Jamie and Claire is somehow wrong and yet he travels back to help and/or save Brianna. It seems he believes once Claire choose the past her fate was seals and yet when Brianna goes back he's willing to risk life and limb to go after her? How is his decision any different than Bree's?
Roger's stance on this issue seems very flawed.
The following will contain NO spoilers for the upcoming season though it might have a few for Seasons 1-3 if you've not watched them.
Droughtlander seems dry and long even if it isn't quite as long as it has been in the past. So I thought I'd remind everyone what we do know about the upcoming season of Outlander.
When Will Season 4 Premiere?
There has been no premiere date set as of yet but considering production of Season 4 started directly after Season 3 (in some cases at the same time) then it is safe to say we aren't looking at an 18 month droughtlander. In fact, it is highly likely we are going to be looking at a fall release for Season 4 because show-runner Ron Moore told EW back in 2017 that they hoped to have new seasons every fall.
First, here is a great image of Jamie and Fergus from the upcoming episode of Outlander.
And secondly, let's talk dilemmas of time traveling proportions. Jamie and Claire are out to stop the Rising (or the 45) in which the Scots lose at the Battle of Culloden and their way of life is essentially wiped out.
But what happens to Frank if Claire does this? Will it change Claire's future? And what about Mary Hawkins? Apparently, Mary is supposed to marry Jack Randall (poor thing), but how can Jamie and Claire let that happen?
By stopping the rebellion are they ending Frank's line at Black Jack Randall?
Talk about a dilemma.