absnow54

Didn't Claire also have the scar from the blood vow on her wrist when she has her palm read in the first book? I thought that meant that Claire had in some way existed in the 18th century first. So yes, Colloden is her fault. ;-)

This thread is for comparing the book to the show and speculation. People are allowed to have positive and negative reactions to the adaptation. I don't see anyone threatening to torch Ron D's house yet for injustices (maybe in other corners of the internet, but not here), just people speculating how the rest of the season will play out given what's left in the book and how the show's covered things so far. I really enjoyed that scene as well. In the book she had this idea that she was close, but it came off as such a long shot. Having her within reach of the stones was really compelling, and I liked that she could hear Frank through the stones, it was sort of a callback to the supernatural element of the screams she heard when she first touched them. I'm really curious to see how they'll play the scene of Claire and Jamie at Craig na Dun. I'm kind of hoping they take their time there with Claire comparing her life in 1743 with her life in 1945. In the book it's really "hmm, Jamie or hot baths..." It could be a good time to really explore Claire's character.

I feel like telling her that Jamie didn't die in Colluden would be a much better way of going about it than chronically cheating on her... Frank not telling Claire was pretty selfish, but at the same time, he did it to protect Brianna. If he'd told Claire she may have run straight back to the stones and either abandoned Bree or brought her along, which would put her in danger. Now those are some shades of gray that I'd like to see Tobias Menzies play.

From the Unpopular Opinion thread... This is how I interpreted Frank from the book, but the TV show has shown something very different. All of Claire's Frankbacks have had her included and engaged in all of Frank and the Reverend's discussions. The reason she went off to the kitchen to get her tea leaves read was because she felt so out of place with the Reverend. With the show, these little flashback scenes help with the exposition, but I think Claire's portrayal is off in them when painting her relationship with Frank against her relationship with Jamie. I never got the impression that Frank was a bad guy, only that he didn't know how to relate to Claire and wasn't the guy for her. Contrast that with Jamie who is very open with discussing feelings and their relationship. The show has done a disservice in portraying both relationships, in my opinion, which is making it hard for me to understand her final choice in the show universe.

Moving my response to the Book Comparison thread since the topic is veering towards not so unpopular opinions...

I got a much better hold on Jamie's character in the Wedding episode alone than I've gotten from Claire's through all 8 episodes. I can see where Jamie and Claire's relationship has been woefully underdeveloped, but to me Jamie has been developed just fine for this stage of the story. I understand why he does things without him having to tell me, like Claire's voice overs constantly have to do.

I agree. I know it's controversial to throw around the romance word with Outlander, but the first book especially is dependent not only on the romance between Jamie and Claire, but the romance of the 18th century. I think the show is trying too hard to shake off the stigma of being considered a romance novel that they're focusing on everything but. I think this show would greatly benefit from a Claire-centric episode. We've had a BJR episode, a Jamie episode, and a Frank episode. I know we're inside Claire's head, but I don't understand her motivations because she's really just being bounced around a few plots that have nothing to do with her.

I agree with this. They have a very limited time to present Jamie as a romantic lead, and they've already wasted a lot of it. It's a tough sell, to me, that Claire would stick around in the 18th century after going through so much violence and trauma in one episode, only to have her husband show NO empathy and then laugh at her when she doesn't want to get spanked. Then after that in a few short episodes she'll be put on trial for being a witch. Why on Earth would she stay? I think they're romanticizing the 1940s too much. I really hope in the episode leading up to her big choice that they really delve into Claire's character and why she makes the decision she does, especially since her time in the 18th century is only going to get darker/more dangerous.

I've said it before, but I hope they bookend the scene where Jamie volunteers to take Laoghaire's punishment with him volunteering to take Claire's. We're coming off an episode where we've seen Claire threatened twice. Two events that Jamie has witnessed as well. To go into the strapping scene with all of this so fresh, to me, would make Jamie look like a monster. I never cared for it in the book, but within the context of the show it's going to be an even tougher sell. If the idea is Claire must be punished for being disobedient, in Jamie's eyes, shouldn't nearly being raped and mutilated by BJR be punishment enough? If punishing Claire is demanded by Dougal and the rest of the clan, Jamie steps up to take the punishment himself, but Claire, seeing that it will turn her and Jamie into outcasts among the rest of the clan, chooses to take the punishment herself, I think that changes the tone entirely. Jamie will have a new respect for Claire, and since Claire will have given her consent, I think it would make Jamie's playfulness during the actual strapping scene less shocking.

At this point, I think Jamie's back story isn't fleshed out enough to convey the urgency of why he would leave her in this situation. Yes, he's an outlaw, he tells us this every episode, but it seems like such an empty threat at this point. Why does he so desperately want this price lifted from his head when nobody seems to be looking for him? They've touted through towns where people didn't have enough money to pay their rent and had to give up their only source of food to get by, yet NO ONE was tempted to collect the ransom money from the outlaw who was being paraded about? I know it's almost certain death to go against the War Chieften of the clan, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and that would have been an easy way to show that Jamie's freedom was threatened. Even having one of the deserters recognize him would have tied to the danger he was in and given motivation to clear his name right.now. I think they've laid the groundwork, we know Jamie is loyal to the Frasers and his home because he wouldn't take the MacKenzie oath and he refused to wear anything but Fraser colors at his wedding, and we know he wants to settle down and be a family with Claire at Lallybroch, but I think they could have spent more time with Jamie and Claire developing that rather than all of Frank's adventures. Jamie and Claire have two options right now, stay with the MacKenzie's where they will be "protected" or secure Jamie's freedom and get out from under Dougal's thumb (which, by the way, why is Dougal even helping Jamie with this Horrocks thing when he's got Jamie and Claire comfortably in his pocket, and obviously wouldn't want Claire running off to Lallybroch when he's still trying to seduce her...) I think they could have made that all more clear to justify why Jamie would leave Claire alone after the trauma.

They're still collecting rent, I believe. Although, they're taking a detour, I guess, to meet up with Horrocks. It's just like the episode Rent when they were camping by the road in between towns, but now that Claire is one of them, she gets to play along with their lollygagging rather than sulking in the corner.

When Frank sees the ghost, I don't think it's told too differently from when Jamie tattles on Dougal for telling him not to look too eager for a woman. The scenes appear to take place in the present, but in the next scene Claire is being informed about it. We know that Claire knows that Frank saw a ghost because we saw a scene of him telling her about it. So far I don't think a scene has taken place outside of Claire's POV unless a character has told her about the scene. Staying within that narrative structure, it means that the only way we the audience can see these solo Frank scenes is if Frank (or someone witnessing Frank's anguish like the Reverend or the tea reading lady -- I can't remember her name) had (or technically will have) relayed it to Claire. I guess I'm operating under the impression that Claire's voice over is the true present, and all the show present, be it 1945 or 1743 is a story she's remembering.

I agree with this, but I think the show did a poor job conveying it. There should have been more focus on the man as a dead body than on the man while he was sexually assaulting her. In that scene, the shock was "Oh my God, this woman is being raped!" not "Oh my God, this woman just murdered a man for the first time."

There's a scene after the Ft William rescue and before the strapping that I believe they address this. It's in the "you're tearing my guts out, Claire!" I think, and it really gives Claire the opportunity to see and understand Jamie's POV and start to view him as more than just a bed buddy. I really hope the show pays this scene justice, because I think it's very important in setting the tone for the strapping, which at this point, with the setup they've given, is going to be awful.

Honestly I thought BJR was just as cartoon-y, over the top evil in the book too, possibly even more so than his portrayal on the show. Most of my gripes with the show are straight out of the source material, but with the pacing and visual media of television, have only been amplified.

Given that any scene that doesn't include Claire is a flashback being told to Claire (Jamie's wedding planning, BJR and the flogging) the inclusion of Frank's POV in Both Sides Now confirms that Claire and Frank will meet again for her to hear his story.

Claire and Jamie have only been married 2 days, betrothed a day before that, and were friends for 6 weeks. I know we're far more familiar with Jamie and Claire's relationship than we are with Frank and Claire's, but I don't think there's much competition as of yet.

Where they were alleging she was going, she wouldn't need clothes. ;-)

I don't mind that they did the 1940's bits. I just wish it weren't so choppily interlaced with the Highlands. Every scene seemed to cut away a few beats too soon, and it sort of messed with the pacing. I guess they were trying to play it off as "Claire's life is here now and it's all business as usual for her now." But the almost rape scene especially, the tone and the heaviness of that scene was sort of lost to me because of the abrupt shift to the 1940's in between. This was a really horrifying episode for Claire though. I was cheering for her to get to the stones to elude all those rapists around every corner. *shudder*

Oh man. When they cut from the post-scrimmage rally when Jamie and Claire were supposed to do it on a rock to Frank playing James Bond, I almost threw a can at my TV. I think the cuts to 1940 really killed all the momentum of the Highland scenes. There was so much disconnect from Claire's attack because they cut away half way through it. I thought that was a really poorly done change. Thanks for leaving Willie in the copse with Claire though!

I just ran a search on my kindle version, and they refer to them as "redcoats" quite often (33 times). They also use "lobsterback" at times too (only 3 though).

8 episodes is nearly a full season for most premium channel seasons, so it's not like they're leaving us with mere scraps to nibble on during the hiatus. If people won't tune in again after a 7 month wait, then they wouldn't wait a whole year to tune into season 2. I'm sure season 2's premiere won't be in August though, because then there'd be only, like, two months between the end of season 1 and 2.

I never understood why they couldn't leave a man behind with her. I would have bought her shaking her highlander guard more than Jamie leaving her alone in a meadow a few days after almost getting murdered and raped. Claire knocking out one of the clansmen to get away would also support why Dougal and the others were hesitant about rescuing her because they assumed she was a spy.

At this point, I don't think Claire suffers from Joey Potter It! Disorder. So far only Jamie and Dougal seem to be fawning over her and it's because of her tenacity, so there's an actual character trait they're attracted to and not just a "she's the most beautifulest and blandest of them all." I think we've also seen enough interactions between Claire and Angus and Rupert to support them being friendly with her too, even though Angus is too surly to be friendly all the time. The scene with Claire charming a room full of English officers was a bit heavy handed for my liking, especially when Dougal and Thomas shared a warm "she sure knows how to put us men in place" chuckle, so I do agree that the show runs the risk.

I just can't imagine after last week's episode, Dougal going up to Randall and saying "Show's over, she's married now," without him going "to whom?" Like 95% of Claire's cover stories have been burst by Randall simply asking for a name. Dougal plays a far better game than Claire though, so I can hand wave that he talked his way out of it without revealing the name of the bridegroom or showing any papers, but that the arrangement will blow up in their faces eventually. If anyone can throw down in an epic bull shit match against Randall and come out with their secrets still intact, it's Dougal. Claire legally marrying Jamie was more for the Clan's benefit, I think. You want our protection, prove it, you're one of us now. (And you know, all the political gains Dougal gets from marrying off Jamie to a Sassenach. But that's not a point that Dougal would be broadcasting.) I think I've finally come to terms with the plot point.