Hi, I wanted to comment on a few things that previous posters have said. First of all, I need to establish that I've read the book so I do know what is happening and what is going to happen. But no worries, I won't put any spoilers in here!
Several people have been puzzled by Claire coming up with the rather dubious tale of travelling to France from Oxford via Inverness.
Actually that part of her story ws the most believable where the Scots are concerned. When she said in her voice over after learning which year she ended up in that it was before the American revolution, she also mentioned that England was at war with France.
In other words, just hopping over the channel by boat wouldn't have been all that easy. In fact, it was near impossible for a private citizen, especially a woman, to do. Scotland, however, was allied with France. It was therefore the easiest and safest way for English people to travel to France via Scotland.
Also, her being so precise (and cleary chuffed to bits remembering it) about which George was on the throne , was one of those unintentional mistakes she made to rouse Colum's suspicions. Of course people at the time would only have said 'King George'.
But from her voiceover we knew tha,t on discovering the year being 1743, she was frantically searching her memory about whatever information she could remember for this period. One of those questions was which king. The wy she said it was just like child in history class desperately trying to think of the answer and just doing so the moment the teacher asks the question. I thought it was a delighfully true moment.
Regarding the voiceovers themselves, I can see why some viewers are a bit put off by them. But the entire story is told from Claire's point of view, just as in the books and it makes sense to me that the writers decided to stick to that ruse. Ron Moore himself explained in numerous interviews that they are a way for Claire to talk to someone (i.e., us, the audience) as she can't talk to anyone else.
They are less meant as explanations of the story, but more as a reflexion as to what's going on. However, having said that, I do expect that they will become less frequent (at least at times) as the series progresses.
Now, what is going on between Jamie and his 2 uncles? Well, all I can say is that the series so far keeps very close to the books.
And as a reader you were just as puzzled as the non-book-reading viewer (and Claire) at this point. Again, as it's told solely from her point of view we won't know anything that she doesn't know yet - so be patient and watch!!
Finally let me say that so far I am very impressed with the work here. Episode 1 was good (hats off to the writers for keeping their nerve and taking their time!) but episode 2 was even better. The makers & cast really seem to understand how to build atmosphere and create characters. As one of the commentators above rightly put it: not a lot was happening and yet a lot was happening - just like in the book. And, knowing what I know, you ain't seen nothing yet!!
