Zella

According to The Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/outlander-renewed-seasons-3-4-898709

Sometimes, I wished I could hear what the showrunners really think, off the record, because I don't necessarily think their standard answers indicate what's really going on or their own opinions.

I don't know what the reasoning is, but I have noticed this on other premium cable shows. Granted, the other shows I've seen this with were on HBO, but I noticed the amount of nudity and sex scenes diminished quite a bit between season 1 and 2 for both Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire. (Not to say there still wasn't quite a bit, but I did think it took later in the seasons to appear and the overall number of instances was reduced.) In fact, it was a running joke between me and my friends who watched the shows. I noticed the same thing with Outlander. I don't know if it is backlash from the actors or if the shows just like to flaunt their premium cable status in the first season or what the deal is, though I lean toward the "we snagged audiences in season 1, so we can dial back now."

That actually does sound less frustrating to me!

That made me laugh so hard! :) I can appreciate them not having a big bad antagonist and also the fact that they sometimes do prevail, but I still find it frustrating how often the reasoning for their actions is "So-and-so made me." That's what irritates me the most, I guess. I like a lot of characters in other shows who are significantly worse people than Jamie and Claire, and I think a common theme with those characters is that they own their actions more. Even if they're cornered, more often than not, they find a way to go on the offense, so to speak. Jamie and Claire, at least for me, spend way too much playing defense, though they certainly do have their moments (like Claire breaking Jamie out of Wentworth). Like I said, I completely understand that my own personal tastes inform this opinion and that it probably isn't an issue for most people, but it's been a problem for me since I read the first book, and I felt like the trend continued through at least Voyager. (I'm not really familiar with the story past that point. I would actually be pleased to know if that stopped being a recurring plot issue in the later books.)

I think you make an excellent point, but I also think you probably gave this more thought than Gabaldon did. She seems to continually use other people forcing her characters into doing things as a catalyst for her plots, and it's a tendency that I often find boring. (Honestly, it's a big reason why, though I like the series, I don't love it.) To me, the entire series of Outlander is one instance after another of Jamie and Claire being confronted with something they don't want to do but instead of being able to successfully outwit whoever is pressuring them, they just succumb and then deal with the emotional fallout. (I completely understand why a lot of people enjoy how the books and show explore that, but I prefer protagonists who are more active authors of their own fates.) I feel like Jamie's name being publicized as a Bonnie Prince Charles supporter against his will, which is his reason for having to fight at Culloden, is just another example of this.

Thanks so much for mentioning Go Fug Yourself! Never heard of the website before, but I just checked it out and it's really cool. I'm definitely going to keep reading their recaps, as well as their other articles. I already follow Frock Flicks, but I don't actually comment on it much. I love reading their commentary in general because I learn so much from them, but I don't know enough about clothing to make intelligent comments beyond "That was pretty" or "Oh I didn't like that."

For sure crazies exist in all fandoms! I think the book comments got deleted regularly but I remember seeing them. The nasty comments between commenters were specific to this particular episode's post and all things considered weren't the worst I've seen between people about this episode--people were much more hateful with me on another website--but it actually got much worse on twitter. Someone in another comment mentioned it escalated on twitter, so naturally I had to investigate. :)

I participate some in the Tom and Lorenzo comment sections. I think it was a longstanding issue of them requesting book readers not discuss the books in the tv recap comments and being ignored and preached at about it in every single post, as well as emotions running really high in that particular comment section. Some of the comments got pretty nasty, not necessarily toward Tom and Lorenzo, but between commenters on the review, and that's what spilled over onto Twitter with someone trying to misrepresent what happened in the comments. I think said person was even trying to drag official Outlander Twitter accounts into it by tweeting to them how awful Tom and Lorenzo were being, though i thought they were handling the whole thing rather professionally. If it were just over one post, I'd say they were being petty, but I think this has been an issue that's festering for them for quite some time. It's a shame, though. I've loved reading their thoughtful, insightful reviews ever since I stumbled across their site a couple of years ago during a Mad Men binge.

I can certainly see why they may see the idea of Frank in the future as more of an abstract concept and also that Claire is just agreeing for Jamie's sake, but I think it stands out to me for two reasons--one being that it just never even comes up as a "Hey, what if this idea isn't feasible?". I kind of tend to go overboard with planning things--it's just the way I am--so it's hard for me to fathom a decision-making process that doesn't even try to consider alternative points of view and also backup plans if something doesn't work out. I can't imagine dealing with something like time travel and not trying to consider variables! And the other reason it stands out to me is I see it as a pattern of them being dismissive of other people in the grand scheme of their plots and plans. I don't think Jamie and Claire are bad people, but I am really bothered by their approach to making decisions, and the issue with Frank in the future is just a very overt example of what they do that supremely irritates me. And both of those reasons are why I usually don't feel bad for them when things blow up in their faces. I'm pretty sure that's not the audience reaction the showrunners are hoping for--and I say this as someone who usually is a fan of television characters who do a lot worse things than Claire and Jamie--but it's been a recurring issue for me from the first season, and I feel like it's even more of a problem for this second season.

I like Frank too, both book and show Frank. I think it bothers me because it just seems so entitled--"Hey, you know who will help us out? Frank! Never mind his thoughts on raising another man's child or what he's doing with his life! Just as long as Claire gets what she wants, everybody else's lives and feelings be damned" I exaggerate a bit, but one thing that bothers me about Claire and Jamie is they often strike me as having extreme tunnel vision when it comes to decisions. I have a hard time sympathizing when their plans blow up in their faces for that reason.

I've thought this too (and consider it extremely presumptuous)--and so far you're the only person I've come across who has mentioned this potential problem in relation to their plan.

Honestly, that was one of the only reasons I could watch the last 2 episodes of season 1, which I only got around to in the past few weeks. It was easier for me to watch those horrific scenes knowing that not only are Sam and Tobias still on speaking terms after filming but also that they actually seem to get along really well.

To be a British nurse in the 1930s and 1940s, she would have done 3 years of training in a hospital plus 1 year of hospital work. I can't find what the requirements were for being accepted by a hospital to do training, though it wouldn't surprise me if applicants had to meet some form of educational requirement. (I got really obsessed with early 20th century British nursing after watching Call the Midwife and did a bunch of research on it several months ago.) That's something I found incredibly confusing about Claire's background (both book and show). It always seemed like she became a nurse specifically because of the war, but she still would had needed her 4 years of training before she could even think about joining up because the British military, from what I can tell, recruited already trained nurses for their medical corps. (So, if Britain's entry into WWII in September 1939 prompted her decision, she'd be signing up for the military at the very earliest in autumn 1943). There was also frequently an age requirement (they wanted mature women, not girls). For WWI, it was 23. I don't know whether or not it was changed for WWII. She could have been a VAD--which didn't require previous nursing training--but she would not have been considered a real nurse. I agree with Rulerofallsurvey that she also likely had more traditional schooling than her backstory seems to suggest. Even if she were accompanying her uncle on digs, it's unlikely he would have been doing that year-round. She may not have been enrolled in a school, but she'd still have been at whatever his home base was in England for several months out of the year.

I live in NWA. Right now, the forecast has most days with highs in the 40s and 50s. For the most part, the lows have been in the 40s and 50s, though we had one freeze a couple of weeks ago and it's supposed to be in the 20s Sunday morning. Honestly I don't pay much attention to weather, but I've lived in the area for years, and the weather right now seems pretty standard for November. I've been wearing light jackets most days and have been fine. I don't know anything about dressing babies, but I haven't seen anyone else around here sporting winter hats yet.

Is there any way someone could post a link of this? The description made me laugh so hard, and I'm sure the picture is priceless. I searched her Instagram page and their blog for it and didn't see anything. Did I just miss it or is it on another one of their countless social media accounts? Edit: Micks Picks was kind enough to point it out to me.

Bahaha So true! I think McPherson would be an improvement, though, since it provides a normalish nickname--Mac. I'm pretty sure the highlight of my day today was informing my fairly religious grandparents of this news. My grandmother likes Charles Spurgeon, but her response? "Jesus Christ!"

I want twins--Rahab and Jessabel.

Aimee Semple for a girl? ;)

If they wanted to celebrate Charles Spurgeon, why couldn't they have just used the name Charles Spurgeon? I would love to know what the rest of the family thinks of this name.

I can't get the video to work, but I was unfortunately eating dessert when you guys started posting the name. Ben and Jessa's terrible baby naming nearly caused me to choke to death on a piece of pie. If they were dead set on Spurgeon, why couldn't they have made it a middle name? That poor innocent baby. I don't even think Dickens would have saddled a character with the name spurgeon seewald. :(

I'm still able to access it. I don't have an Instagram account, so I don't think she has changed anything. Google "Jessica Seewald instagram" and the photo is still there. https://instagram.com/p/9uVB1NGKrj/?taken-by=jessicaseewald Ben's sister.

He's definitely looking for cues! I laughed so hard at the way he nodded his head after he noted, "Your due date was on our anniversary." It's like he's so proud of himself for remembering that one. One thing that never fails to baffle me about the Duggars and their retainers is how tone deaf they continue to be when they post videos. That birthday video is awful--it reminds me of the first going away video for Jill and Derick, which was also super awkward and bizarre--but they still post it. I don't understand how anyone, especially people who were on television for years, could look at that and not realize "Hmm this should not see the light of day."

Eww. On another note: It cracks me up that Jill makes sure you can see her wedding ring while they swap spit.

Their hypocrisy and complete lack of self-awareness are psychologically fascinating. I was living in Fayetteville when Michelle did the robocalls about how transgender people shouldn't be allowed in bathrooms because they might molest children--I didn't get one because yay for not having a landline, but I talked to people who did get them. One of the first things I thought of when the molestation scandal broke was "Did it honestly never occur to these people NOT to call other people child molesters when you are sitting on top of a decades old child molestation scandal involving your own children."