Kim0820
-
Posts
930 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Kim0820
-
-
On 9/10/2014 at 8:12 AM, peacefrog said:
I did not like book 5 the first time I read it but after reading again I would rank it as 2nd best after book 6. You have to get past the first part of it. Now I love that part!
Voyager is like 2 different books in one. First reading I was sure Claire or Jamie were going to go back through the stones to warn Brianna at the end(this was before I realized Jamie could not time travel).
I hope DG lets him at some point - Claire asked him to go with her at the end of book 2 and making it that he couldn't made that consistent, but it would be easy to change. He couldn't leave his friends, walk away from Culloden like that. His 18th century sense of honor could not allow that.
A plot where he had to deal with being in the 20th century for a while just could be interesting.
On 9/20/2014 at 7:36 AM, ElsieH said:Maybe this should be in the book 1 thread, but since book 3 starts out in the 60's when Geillis went through the stones, I guess it can go here too. Has anyone wondered why it is that Geillis went farther back in time than Claire did? She seemed to have been there a while when Claire showed up, but she actually went through the stones 20 something years after Claire did.
Geillis had some control - she had studied it. She knew when she wanted to go back to. Claire just accidentally went and coincidentally went back to a similar time period - maybe that time period had been warmed up in the stones by Geillis doing it on purpose. I also could buy that the stones are not exact and so while they throw people back to the 1700s, don't always get the year exact.
Geillis was doing some complex spell to get to 1948 intentionally, since if she just went back, like Claire, the number of years could have passed and she end up in the 1980s since she'd spent about 20 years in the 18th century. Though I guess she could attack Brianna then, too.
On 4/11/2015 at 6:37 PM, nodorothyparker said:I've always found the setup for Jamie and Geneva ridiculous to the point that I can't bring myself to care about the blackmail or dubious consent issues that go into the making of it. Look, I get it. Gabaldon apparently can't write an epic love story without demonizing every single person who comes near either of our heroes (see Frank and Laoghaire) and so she couldn't just write Geneva as a lonely girl trying to make the best of entering into an unwanted arranged marriage on her own terms. Jamie's not allowed to just want one night of warmth with another person to not feel so damn alone in all those years. No, it has to be a ridiculous blackmail scheme so Jamie can later claim with a straight face that he spent most of those 20 years honorably pining away for a wife that as far as he knew was never coming back.
A great romance wouldn't have been believable either, given their situations, but it didn't need to be. I actually liked that Geneva was trying to exert some small control over one small aspect of a life that was being arranged for her without any consideration for her as a person at all. Even Jamie was able to see the courage in that, as he thinks to himself at the time and later tells William. I wish Gabaldon had just let it be one brief moment of unlikely friendship between two people and left it at that. It wouldn't have diminished his great love or longing for Claire, who he hadn't seen for I think about 12 years at that point and never expected to see again.
And did the book have her look so much like Claire as she did in the show? That was an "excuse" for being willing to be with her too.
On 4/11/2015 at 10:12 PM, lianau said:To be honest I think Jamie is pretty much stuck in no man's land regarding other women , he can't move on because to him Claire isn't really dead , so it probably feels like cheating to him.
That's a good point. At the beginning where he appeared to be visiting the brothel, I thought that was what he did as falling in love with a different woman wasn't doable for him.
On 5/29/2015 at 9:09 PM, Starla said:I knew going in that Jamie had married Laoghaire, and kept holding my breath waiting for him to tell Claire. The longer it went on and he didn't tell her, the more anxious I got and knew there would be hell to pay. I don't know what he was thinking because she was bound to find out sooner or later and he had to know it wouldn't be good. I was thankful when they made it past that hurtle relatively intact, though I'm still wondering where he's going to get the money to pay Laoghaire. I hope the Lallybroch crew aren't stuck with that bill.
I don't know what the law provided for at that time - the marriage was invalid, so she might not have had a claim to anything. It was a while before the law saw the injustice in a thing like that. Having Jamie arrested for bigamy was possible, too.
On 6/5/2015 at 12:00 PM, nodorothyparker said:that Claire had the right of it in the section after everything's calmed down where she's able to rationally think it all through and acknowledge that she had months to plan and divest herself of her old life before dropping back in on Jamie. He didn't get any warning or time to deal at all. He also doesn't have her "luxury" of the clean break between the different parts of his life where he could neatly tie up all the loose ends and leave them behind. So I tend to give him a bit of a pass too, even if he was a bit boneheaded about some of it.
Just like in Poldark, where Demelza worked with Captain Blamey to reunite him with Verity, who resisted so much at first, and it occurred to Demelza that Verity had no warning she would be seeing Blamey while Blamey did. And this is sort of even bigger since it involves time traveling.
On 6/5/2015 at 12:31 PM, basil said:I don't blame him for wanting to wait, I blame him for waiting. I'm surprised so many seem to be giving him a pass on this. I'm not sure what the laws were then, but Claire's been gone long enough to have been declared legally dead or to have at the very least to have abandoned the marriage. Laoghaire certainly considers herself married. Jamie was in a legally binding marriage, regardless of whether he loved her or was living with her. He should have told Claire asap.
At least before getting to Lallybroch where Claire could end up learning it by accident. DG just wanted maximum impact reveal at the worst possible time and in the worst possible way (the girls yelling for Daddy).
On 11/19/2015 at 1:14 PM, Athena said:You can store books, PDFs, and reference material. There are a lot of apps that don't require an active internet connection either e.g. some games don't require it. For entertainment, photos and music don't need wifi either.
If a military historian had gone back, they might have been of use in winning at Culloden. If you went back specifically for that, you could take a lot of information. Geillis should have studied more so she could have been more helpful than she was! She'd been there a few years and only helped raise funds, and got herself burned as a witch before the battle. (Or just locked up as it turns out). For such a fanatic, she really lacked a good plan!
-
On 12/10/2017 at 10:53 AM, WatchrTina said:
I actually thought the episode was going to end when the camera pulled back from the eye of the hurricane. I would have had to RIOT if they did that. Okay, off to watch again.
I thought it had several points at which they teased you it would end with separation; Claire not being on the deck, Claire not doing anything on the log, the shot going up the hurricane, and the shot of Jamie alone on the beach. At least they were alive and well at the end. You'd think they could have skipped the storm for the start of another season. No way to end happy; another disaster must occur right away!
On 12/10/2017 at 12:32 PM, toolazy said:At the ceremony site, when they showed Claire's face framed by the foliage as she watched the dancers, I thought "ooh, like the druids!" and lo and behold, they showed the druids! I loved that! And I agree that it shows how cultures are often more similar than they are different.
It was good to intersperse the druids.
Amazing there is another time travel portal. And it looked like Craig na dun on top of it - maybe that's a wormhole on earth where they are both there.
You had to get to 3 books to get a payoff with the Geillis thing. The conversation between Claire and Geillis was a good wrap up of loose ends.
Claire being pulled mentally towards the pool was annoying, but I guess it is to show her devoted motherhood that she at least thought about going back to Brianna.
It was funny to read on another thread where people were trying to work out how QE2 might be a Scot. LOL. So Claire did change history - the prophecy is true, but Claire killed Geillis before she could get to Brianna. And Brianna is not left in danger as there is not likely to be anyone else crazy enough to follow through. It had also seemed possible they would end it with Geillis out there and Brianna exposed to that danger, and Jamie and Claire having to figure out how to handle it.
-
On 12/3/2017 at 1:52 PM, BitterApple said:
Wow, this was an awesome episode! I feel like it redeemed so many of the clunkers we've seen in Season 3.
Lord John Grey is smoking hot and damned if I'm not giddy to see him back on my tv screen. The awkwardness between Jaime, Claire and John during the office scene was hilarious.
The scene with Willoughby and Margaret got me right in the feels and I'm praying Willoughby can get her away from her shady brother and Geillis. Speaking of which, holy hell! I was not expecting her to reappear in Jamaica! My prediction: Claire figures out Brianna is the 200 year-old baby in question and kills Geillis in the cave to prevent Geillis from traveling through the stones and killing her. It's Geillis' skeleton that ends up in the lab in Boston.
I too was bummed we didn't get to see Jaime reunite with Willie, but I guess there's no point when Jaime can't really ever be a father to him anyways.
Marsali is starting to grow on me. I figured she'd be a whiny, spoiled brat, but quelle surprise, she's a team player!
The only thing that annoyed me was Claire being rude and dismissive to the man who bought her the umbrella. He stated he'd bought it so she'd blend in, which you'd think would be a priority for her considering she and her husband were wanted by Captain Leonard. When in Rome, Claire....
I cannot freaking wait for this season finale.
It was amazing the extent to which they did not even think about Capt. Leonard. They went all over town without mentioning him or any fear of capture and went to the ball totally focused on what they could find out about Ian, and not the least bit concerned - not even trying to find out if the Porpoise was still there - in fact Jamie opined it must still be there as it could not have done all the things needed to do before sailing again. Capt. Leonard was out of sight and out of mind until they actually saw him!
-
2
-
-
On 11/27/2017 at 9:18 PM, lcarolynl said:
agree that the penicillin vials were in danger on that table! I think Jamie and Claire have been rather careless in their treatment of 20th century items. The corset zipper, vials of penicillin with the syringes, and Jamie looking at his pictures with the entrance to the jail at his back. I'd have the door to the jail in my sight before I puled the photos out to avoid any surprises.
20th Century items! Makes me think of Muggle artifacts. I guess Claire could claim to have invented it all and steal credit from someone else in history.
I don't think Fergus would have a French accent still after over 20 years in Scotland and having been there from a young age.
When his last name came up and there was silence I knew the next thing to be heard would be Jamie saying "Fraser." Perfect.
It is a lot livelier and brighter - Jamie is yet again under cloud of warrants and hanging but it seems less intense and he has warning now. The last British authorities needed help and didn't take any of the men. Less menacing than the prior seasons. I never want to see a redcoat again, other than Ross Poldark. 🙂
I really want Jamie to get to meet Brianna in person, so I hope she tries to time travel to make sure about what happened to Claire, figuring she can return as Claire did. I think it was thought Jamie can't, but in honor he could not turn away from Culloden, so maybe it was the stress. We don't know for sure.
-
5 hours ago, Ziggy said:
You don't think Claire has a right to be upset just by the fact that it was Laoghaire?
Upset, but not to go back through the stones. I guess I was more focused on, Leery or anyone else, she lucked out that he was "available" to her. He could have been involved with someone else.
And in the end, she made peace with it and didn't appear to want to go back again, except for a short doubt on the cliffs, which didn't seem to involve Leery.
It's been 23 years since the ill wish too and we aren't sure how much Jamie knows about her involvement in the trial. Jamie's life has so many traumas that the trial may not register much by 1766, at least as to details. He just blew in and saved Claire from it (or took her when Geillis confessed).
-
On 11/19/2017 at 9:39 AM, thesparkinside said:
And thank God *Fergus* kept his head, because bloody Jamie telling him to try to incite a mutiny . . . Jesus. That would be a sure death sentence because it almost certainly wouldn't work. And for what? So they could catch up with Claire, when they're going to meet up with her in Jamaica anyway? Jesus, Jamie, way to bring down everyone with you for no really good reason. And yes, he's worried about Claire being alone on a ship with 300 men, but I think getting yourself, Fergus, and probably some other men killed isn't the best way to try to help her. She wasn't in imminent danger, really--just in a place where there *might* be some danger.
Anyway, I was really glad to see the photographs come out again, and I loved poor Elias Pound. That kid was great--heartbreaking, too. He was trying so hard. I didn't like the way Claire yelled at him about licking the grog off his fingers. Lay off, Claire. He has no idea what germs are or why you're doing what you're doing. Take it easy. She did treat him much better in other scenes. I was really pleased to see them develop the relationship between Fergus and Marsali. They're cute and a good team. And the goat-lady (sorry, can't recall how to spell her name) was really cool, too. I like how secondary characters are competent and are helpful, whereas in many shows it's all The Hero doing Hero Things and the rest of the world is just kind of there.
I really did love all the seafaring details.
Overall, a great episode.
Funny to watch this during the COVID19 crisis. We need Claire.
Jamie's plan was ridiculous. They were going to meet in Jamaica. The 300 men were mostly sick or busy following her orders. The cook was a jerk, but Claire handled him. It was quite amazing how they listened to her. She was telling them to do things they had no experience of and no other ship surgeon would ever have done. Lucky for them that they listened.
I cried a small bit when Elias died and Claire told him she was his other. And was his final friend to stitch him through the nose. Only 14 and a short, tough life. And he was a good assistant.
The goat lady was so kind, too.
Jamie looking at the photos was good.
-
On 11/12/2017 at 8:31 AM, ihartcoffee said:
Willoughby's speech was so beautiful! I was so moved. Loved him doing acupuncture on Jamie.
I just knew they'd take off with Claire, having not read in some year's I'm not as up on the plot.
As soon as Claire came on the boat, it was practically TV law that she would be stuck on it. I was relieved that there was no impressment though. I've had enough of the British military being jerks. I was glad they needed help instead. But they are still jerks for taking her off.
On 11/12/2017 at 9:26 AM, WatchrTina said:Now I have to go watch again. With all the puking this isn't likely to be my favorite episode but parts of it were excellent.
"Realism" seems to be considered so necessary these days. And talk about bodily functions/bathroom humor.
On 11/12/2017 at 10:53 AM, leighdear said:I thought the Willoughby explanation went on a little too long, but the payoff was well done. Very enjoyable, and I love Marsali.
The people on the ship were mesmerized. He really distracted them. And a good thing, since of the man had been thrown overboard, the wind coincidentally coming up would have made it look justifiable to the superstitious.
On 11/14/2017 at 10:26 AM, AheadofStraight said:The discussion about Bree was much longer and they cut it. You can see it in the script. http://www.outlandercommunity.com/insideoutlander/309/ He was also supposed to pull out her pictures 😞
Overall, there seems little talk about Brianna, and you'd think it would be a major subject. With all those adventures, Jaime and Claire don't have time to talk about what they would normally talk about.
I read a romance novel about hand fasting once; I thought it was good enough, so Jamie talking about Marsali's "virtue" seemed ridiculous.
A seasick person should stay outside in the fresh air rather than go inside. And eat crackers, I think. I haven't been on a boat in forever, at least not out on the ocean, but I remember that advice as I got seasick and had to take Dramamine, which makes you sleepy. Ginger tea might be worth trying!
I suppose you get used to it over time. There are novels mentioning that you get sea legs, and when you hit land, it is hard to walk for awhile, until you walk enough to get your land legs back.
Marsali is as obnoxious as Laoghaire. It's pretty sure Laoghaire did not love Jamie, but just thought he was a prized possession.
-
8 hours ago, Ziggy said:
Whether he was happy or not was irrelevant. He married Laoghaire. Claire's thought process ended there.
She'd be justified in going back to the 20th century if he had a wife and kids he loved and the 20 years had been enough for him to get over her (which would have been the most realistic, but this is romantic fantasy). Or even if he'd been conflicted and couldn't just leave a wife with young kids even if he didn't get over Claire. So having no kids of his own, but stepchildre,n and not really liking Leery, and clearly preferring Claire is a lot luckier for her having made the trip across 200 years to see if she could be back with him.
-
On 10/1/2014 at 9:16 PM, bluebonnet said:
Love it. Submitted the request to change it to this.
Just a reminder that this is a book spoilers thread so continue reading at your caution.
Claire and Jamie sent a whole stack of letters to Bree and Roger. They used banks, iirc, rather than the postal system.
Claire should have told Brianna a location to get them before she left to go back. Brianna would have to ask Roger to pick them up.
I thought of Jamie having an injury that would say result in a permanent disability where Claire knew it could be easily solved with 20th century medicine and sending him to the future for that. Or a kid with a club foot that in 1700s would just be and they would be lame. But 20th century surgery could have him walk normally.
-
On 11/5/2017 at 9:34 AM, ihartcoffee said:
The casting for this show us so good, the kids look like offspring of the main characters.
They are good at finding doppelgängers. The one for BJR's brother Alex and the one for Geneva who looked just like Claire. Led me to believe he could sleep with her without criticism as she looked so much like Claire. They didn't need the narrative that she sexually assaulted him. Someone said that of Mary McNabb also - so they have to at least look like Claire.
On 11/6/2017 at 3:43 PM, ferjy said:That's exactly how it came across. Very contradictory. They tried to meld Diana Gabaldon's viewpoint with their own and it just didn't work. If they were going to change Claire’s feeling to be more like real life where you would be doubtful whether you made the right choice then they should have also changed future Claire to have come to terms with living without Jamie and happily moving on (then having her life turned upside down with the news that he never died leaving her with a big struggle of whether to go back). Diana's vision was completely different. They seem to have missed that point entirely. Diana's was less realistic, but the fantasy is part of the appeal. Claire never felt settled back in the future and felt more at home and content arriving and living in the past again. Her link to Jamie made any of the inconveniences in the past trivial and the modern conveniences of the future relatively unimportant. In real life that wouldn't happen which is what the show is trying to portray. But it's not what Diana Gabaldon wrote and the two don't mesh. So it ends up looking more like "the grass is greener".
These are the first times Claire ever has a complaint with the 18th century. The comments on the board about how they would never stay in the 18th century due to inferior science - maybe, but Claire had no problem with it.
I think she is more concerned being a doctor. Being a nurse who could try anything without a license was Claire on her first time trip. Now she has Dr. oath and ethics and seems to worry more - that she can't fix some people though she knows she could with a 1960s "proper hospital." So it's given her some guilt and self doubt rather than making her feel more confident.
On 11/9/2017 at 8:35 AM, Ziggy said:Claire did talk about how she had a life and a job and everything, so it does almost sound like she's complaining about 18th century life. But she's really just looking back with rose-colored glasses. She's completing second guessing everything based solely on Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire. She feels betrayed because of WHO he married, the fact that he didn't tell her and the fact that Jenny (the person she thought of as a sister) betrayed her as well.
She took a risk that he was married and perhaps even happy! Finding out about an unhappy marriage to Leoghaire is a lot less bad than it could have been.
On 11/11/2017 at 8:42 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:What made it even worse was that she said it in front of her daughters. But especially wee Joanie.
I was appalled by the things she said in front of her two young daughters - not just that word but the entirety of the things she said. She should have sent them out of the room.
-
On 10/29/2017 at 1:10 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:
I do appreciate how insecure Jamie still is. When he asked uncertainly whether Claire would return after seeing Margaret Campbell, I got the
Then I wanted to slap the back of Jamie’s head when he said and thinks it’s perfectly okay to set up house at a fucking brothel!??
Cute, like in the beginning he would not go anywhere without her.
Well he said the brothel was temporary 🙂
On 10/29/2017 at 1:14 AM, koboldin said:Definitely a mixed bag. The resentment of Jamie to not raising Brianna and the stupid bikini got an unresolved scene. Claire gets sanctimonious about young Ian and parenting. I guess they are using Brianna as a way to show Jamie's anger at not getting to raise his own children. This is maybe to make Claire already jumpy before Jamie and L's marriage is revealed? I'm not liking their using Brianna this way at all.
Claire need not have used such a photo. Why does she think he could even begin to understand that?
On 10/29/2017 at 1:21 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:What I do not care for is this ongoing theme that Claire chose to leave on the eve of Culloden. With all the “you left,” “I left” nonsense. When those of us who watched last season know and saw she fought NOT to go back and it was Jamie insisting she do so.????
I noticed that right off too. That whole thing was his idea. Which was pretty lame. I mean at least make sure he dies at Culloden first. Then go explain to the family that you think you are better off in America and a danger to them as a traitor's wife. But plot points.
On 10/29/2017 at 9:26 AM, DittyDotDot said:Also, I actually get why other people outside of Jamie and Claire would see Claire as abandoning them. They don't know Jamie basically forced Claire back through the stones, nor do they know there was no way for her to contact and/or help them over the last 20 years of famine and hardship. All they know is she showed back up when things had gotten better. And, I can see Claire feeling a certain amount of guilt over that even if it wasn't her fault. Guilt is weird that way.
They had her advice to plant potatoes. I think she even told Jenny there would be hardship. Jenny listened, because Jamie told her she should, even if she didn't understand. So they should have been better off than society generally that didn't have that clue.
On 10/29/2017 at 10:03 AM, FnkyChkn34 said:liked this episode, but - anyone else annoyed that Claire just screams "Jamie" anywhere and everywhere?? He's Alexander in Edinburgh!
Yes, I rewound to catch it again, "did she say 'Jamie?'" Also Ian saying "Uncle Jamie." If this is supposed to be a disguise, it's not being used well enough. But then he thinks using two of his own middle names is enough.
-
On 5/6/2020 at 11:23 AM, Cdh20 said:
Jamie might not have survived his dislocated shoulder(101), & been left behind then, if it weren't for Claire! It's a time travel show, but it's also about Jamie & Claire's destiny to be together, IMO.
Yes: she said when he was suicidal that she couldn't make any sense of why she time traveled except that it must have been meant for them - that they would meet and fall in love, otherwise it made no sense to her. So she would die right there with him. That was a powerful scene.
On 5/6/2020 at 7:41 PM, auntlada said:In my theory of time travel, Claire was destined to go back because (spoilered because I can't remember which book contains what now)
Geillis had gone back from a later time to an earlier time to try to help the Rising succeed. Claire and Jamie had to do what they did because the Rising was not supposed to succeed.
SpoilerI understand from the discussions that they go and fight in the American Revolution. We might still be British subjects if not for Claire. 🙂
On 5/6/2020 at 11:30 PM, SassAndSnacks said:I started Book 2 right away, and admittedly, this one has always been tougher for me. The opening of it is like a punch in the gut, with the reader knowing immediately that something went down.
As a whole, this book is most difficult for me (and Season 2 of the show was, as well) because I feel like we are racing toward an impending doom. It makes me anxious and sad. We start right off knowing that something happened and they aren't together anymore, and I always feel that lurking over me as I read through it.
I read through this particular thread ages ago and gave it a skim last week, just to refresh myself on the thoughts of others. I agree with so many of you.
I will say that the time spent in Lallybroch here is so beautiful and is some of the best writing of the series. I would read an entire 9 book series of Jamie and Claire digging through the dirt, planting potatoes, delivering babies, training horses, etc, which is why I enjoy Books 5 & 6 so much. I love them having a peaceful life together.
Yes, Culloden pending the whole time. As the story goes on, it is known that they will be slaughtered there. At least Jamie gets to kill BJR there.
It was a gut punch at the beginning. Claire crying when she learned for sure she was back (well, the car was enough, but the guy confirmed the year for her that she had not just come back to the same moment she had left) and then that the battle of Culloden had been lost - very effective. Like she had just been told Jamie had died in the battle.
-
1
-
-
On 10/22/2017 at 8:48 PM, Atlanta said:
IMO, it seemed more important to catch up on the last 20 years rather than jumping into bed. I know they were awkward and he was hiding Leg Hair. Jenny must have been on the 1700s version of crack to set that match up.
LOL, Leg Haire. He did declare he never fell in love again, which Claire should believe. But of all women to have married, from Claire's view, it would have been better to have been someone she didn't already know and despise. But in this kind of book/show, you have to amp up the drama, so it's a perfect choice from that view.
On 10/22/2017 at 9:45 PM, Glaze Crazy said:Just the idea of "photographs", exact likenesses of people and things should have been more overwhelming from Jamie's POV. These magical things placed in his hands, that he has no idea what to think of the actual idea of them, never mind seeing his child for the first time in 20 years, captured in several different phases of her life, should have been more...more.
The photos would be overwhelming - they are a thing of the future. They also raised the issue of the change in women's fashions, which would be pretty drastic for him. He says "Christ" when he sees the bikini. Maybe not the best idea, Claire. But they could have made a bigger deal of his seeing her red hair.
On 10/22/2017 at 10:09 PM, dbell1 said:Loved how Jamie was reluctant to leave Claire, and hesitant around her. The awkwardness was spot on.
You could tell he was afraid she would disappear again. He wanted her to go change his trousers, go to the tavern - he didn't trust her not to continue existing until the next morning. Even then he wanted her to stay put.
On 10/23/2017 at 8:02 AM, Kata01 said:In rewatch last night, I found the transition from Bree’s photos to the Willie reveal extremely clumsy as well. They talk about Bree- “She was a good sleeper.” “She has red hair.” “She’s wearing a bikini.”
Then when Claire asks Jamie what Willie is like, he lights up and his tone changes- He’s “braw! spoiled! strong!” etc etc etc
That, for me, is what made the scene with Bree’s photos fall flat. No - she’s “stubborn! fiery! passionate!” etc for her. The conversation regarding Bree was all the banalities, a marked contrast to the one about Willie. Very unbalanced. Breaks my heart for Bree.
Claire often said how like Jamie Brianna is - she didn't mention that, but she has time to.
On 10/23/2017 at 9:23 AM, Biggie B said:She shouldn't have been out of the room in the first place. Jamie told her not to go anywhere (which, sure, Claire could've interpreted as not to go outside the brothel itself).
Claire is consistent in not listening to Jamie's advice not to go places - she went to Geillis, went out the time he ended up spanking her for - that's consistent.
On 10/23/2017 at 2:35 PM, iMonrey said:I'd also like to point out that if anyone finds those photos, or discovers the zipper on Claire's dress, there's a good chance she'll wind up back in prison accused of being a witch.
Had that thought too - she has to be careful - she knows this time, too. Having a zipper the first time was understandable but this time deliberately risky. Though she could explain that they do this in America now.
I thought Jamie would ask her what a bicycle was, but he did a minute later. Like when he broke down in Paris and she said "It's OK," but it was too serious a moment perhaps for him to wonder what that means, and in context and her tone it probably was clear what it meant. But that expression wouldn't have been around yet.
On 10/23/2017 at 7:13 PM, iMonrey said:To be fair, nobody in the 1700s had access to the kind of fitness regimes and healthy diets modern day movie stars do (not to mention plastic surgery). Then there's the sheer torture that has been Jamie's life for the past 30 years. I have a hard time believing he'd still be so pretty in his 40s after the years in prison, the beatings, the starvation, etc.
It's a romantic fantasy - an escape from reality as it were. Suspending disbelief about their being a lot older. Claire is about 50 and ready to go through menopause. But the story is not about that. You just have to figure of course she's genetically lucky and so is Jamie. Of course they are. And Jamie didn't get another woman and many children - of course he didn't. This is not the real world.
On 10/23/2017 at 7:31 PM, morgan said:And yeah, Jamie had a hellish life and could be quite wearing but men tend to look younger longer than women do, their hormone changes don’t play the same havoc with skin, and theirs is thicker and all that.
They don't have to have babies either. I often notice old men's legs don't look bad at all - they seem to retain a lot of youth in their lower legs for quite a while. No varicose veins, not a lot more flabbiness.
-
On 10/8/2017 at 9:52 PM, Ziggy said:
Right, but that's the way it has to be. If Claire lives the rest of her natural life with Jamie, she is going to die before she is born. No way around that. I don't understand why you are saying it's impossible. We know for a fact that this is true of Geillis Duncan. She was born in the 20th Century and died in the 18th Century. Her bones were found in the 20th Century, but they were still on the earth during all of the 20th Century, including the period in which she was born and grew up and before she went through the stones. So she was dead and alive at the same time in the same time.
I know in the books they say you can't be alive at the same time as another version of yourself, but you have to be able to be alive at the same time that your bones are resting in the ground.
I had thought that being burned at the stake, Geillus could at least know that she would be born in the future.
Then the conclusion that time passes in the past and the future at the same rate was questioned, since Geillus traveled back before Claire from a much later year. So the 60s were continuing during Geillus' 1740s sojourn. Geillus existed in the 1960s so when she died in 1744, it could not be that she would never be born.
So maybe it is parallel universes, which could be infinite in number and you have infinite sets of bones for dying every different year you died. The stones took Geillis back over 220 years, Claire 202 years. If Claire stays with Jamie for life and dies of old age in 1780s or 90s if she would not be born in 1918, she would not exist, but yet she did exist from 1918-1968 and knows that era and remembers it while in the 18th century.
On 10/9/2017 at 6:04 PM, Glaze Crazy said:I think the bones scene in the book also implied that Claire has some sort of 6th sense or empathetic ability when it comes to healing people. When Joe hands her the skull he says something along the lines of "I want to see if you can do it with just the bones." She then goes on to "sense" that the person was "surprised" (that she was killed, I guess) and that she didn't want to die. Joe goes on to mention to the man who brought the box of bones that Claire has this ability to just feel things about her patients.
Claire didn't show any signs of an inkling she had lived in the 18th century while she was in the 1940s. In 1968, she is aware she spent time in the 18th century, and she is considering going back at that point. So she knows she will live through later years in the 18th century if she does that (though she could have some doubt the stones will take her there as opposed to some other century) so maybe that kicks the 6th sense into being.
On 10/16/2017 at 8:23 PM, Nidratime said:This is me just talking off the top of my head, but I would think that Claire didn't take Frank's ring off because she still has some guilt -- whether deserved or not -- over falling in love with someone else and coming back pregnant to a man (Frank) who stood by her initially. Yes, he had affairs afterward, but I'm sure she feels responsibility for how their relationship evolved. Plus, there is her daughter, who still has enormous love for and is mourning the father who raised her. The ring is almost like a bit of mourning for a man she once loved romantically and still loved as a human being. Instead of the traditional black, Claire's wearing the ring.
It was noticeable that neither husband objects to the other's ring. She wears them both from the wedding night in 1743 on.
-
On 9/17/2017 at 5:54 PM, WatchrTina said:
THE GOOD
I just loved watching Cait’s face as she plays Claire encountering the prejudice she will face non-stop as a female medical student.
Claire meets Joe Abernathy. This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
It was lucky for Claire and Joe to have each other. Many of the early firsts would have been the only one in the class and subject to that same kind of disapproval.
On 9/17/2017 at 9:21 PM, morgan said:I agree about how odd it was seeing Jamie wandering around in daylight. My non-book reader husband didn't even realize at first he wasn't living in the house. When they showed the cave he was confused and definitely didn't pick up that he wasn't around the house on a daily basis.
Makes the redcoats look really incompetent. Jamie is hiding on his own estate and they can't find him? And he's so notorious? The British are not very thorough when they search an estate.
On 9/17/2017 at 10:19 PM, CalamityBoPeep said:Murtagh might be just as inclined to slit Charles's throat, but whatever...
Murtagh wanted to do that in the first place, in Paris. He was anxious to get back to Scotland. France smelled bad.
On 9/19/2017 at 3:14 PM, Biggie B said:Am I the only one who kept thinking of Dubonnet the aperitif every time one of the Redcoats said "Dun Bonnet"?
Nope.
-
On 9/11/2017 at 8:17 AM, AheadofStraight said:
Frank didn't like the American version of tea but is okay saying "diaper" instead of "nappy". I know that was for the American audience but it stood out to me.
I had not caught that. I could think Frank was newly in America, living there now, so he thought he'd try out some Americanisms.
On 9/11/2017 at 11:12 AM, lovetowrite73 said:YES to this! I said to my boyfriend, OH, that's Frank, not Black Jack. Grr...
I thought that same way until I noticed his hair - it was Frank's 1940s hairstyle. What a relief!
On 9/11/2017 at 11:13 AM, DittyDotDot said:It's interesting to me how almost backward "modern" medicine can be. I remember when I was a kid (1970s) it was unusual to see anyone ever breastfeed a baby. When I asked my mom why she didn't with any of us, she said the doctors told her it was cleaner and safer to bottle feed.
Yes, bottles were the thing. It was the rise of the consumer age. Wall Street wanted you to buy bottles and formula rather than take advantage of the free breast milk!
On 9/11/2017 at 1:24 PM, lianau said:Eventually the 60s research catches up with Jamie in his corresponding time frame (time moves at the same speed in the 18th century and 20th century ) I hope that wasn't to spoilery .
It does seem established that time moves along at the same rate, day for day, if you go through the stones. You won't go back to the same day and minute you left. So Claire spent 1743-1746 and got back to 1948, so the 20th century 3 years passed without her.
On 9/11/2017 at 3:42 PM, FnkyChkn34 said:I'm not married, but if I were Frank or a spouse in his situation, I think I'd just have to move on with my life and get a divorce. It's too... weird.
Being divorced was a huge deal back then, and if she was the one who wanted it, she'd certainly have to give up her baby. He'd get custody. There was no no-fault divorce - he'd have to prove a ground, like adultery or abandonment.
On 9/11/2017 at 6:42 PM, nodorothyparker said:It gave me a snicker too. I'm a white girl so dark I occasionally get asked if I'm biracial. My oldest is so blonde and blue-eyed he could be the poster boy for Aryan childhood. He looks like a grandparent on each side who does have those attributes. Genetics are funny things even when you don't have a red-headed birth father from another century.
We have a cousin who is a redhead and no one in either parent's family knows where it could have come from.
Jamie has all the luck. BJR's corpse keeps him from bleeding out. The officer who finds them and executes them happens to be the big brother of John Gray. It seems he was meant to live. I do wish he'd go to BPC and say "I told you so, many times." And then slug him.
-
On 10/1/2014 at 3:32 PM, Firebunny said:
I wonder if Claire and Jamie's attempts in Paris to stop the war from ever happening condemned the Scots. If they hadn't stopped that booze shipment Prince Charles was going to make so much money on, perhaps he would have been able to get other supporters and been better able to equip his army.
Maybe Jamie was right - they should have tried to help the rebellion rather than prevent it. Seems like it might have been easier. They didn't know BPC. But once his religious obsession became apparent, it seems it would have been better to try to help him win. He didn't care about the odds against him since God's will was for him, in his mind.
On 10/1/2014 at 11:09 PM, bluebonnet said:I always felt very conflicted about Claire being so adamant that Jamie do nothing to Jack. She knew that Mary Hawkins was the required ingredient to the Frank mix but she never really scrutinized what it would mean to subject someone like Mary to someone like Jack. Of course, it eventually became a moot point, but still until it became moot, Claire was certain that Mary would have to marry Jack and she was also certain of what type of creature Jack was. There's a self-protection element in there. If Frank didn't exist, what happens to Claire? Yet Claire's thoughts never went beyond just thinking about Frank's existence somewhere in time. I think the Mary/Jack thing was the first time I really experienced a dislike for Claire.
Frank had existed without Claire's help before she time traveled, so she could have trusted to fate. BJR was not subject to anyone wanting him dead; without Claire, Jamie would not have made the deal with BJR and gotten tortured and raped. Thus it was Claire's presence that caused the rape/torture. Come to think of it, the person whose life was most affected by Claire's time travel was Jamie. He wouldn't have been in Paris and wouldn't have been raped by BJR without having met and married Claire.
-
On 7/9/2016 at 3:38 AM, Dust Bunny said:
Did anyone else expect a big shock or blue lighting to happen when Roger and Geillis shook hands? And I’m assuming this means Geillis will recognize Bree when she sees the photos in season 3. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.
I absolutely loved that Claire helped Jamie kill Dougal. It was beautiful. That act of love, support, and being with him every step of the way exemplifies their marriage. And it was mirrored when Jamie guided Claire’s hand to touch the stone. That might be one of my favorite changes of this season.
I enjoyed the timey-wimey discussion of what would happen to Roger if Claire talked to Geillis. They at least acknowledged the consideration, and then it ended with Claire’s “I don’t know how all this works.” I think that’s a sufficient way to leave it for now, and it’ll pacify some nonbook readers
While they were killing Dougal, I wondered how much muscle power Claire added. But though it might be little, it showed how she was with Jamie on it.
Geillis talking to her own descendant. I had wondered about Claire doing that but so far she has none in the 1740s, though her daughter was conceived there.
The plot stays so that they don't have to deal with the issue of people not existing. Claire realized she can't talk Geillis into not going, or Roger does not have a necessary ancestor. Does Roger disappear? We teased my nephew, telling him he would not exist if it were not for his parents going to the same university and meeting there. He said, "I'd have found someone else." Maybe that's how it works? If BJR had really been the ancestor and Jamie killed him, then Claire went back to find there was no such person as Frank Randall, that could have been kind of fascinating.
On 7/9/2016 at 7:09 PM, Petunia846 said:Claire just says, "His father's name was Brian and that's where your name came from." I didn't even notice the "named after your father, just as I promised," at Culloden the first time I watched.
I wonder if Frank realized this; what if he didn't want to agree to the name?
On 7/9/2016 at 7:53 PM, Wouldofshouldof said:Oh, that reminds me - They didn't include the scene where Claire finds Jamie's headstone. Her knowledge of that stone has implications later on. Of course, maybe they'll show that next season.
Yes, I had thought it odd Claire could not find out what happened to him, before she agreed with Frank she would not try anymore. By 1948, he had a headstone in any event. He was a landowner/laird. But then she could have gone back right away. But if you want more books, that happy ever after would have gotten in the way of that. She didn't try to find it in 1968 and went to the Fraser clan stone at Culloden, when she had not been sure whether he had died there or not.
On 7/9/2016 at 10:28 PM, maraleia said:Also, is there something we find out later as to why Claire can hear the buzzing and travel through the stones but Jamie can't? I understand why Gellis and Roger can- they are related but there has to be something in Claire's family history that points to this ability.
Maybe Jamie can only travel on certain days? He was thought to have gone to check on her in the S1Ep01. But so far, no one has gone forward except for those returning to a time they had lived in.
On 7/10/2016 at 12:02 PM, molshoop said:Why not at least give her blue contacts to wear?
That is a problem, I noticed right away - both her parents have blue eyes so their child has to have blue eyes. I wondered if it brought up speculation she was really Frank's.
The plot called for catching Geillis just after she went through. I was thinking Claire could find Geillis, tell how little good she did before, and warn her of what happened to her. Like Groundhog Day, she could try again. Tell her not to act so suspiciously witchy, and that she can confide in Claire Fraser when she runs into her.
It was good that Claire became a doctor. She had a lot of freedom in the 1740s that the 20th century would not offer her, so she was well prepared to learn surgery. She can be of even more help if she goes back again.
I wonder if blood pressure was known back then, and what it was - the nurses under Claire's supervision looked mystified when she mentioned it.
Ironic they were down to killing BPC. Murtagh wanted to do that from the beginning. It was so sad seeing Jamie try everything, and BPC never being convinced. The French gold argument was quite compelling, I thought. How like men to value not looking like a coward over practicality. It seems like they had no imagination about how big the British army was and thought it consisted only of those they'd actually seen.
We know BJR died on the date of Culloden, so Jamie might have gotten to kill him.
-
On 5/28/2016 at 2:06 AM, maraleia said:
I'm glad that they're back in Scotland and it was good to see Jenny and Ian.
I missed something perhaps, and wondered how they could go back to Scotland. They were forced to leave. Jamie was under sentence of death in prison and escaped with the cows and is thus a fugitive. The original price on Jamie's head and the new death sentence for being with the Watch; where did they go?
It was nice BJR is not around. And nice that the beating up on Jamie theme does not continue in Season 2.
On 5/28/2016 at 9:33 AM, Andorra said:The only complain I have is, that the show really is a 50s clean show by now, always fading to black when it gets the slightest bit steamy. Where's the sex??
I noticed that fade to black scene. They may feel they already covered that they have a great sex life. On 21st century terms, too. The waxing and shaving - that's a thing now, but was it then? I suppose there are histories somewhere of sexual practices. But per the show, nothing has changed and sex in the 18th century was just like it is now.
-
On 5/14/2016 at 11:46 PM, nodorothyparker said:
Prince Charles' foppish whining that "I will take my own life if I am forced to live in god-forsaken Poland" made my half-Polish husband snort. As in every episode, it's simply confounding that people who actually spent any time around this man would follow him to their eventual deaths.
I'm eternally grateful that for once the show managed to find some restraint and not force us to watch Black Jack hurt Fergus.
There's a lovely song in Irish Gaelic, "Mo Ghile Mear" which is said to be about BPC. It means "my gallant hero." Hard to think it's about this popinjay! Maybe from a distance he seemed heroic.
On 5/15/2016 at 10:59 AM, chocolatetruffle said:Oh yeah, and one more thing that kind of bothered me was when Jamie made Claire promise to go back to Frank if things went bad w/ Culloden. I kept thinking, that's all well & good, but what about the baby? What if it can't go through? Is Claire supposed to leave it? J&C don't know that Claire is going to miscarry, so it seemed like it should have at least been mentioned.
On 5/15/2016 at 12:53 PM, nodorothyparker said:now that I'm back you won't mind dropping whatever else you might have been up to these past three years to raise the child of the guy I've been sleeping with and chose over you this whole time, right? We knew you'd be fine with it. But hey I thought about you from time to time. Sure, we know that Jamie is approaching it from the standpoint of this is just what an honorable man does, but Jamie's not the time traveler here. He doesn't really know anything at all about what is considered an honorable man in Frank's time or even anything about Frank as a person beyond what bits Claire has shared. So it's a huge leap from a very limited perspective.
They waited at least 8 or more episodes to let us know, on the show, that Claire made a choice between Jamie and Frank at the stones. Jamie says "you chose me" too as if no other consideration were there, like not knowing when the stones would take her back to for sure. And I suppose he's thinking you can hold your child as you go through. The wedding rings and clothes come through. Only later does Claire learn that a fetus comes through. And when making this promise, neither knew if you can carry a child through. I wonder if children time travel for free! 🙂
On 5/15/2016 at 4:52 PM, Archery said:I don't think that Jamie is all, Of course Frank will take you back, even if that is what he himself would do (which he would). For him, Frank and 1948 is all theoretical -- he believes Claire but he doesn't own the concrete idea of what 1948 means. (We see this also with Murtagh, who has to write out the years on paper to wrap his mind around the concept.) So he's saying, if anything happens to me, take the baby back to Frank (meaning "the future" and the life that you know there). And the concept of "Frank"/the future is enough to get him to promise not to kill BJR. So, no, I don't think he is being presumptuous; he is he can't even imagine "the future" beyond the concept of Frank, which is all that he knows actually exists there.
I wonder that he does not think Claire will be OK as his widow, probably have a home at Lallybroch and she does have friends. In fact, she has Dougal ready to marry her. He can't be certain the stones will take her back to her time.
-
On 5/7/2016 at 11:03 PM, chocolatetruffle said:
However I absolutely loathed Claire through most of this episode. Starting with her even considering leaving Alex in the Bastille for the sake of Frank; then watching her manipulate poor Alex, again for Frank, made me want to punch her; and finally, the "you owe me a life" scene was just gut-wrenching. On a shallow note, Sam looked extremely fetching in that last scene, but I digress. This episode was officially NULOCH* ("C" for Claire instead of the she-beast from GH) for me. It also bugs me (and really bugged me in the book) that Claire does not seem to care about the consequences for Mary of being married to that sadist who enjoys raping and degrading women as much as men.
This section of the series and book revolves around a giant plot-hole that really irks me anyway. That is, they are trying to make a rather extreme change to history. That means that everyone's history would change in ways they can't imagine. Frank may end up never being born or Claire may never be born or any number of other variables may happen because of what they're doing. So why balk at killing BJR (who everyone thought was dead) when they have already changed things - and if Frank is meant to be born, then he'll be born. Or why not let the relationship happen between Mary and Alex come to its logical conclusion w/o interference, since their initial meeting wasn't tied to Claire & Jamie's plotting and therefore, we must assume, was supposed to happen. I just get annoyed that it's o.k. to try to change the future one minute, until some event comes along that you think should not be changed. But just by being there in Paris in 1743 you've already changed the future. Oh, never mind... it just makes my head hurt.
*NULOCH = No Upper Limit Of Claire Hate
Claire is braveandstrongandloveswithherwholeheart!
Claire could have left Mary and Alex alone completely and it looks like Alex is not long for this world anyway.
The weird thing is she has Frank's wedding ring. So why would she think it was even possible for him not to exist? She never does think deeply about whether she has the power to change things. Does she consider that she had always been there in the 1740s? And that the child she is going to have could have descendants who she may have run across in the 1940s. Maybe Frank is even descended from her! (There are enough generations that it wouldn't be close enough to be incestuous).
On 5/8/2016 at 12:06 AM, insubordination said:Yes, Frank may be innocent, but so is Mary. Claire is determined to get what she wants, no matter what. She uses every tool in her arsenal to make it happen (you owe me!). Yet I can't hate her for being so driven and strident. That quality is admirable in other scenarios, but infuriating here - that's Claire.
I do agree that it would have been better if Claire had pointed out that if she had never married Frank, it would mean she wouldn't be standing here now. I would actually like a further "Can we really affect the future?" conversation. The time travel element of this show is too often overlooked.
On the ship, Jamie said we can only play our part in it. Claire was the one with the bright idea to alter a major part of history. By this point, Claire may have already caused Frank not to exist - maybe another one of Frank's ancestors is a child of Jamie and Leery or some other person who got killed because she's there. Maybe Jamie wouldn't have been alive to be tortured by BJR had Claire not come. Maybe Frank is descended from someone Claire saved who would have died and therefore she is responsible for his ever existing in the first place. It is not like Claire to analyze all this though. It is in her character to jump to conclusions and feel she must do something to save somebody immediately.
On 5/8/2016 at 8:45 AM, Haleth said:With all the Claire loathing at this point (and I agree, she's pretty annoying right now) I look forward to the scene when she figures out that Alex is the father of Mary's child, not BJR. I want to see her face when she thinks back to this fight and realizes how horrible she was to Jamie, all for nothing. Having BJR turn up alive after being trampled by a herd of cows should have been her first clue that she can't meddle with history. Frank will be born, one way or another.
Couple things to add: About Claire drinking, I tell myself she's only taking a small sip. No harm to the baby. About Annalise's "man" comment, I took that as her complimenting Claire on taking an immature, rash, hedonistic? kid and turning him into the sophisticated, charismatic man.
Claire isn't a person to just trust to fate - but she could have realized maybe Frank's genealogy had some errors, Mary Hawkins is a common name and for all Claire knows, BJR is married already and already has the key child. Frank existed without her meddling before (time travel is strange) so maybe he exists anyway. The way to convince Jamie was that he would get killed or arrested and hung, so if he loved her and the child, why is he going to abandon them in one of those two ways?
Claire drinking - they didn't know there was any problem in the 1940s yet, and they smoked on top of it. No one in the 1740s will disapprove. But when Jenny wanted a shot of whiskey to get through the birth, Claire suggested the baby would be born drunk, seeming to discourage that idea.
-
On 5/1/2016 at 4:14 PM, Andorra said:
Listen to the podcast. Toni Graphia also says that Jamie wouldn't bed another woman and that Claire knows he wouldn't, but that she's pregnant and hormonal and that makes her upset. Jamie on the other hand is thinking he's telling her good news. That he has lost the burden that was holding him down and that he "finally felt like a man again".
Nowhere is implied that Jamie actively sought out the whore. For me it is clear that SHE was the one coming on to HIM and trying to involve him as we have seen in the scene last episode, where he's barely noticing her.
For me it is clear that this time he IS noticing and that he gets aroused by it, but I don't see at all where he would hire himself a hooker to get himself excited for his wife. Sorry, no way. For me that would be completely out of character.
The hookers needed money - I recall where Ned went into a brothel and 3 of them were all over him very insistently trying to get him as a customer. So that they could be aggressive to Jamie doesn't seem too out there.
On 5/1/2016 at 8:17 PM, nodorothyparker said:I've always thought her reliance on sexual violence as her goto plot device was lazy writing. I know the first time I read the series by the time I got to Breath of Snow and Ashes and what happens to Claire there, I just almost couldn't with all of it anymore, no matter how much else I may have loved the series. We get it that these were violent times where it especially sucked to be women. There are plenty of ways to show that that don't involve going to the same well over and over and over again. They very easily could have Mary's uncle or fiance intercept those hearts and flowers letters she was gushing about and draw their own conclusions. They could have caught them in what appeared to be an inappropriate embrace. Think of the powerful commentary on women's roles in this society it would have made for had she been thrown over or publicly branded a whore for trying to exert control over her own life. And it still could have landed her firmly in the Randall family's orbit where she needs to be.
I've said it before. This show is known as Rapelander in some corners and when you pull back enough to look at it with an objective eye, you can kind of see why.
It was much harder for women, but even so, there were probably not rapes every other day. Probably rape was a capital crime, too. It was probably mostly marital/incestuous or other abusive situations.
-
On 4/23/2016 at 10:34 PM, tcay said:
I haven't gone to look at the script yet, but I thought I heard Fergus say "ok" in English? Silly nitpick, but it stuck out to me.
Claire said to Jamie, "It's OK" when he imagined Randall in bed with her. I wondered is that something a British person would use in 1945. And Jamie wouldn't know it. But the moment was too serious for him to bring it up.
-
On 4/7/2016 at 5:28 PM, Glaze Crazy said:
I'm glad they showed Claire searching the Reverend's library for information about Culloden and how Frank asks her to stop looking and live in the present.
I was glad to see the addition of Claire talking to Mrs. Graham about it. Goodness, this woman dances around the stones and retells the legends, she was probably the best one to accept the bold truth without physical proof.
On 4/8/2016 at 1:27 PM, AD55 said:I loved this episode. I can think of only two things I would change, both very minor: 1) For me, it felt off to have Claire ask who won the battle of Culloden. As I recall, the whole point of the intrigue was to avoid the showdown at Culloden moor.
If she could go beyond that library, surely since Jamie was a laird, there would be a record of him and his death. She might even find his grave - she knew or could find out where Lallybroch was. It would be creepy to find he'd lived past Culloden - but that would mess up the plot since she could then just go back. A previous thread mentioned that Jamie might not have lived past the day he met Claire, without her medical help. It would be creepy for her to find he had died in 1743. Like her going back didn't change anything. It did change things for a lot of people, who would have died sooner had she not been there in 1743.
Frank might not believe her - By the 1940s, people are too science based and can't believe it - but then it does happen in the novel's world, and Mrs. Graham is right rather than credulous.
When Claire first got there, she had apparently come from a day in 1746 when she did not know who won - I guess the Season will show how far she got or how reasonable it might be for her to think the Jacobites might have.
I felt sad for her. She is a widow, emotionally, recently bereaved. And learning the British won Culloden after all made her break down.
It is a good twist to have a baby conceived in 1746 but born in 1948.
We also learn about the stones. They can take you back, and in addition, the amount of time you spent in the past has passed too.
Also raises the question - can Claire find 1968 Geillis in time to tell her what's going to happen to her unless she avoids Craig na Dun?
I also hope the "beat up Jamie" theme doesn't continue. From the floggings, the dislocated shoulder, taking Leery's punishment and all the rest of it, that's been done to death.
S03.E08: First Wife
in Outlander
So do you think she should have gone back and not stayed with him in 1766 over the fact he married Leery? Even though he still loved her and didn't want to stay with Leery?