Show Spoilers and Book Talk

[tcay]

Yeah it could very well be that Claire just runs into her at a camp--small scene to remind viewers about her, as others pointed out.

 

Picture in question:

http://lawabidingtatie.tumblr.com/post/135279405825/lucky-enough-to-meet-these-lovely-lasses-on-set-at

[Nidratime]

This web site is taking a close look at the S2 Outlander costumes. They're simply beautiful.

http://www.frockflicks.com/outlander-season-2-costumes-preview/

Edited December 17, 2015 by Nidratime

[nodorothyparker]

Laoghaire doesn't appear in DIA but she does get a mention.  When Colum comes to Charles' court in Edinburgh to decide if the MacKenzies are going to join his fight he tells Claire and Jamie that she married one of the MacKenzie men who will later die at Culloden.  That would be her first husband.  So maybe she'll be part of the court there when they're all in the castle together?

Edited December 17, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[Nidratime]

Diana, at Stirling Castle, talking about Sam's portrayal of Jamie:

[tcay]

Kristin Dos Santos tweeted that she saw the first episode of the second season. If Bree and Roger haven't filmed any scenes yet and the first episode is edited and in the can, then it might be safe to say the show will not be following the 1960s bookend structure.

[Dust Bunny]

That's probably better for non-book readers, especially for new viewers, who might come for Paris and stay for Scotland. And then be completely hooked by the time the 60s show up. Less chance for whiplash.

 

I have such mixed feelings about Kristin Dos Santos. I think she's helped promote the show, but I also think her reviews can be eyeroll-inducing, even for a fellow fangal. If you're super excited about everything, eventually it means nothing. 

[tcay]

Confirmed by TCA tweets, we're going to see Claire in 1948.

 

ETA link to tweet:

https://twitter.com/JimHalterman/status/685530607984615425

Edited January 8, 2016 by tcay

[Nidratime]

New Outlander video out. (Doesn't have anything in it from the 1940's.)

 

This:

http://linkis.com/www.starz.com/origin/ETmGS
 

Or this (same thing):

http://www.starz.com/originals/outlander/video/63526ba17bc647fcac3f96b063361411

[Nidratime]

Confirmed by TCA tweets, we're going to see Claire in 1948.

 

ETA link to tweet:

https://twitter.com/JimHalterman/status/685530607984615425

 

Now I want to know where Roger (and I'm hoping, Brianna) factors into all of this. At what point in the season do they show up.

[tcay]

I can't see them jumping between 3 time periods throughout the season, so maybe they'll amount to cameos at the very end of the season, assuming they do the 20 year time jump then.

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

 

I couldn't make out what Jamie spits out though when he gets in Claire's face. Help anyone?

 

 I'm not sure which time...... the first time he says "when I come home with a problem, I want to be able to turn to my wife" but the second time (which I think you mean) he says "must I bear everyone's weakness?" I think anyway...

 

[Nidratime]

Big spoilers in this article:

 

New ‘Outlander’ trailer highlights a change from the book

http://zap2it.com/2016/01/new-outlander-season-2-trailer-change-book/

[tcay]

"After the TCA panel was finished, I asked Moore if we’d be seeing Sam Heughan and Caitriona Balfe age this season as they do in the books. Moore confirmed it will happen, but not in season two."

 

http://www.showbizjunkies.com/tv/ronald-moore-diana-gabaldon-outlander-season-2/

 

Edited: I found another article with a quote from RDM saying we will say 1968 by the end of the season. So I'm thoroughly confused and should probably just stop speculating at this point.

 

http://zap2it.com/2016/01/outlander-season-2-brianna-casting-update-very-close/

Edited January 9, 2016 by tcay

[asp]

I was beyond shocked when I read the book. I even went back a couple of times, to make sure I was reading it in the correct order/slot. Why should the experience be any different for the TV viewers?

My heart was crushed, but somehow the search for the old records kept me curious. And boy, was that a pay off!

I love the fact that 50 years old Claire kept the flame alight and was still that much in love with Jamie. (I'm a tad over 60 and I felt like cheering all the time! :D)

[Nidratime]

This makes it clear they won't be following the DiA's structure exactly:

‘Outlander’ EP says they’re ‘very close to casting Brianna’

http://zap2it.com/2016/01/outlander-season-2-brianna-casting-update-very-close/

[tallyrand]

I am not excited that rather than bringing Brianna and Roger into it more in season 2 there is yet more frank. It seems to me that season 2 will be claire telling her story to frank when she returns to 1948. I feel petulant about it but it frustrates me. I was looking forward to this season specifically because I thought the love triangle aspect was mostly over.

[Nidratime]

I wonder if wee Roger will make an appearance in any of the 1940's scenes? It would be a nice bookend for the not-so-wee Roger at the end of the Season. Plus, it will make up for the fact that Claire never was shown meeting Roger last season, although she did so in the book.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Nidratime

[Nidratime]

Well, I know that Roger showed up in Season 1, after Claire had already left for the 1700's so we never saw them meet. One would assume they must have met since she and Frank spent so much time with Reverend Wakefield in the 1940's, but if we didn't see it, we can't assume it happened.

[asp]

8 new HQ stills of Outlander season 2:

 

http://outlander-online.com/2016/01/12/8-new-hq-stills-of-outlander-season-2/

[lianau]

Just a thought I had . Do you think people (or a certain type of people) will be up in arms over Claire's alcohol consumption during her pregnancy ?

[Nidratime]

Just a thought I had . Do you think people (or a certain type of people) will be up in arms over Claire's alcohol consumption during her pregnancy ?

 

 

Maybe people who mentally transfer 21st century water sanitation to the 18th century.

[asp]

Just a thought I had . Do you think people (or a certain type of people) will be up in arms over Claire's alcohol consumption during her pregnancy ?

 

I'm pretty sure that even in the 1950's people weren't fully aware of the pernicious effects of alcohol on babies.

 

But, yeah, there will be a few hissy fits over that! :D

Edited January 15, 2016 by asp

[DittyDotDot]

Just a thought I had . Do you think people (or a certain type of people) will be up in arms over Claire's alcohol consumption during her pregnancy ?

 

That's interesting because I was watching some old episodes of I Love Lucy the other day--they were from the season where Lucille Ball was actually pregnant--and it took me a minute to remember how everyone smoked 1950s, even pregnant ladies. 

 

However, I would bet the show itself will probably just not show the amount of alcohol being consumed the books depict, in general.

[WatchrTina]

Well, we've already seen photos and scenes from trailers showing Claire seated at the head of a dinner table where you know wine will be served -- they're living in the house of a wine-merchant after all and the excuse for the dinner parties they throw is to show off his wares. So I'd guess we're going to see preggers Claire imbibing pretty freely.

Edited January 17, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Andorra]

There's a new interview with Diana Gabaldon on youtube, where she says that sometimes the different books might overlapp in order to fit the chronology better, but that season two actually follows the book closer than the first season did. I find that promising. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOtiO4j2w3U

[bearcatfan]

Well, we've already seen photos and scenes from trailers showing Claire seated at the head of a dinner table where you know wine will be served -- they're living in the house of a wine-merchant after all and the excuse for the dinner parties they throw is to show off his wares. So I'd guess we're going to see preggers Claire imbibing pretty freely.

I'm sure we will. Hopefully people will remember that the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant has been a fairly recent discovery. It was only recognized in the 1970s so even Claire wouldn't have known the dangers from her original time period.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

 

Hopefully people will remember that the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant has been a fairly recent discovery. It was only recognized in the 1970s so even Claire wouldn't have known the dangers from her original time period.

 

This isn't true.  While the term "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome" was coined in 1973, the adverse effects of alcohol on mother and child have been known for centuries.  Read:Alcohol Use and Abuse by Women, a special report for Congress. (http://www.come-over.to/FAS/congress.htm)

 

In "A Description of the Western Islands of Scotland" by Martin Martin (first published 1703 - 40 years before Jamie and Claire's time in Scotland) Martin writes about the islanders of Skye: The mother generally suckles the child, failing of which a nurse is provided, for they seldom bring up any by hand; they give new-born infants fresh butter to take away the miconium, and this they do for several days; they taste neither sugar, nor cinnamon, nor have they any daily allowance of sack bestowed on them, as the custom is elsewhere, nor is the nurse allowed to taste ale.

 

Seems to me that both Jamie - and especially Claire being a nurse from a more modern time - should have known the dangers of too much alcohol consumption during her pregnancy.  FYI - it's not even the wine or ale that bothered me so much in the book.  But it's when she downed over a bottle of brandy that I thought 'what an idiot'.

 

ETA: corrected 'Alcohol' because I can't spell.

Edited January 18, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[Dejana]

I've had the impression that there has long been a vague awareness about it not being good for women to consume too much alcohol during pregnancy, though what constituted "too much" in the past would differ from current ideas, and that it varied among cultures and eras. In Gone with the Wind (written in the mid-1930s), there's a character who secretly drank a lot during a particular pregnancy, and the way the child is described physically and intellectually would fit with what would now be viewed as a fetal alcohol disorder, though it could be a coincidence.

I don't think I noticed how much Claire drank when I read the early books.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Dejana

[asp]

I agree with Dejana, if there was an awareness (if any at all), I'm sure it was very vague, and probably specific to a certain comunity beliefs or customs.  

 

I'm not ready to blame/convict Claire, based on the end of one sentence, on a book written about the mores of a particular area of Scotland.

 

How well known was "A Description of the Western Islands of Scotland" by Martin Martin (I imagine books were still very expensive and fairly scarce  at that time) ? Can we say for sure, that not imbibing alcohol wasn't a precaution to prevent the nurse from getting drunk while taking care of someone else's child? (There's no mention of the pregnant mother).

 

 

And the "Alcohol Use and Abuse by Women", report for Congress (http://www.come-over...AS/congress.htm) clearly states:

Near the end of the 19th century, many epidemiologists began to
examine this issue and such studies continued into the early 20th
century. Animal research brought the issue scientific status as it
proved potential harm existed from prenatal alcohol exposure. By
the 1920s, with the coming of the Prohibition era, the issues of
prenatal alcohol exposure and birth defects were virtually ignored
in both England and in the United States. -40

In 1940, such research began once more, and some scientists used
animal study findings to ridicule pre-Prohibition concerns, arguing
that prenatal exposure to alcohol might contribute to behavioral
abnormalities, but they were most likely the results of postnatal
home and social conditions. By the 1960s, a large amount of medical
literature condoned moderate alcohol use during pregnancy, doubting
any relationship with birth defects other than an hereditary basis
until the thalidomide tragedy. -41

 

 

The key sentences being: In 1940, such research began once more, and some scientists used animal study findings to ridicule pre-Prohibition concerns, arguing that prenatal exposure to alcohol might contribute to behavioral abnormalities, but they were most likely the results of postnatal home and social conditions.By the 1960s, a large amount of medical literature condoned moderate alcohol use during pregnancy, doubting any relationship with birth defects other than an hereditary basis until the thalidomide tragedy.

 

So, Claire, even as a nurse in the 40's (and let's not forget she was a field combat nurse), would probably be unaware of the ill effects of alcohol. IMHO.

 

I'm not condoning her behaviour in any way, I'm just saying it's probably accurate  and acceptable given that time frame.

Edited January 19, 2016 by asp

[RulerofallIsurvey]

So, Claire, even as a nurse in the 40's (and let's not forget she was a field combat nurse), would probably be unaware of the ill effects of alcohol. IMHO.

 

I'm not condoning her behaviour in any way, I'm just saying it's probably accurate  and acceptable given that time frame.

 

I disagree.  According to a number of websites I checked (The National Center for Biotechnology Information, The Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Centers for Excellence, The University of South Dakota, Sanford School of Medicine, to name a few) all agreed that:

"Recognition of the connection between prenatal maternal alcohol consumption and the

occurrence of subsequent physical, mental, behavioral, and/or learning disabilities was

noted even in ancient times"

 

Further:

In 1735, the College of Physicians in England warned Parliament of the effects of prenatal

maternal alcohol consumption on children. Perhaps the first scientific investigation into

what we now know as Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) was published in 1899 by

Dr. William Sullivan of Liverpool, England.

 

Now, maybe it's just me, but Claire, being an English nurse, having been educated (as far as nursing school anyway) in England, and these being English studies, I would think that *some time* during her nursing education she would have been exposed to at least the theory of the danger of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.  

 

Not to mention, then, as now, nurses were trained in ALL fields of nursing during their education.  Just because she was a field nurse during the war doesn't mean she didn't do her rounds in obstetrics during school.  Of course she did.  

 

I realize that it makes us feel superior to think so (look how much more we know now!) but people really weren't as stupid in the past as we'd like to believe they were.  YMMV of course - and the women of the French court I can excuse, as many of them probably couldn't even read and write, but IMO Claire really should have known better than to overindulge.  

[asp]

Neither of us can be certain of what Claire knew or didn't know about the subject, so I see no point in dragging this any further. 

 

Assuming you're right RulerofallIsurvey, if Claire was aware and still drank, she was indeed an idiot .

 

To me, this feels totally OOC for Claire who is described throughout the book series as a smart woman and a compassionate caregiver. If she knew the risks, wouldn't she, first and foremost, protect and care for her own baby? I choose to believe so.  

Edited January 20, 2016 by asp

[bearcatfan]

During my nursing education back in the 1980s we were told that the effects of alcohol were not fully understood until recently and that we would have to educate women because their mothers, grandmothers, aunts would tell them that they drank while pregnant. I don't care what papers you have found that predate the 1970s, the fact remains that pregnant women were not explicitly told to avoid alcohol before that time.

[GrailKing]

@asp

 

Neither of us can be certain of what Claire knew or didn't know about the subject, so I see no point in dragging this any further.

 

Assuming you're right RulerofallIsurvey, if Claire was aware and still drank, she was indeed an idiot .

 

To me, this feels totally OOC for Claire who is described throughout the book series as a smart woman and a compassionate caregiver. If she knew the risks, wouldn't she, first and foremost, protect and care for her own baby? I choose to believe so.

 

I think she would have known, but it's may be a stress reliever for her, as for the bold part, she wasn't thinking about the baby when Jamie was telling her to go back to her own time for her and the baby's safety.

[DittyDotDot]

Well, we've already seen photos and scenes from trailers showing Claire seated at the head of a dinner table where you know wine will be served -- they're living in the house of a wine-merchant after all and the excuse for the dinner parties they throw is to show off his wares. So I'd guess we're going to see preggers Claire imbibing pretty freely.

 

Sorry, I only meant they might not show her actually drinking all that much. It still can be heavily-implied that she does, but I was just guessing they might not show her actually consuming alcohol on-screen much. Which, if she only drinks a glass of wine from time to time wouldn't set most people off because it's been suggested that a small amount of alcohol intake from time to time while pregnant doesn't harm the child. So, if she takes a sip of wine at a dinner party, but isn't shown drinking for the rest of the episode people may not think all that much of it. But in the books, they never drink anything but some form of alcohol that I recall. 

 

On the issue of what Claire may have known about the dangers of alcohol consumption while pregnant: I recall Claire helping Jenny deliver one of her bairns, Jenny asks Claire to give her some whiskey. Claire says if she did, the baby would be born drunk. So it appears Claire knew something on the subject.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On the issue of what Claire may have known about the dangers of alcohol consumption while pregnant: I recall Claire helping Jenny deliver one of her bairns, Jenny asks Claire to give her some whiskey. Claire says if she did, the baby would be born drunk. So it appears Claire knew something on the subject.

 

Good point.  Adding a spoiler, just in case

in Drums of Autumn, when Bree is giving birth and Jamie offers to fetch beer, Claire says, "alcohol wouldn’t be good for the baby."

 

Now I realize that this is after Claire has become a doctor.  Still, her years in medical school to become a doctor was a couple decades before bearcatfan's nursing education of the 1980's.  Even when she was pregnant with Faith, Claire was not just your average pregnant woman.  She was a nurse.  She shouldn't have needed to be explicitly told to avoid overindulging in alcohol to know better, which she seemed to do pretty freely in the book.  I hope they tone it down for the show, although I think it would be anachronistic to not show her drinking a glass of wine occasionally. 

[AD55]

Either in an interview or on her twitter feed, Diana, lapsing into that smug superiority she sometimes adopts, rolled her eyes at people who blame Claire for drinking while pregnant. According to Diana, blaming Claire is anachronistic since the adverse effects of alcohol on fetuses were not known in the eighteenth century. Now, whether Diana is wrong and someone like Claire *would* have known is open to debate. I tend to think that she wouldn't as it was only in 1981 that the FDA issued an advisory on alcohol and pregnancy in response to research findings in the 1970s. Even today, the Mayo Clinic website advises people to "use alcohol only with great care and after consulting your doctor" if you are pregnant or trying to become pregnant. Medical advances don't proceed in a straight line and, rightly or wrongly, the discoveries of people in past times and other cultures are often disputed or dismissed until contemporary research confirms them. In any event, based on what Diana said, I think we can safely assume that the heroine she created didn't know that drinking puts fetuses at risk. Perhaps Claire's advice to Jenny is a setup and TV Claire will not drink during pregnancy. It may be that Moore et al are afraid it would set a bad example. That certainly didn't occur to the showrunners for Mad Men, on which pregnant women smoked and drank with gay abandon.

[asp]

On the issue of what Claire may have known about the dangers of alcohol consumption while pregnant: I recall Claire helping Jenny deliver one of her bairns, Jenny asks Claire to give her some whiskey. Claire says if she did, the baby would be born drunk. So it appears Claire knew something on the subject.

 

On the other hand, in the previous episode, Claire pours, a very pregnant Jenny, a glass of wine...

Edited January 20, 2016 by asp

[GHScorpiosRule]

Oh Geeze.

 

Is Claire's drinking going to be Season's two hot button? Like spanking v. beating was in Season one?

[peacefrog]

Frankly, the issue of her drinking while pregnant is irrelevant to the story unless they make it one and we have no way of knowing yet. I'm pretty sure they won't since there are plenty of other storylines to pull from the book. It's not something I would get upset about,we don't even know what she is drinking in those stills, could be water. What else is there for her to drink anyway besides water, wine or ale?

I'm more concerned about fitting all the rape in.

[Dust Bunny]

 

Is Claire's drinking going to be Season's two hot button? Like spanking v. beating was in Season one?

 

If only.

 

 

I'm more concerned about fitting all the rape in.

 

I think the biggest issue will be what they choose to do with Fergus. I keep thinking about the kid actor and how much he'll know of the plot, if they don't change it.

 

I'm more excited about what we're not being shown: Fergus, any of L'Hôpital des Anges, Master Raymond, Jared, Lallybroch 2.0, the Old Fox, and the Return of the MacKenzies.

[j5cochran]

Regarding the discussion of Claire drinking while pregnant:

 

Claire may also need to take the state of water quality under consideration.  There is no such thing as water treatment in this time period, and, though it is mentioned in the books as a part of Claire's preparation for her nursing work, boiling every drop of water for drinking is a lot of work. Cholera, typhoid, and dysentery are no joke (yes, I know that she is probably vaccinated against typhoid, but ...).

 

In this time period, serving wine and beer at every meal, to adults and children, was common. As long as she's not polishing off whole bottles of wine and whisky, she's probably good to go.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Is Claire's drinking going to be Season's two hot button? Like spanking v. beating was in Season one?

Nah.  That's likely to be the scene where Jamie rips Claire's dress, exposes her and threatens to rape her in front of his men.  If they include that in the show.

 

And yes, I know why he allegedly did it...but I can still envision it causing a bit of controversy.

Edited January 21, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Yeah, the same occured to me when they casted the teenage version of Lord John. Altough it seems obvious to everyone sans John, that Jamie is bluffing and putting up this show to actually spare the kid's life and some of his pride but the image of half-exposed Claire in the front of soldiers will certainly look unsettling.

 

Hm, well, I reckon it's a matter of reading perspective.  I don't remember thinking that it was obvious to everyone (even me as the reader) that Jamie was doing it to spare the kid's life and pride.  I hope if they do include it in the show, that comes across better.  I think it would.  I noticed several things from the first season that, when I read it kind of had me scratching my head, but when I saw it acted out made much more sense.

 

Anyway, I hope they will keep in the conversation between C&J in tent that follows this scene, because it was some good stuff.

 

I'll have to go back and reread that.  All I really remember is Jamie asking Claire to have sympathy for HIM after he humiliated her.  Right....

 

From modern point of view, Jamie does many controversial (or at least crude) things throughout the course of novels and I don't want them to polish his rough edges, but I can imagine some of it may appear too much for the non-readers.

 

I grew up with mostly male family members, and I work (and always have worked) in a mostly male oriented occupation, so I'm used to a lot of modern male behavior.  And some of it is still pretty crude.  Really crude sometimes....  

 

However, I think a man forcibly exposing his beloved wife's breasts to what amounts to basically a bunch of strangers transcends acceptable behavior in any era.  If included in the show, it is Not going to translate well, regardless of Jamie's good intentions.  I mean, can you imagine General Bonaparte doing that to Josephine?  Or General Washington using Martha thus?  I think not.

 

ETA: corrected Napoleon and Josephine because I am a stupid American who does not know French history.  

 

My original point still stands.

Edited January 23, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[lianau]

Nah.  That's likely to be the scene where Jamie rips Claire's dress, exposes her and threatens to rape her in front of his men.  If they include that in the show.

 

And yes, I know why he allegedly did it...but I can still envision it causing a bit of controversy.

They have to include it , it's the starting point of  Jamie and John's relationship and something John remembers years later .

 

 

 

 

Unless they want to smoothen this scene and Claire will be more of a willing participant.

 

 

I hope they keep it just the way it was in the book . The spanking scene of season 1 didn't really work for me because they tried to appease the critics and as a result the scene just felt odd .

[asp]

They have to include it , it's the starting point of  Jamie and John's relationship and something John remembers years later .

 

 

 

I hope they keep it just the way it was in the book . The spanking scene of season 1 didn't really work for me because they tried to appease the critics and as a result the scene just felt odd .

 

Yes, and also the fact that he will owe Jamie a life.

 

Just a wee side note:

 

Marie Antoinette was the wife of Louis  XVI, of France.

 

Napoleon Bonaparte married Joséphine de Beauharnais and later Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma

[Nidratime]

Here's a fetching photo of Jamie in his parisian garb.

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZXs_RZUAAA0JiJ.jpg

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Yes, and also the fact that he will owe Jamie a life.

They could still change how the interaction occurs in the show and keep the basic facts: Jamie meets LJG and LJG ends up owing Jamie his life.  They don't necessarily have to show Jamie humiliating his wife for that to happen.  

 

Just a wee side note:Marie Antoinette was the wife of Louis  XVI, of France.Napoleon Bonaparte married Joséphine de Beauharnais and later Marie Louise, Duchess of Parmap

 

Oops.  That'll teach me to check my facts first.  Thank you for the correction!

[toolazy]

That is one of my (many) favorite scenes from the second book and I hope that they don't sanitize it for our delicate modern sensibilities.  

[asp]

A little sneak peek at master Raymond's shop:

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/_ZpT19NqWf/

 

and a gorgeous new dress:

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/_pFUznNqQc/

Edited January 28, 2016 by asp

[Dust Bunny]

Love those pictures. I think we're in for lots of great surprises for this season.

 

So I'm guessing Starz will announce season 3 pick-up right around when season 2 starts. I can't imagine it not happening, with Outlander being its bread and butter right now.

 

But they have to have already given a wink to the producers, right? Costuming, scouting, and all that pre-pre production has to get going soon, I would imagine. I don't think season 3 will require the number of costumes as 2, but I'm sure Terry Dresbach will be needing to work ahead.

 

And how long would the hiatus be before filming would start? Surely the cast and crew need a break, including time to work on other projects, especially Sam and Cait. Game of Thrones tries to keep it at the same time every year, but I don't think Outlander will do that time frame. 

Edited January 28, 2016 by Dust Bunny