Bones Theory

Vintage Bones: The Salt in the Wounds


Hello, hello!


This episode is an interesting one for me. I think the case is an interesting one. Bones does the ‘ripped from the headlines’ type cases less than other crime procedural shows like L&O or CSI (and many other things differently too, which is nice), but I think this is an example of where an issue like this—several girls had gotten pregnant from the same boy and were planning to live together– had occurred.

It is an interesting case for sure. There were some uncomfortable moments, but also some wonderful ones.


Angela and Hodgins fall into bed together again. I think this is also the episode where Angela tells Brennan that sunsets (or sunrises?) are more meaningful when shared with someone you love.

Booth has a heart to heart with the kid who was going to be a father while Brennan watches on. I remember at the time, there were maybe spoilers that Brennan wanted to have a baby with Booth…or maybe this episode aired as a rerun after the Critic in the Cabernet…I can’t remember exactly. But anyway, my dad happened to be watching this episode with me at one point, and right then, right when Brennan was watching, he was like “that’s when she decided she wanted a baby with him.” LOL! It was cute. And I agree that it was definitely a moment where Brennan was very impressed with Booth.  And it’s the moment of B&B:


courtesy of



What do you like or not like about this episode?







19 thoughts on “Vintage Bones: The Salt in the Wounds

  1. I remember loving the scene where Booth figuratively jerked a knot in the boy’s rump and laid down the cold hard facts of fatherhood. It was very well done and that Brennan saw it without having been invited to participate in it was nice, too. He didn’t do it to impress her but because it needed to be done, but she saw it and was impressed anyway.

  2. Fabulous ending scene. Booth tearing up the dead girl’s photo, pointing at it and telling the young boy that she died with her baby—Your Son….very powerful.

  3. I seem to recall wanting to slap Angela in this ep, after the romp, for not realizing what it took her until Pudding to recognize…

  4. The parts with Booth were good but the thing that always antagonizes me about this episode is that Brennan with her multiple degrees and high-powered career would think that it was quite all-right for teen-aged girls to get pregnant, drop out of school and then try to raise a child on $5000(!). ‘In what universe,’ asks Booth and Brennan can’t see any problem. The reality check for the father-to-be was great but how about a reality check for all the pregnant teen-ager’s who were going to spend the rest of their lives struggling to survive? I just wish the episode hadn’t been so blase about their decisions.

    • Agree. It is one thing for a grown woman to decide to have a child and not be married or involved with the father. She’s mature enough to make that type of decision. It’s quite another for a 16 year old girl to decide that’s the way she wants to go with her life. I want to know in what universe the parents just were going to say “okay” to these girls all moving into a house together to raise their babies. When Brennan says that women have come to the sad truism that they cannot count on men she’s wrong on both counts. Those were girls not women and the kid was a boy, not a man. Big difference. Real men, good men, do not shirk responsibilities.

      Love the scene with Booth and the kid (I cannot remember his name) at the diner. He really is a good man. *Don’t you groan at me MJ*

      This pregnancy pact story line was taken from the real life group of girls in Gloucester, MA who actually did have a pact.

      • I won’t groan at you because he really is a good man. I just wish they’d stop beating us over the head with it by putting that line in Every. Freaking. Episode.

      • Especially when Brennan offers to share her $75K book advance with him because ‘he’s been a good man’. I expected Booth sit up and beg and Brennan to throw the check to him to catch. I totally agree; retire that line together with the belt buckle (no aspersions cast on the buckle).

      • I think that line is used for more casual viewers who don’t dissect episodes like we do, new viewers, or people just watch one here and there. It’s annoying for us but is probably helpful to them.

      • BB, this is not directed at you at all but that comment is salt in the wound (heh). Personally, I’m getting more than just a bit tired of that “they do it (or don’t do it) for the casual viewers” excuse. I just spent a long weekend with a fabulous group of “Bones” fans dissecting almost every facet of the show and this topic came up then, too.

        Casual viewers *expect* not to understand everything. If I started watching “Castle” tomorrow, I would expect to have a lot of questions because I have never watched it. To say, “Well, they can’t mention Russ/Parker/Jared/fill in the blank because the casual viewer won’t know who they are” is a major cop out and a disservice to those viewers who AREN’T casual. To format every episode around what some people will understand and what some people won’t is a recipe for disaster.

      • Personally I don’t believe that the showrunners actually believe this excuse themselves. The real reasons are that they don’t have a script that includes a character and it’s too much trouble to write him/her into one, it’s too expensive or too much trouble to hire that actor or that actor (see Stephen Fry) is so busy there isn’t any point. The production of scripts is like a factory (as I’m sure you all know) and once they get on a roll with the season I’m not sure how much time they have to consider side issues like characters we’d all like to see again. Some of the early episodes were really good at incorporating Parker and I don’t really see why they couldn’t do something with that character.

      • I get the busy actor thing, and that makes perfect sense as to having characters actually appear. There’s no excuse, however, for never even mentioning them. A casual word here or there is all it takes to bring a character into the storyline.

        Sorry for getting on my soapbox and hijacking the comments! I’ll just be over here, making “Where is Parker Booth” milk cartons. 🙂

      • In addition to #SaveBooth maybe we should start a hashtag for #BringBackParker. I’m tired of the whole Zach thing but should Parker really be left in England without his dad for this long? (Rhetorical question).

      • Apparently there aren’t even any photos so that Booth might be comforted by seeing his wife and *both* of his children.

        Poor kid.

    • I don’t think she thought it was ok more than she thought it made sense, rationally. She explained it quite well in the end scene at the bar. Unfortunately we live in a world where there is the sad truism that women cannot count on men. Its just Brennan being her usual self, being scared of real relationships and speaking through her abandonment fear.

  5. I like when they highlight Booth’s fatherly side, like with this kid, or Parker, or a child victim…Booth could’ve so easily been a father like his own dad, or at least reckless like Jared…but he made that commitment to be better. And though he falls short a lot (who among us doesn’t?), he at least tries. At least he wants to make a positive impact on the world. Brennan didn’t quite get that early on, and it was nice to see her file that evidence away little by little until she could make sense of it. And yes, here, I think she’s not yet ready for a kid but thinking, “If I ever WERE going to reproduce, Booth could make an excellent contributor”. So the groundwork was laid in her mind for her decision later.

  6. MJ I’m glad you said that about casual viewers not knowing what’s going on so HH&Co pander to them instead of just going ahead with something maybe only long-time viewers are familiar with. When I’ve gotten into other shows mid-way and I wanted to know who so & so was or what happened and why is this person like this I ordered DVD’s or downloaded them. To say you don’t continue with a character or mention a past story line because new or casual viewers won’t know about it is BS.

    Sorry Sarah, but I’m with MJ and it’s also one of my pet peeves.

    You all may now return to your regularly scheduled posting about Salt in the Wound.

  7. Whether it is for the casual viewer or not, it is a reflection of how much Booth needed to hear that positive reinforcement, and how little he viewed himself in the mirror.

    • I don’t think its for the casual viewer. He IS a good man with lots of childhood traumas and insecurities about his worth. Brennan is reinforcing to him that is good, that he is worthy and that people are lucky to have him in their lives. Isn’t it true to real life that we don’t always appreciate ourselves and people who have these sort of issues can’t just get over them that easily?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s