Rekilt

ETA: oops just realized Nidratime already posted it. Carry on.

I've just thought of a great new "reality" tv show. Kind of a cross between Survivor and The Amazing Race, Where random people are "transported" back in time and try to survive in that time period and try to get back to their time following clues. If they suck they get "killed" aka eliminated from the game. I think the first few people would have no idea what was going on and get eliminated when dumped in the middle of a battle like Claire and they don't react fast enough. Others would get farther along but probably eliminated as witches because they say too much, etc.

Fire bunny, I knew I should have paid more attention in Spanish class. Favorite part: this is going to be as disastrous as Washington sinking in the Delaware with all those shoes. At least we now know THAT's not Claire's fault.

Since there are a ton of stories about people traveling through the stones, MAYBE one of them screwed everything up and the universe sent Claire to right all their wrongs thus making Claire the saver of all history from 1740 something forward. And to thank her for all she did for the planet, the universe gave her (us) Hot Jamie to commiserate (consummate) with. ETA: stupid autocorrect.

Well then, pedicures and feet scaping will have to be a part of our by laws. Second breakfast is a given.

Tall, skinny, good looking hobbits right?!! With flowing hair and cute shoes? Then yes we can be middlelanders.

We need a name to describe those of us in the middle. Those who love the books, accepting there's going to be changes, have faith that the production team will do a great job but still want to express concern for the direction things are going (not for ourselves but because we want non readers of the books to love these characters as much as we do). We aren't Poutlanders (those who are upset over every change) and we aren't Newlanders (non book readers who love the show). So what are we?

"James Alexander Malcolm Mackenzie Fraser." -- Jamie "Sigh" --me

ITA completely Peacefrog. Although they sort of tried to established that in the beginning, she never had a home, never stayed in one place, couldn't even have a vase, only saw her husband a handful of times, always walking and exploring places by herself when Frank was ensconced somewhere with other people doing research, the proceeding episodes haven't carried that aspect on. It's not until she goes through the stones that she finally belongs to a steady group of people and gets respect for her healing powers. I think the first scene where she's saving the soldier's leg in 1940's then gets pushed aside by the doctor is very telling. After 5 years of being in the trenches she's pushed aside. But only after a few weeks with the Mckenzie's she's a valuable healer.I know it's hard to get all the nuances into a 1 hour show and not be boring but I hope they figure out how to convey why she's going to make the choices she does and why we as adoring fans have accepted those choices for 2 decades. That includes making Jamie more Jamie like and not just a side character, which is how he seems to me right now.

He was ecstatic and giddy with joy. His greatest artistic achievement that got away and has alluded him and all his men just appeared in his window. AND his favorite piece of art just announced he's married to his new favorite person to beat and torture. Alls good in Black Jack World. I thought his reaction was perfect and made him more scary than if he was shocked or fearful.

people who experience trauma don't always make sense right after it. Normal reactions include shock, anger, fear, blame etc. some people cry uncontrollably while others can laugh uncontrollably and appear to go insane. Some withdraw and others lash out. Maybe it was the physical assault (she wasn't raped but still assaulted) or the actual taking of a life (which I think was worse to her) or probably a combination of both, she was traumatized. And Whether it's accurate or not, Jamie promised to protect her and at that moment Claire, shocked, hurt, angry felt let down by him. It's normal. Usually with enough time and support the traumatized person comes to their senses and sees how things are more clearly. But it had only been moments/hours afterwards and she was in the lashing out stage.

Claire wasn't raped. Failed attempt. She needed him to be very close to the actual act so she had a better chance at killing him. Distraction and all. If she had attempted anything too soon he would have overcome her and the other guy would have shot Jamie. But she wasn't actually raped. Anger is a normal reaction in the aftermath of a traumatic experience. Usually the anger is turned on the one we love the most, feel the safest with because on a subconscious level we know they will forgive us of our anger/actions. In this case that would be Jamie. Plus, she felt Jamie let her down/failed her. Also a normal response in a traumatic situation. If they had more time they probably would have talked through it but they didn't have that time.

SandyToes, ITA about Claire. Plus, she's a nurse, who saves lives, not take them. And add to that she did it with thought and purpose. Yes, she had too but that would still wreak emotional havoc with anyone. I also agree with those who say the constant threat of rape was a part of that time. That's why women were not allowed outside their homes/farms/territory without escorts. We romanticise the olden days and forget the realities. Women ( and children) were just things. If they were precious things then they were cared for and protected. If they were not cared for and protected then in turn they were not precious and would be used any way a man wanted to. It still happens in many countries today. It still happens in our enlightened counties too. As far as the thought that this country was religious (catholic) they still stole each other's sheep and livestock, raided each other's villages, had hand fasting, celebrated pagan festivals, etc etc. all which are against the bible. And don't get me started on the inquisitions (in other countries by the same religious group). Religious standards applied when someone wanted them too and didn't apply when it didn't suit that person. The scene with the Deserters was more about disloyalty and being untrustworthy once someone betrays their vows than about it being all Red Coats are scum. And of course the overall Image of the Red Coats in this series (so far) is going to be negative. This story is told from the POV of Claire during the unpopular occupation of Scottland by the Red Coats. I'm sure if the POV was Black Jack's then the Red Coats would all be loyal saviors with beaming lights coming out of their heads and all Scots would be played by dirty mongrel dogs deserving of brutal beatings into submission. Of course that would be a different story.

After watching this episode all I can say is, that if I hadn't read the books I would be Team Frank. And that's really really awful in my book.

FORGET THE RING! If someone wants to make money they need to make a purse version of Claire's luggage.

Spoke with a friend who started watching the show, never read any of the books and she says the same thing as many people here regarding Jamie. He's hot and all but there's no way she would consider choosing him over Frank and her time. She pointed out, it's her time, Frank is a loving supportive husband, they have great sex why would anyone in their right mind choose the loss of modern conveniences, a great husband with great sex for someone you've only known a month or so. I tried to explain that in the book, Frank isn't as loving and more cold fish and they've actually been physically together about the same amount of time, due to the war as her and Jamie were. But she responded that's not how it appears on the show. That actually made me a little irritated. I hope they do a better job at showing how awesome Jamie is to non book readers soon. ETA: I edited out my super non specific sentence that might be considered a spoiler.

The previews to me looks like Frank told the police, after reporting Claire's disappearance, that a Scotsman (Jamie's ghost) was staring at Claire and the police have decided Claire must have run off with the Mysterious man. Then a woman approaches Frank tells him she has answers and to meet her in some dark alley (which isn't suspicious at all) and when Frank goes to meet her, he is attacked. He probably fights back and does something very brutal to show that he is related to Black Jack and could easily become a bad person but due to choices and possibly having a good woman like Claire in his life, he stays being an upstanding person. Thus showing that it's our choices that makes us good or bad. That Frank loves and needs Claire in his life. And keeps us the viewers invested in the Frank and Claire relationship. Either that or I have an over active imagination.

I didn't forget the ring...grumble grumble.;-)

YES Season 2. I should have clarified that. I was just pointing out that Sam's comment about returning to filming (he didn't specify the season) in January was followed by misunderstood quotes that the show was returning in January. Yes they're in post production which will include pick up filming so although Season 1 is already in the can the actors can't rest on their laurels because they may be called back to film additional scenes or reshoot others. then back to full shooting schedule in Jan. The writers are probably scrambling to get Season 2 scripts written so production can prep.

all the shows are doing that now. The first one that upset me was Falling Skies. There's only 8-10 episodes then almost a 10 month hiatus. I had completely forgotten about the show by the start of the second season. Only realized it because it was in my auto record list one day.

I think the confusion was because Sam tweeted or something that they were back to filming in January. Right after that I saw a ton of people commenting everywhere that the season was returning in January. I just shook my head and thought there were going to be some irate people in a few months. Lol

I don't see that. The only thing above my reply box is "reply to this topic". No other option. Even in the full editor. I'm on an iPad.

I don't know how to do "spoiler" tags. There's no option in my full editor. Can someone please assist me? Thank you! This is a quote from HERSELF regarding the ring change not going to affect the jealousy/ L person situation and the Honesty Speech (one of my favs) that got left out. I don't think I need a spoiler tag but if I do can one of the mods fix it for me? Thank you! ---------- Dear Deb (Elle, Laurie, Karen, et al <g>)--- In a word--rhythm, focus and pacing, in a visual medium. Jamie _did_ tell Claire--after she's been glugging wine--that she needn't be afraid of him. That's obviously what he thinks is causing her anxiety, and what would be most important to _him_. In the book, I was in Claire's head, so it's _her_ response that we're focused on, and she really wasn't afraid of him--but she _was_ thinking about Frank. I had room for Jamie's initial reassurance about not being afraid of him--but then we went on to him addressing what was bugging her. To do the same thing in the visual medium would both have taken another minute or two, disturbed the pacing of the conversation--and even seconds count in such a compressed medium--and it would have changed the focus. The scriptwriter (and show-runner) wanted the focus to lie strongly between Jamie and Claire, with escalating sexual tension through the episode. Yes, Frank's important in Claire's mind, but to bring him explicitly between them (by Jamie's taking note of it) would have diffused that tension somewhat. I thought they handled it very gracefully by bracketing the episode with Frank (marriage flashback, and rolling ring), and otherwise just leaving it unspoken, with Claire's reservations on her face. Some of you may not have liked the flashbacks, simply because you weren't expecting the story to be told that way (I told you; if you watch the show with the book in one hand, you're not gonna enjoy either one...)--but structurally, they were _very_ effective. Not only did they give us the backstory of Jamie's very thoughtful and thorough wedding preparations (showing us Claire drinking all day, in interspersed shots, would both have wasted time and, perhaps, put her in a bad light, even though she had reason), they give us the relief of intermittent comedy--all three are hilarious--and thus we don't find the wedding-room claustrophobic; instead, it seems like a cozy refuge that we re-enter with Jamie and Claire. (And for those viewers who actually might be _bored_ with an uninterrupted twenty-minute stretch of sexual escalations <g>...it keeps them watching.) Speaking from a craft point of view, I was very impressed with how Anne handled this. As for bits like the "honesty" line--you will in fact see that, but somewhere else. There's one other wedding-night line that I recall, that turns up in another (but effective) context, too. And Laoghaire, jealousy, and "I mean to make you call me Master," will be handled very satisfactorily <g>--but again, not in the exact sequence or arrangement you expect from the books. All I'll say beyond that is that it Just Gets Better from here on out. --Diana www.dianagabaldon.com

This article is verra verra appropriate for our ring convo. It does include some big spoilers regarding the ring in future episodes so be forewarned! Those who like the change from the book will like this article. Those who do not like the change should seriously consider whether it's worth the angst to read it. It also list reasons why the production chose to change the ring from the book (or at least it made it appear the answers were from the production team) near the end. http://thats-normal.com/2014/09/outlander-merch-one-ring-rue/

It's moments like this that makes me wish we had a zoom in button on the tv remote. Purely for research purposes of course.