# Deadwood 3/20 **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 21, 2005, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511 "2005-03-21T03:37:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RogueRacer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ab992/32.png) [@RogueRacer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RogueRacer)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/21 "2005-03-21T16:49:33Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Speaking of Mr. W, I [started another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307976) on him and the actor who plays him, but maybe it’d be better discussed in this one. Let me know, 'cause I am curious. As soon as Mr. W opened his mouth I knew they recycled the actor that played Jack McCall. He has done a great job in both rolls, but I find it a little distracting since I can still see Jack coming through Mr. W. Mr. W appears to be another great character though. Like others have mentioned, I loved the looks that Jane was giving Trixie. When Jane is looking at you like you’re one fucked up bitch, it should set off warnings. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/22 "2005-03-21T16:55:23Z")
> [@RogueRacer](#): > > As soon as Mr. W opened his mouth I knew they recycled the actor that played Jack McCall. He has done a great job in both rolls, but I find it a little distracting since I can still see Jack coming through Mr. W. It’s funny, but I didn’t have a clue until I read it here. Watching the episode a second time, I realized his voice was a definite giveaway. I wonder how long it would have taken me to figure it out on my own. ---
**Author:** ![PoorYorick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PoorYorick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PoorYorick)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/23 "2005-03-21T17:11:05Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I still haven’t uncrossed my legs. Poor Doc looked almost as miserable as Al did. It was a tough job being a physician without modern anasthetics. I was a little confused about this. True general anesthetics have been around [since at least the 1840’s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia#Early_gases_and_vapours). Doesn’t _Deadwood_ take place in the 1870’s? I understand that it might have been dangerous to put Al under, but, man, I’d take my chances with ether or chloroform before I’d let someone stick salad tongs up my doo-hickey. ---
**Author:** ![stanger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@stanger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stanger)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/24 "2005-03-21T17:35:03Z")
Something else was going on that I don’t understand. When the nanny was talking to the sheriff, she wanted to bring something up that the sheriff definitely didn’t want to talk about. It seemed to be about the little girl. Later when the nanny was talking to Alma, she started with it again but Alma didn’t want to talk about it either. It did have something to do with the little girl. Alma became so upset she released the nanny. Did anybody catch that and figure out what that was about? ---
**Author:** ![Ass\_For\_A\_Hat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Ass\_For\_A\_Hat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ass_For_A_Hat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/25 "2005-03-21T17:45:50Z")
> [@stanger](#): > > When the nanny was talking to the sheriff, she wanted to bring something up that the sheriff definitely didn’t want to talk about. It seemed to be about the little girl. I believe that he wanted his son to meet the girl. Just cuz there aren’t many children in the camp. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/26 "2005-03-21T17:50:20Z")
That was my take on it too. The HBO summary, however, says that Seth went to the hotel to try to convince Alma to leave Sophia and run off with him. WTF!? After watching that scene again, it’s obvious that whatever Seth’s initial motive for the visit might have been, what he said to Miss Isringhausen concerned Sophia and William. “Being that there are so few children in the camp”, or something like that. Miss I’s refusal to speak of it in front of Sophia leads us to think something else was going on. Where’s the harm, otherwise? Unless Miss I was going to **lie** to Alma and tell her that Seth wanted her to leave Sophia. Miss I is not all that she appears to be, methinks. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/27 "2005-03-21T18:03:11Z")
> [@PoorYorick](#): > > I was a little confused about this. True general anesthetics have been around [since at least the 1840’s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia#Early_gases_and_vapours). Doesn’t _Deadwood_ take place in the 1870’s? I understand that it might have been dangerous to put Al under, but, man, I’d take my chances with ether or chloroform before I’d let someone stick salad tongs up my doo-hickey. Chloroform may have been in use but that doesn’t mean that a doctor in a remote camp like Deadwood would have had it on hand or necessarily known how to administer it safely. They did give Al Laudenum but that’s the kind of pain that opium won’t reach. ---
**Author:** ![KSO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@KSO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KSO)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/28 "2005-03-21T18:08:16Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > Miss I’s refusal to speak of it in front of Sophia leads us to think something else was going on. Where’s the harm, otherwise? Unless Miss I was going to **lie** to Alma and tell her that Seth wanted her to leave Sophia. > > Miss I is not all that she appears to be, methinks. Hmmm. I interpreted it as simply not wanting to get Sophia’s hopes up with regard to having a friend to play with. She knows William exists–she sent the candy to him. That said, I also think there’s more than meets the eye to Miss I. ---
**Author:** ![Ass\_For\_A\_Hat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Ass\_For\_A\_Hat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ass_For_A_Hat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/29 "2005-03-21T18:27:07Z")
> [@KSO](#): > > That said, I also think there’s more than meets the eye to Miss I. Hmmm…Maybe she’s hot for the sherrif too. I hadn’t really picked that up from anything I saw on the show, but if Alma had sensed that, it may explain her quickness to fire Miss I. That seemed pretty out-of-the-blue to me. ---
**Author:** ![RogueRacer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7ab992/32.png) [@RogueRacer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RogueRacer)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/30 "2005-03-21T19:42:13Z")
> [@Ass For A Hat](#): > > Hmmm…Maybe she’s hot for the sherrif too. I hadn’t really picked that up from anything I saw on the show, but if Alma had sensed that, it may explain her quickness to fire Miss I. That seemed pretty out-of-the-blue to me. I think Alma’s issue with Miss I is somewhat similar to her problem with E.B. Alma seems to think that Miss I wants to have a little bit of control over her and her actions. Alma probably has enough emotional scars from her father that she is quick to react to anything of the sort, real or not. E.B. is the same way. He always has to try to worm his way into the business of others. E.B. just isn’t nearly as polite (or as hot!) as Miss I. ---
**Author:** ![BigDummy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee59a6/32.png) [@BigDummy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigDummy)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/31 "2005-03-21T20:05:17Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > The other was a little more subtle. In speaking with his nephew/stepson, Bullock said that “after work” they’d fish for that trout. The notion of going off to “work” and a “working day,” strike me, like severance pay, as conventions of the twentieth century, and out of place in Deadwood. I don’t know how firmly I’d insist on this, but I just don’t think a sheriff in a frontier camp would speak about going to work, or coming back from work. My take on that would be that he’s not just Sheriff, he also helps run the hardware store, which doesn’t stay open all the time. In fact when he left the kid that’s where he went. With Sol probably not able to handle the load, he’d expect to be there until they closed, so there seems to be room for an “after work” for him. Got nothing to excuse the other one though. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/32 "2005-03-21T22:10:20Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > That was my take on it too. The HBO summary, however, says that Seth went to the hotel to try to convince Alma to leave Sophia and run off with him. WTF!? > > After watching that scene again, it’s obvious that whatever Seth’s initial motive for the visit might have been, what he said to Miss Isringhausen concerned Sophia and William. “Being that there are so few children in the camp”, or something like that. > > Miss I’s refusal to speak of it in front of Sophia leads us to think something else was going on. Where’s the harm, otherwise? Unless Miss I was going to **lie** to Alma and tell her that Seth wanted her to leave Sophia. > > Miss I is not all that she appears to be, methinks. The episode guide says: > [@](#): > > Bullock visits the Grand Central to call on the widow Garret. Richardson goes to fetch her but returns with Sofia and Miss Isringhausen instead, who informs Bullock that Alma is visiting her claim. She returns Bullock’s timepiece, and though he is taken aback by the meaning of the gesture, he presses ahead with the message he’d intended for Alma, hoping to convince her to give up her child and depart with him: “As few children as are in the camp, certainly , if she decided it was appropriate, other parties would be delighted, and grateful.” I certainly didn’t think that Bullock wanted to leave the camp. I thought he just was stopping by to talk to Alma and tell her what happened the night before. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/33 "2005-03-21T22:28:05Z")
Possibly meaning that others in the camp would be delighted to take on the responsibility of raising Sophia? Hmmmm. Maybe that’s related to Alma’s comment in Ep. 1 about Brook Farm, leaving Sophia to be raised by the town. Could there have been some Alma/Seth/Miss I. conversation re Sophia that we didn’t hear, and we’ll find out about it later? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/34 "2005-03-22T01:57:01Z")
I wonder if the program summary could be wrong? Or the other possibility is that Seth’s plan was to leave Sophia with his wife and child, so the boy would have a sister and Sophia would be looked after, and then split with Alma. The other possibility that occured to me is that Seth wants to essentially adopt Sophia, thiking that she doesn’t have a family, and that Alma can’t look after her forever. But most likely explanation, and the one that occured to me at the time, is that he was simply asking if Sophia could come over and play with his son. Maybe he saw that as a way to stay in contact with Alma without raising suspicions. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/35 "2005-03-22T02:13:10Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Or the other possibility is that Seth’s plan was to leave Sophia with his wife and child, so the boy would have a sister and Sophia would be looked after, and then split with Alma. My **God** but you’re devious! You could write for the show. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/36 "2005-03-22T02:59:54Z")
Hmm… seems the episoide guide indicates that Bullock hasn’t been swayed by Al’s speech last week. Perhaps he wanted to take Alma and head to Yankton. He was telling Sol that they should do something about no county commissioners coming from the Hills. Perhaps that was his way of saying he’d like to be a commissioner of the county and take Alma with him (I believe the commission is located in Yankton). ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/37 "2005-03-22T05:36:41Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > I meant to mention a couple of things that struck me as false notes in this episode, having to do with modern practices that would be anachronisms in the 1870s. > > The most obvious was Cy’s offer of two weeks’ severance to anyone who wanted to leave. > > \ > > The other was a little more subtle. In speaking with his nephew/stepson, Bullock said that “after work” they’d fish for that trout. The notion of going off to “work” and a “working day,” strike me, like severance pay, as conventions of the twentieth century, and out of place in Deadwood. Don’t even get me started on Alma’s red dress in the last episode. My husband and I debated this. My position is that a so-recently-widowed woman like Alma (raised with at least some notions of propriety) would no more have worn a red dress than she would have pranced around town in her pantalettes. Hubby says that it may have been deliberate-- that Alma was sending a message to Bullock’s wife . . . that she was the “scarlet woman” in Seth’s life. But I’m leaning more toward the producers wanting to dress Alma in colors simply for aesthetic reasons, especially given the blue dress she wore in this episode. In the 1870s, no widow would be wearing colors yet-- perhaps a dark grey or similar “half-mourning”, but it’s still a little soon, even for that. Okay, okay, maybe ettiquette would have been a little relaxed, as hubby says, but I say she would have been even stricter in her adherence, expecially given her relationship with Bullock, to try to keep her reputation intact. After all, Victorian women believed that being proper was protection from sexual advances, and surrounded by as many rough men as she is, I say Alma’s instinct would have been to be as nun-like as possible, even given Bullock’s protection. Hey, I _told_ you not to get me started! ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/38 "2005-03-22T06:11:08Z")
Perhaps Alma didn’t pack enough mourning clothes. Miss Isringhausen always seemed to be in black. There aren’t a lot of non-prostitute adult women in town to compare styles with. It’s got to be fairly pricey to get women’s clothes sent out to Deadwood. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/39 "2005-03-22T07:43:44Z")
Having watched the episode again, I think it’s possible that there was a big misunderstanding between Seth and Sophia’s teacher. When Seth said that he wanted to talk to Alma about the little girl, I think Seth meant that he just wanted to introduce her to his boy, but the teacher thought that Seth was suggesting that he wanted to talk to Alma about abandoning the child, or taking the child away with them. At least, that seems to be a possibility. And it’s also clear what Maddie is up to - she deliberately held back Mr. W’s favorite whore, hoping to goad him into severely beating or killing one of her prostitutes. Then she is going to use that to either blackmail Mr. W into giving her a whole bunch of Hearst’s money, or blackmailing Hearst directly - it would not look good for such a man to have his agent beating women to death. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511/40 "2005-03-22T18:55:22Z")
> [@BobT](#): > > Perhaps Alma didn’t pack enough mourning clothes. Miss Isringhausen always seemed to be in black. There aren’t a lot of non-prostitute adult women in town to compare styles with. It’s got to be fairly pricey to get women’s clothes sent out to Deadwood. Poor women often dyed their clothes black in these situations, which would not have been all that difficult in Deadwood. She could have sent her dresses to the Chinese laundry to have it done. This practice was very common during the Civil War in the South-- black cloth dor mourning dresses couldn’t get through the blockade, so some women would throw all of their colorful dresses into a big pot and boil them in black dye. By the time she came out of mourning, they probably would have been out of fashion, anyway. A woman was supposed to wear black for around two years, then was allowed to wear grey and dull colors. _Harper’s Bazar_ for [1887](http://www.victoriana.com/library/harpers/funeral.html) says 18 months. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deadwood-3-20/295511.md?page=3)