Show Spoilers and Book Talk

[Dust Bunny]

9 hours ago, Grashka said:

I think I read his entire statement in Hollywood Reporter and he was responding to someone asking if "Outlander" can face similiar situation like GOT, meaning that the show writers will run out of the original material and have to rely on their own ideas plus some advices from the author. RM laughed and said what is quoted above - that he doesn't think they will catch up to the end of the written books to be left with nothing. There are 5 more of them already, with another one coming probably next year.

Oh, good deal. Thanks for providing that context and clarity.

[Nidratime]

Some questions and answers at the TCA:

https://www.showbizjunkies.com/tv/outlander-season-3-sam-heughan-caitriona-balfe-interview/amp/

[Glaze Crazy]

On 7/29/2017 at 1:14 AM, Grashka said:

with another one coming probably next year.

 

It's probably wrong that I laughed at this comment. Sorry Grashka, if you meant it seriously. I applaud your optimism. I think Diana takes a bit more than a couple years between books. That said, at least she will probably finish the series, unlike another fantasy author's prospects for his series.

I also took RM's comments to be more that they already had enough book material that by the time they worked their way through what's already out there in the books, DG will be done or close to done with the series before they catch up to her.

[toolazy]

Given that it takes her three or four years, I'm not convinced that the show won't run into problems towards the end.  But really, it would be a good problem to have if we have so many seasons, we might overtake the books. 

[theschnauzers]

Book nine will be out before RDM and company get that far. Hard to say about book 10 or beyond. On average, Diana averages a "big book" every four to five years going back to 1981. And she puts out other books. In the past two years, in addition to "Seven Stones" with two brand new novellas, another novella in an anthology, a revised first Companion volume, and a new second Companion volume, she certainly doesn't ignore the series of books, as opposed to a certain series that involves ice and fire.

Edited August 1, 2017 by theschnauzers

[Nidratime]

Titles of Season 3's first five episodes:

3.01  The Battle Joined
3.02  Surrender
3.03  All Debts Paid
3.04  Of Lost Things
3.05  Freedom and Whisky

[DittyDotDot]

19 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Titles of Season 3's first five episodes:

3.01  The Battle Joined
3.02  Surrender
3.03  All Debts Paid
3.04  Of Lost Things
3.05  Freedom and Whisky

So, guessing EP 1 will be mostly Culloden; EP 2 will be the cave years; EP 3 Ardsmuir; EP 4 Hellwater years; EP 5 return to Lallybroch and then setting up the print shop and smuggling.

WOW, that means a lot is going to be packed into those episodes; not just plot, but each episode is going to span years. It'll be interesting to to see how they pull this off.

[Nidratime]

Quote

EP 1 will be mostly Culloden

I'm guessing The Battle Joined has a double meaning. The obvious one is Culloden, but the less obvious would be the eventual battle between Frank and Claire. They start out trying to make it work but things definitely get testy between them. I'm guessing most of the titles have somewhat of a double meaning reflecting the two time lines.

[theschnauzers]

I suspect the first five episodes will be roughly equally divided between Claire/Frank/Bree/ then Roger eat all, and Jamie/Jenny/Old Ian/Fergus/Lord John et al,     One thing for sure, they won't be wasting time on screen, something GoT didn't figure out until this season.

[DittyDotDot]

48 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I'm guessing The Battle Joined has a double meaning. The obvious one is Culloden, but the less obvious would be the eventual battle between Frank and Claire. They start out trying to make it work but things definitely get testy between them. I'm guessing most of the titles have somewhat of a double meaning reflecting the two time lines.

Oh yeah, I figure they'll split the episodes pretty evenly, but I was mostly speaking to Jamie's side of things--that's a lot of stuff to get into the episodes even without Claire's side of it. Sorry I wasn't very clear there.

ETA: I'd bet all the episodes have a double meaning too. For Claire: EP 1, Claire and Frank first in Boston; EP, 2 Brianna's birth; EP 3, Starting med school; EP 4, practicing surgeon; EP 5, Frank's Death.

Edited August 4, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[toolazy]

Episode 5 is when they learn where Jamie is.  "Freedom & whisky gang tegither."  That's the bit that caused Claire to believe that A. Malcolm was Jamie. 

 

I predict that the end of episode 5 is the print shop bell and episode 6 is where we actually see them reunite..  That last bit was actually confirmed by RD Moore.  The reunion happens in episode 6.  

[Haleth]

It's making me giddy as we get closer and get specific news about things like episode titles. It's been longer than I can remember that I was so excited for a show to return.

[lianau]

There is one pet scene that I'd love to get but probably won't and that's the transition from Claire's discovery of Jamie's name on the prison list from Ardsmuir  and her questioning  where the hell that is , and in the 18th century, Quarry describing Ardsmuir as the carbuncle on God's bum . I always loved that . 

Edited August 5, 2017 by lianau

[DittyDotDot]

12 hours ago, lianau said:

There is one pet scene that I'd love to get but probably won't and that's the transition from Claire's discovery of Jamie's name on the prison list from Ardsmuir  and her questioning  where the hell that is , and in the 18th century, Quarry describing Ardsmuir as the carbuncle on God's bum . I always loved that . 

I really love a lot of the transitions from the two different time periods in the first part of Voyager! I always think Diana's writing style feels like episodic television because of these moments more than anything.  

7 hours ago, Grashka said:

I have a couple of such a scenes, the best example is Claire finding and reading a trashy romance novel (and that's how she meets Joe Abernathy) while at the same time starved for any written word Jamie gets 18th century equivalent of such a book circulating in Helwater, and makes his attempts at reading it with a great dose of male scepticism lol I feel such moments add something endearing to character personalities and a humor needed in quite dark chapter of their history.

I hope they keep in the part where Jamie and Lord John are discussing story lengths too! ;)

[lianau]

You're right to mention the 18th century setting and I find it annoying when people expect 21st century values from 18th century characters  but I also think it's important to notice that even Claire  isn't a 21st century character , she was born in 1918 and would be almost 100 years old .

I think there is also tumblr-feminism vs feminism going on and I have to admit , I can be very critical  of tumblr feminists.

[toolazy]

The fact that the books portray the Beardsley trio and Lord John in very sympathetic terms makes me think that DG is not trying to be repressive in her depictions of sex.  Also, I happen to think that it's GREAT that the books show married people having great sex.  The stereotype that once you get married you necessarily won't have a great sex life is a crock.  

[Glaze Crazy]

On 8/7/2017 at 2:55 AM, Grashka said:

The same about Jamie not being a real "feminist" despite of loving and accepting his wife with everything she brought.  Would it even make a sense if he was more of "feminist", given the time period, his upbringing and values? IMO he is forward thinking and open minded for a man of his time, but I appreciate that DG still keeps a lot of his beliefs and values rooted in his time. If he was supposed to act and think like a fully modern male, then what's the point of telling the story of marriage between woman from 20th century and a man from 18th?

I think an interesting contrast can be made when seeing the relationship of Jamie and Claire alongside the one between Brianna and Roger and I hope they highlight it a bit. I think Claire has enough respect for Jamie's feelings and his place in his time not to push the subject too far and I would say she's even somewhat comfortable knowing he will protect her at all costs.  Now there's Brianna and Roger, two modern people out of their time. Jamie's incredulous reaction to Brianna saying to him that Obidiah's squicky attentions to her are not Roger's problem is another way to emphasize the differences between the different eras.

I do like that DG has offered some unconventional ideas of marriage and family (the Beardsleys) and that Jamie is very good friends with LJG yet still will call Beauchamp a "wee sodomite" in a derogatory way.

[nodorothyparker]

The older I get the less appreciation I have for some of the cookie cutter ideas of what feminism has to be, especially those espoused by what I see in the tumblr version of it.  

The thing that always strikes me about this series from Voyager on is how much Claire is in the driver's seat of their story.  Claire chose to go back to the past for Jamie, full well knowing what her limitations would be as a woman there, just as Jamie knows full well that she can leave again at any time she decides "Screw this patriarchal bullshit.  I can walk back through the stones to hot running water and a place I won't be automatically be deemed your property any time I want to go."  Jamie accepts this reality as a perimeter of their relationship to the point that when Brianna and Roger do go back toward the end of Snow and Ashes we see that he picked up a gemstone for Claire too in case she decides she wants to go with them.  He did that knowing that he couldn't presume a choice for her about whether to stay or go with her only child, and if she did go he couldn't follow.

I'll also agree that it really bugs when readers/viewers expect characters in historical settings to have entirely modern views or act as modern characters do.  As it is, those characters that we're expected to identify as the "good" characters are usually more enlightened than they otherwise might reasonably have been expected.  I love the bit in DOA when Claire and Brianna are discussing Bree's pregnancy sans husband and how Jaime is likely to react to the news and Claire has to admit that Jamie is extremely old fashioned compared to their own 1960s attitudes toward it, but well, he's got good reason to be.

[lianau]

7 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

 I love the bit in DOA when Claire and Brianna are discussing Bree's pregnancy sans husband and how Jaime is likely to react to the news and Claire has to admit that Jamie is extremely old fashioned compared to their own 1960s attitudes toward it, but well, he's got good reason to be.

There were hints of that in Voyager too . When Jamie and Claire are alone on the ship  and Jamie is looking through the photos of Brianna and comes across one of her wearing a bikini with a boy also pictured and  proceeds to ask Claire  about Bree's virginity . Scenes like that do so much to characterize Jamie as the 18th century person that he is and help flesh out his character away from the romance novel hot guy trope  but they are  difficult to do because you'll end up with somebody being offended by it . 

Edited August 9, 2017 by lianau

[Nightshade]

I started reading the Outlander series last summer and Drums of Autumn is one of my favorites. The part of the story where Jamie realizes Claire will do anything 

to help Bree weather he agrees or not. Jamie is not surprised about the procedure but that Claire could or would perform it. I like their pro and con discussion.

[toolazy]

I guess I'm the cheese standing alone here because Drums of Autumn is my least favorite.  All Brianna has to say to Jamie & Claire is that she and Roger are handfast. Handfasted. Whichever.

Anyway, if she had just done that, none of the terrible things that happened to Roger would have happened.  She could have been honest about having had sex with Roger and she could have been a bit more forthcoming about Bonnet but no, the story as plotted required her to fail to mention two pretty important things, even though it wasn't really plausible that she wouldn't mention the handfasting. 

This is just one of those places where DG is lazy.  

On the other hand, I love the scene where Jamie & Bree finally meet and I love the bit at Cross Creek with LJG.  

Honestly, I'm kind of dreading season 4 - I don't entirely trust Ron Moore to handle it well. 

[nodorothyparker]

I'm trying to think if I've ever seen anybody seriously say they love the Three's Company worthy misunderstanding and sudden inability for characters to convey very basic information to each other that drives the back half of the plot of that book.  Because yeah, it is a horribly lazy and contrived way to essentially trap all the modern characters in the past to tack on that happy ending.  I think it's probably more that we're recognizing that there are a lot of lovely individual scenes that are done very well that we're fans of in spite of how they're strung together.  Or at least, that's how it is for me.

[FnkyChkn34]

11 hours ago, toolazy said:

I guess I'm the cheese standing alone here because Drums of Autumn is my least favorite.  All Brianna has to say to Jamie & Claire is that she and Roger are handfast. Handfasted. Whichever.

Anyway, if she had just done that, none of the terrible things that happened to Roger would have happened.  She could have been honest about having had sex with Roger and she could have been a bit more forthcoming about Bonnet but no, the story as plotted required her to fail to mention two pretty important things, even though it wasn't really plausible that she wouldn't mention the handfasting. 

This is just one of those places where DG is lazy.  

On the other hand, I love the scene where Jamie & Bree finally meet and I love the bit at Cross Creek with LJG.  

Honestly, I'm kind of dreading season 4 - I don't entirely trust Ron Moore to handle it well. 

I didn't care much for DOA, and book 5 (The Fiery Cross?) is even worse.  I quit about one-third of the way in and haven't been able to finish.

I've said from the beginning the DG is just not a good writer.  She created interesting characters, but her novels are no great works of art.  She's no better than an average writer, in my opinion, and sometimes worse.

[FnkyChkn34]

I think I can better explain my opinion by saying that I agree that DG is a great story-teller; but she's not a good actual writer.  Her characters are well developed and beloved, yes, but basic grammar and sentence structure are often lost on her.  She falls in the middle on the use of stereotypical plot devices.  Therefore, I say she's not a great writer in general.  JMO.

[toolazy]

14 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I didn't care much for DOA, and book 5 (The Fiery Cross?) is even worse.  I quit about one-third of the way in and haven't been able to finish.

I've said from the beginning the DG is just not a good writer.  She created interesting characters, but her novels are no great works of art.  She's no better than an average writer, in my opinion, and sometimes worse.

She's a great writer but she's not always a great plotter of stories.   

13 hours ago, Grashka said:

Diana Gabaldon's writing has its strong and weak aspects IMO. Weak, because she tends to resort to some lazy tactics when she is set on driving a plot somewhere she desires: misunderstandings between two or more chracters, withholding an information or coincidental meetings (the latter annoy me the least). She can be self-indulgent in her writing, meaning the never ending descriptions of certain things she is fixated on, or sometimes very odd details. Strong, because she created characters and a love story that readers have been following for...what...25 years I think, many of them loving the said characters almost like close friends. Which is not something an average writer would accomplish IMO. 18th century world in her books is an vivid universe that feels like a real inhabited place.

There are many authors who are far better at plotting and pacing of the story than DG but their characters and the world they created just don't pull me in so strongly. For example, I've been reading W. Graham's "Poldark" series recently, and while he was undoubtly a strong writer who didn't resort to idiot plots or beat his readers over their heads with a rape-trope, his characters just don't appeal as much to me as DG's, don't evoke as strong emotions and with the possible exception of Ross and Demelza I don't get a feeling of knowing them closely.

To each their own, I guess.

I've tried and failed to read Poldark more than once, even though I mostly like the show. 

[DittyDotDot]

19 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I think I can better explain my opinion by saying that I agree that DG is a great story-teller; but she's not a good actual writer.  Her characters are well developed and beloved, yes, but basic grammar and sentence structure are often lost on her.  She falls in the middle on the use of stereotypical plot devices.  Therefore, I say she's not a great writer in general.  JMO.

I agree that Diana could use a good editor, but IMO, what makes a great writer is the ability to capture the reader's imagination with words, not their technical use of the words. There are times Diana's writing frustrates me beyond reason--generally when she drones on for 20 pages about something that could've been said in five or less--but there are also times when she gets it oh-so-very-right. So, I don't know that I'd call her a great writer, but I do think she is a good one. I think she could be a great writer with the help of a good editor, though.

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I agree that Diana could use a good editor, but IMO, what makes a great writer is the ability to capture the reader's imagination with words, not their technical use of the words. There are times Diana's writing frustrates me beyond reason--generally when she drones on for 20 pages about something that could've been said in five or less--but there are also times when she gets it oh-so-very-right. So, I don't know that I'd call her a great writer, but I do think she is a good one. I think she could be a great writer with the help of a good editor, though.

Hence why I differentiated between "storyteller" and "writer." ;-)

[katville]

I think DG's failings come from a lack of editing and an abundance of hubris. More is not always better, in fact it is seldom better.

[Dust Bunny]

Yeah, her writing really varies for me, too. The redundant novella-length one day in FC has turned off so many readers. On the other hand, I love the little detail of the ping from the stool's wood hitting the pie safe, when Jamie is kicking in fury in ABOSAA. Some details can really annoy me (diaper cleaning); others can also bring little lovely moments (the discovery of Adso).

I agree with you guys. I'm in it for the story and characters, not the writing.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Dust Bunny

[Nidratime]

Another brief clip:

http://www.outlandertvnews.com/2017/08/first-small-clip-from-outlander-season-three-released/

[WatchrTina]

On 8/16/2017 at 3:34 PM, Grashka said:

Rik is a perfect mix of charm and awkwardnes (which is sooo Roger)

This clip from the "Brave New Warriors" panel at Comic Con is not (strictly speaking) a show spoiler or Outlander book talk, but it is, I suspect, a perfect illustration of the wit and charm of Rik Rankin and why he will be wonderful as Roger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3rLoQ4elyM

Edited August 19, 2017 by WatchrTina

[FnkyChkn34]

7 minutes ago, Grashka said:

No end to all the attractions from EW it seems. Now it's an interview with actors who play Ian Senior and Young Ian. There are also some snippets featuring both characters in season 3

https://twitter.com/Outlander_STARZ/status/901130064082853889

Physically Young Ian is nothing what I've imagined him to look like, but I like that spark in his eyes and he appears to be a vivacious and witty young man.

I have no idea what's up with Elder Ian being grey as pigeon at the age of 46 while 45 years old Jamie doesn't have one silver hair. I know that Ian is already weathered when Claire meets him again in "Voyager" but come on, completly white hair?

The merry bunch of wee Murrays is to die for though!

Looking at them out of character in this interview, they look enough alike that they could be father and son.  In character - what's with the hair?  Both of their wigs took pretty awful!

[WatchrTina]

21 hours ago, Grashka said:

I have no idea what's up with Elder Ian being grey as pigeon at the age of 46 while 45 years old Jamie doesn't have one silver hair. I know that Ian is already weathered when Claire meets him again in "Voyager" but come on, completly white hair?

Okay this explains some joking I've seen on Twitter about the actor who plays Ian having stolen the wig from the Duke of Sandringham's severed head.  Interestingly, the tweet (with an image) that led to the joking has been deleted.  I wonder if that photo wasn't supposed to get out.

As for Jamie's lack of gray vs. Ian, I can only say that I have a very good friend who is exactly my age (56) and she is completely gray while I only have a smattering.  So Ian graying faster is not unrealistic.  I also assume the show runners wanted some on-screen reminders to anchor in our minds how much time has passed.  Fergus being a grown-up is one anchor and I can well imagine the producers deciding that someone had to go grey as a second visual anchor.  The actor playing Ian (Steven Cree) is already wearing a wig so he was the obvious candidate.  I doubt if Sam or Cait or Laura Donnelly was too keen to have grey streaks dyed into their hair for the duration of the filming and fake grey is always risky.  I suspect the grey we saw in Claire's hair in the season finale of Season 2 is going to be much less noticeable or completely missing in Season 3.

Edited August 26, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

In those EW cover photos/article photos, I thought I saw strands of gray in Claire's hair.

[WatchrTina]

I agree.  I think I see a flash of grey on both their heads in the "From Here to Eternity" pose but you can't see it in the two other shots in EW from that same photo shoot.  Make of that what you will.  I know that my own grey is MUCH more noticeable in harsh sunlight and also depending on how my hair is styled.  Curly hair hides gray better -- the grey really stands out when I get a blow-out.  So I'm going to hand-wave away any diminishing of Claire's gray hair in season 3 vs what we saw in the last episode of season 2, dismissing it as a mere trick of the light and the natural consequence of her not having a flat-iron in the 18th century.

Edited August 26, 2017 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

My uncle was completely gray in his 20's and I work with someone who is completely gray  in his 30's.  

[morgan]

Yes gray hair can vary.  My mother, who is (was?) a redhead never went gray.  She is 77 now and her color just sort of faded over time.  Sort of went sandy blonde.  My two sisters are also redheads, one colors because she is going gray, another doesn't because she isn't.  I'm blonde and turned 50 this year and don't have a single gray (yet!). This peeves my bff from high school who would be completely white gray by now, has been coloring her hair since her 20s.  Everyone is just different.

I also have few, if any, lines yet.  I honestly don't think anyone would think I was 50, most people are shocked when they find out.  I think that is why I am so forgiving of how they are aging people.

I always think back to my 20th high school reunion.  I hadn't seen most of my classmates since graduation since I moved 3000 miles away for college and stayed after.  We were only in our 30s and some people looked 10 years older while others looked 10 years younger.  It's just how things go in life.

[WatchrTina]

I'm also a big fan of the show "Vikings" and their lead characters have aged approximately 20 years over the run so far (possibly more, judging from the age of their children).  It never rang false there, even as the characters (men AND women) continued to wield swords in battle.  The actors pulled it off simply by acting older, rather than by significant aging make up or faux gray hair and we, the audience simply accepted it.  That show is the main reason I feel confident that the passage of time in Outlander is going to be wholly believable even without significant changes in the appearance of the central couple.

[DittyDotDot]

I suspect the went easy on the gray for Jamie and Claire because we have to leave a lot of room for them to age more. Ian we won't see much more of, so they may not have felt they needed to restrain themselves?

[Nidratime]

Quote

I hope the thing about Marsali "carrying a torch for Jamie" is a typo and they mean Fergus because...ew.

I think they mean it more in the sense that she's always admired him ... or didn't think as bad of him as her mother ended up feeling. After all, Marsali ends up considering Jamie and Claire as her second father and mother, so it's clear she doesn't carry the baggage Laoghaire does.

[toolazy]

On 8/27/2017 at 7:43 PM, Nidratime said:

I think they mean it more in the sense that she's always admired him ... or didn't think as bad of him as her mother ended up feeling. After all, Marsali ends up considering Jamie and Claire as her second father and mother, so it's clear she doesn't carry the baggage Laoghaire does.

That's true, but "carrying a torch" has a very specific meaning that should never be used to describe one's feelings for one's parents. 

[Atlanta]

Jumping into the gray hair thing, generally, redheads don't gray much.

[Haleth]

3 hours ago, Grashka said:

Aside of odd description of Lord John making Jamie's life a "living hell" (as his life actually improved a lot upon meeting and befriending John, so I assume it's only how Jamie perceives the situation when LJG takes over the Ardsmuir Prison),

The episode description says LJG has the power to make Jamie's life a living hell, which is true... but we already know he doesn't follow through.  I guess it sounds more dramatic.

 

3 hours ago, Grashka said:

There is a two weeks gap between episode 5 and episode 6, which title "A. Malcolm" is quite telling. I wonder why they are prolonging the wait for reunion, they want to play up the tension to the maximum or maybe there is some special occasion for delay (like any national holiday)?

No holidays.  It must be to hype up the anticipation.

[lianau]

3 hours ago, Haleth said:

The episode description says LJG has the power to make Jamie's life a living hell, which is true... but we already know he doesn't follow through.  I guess it sounds more dramatic.

 

It also plays into how John perceives the situation . For years he  thought about how Jamie had humiliated him  , the consequences that had for him and how he was treated by his fellow soldiers for it  (with the exception of his brother and Hector) and after Hector's death Jamie also became the de facto face of Hector's killer in a way .  So John wanted to see Jamie suffer for years when they met again - only  to realize that now that he's in a position to make him suffer , he can't do so , because he's now responsible for his well being .  

[morgan]

Could the guest be Joe?  Just a thought maybe.  

I'm wondering if the break is around Columbus Day weekend?  Not really a holiday outside of MA and VA though.  Hmmmm.  Guess I'm glad to know ahead of time!

[Nidratime]

Boooo. Looks like Starz made the website take down the episode descriptions beyond the first episode and the episode titles beyond the third. (But there's another way you can see what the titles are. ;-)

In any event, what I *am* happy about is the three lady directors! So, wonderful to see women really stepping up this season, both in writing and directing. Thanks Ron and Maril!

I wonder who's writing and directing the last episode of the season.

[toolazy]

5 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Boooo. Looks like Starz made the website take down the episode descriptions beyond the first episode and the episode titles beyond the third. (But there's another way you can see what the titles are. ;-)

In any event, what I *am* happy about is the three lady directors! So, wonderful to see women really stepping up this season, both in writing and directing. Thanks Ron and Maril!

I wonder who's writing and directing the last episode of the season.

For once I'm less anxious about the last episode because unless they really change things up, nothing terribly traumatic happens (at least compared to the last two seasons.)  

[lianau]

21 minutes ago, toolazy said:

For once I'm less anxious about the last episode because unless they really change things up, nothing terribly traumatic happens (at least compared to the last two seasons.)  

They could still end it with Jamie and Claire in the water after Claire fell off the ship during the storm ... 

Edited September 1, 2017 by lianau

[Nidratime]

Quote

Matt Roberts and Toni Graphia - according to this chart (thanks to Outlander America):

You know, I was ready to guess that, especially since they teamed up to write the season finale last year. Other than Ron Moore, those two have become the go-to writers for the show.

[AheadofStraight]

Quote

Aside of odd description of Lord John making Jamie's life a "living hell" (as his life actually improved a lot upon meeting and befriending John, so I assume it's only how Jamie perceives the situation when LJG takes over the Ardsmuir Prison), I'm intrigued by Claire and Frank's guest. I remember they had a huge fight over the guests Frank actually invited, but it happened when Bree was still an infant and actually led to a moment of understanding and closeness between the two of them. So perhaps show's invention? Sounds intriguing anyway.

When I first read that description, I was wondering if they were trying to trick people into thinking it would be BJR. *eyeroll*

In the big fight before Frank's death, Claire mentions that some of his mistresses have visited her. Maybe they'll actually show it?