Kim0820

DG wants to have this great love story spanning time, so Jamie can never fall in love with anyone else (Claire doesn't either, after Jamie) so I think that's why he has to be coerced and cajoled. When he was with the madam at the brothel at the beginning of the reunion episode, and he appeared to be a customer, I thought she had that covered - sex was with prostitutes because he couldn't love anyone other than Claire. But apparently not enough to DG as she wrote it that Jamie has only 2 other encounters plus whatever happened with Leoghaire, all of it bad or sad. Someone had an idea that maybe it was best Claire didn't find out about Jamie surviving Culloden until Brianna had grown up. Knowing he was alive during that 20 years would have been very frustrating and it would be scary to try to get a child through the stones. But Frank's motives were for himself I agree. I remember the early 70s and there was more discussion of rape beginning to happen. One of the first considerations (of course) was the effect on the woman's husband! His pain was first, naturally. So it is consistent with the times. DG would remember better, as she's a bit older than I am. 18 marrying a 30 year old would make a rather traditional, male-as-master marriage. It's part of the contrast that Jamie is 5 years younger than Claire, I think. Claire isn't the follower type. With a younger husband also disadvantaged by being born in earlier times, she has a better shot at equality. Kindle says I am 50% through this book before the plot starts moving, where Roger goes through the stones. I was interested to see in the books, Joe Abernathy knows about the time travel. He and Roger have this interesting phone conversation where they dance around it until they both admit it. Very hard to suggest to someone who might think you are crazy. Even Geillis only did it under extreme pressure. I think Geillis suspected Claire early on - but thought Claire might have an anti-Jacobite agenda.

I don't think I said it was "Jemmy's fault" as if he were guilty of something. Only some fun speculating about what could have happened. There's been a lot of discussion about gems but also discussion about having some time period in mind, which a small child can't envision or even understand. So maybe they'd have to wait for him to be old enough to imagine another time, maybe at 6-7 you can do that as you start learning history then. And his parents could tell him about their time at that age, so he can imagine it. I didn't say the show was not smart, but the book/show are based on the concept, and so naturally people will speculate about the imaginary world created. I think it was a brilliant idea of the author, and she has made the most of it. She would not have expected people to not wonder about it. Clearly we are supposed to wonder what has happened with the young MacKenzie family here.

I didn't think of that. Both Claire and Brianna made some efforts to have the right clothing - OK Brianna's was lame - when they went to the past. At Culloden, Claire didn't have much time to think about how her outfit would seem in the future. But Brianna and Roger were planning for weeks, so you'd think they'd show the clothing efforts as was done in the books. But then again, I didn't even notice it until I read your post. And it would be really easy to pass it off as re-enactment or festival costume, in 1974. Very true. Posters went on and on about Claire returning to electricity, plumbing and showers. But Claire had wondered whether they might send her further back. I'd stay safe in the 18th where I had a great husband. I'd hate to run into a battle with Uhtred or something. But the song gave Claire some courage, because the person in the song went back to their own land. Ye ken there was a sign pointing to Craig Na Dun, with the number of miles 5 or 6, I think. Frank passed in his car and then turned around and went up to it. But that was the 1940s. Jemmy being very young and not familiar with the 1970s - it would make sense that he can't imagine the 1970s. An argument for them not going anywhere. Jemmy doesn't know any other time. Even the show could use more discussion about time traveling. They seem to fear the claim of boredom from some of the viewers who have to have constant action. But I would find the discussions interesting. Just makes the characters look to dumb to even think about it. I can do without Jamie offering her to go back. I would not like her at all for considering it, as she's already done that anyway and made that decision. Nothing is different now except for missing her grandchild too, but earlier she was willing to never know anything about her grandchildren and never see Brianna again. The war looming will result in American Independence and Claire knows that and that it would be possible to move to somewhere that did not get a lot of fighting and involvement in it if she's afraid. For that matter, how much of the war was fought in Western NC? Yet in modern times, the USA and USSR both have nuclear weapons and at that time, there was a real fear of a planet destroying war. In school, we had "civil defense drills" where we covered our heads, which would have done nothing to save us in a nuclear bombing.

Yes, the only one who went forward in time was Claire. To a time she had been born in or existed in before. Roger and Brianna could do that. But perhaps you can't travel to where you didn't exist before even if you can hear the stones. Now we also know that a rope is good enough to make you travel together. And fortunately it keeps time travelers with non time travelers together, so that R and B did not go forward when Jemmy could not, even though they could have without him. Which leaves open that maybe Claire could take Ian back by tying a rope around them. Eating the sandwich with the fork and knife was delightful. I looked up the history of sandwiches enough to see that it was about the 1770s that Lord Sandwich started the popularity of them in England. That wouldn't have reached the US yet. Jamie just did what came naturally. Ian picked it up, but that may come of being with the Mohawk, or seeing that the others did it that way. I am really more interested in what happened with Ian than another Claire kidnapping. Strange, but I found Lizzie the most touching of the scenes. Her devotion to Brianna is strong. I did notice Brianna didn't really say goodbye to Jamie individually as with everyone else. Yes, you can think about them and speculate, which is fun. It's the first time it's been tried by more than one person at a time. The baby perhaps cannot travel to the future even though he can hear the stones? The situation for the youngest person in the group prevails? They did disappear, because Ian saw it, so they went somewhere. Somewhere R and B did not expect. They came from Craigh na Dun, so what is in NC in that area in 1974 might be surprising. Or if you go through one portal, you end up where you started, so maybe they are just at Criagh na Dun. Fun to speculate. The way Jemmy was going forward as if to someone he knew supports that they might have gone nowhere and he's waving at Ian, who is just walking away. The safety issue is often discussed, and it is true for medicine. But for accidents, they are more and bigger, trucks, buses, cars, planes and trains all have accidents. There are more types; electrical and so on. But the medical system makes it more likely to survive and survive less maimed, without amputations and better ways to deal with disabilities. The overall situation though might give someone pause. If you left in 1970, you know there is a threat of nuclear war. I might be hesitant to go back with the possibility they could return to an earth laid waste. Though you could just use the stone to go back if you could notice that right away. I remember the early 70s, and we knew the US and the USSR had enough nuclear power to blow up the earth many times over. They do know they are going back to that situation.

Murtaugh wanted to kill Bonnie Prince Charlie right off, and Jamie wasn't having any of that. Then after months of effort, Jamie and Claire were reduced to trying that right before Culloden. Dougal overheard and disrupted that plan. Maybe Jamie could have neutralized Knox with his own misconduct, but prior experience may have hinted that he'd have to kill him someday and things could be much worse by then. Yes, wasn't that Fergus' area of expertise?

I was expecting someone to object to nursing the baby on the grounds of race, if not the nursing mother, then her mother. Yes, if he left Roger to deal with things, then at least respect Roger using his judgment as he sees fit.

I tried reading the books after seeing the Sharpe series, and noticed that one big change from the books was to amplify the stories of the women. It seems the author does not want to write about women, and the book was nothing but battles and men, as Catherine Morland says, "the men all good-for-nothing, and hardly any women at all." Or, they were just passing interests for Sharpe and plot points. So I wonder if that is what happened here too. And yes, of course they conveniently die or go off, so the hero can have a series of beauties. Especially I wonder if Hild, who is just a friend, is a as big in the books as she is here. And the rules seems to be that if a woman enters the convent, the marriage is automatically dissolved, which was very convenient. I thought hilarious Uthred just thought he could marry Gisela, as that would have been bigamous, but that's how they took care of it.

I felt like I was physically there too. In fact, I was dreading going outside in the cold snowy winter, but then realized it is about 80 degrees outside where I am.

Brianna seems to be much better than Claire about living in the 18th century and accepting that it is the 18th century. Warning Claire not to mess too much with the timeline of the universe or doing something to get accused of witchcraft. Claire was clever to put her advice under a man's name, though. Perhaps Claire could have treated the body so that it did not stink: I suppose they do something to them in the morgue so they don't. Alcohol perhaps? Though she did not need the autopsy to know the cause of death. And having been through medical school, she doesn't need to study cadavers to learn about the inner workings of the human body. Jamie seeing Brianna and Jem is probably more than he ever expected to do. Roger could have just practiced. He has Claire examine his eyes because he can't shoot? Doesn't he realize he could practice and get better? Dumb. Not sure why he wants to go back - even he does not complain about the lack of 20th century conveniences. Brianna and Claire were talking about them in an earlier episode, but both really don't seem to mind not having them. If Claire minds, it is only expressed where it hinders her helping someone medically less than she knows she could.

Also how Brianna acted as if they did it on purpose; that they knew they were beating the wrong man. It was mistakes on their part, but reasonable ones given what they knew at the time. So she didn't have to get so angry at them about it.

Yes, I was annoyed extremely at Claire for giving the baby to Jocasta. WTF? That was absurd. Why would Claire do such a despicable thing? And they should have wrapped it up between Jamie and Brianna - the whole season led to the payoff of their meeting. Yes, Roger should have held the baby, too. I had predicted they would include the exiled Mohawk woman and it was a surprise they did not run into her. I don't think they would go look for her but of all the coincidences in the plot, their running into her would have been an expected one. Brianna has a temper and cools off, I guess, she doesn’t recall now she was so mad at Roger she broke up with him on their wedding night because he did not tell her about the obituary. And he didn’t get to explain he was about to when he found out she had already gone to visit her mother. Because she found out about it on her own. So she will cool off against Jamie too. But this is supposed to be because she is like Jamie. Yet I don’t recall Jamie having these types of flares of temper. With him, it is more a big mouth (like getting into the fight with the McDonalds after the duel) or justifiable revenge, like BJR. I guess he got mad at Claire for leaving when he went off to see Horrocks, but they argued it out right after. And that wasn't unreasonable as Brianna's flare ups are shown to be. The Mohawk village is a marvelous set. Must have been expensive. Though the portrayal of the Native Americans is a problem as they are consistently cruel and unreasonable every time they appear. DG/script shows them like another set of redcoats, always wrong and always cruel. It was a change that the set of redcoats that came at the end didn't arrest Jamie for once. I was ready for them to take him off after the twist that they wanted him rather than Murtagh.

I like the comparison to Anne Elliott Wentworth; who followed in the footsteps of her sister-in-law Mrs. Croft. She preferred to sail with her husband rather than stay home on shore waiting. She spent a winter on shore at Deal and that was the only time she ever fancied herself unwell!

I noticed that about the Warleggan loans too. What is the point of borrowing money in any amount when the entire amount can be called in due at any time, with no even to of default? It would only even begin to work if you had that amount of money anyway, in which case, you don't need to borrow it. Sheesh. And the Warleggans would be hated and no one would bank with them.

Francis could at least have spent some time with Blamey and gotten to know him. He could have respected Verity's opinion, that the reform was genuine, at least enough to see Blamey on a few occasions and talk to him. In Persuasion, Mrs. Croft sails the seas with Captain Croft, and likes it very much. When her brother, Captain Wentworth, says that ships are not comfortable for ladies, she scolds him and says they are not so fine all their lives. Mrs. Croft had even been to the West Indies. Capt. Blamey had a steady trade with Portugal, which wouldn't be a transoceanic voyage. I believe he did talk of Verity seeing Portugal.

Of course Roger gets captured again. Anything to drag it out, lol. If you buy a man, why mistreat him - supposedly you bought him because you had some use for them. They even let the other guy die. So far, other than the grandmotherly medical woman and the girl with her, the Native Americans are portrayed in a very negative light. Interesting tease that Roger, enjoying the shower, might have gone back. It seems Brianna loves Roger most when he’s not around. But be together one day and night, and they have a fight and a break-up. This is not a great love story, but I don’t suppose the author meant it to be. If Lizzie made an honest mistake, so did Jamie. It was hardly a mistake even. Lizzie sees a man manhandling her mistress and mistress comes home raped. Jamie had no way to know there were two men involved, either. Brianna’s handling slavery with more aplomb than Claire or even Jamie. At least she is willing to stay there at the house. The "motherhood is all" stuff is very 20th/21st century. Up until the 90s, mothers did not protest so much about how the children are the most important thing in the universe and come before everything else - My mother was of the last stay at home generation, and and neither she nor other mothers talked like this about the holiness of motherhood. (In fact, my mother complained quite a bit, lol). There was no reason Claire couldn’t tell Jamie that Brianna had spent the night with Roger too. They had the handfasting excuse, if Jamie’s 18th century mind can’t wrap around premarital sex for a daughter. But he's already shown that he can get some 20th century concepts about women, and didn't complain that Brianna wasn't married yet as for example, Murtagh expects she must be, as she would in the 18th century at her age, and understood enough to tell him that women could do a lot more in Claire/Brianna's time. In 1970, the sexual revolution/pill was pretty new and Roe v. Wade was 3 years away and women were still drinking and smoking while pregnant. Handfasting It does seem to have been gone by the 18th century though. DG and show seem to be pretending it still exists yet changing its terms for convenience. With Marsali and Fergus, it was not in effect until consummation; for Brianna and Roger, it has no effect at all apparently.

So a time can just be on your mind and you will go there if you accidentally went through the stones, not intending to, as Claire did. It's very convenient that there is a time travel portal near wherever Claire goes. Maybe she is drawn to them. Maybe there are quite common on earth. LOL.

Claire just didn't tell Jamie enough. Though I guess she too thought Roger had gone back through the stones. But it was possible that he didn't. Big assumption on their part too. I was thinking when Roger escaped - oh you just know it's not going to hold and he'll be caught again. I think Lizzie's conclusions made perfect sense; how was she to know? Brianna didn't tell her a thing about Roger. I thought as soon as you slept together you were married; that was a big issue in Fergus' case. Claire went back because Brianna was an adult now. Frank's death at the same approximate time was another Lucky Coincidence. Claire wouldn't have been thinking of any particular time her first time. Though you could want that Geillis had just gone there and that made the stones pick it when the traveler wasn't thinking of a year. And that the stones are not exact, explaining the different years Geillis and Claire went back in. Both 1740s but not the same year. As you go back each generation, the degree of relation is cut in half, you are half a parent, a quarter of each grandparent, an eighth of each great grandparent. So when you go back that far, even in a direct line, the more remote ancestors are barely related to you. You're more closely related to your present third cousins than to you 8 times great grandfather. And today there are US states that still allow even first cousins to marry.

It seems we only find out how much Claire told Brianna about her 18th century previous adventures when it suits the plot. It is odd that she would have related the happenings at Wentworth. If she did that, she must have told just about everything. Her assault by the French King, the guy she killed, killing Dougal, the witch trial. And while at the Ridge during those weeks would she have told all about Jamaica and the hurricane. And does Brianna know about Faith? And Lord John and William? Geillis' fate? Frank is 20th century too, so the comparison isn't exactly apt. You can go to the police then. And definitely your men would be arrested for attacking the rapist. Though I think in 1970 it would likely get ignored by police and they not believe her; it was still bad that way as far back as 1970. Jamie had a bit of 20th century sensibility that he may have gotten from Claire. Claire was pretty negligent in telling Jamie that Brianna was raped, without the stories of the two men involved, and also without giving Jamie extra instruction on how 20th century Brianna will view things. Jamie had no reason to know it was that complicated. Lizzie identified Roger, so Jamie could not see any reason to try to identify him. He'd been identified from Jamie's point of view. I could see her being furious at first, but both she and Claire withheld information, starting with Bree not telling Lizzie enough and then both not telling Jamie enough. Brianna thinks Jamie and Ian have bad judgment? Their judgment was based on the information they had, which Brianna and Claire know full well was incomplete by their own choice. How were they to know? Kind of reminds me of Lizzie Bennett being judgmental of her mother for not liking Mr. Darcy, because he had saved Lydia, when Mrs. Bennett didn't know he saved Lydia. I'm on team Lizzy/Jamie/Ian. They had no way of knowing any differently. Lizzie's conclusions were perfectly reasonable with the knowledge she had. Jamie and Ian had no reason to think it could be more complicated. They keep saying Brianna is pregnant and unmarried. But when Fergus and Marsali were hand fasted, the rule was that if the slept together they were married. So aren't they married now? Or have the rules been changed to fit the plot, lol.

1970 was 50 years ago. The "level" thing about relationships didn't exist yet. It was vey early in the sexual revolution. Not everyone let go of the old constraints at once. The pill was just recently invented and still controversial. Immigrants' children always sound American. They are living in the U.S. and spend a lot of time with their peers. They might know some of their parents' language. But they will take on the American accent. They are surrounded by it, their ear is still not hardened (the reason older people keep their accent or have a harder time learning a new language). He found out he was sterile while Claire was in the 1700s - he thought his fertility was a moot point at that time. So the first time he could tell her would be 1948 when she came back pregnant.

IMO the author wanted to make Jamie not look like a jerk. It is easier to accept Jamie leaving his wife if the wife is a total jerk, the marriage is unhappy and they are separated, the children aren't his, and it's Leery, who we already hate. We are on board for his leaving her due to that. Reminds me of Poldark, where Drake was going to marry Rosina, he was up front with her that he'd always love Morwenna, and when Morwenna's husband suddenly died right before Drake and Rosina's wedding, Rosina was all for his going to her and gave up on him right there. Thus the author propped Drake and kept him from looking like a jerk. Not as well, though, as I at least do feel bad for Rosina. Here, nobody feels bad for Leery. So using her as the spouse props Jamie up and leaves him looking still OK and the good guy though he leaves her.

It's clear that Claire loves Jamie more than plumbing, modern medicine, etc. She grew up living rough with her uncle. She was already able to adapt to anything 18th century. Without licensing boards or threat of malpractice, she could indulge her passion for herbs and healing. Above all, she absolutely loves helping. She is always ready to help. She was shown even getting Uncle Lamb's pipe ready for him by taking the first smoke! He had her helping him all along and that is how she is conditioned. Her first instinct is always to help. She can help the 18th century people more. Even if the 18th century person attacks her, she wants to tend to their injuries. Of course she had to go on the plague ship no matter what Jamie wanted. There are a zillion examples. I think she prefers excitement that the 20th doesn't have but the 18th does, too. Never complains, she is always ready to handle the problem. I enjoyed that twice she used her Englishness to get Jamie and Co. out of scrapes. (With teen Lord John and at the church where she pretended to be a hostage). So it doesn't seem like it was a problem to Claire at all, and we are talking about the love of her life. She knew it was a risk he'd have someone else, but may not have thought it was a big one, as she knows its a great all consuming love and the chances are that since she has not gotten over it, he hasn't either. Jamie thought she could just go back to Frank, never thinking Frank might have had someone else in the meantime, either. So this shows Jamie believes a man doesn't ever get over it, and definitely never gets over Claire. It does not bother Claire, though. She hasn't shown any regret about the things that happen. Though in the 20th you also have serial killers, kidnappings, mercy killings (even legal in some areas), deadly diseases and all those other things still exist. The real improvement is technology and the legal system, but not the existence of those evils. Yes, if Jamie is not "all that" to any of us, he is to Claire.

TPTB know we want to see Jamie meet his daughter; they are dragging it out most shamelessly. If not for the Murtaugh reveal, they would deserve to be be flogged. I can buy the Grand Coincidence that of all the gin bars - Murtagh is right there. But at least a big point was made of Scots tending to settle there. Claire is going to be alone in the cabin. Of course she will be in danger. Of course she will be attacked. At least it turned out that Mueller did not attack her physically. Could Mueller have been the one to bring measles to his family when he was immune? He'd already had it. Unfortunate that they had to kill off Baby Klara just to make this point violently. It was so sweet that they named her after Claire. All during a plot it was hard to care about when I want to see Brianna come back in time. Once again, the British are being stupid - if they overtax people to the point they don't want to work the land, they'll get nothing. It was believable that there aren't enough settlers there, though. That was when mass immigration was wanted and needed. So it made sense the men had better opportunities like a job in the town.

When Claire went to the stones just before the Battle of Culloden, she asked him to go with her. He said he didn't belong there. I think he could not run from Culloden like that, in his mind. Then there is the idea he is one who cannot travel, since he didn't hear the buzzing and touched the stone without effect, so as to have it so that Claire has to go back and stay back to be with him. The author doesn't want a quiet life for them, obviously loving to write all the wild adventures that are more believable/possible in the 18th century. Then even so, she could change it later if she thinks of a good wild adventure to take place in the future. I had the idea maybe Jamie suffers some ill that Claire cannot fix in the 18th but knows she can in the 20th. Jamie freaked out enough about the injection that more than that could be funny. And having to keep Jamie from getting into fights. And make him 20th century clothes and cut his hair to 20th century style. It would have to be comic is my guess. Yes, I can only surmise the English speaker wasn't with them the first two times? And I missed why they did their first two visits. What did they want? Were they just warning the settlers of the bear-man? I had a feeling they were not really hostile because of the way they went away without harming anyone or anything both times. And JQM maybe didn't know about the English speaker, so maybe it was a recent arrival, someone who had been away and then returned.

I expected the transition for Ian from going back to Scotland versus staying in America to be a lot harder and involve attacks and kidnapping. Glad it was that simple. How utterly convenient to wash up after a hurricane relatively near to where you have a relative living. And how convenient that the 1970 festival was in NC right where Jamie and Claire were. At the very beginning of the season, it is clear there is a Native American Craig na Dune conveniently located, I will guess, in NC near Fraser's ridge. I liked the tug-of-war going on at the festival. That is very 1970. Claire going off when Jamie objected saying the mule would come back on its own - then he does but she does not - seriously? Again? Claire will never learn to defer to Jamie's 18th century experience and will keep disappearing, the last thing she should want to do to Jamie. She doesn't learn from her own experiences.

I looked it up about freeing a slave and it seems it was anachronistic in that the restrictions did not come about until the 19th century. At this time, owners could free slaves at will. Reminiscent of the musical, 1776, where Jefferson said he was going to free his slaves, and Rutledge said that would ruin Jefferson's personal economy. The area may have been very loyalist, since most of them seem very pro-British and not still angry about the Stamp Act that just passed, but that might have been true for the South - it was harder to get them on board for the Revolution. I did think Claire should take off Frank's ring at least. It's one thing to wear both but with Jamie's missing, and she doesn't have Brianna around (maybe a reason to wear it, but better just give it to Brianna). It seems ridiculous to wear it with Jamie's gone and she's actually with Jamie.