I thought it was a strong episode with a giant caveat that has to do with “the essence of the characters” as you put it so nicely Maureenanne. My caveat has to do with the essence of Jamie’s character. I may have written already about this so apologies if so, but with absolutely no comparison to the book — only looking at the character of television Jamie — I was very uncomfortable with “Lallybroch”. The charming, extremely smart, observant, canny, politically astute (see “The Gathering”) Jamie who grew up watching a good Laird, his father, and understands the significance of rents, (see “Rent”), has observed Colum, has fought in France with his comrade Ian, acts out and behaves boorishly and is an awful Laird. This television Jamie, who has gone through so much, and who was a man when we met him, seems to be regressing to something not really very likeable. Of course people regress a bit when they go home. But I don’t agree at all with the choice, whether by committee or not, to make this really nice, smart person suddenly not nice and badly behaved and not politically astute at all. In fact, petulant. I don’t think it was good character development. The drunken Jamie scene, were he is all “I am the Laird” was cute as can be. And that alone could have told us a lot about how he was seeing himself. The writers didn’t have to take a brick bat to a character they spent some time developing. Of course he is flawed, but he is who he is. Why change horses here?