Show Spoilers and Book Talk

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

That's in Drums of Autumn, right?

Yes, I believe it was.

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, kariyaki said:

No, because I remember waiting and WAITING for him to tell Jenny, especially when she would annoyingly pester him about fathering children. He didn't tell her about Faith nor that Claire had been pregnant when she "left."

 

45 minutes ago, Grashka said:

He did. In "Voyager" - when he came to Lallybroch to be near when Jenny was giving birth to Young Ian. He told her that Claire had been with child when he had lost her and that's why he felt such a strong need to accompany Jenny during such a pivotal moment. Not only because Ian wasn't there, but because he felt he could at least be there for his sister since he couldn't have done nothing for his wife. It was also the first time he spoke Claire's name in years.

Hmm... I'm with @kariyaki on this one, because I don't recall that at all.  Wouldn't it have come up then when Claire came back?  I don't recall Ian in Edinburgh, or Jenny in Lallybroch, ever saying something like, "so... that kid you were pregnant with, is he/she still in 'France' too...?"  

[Nidratime]

When Jamie, Claire, Fergus, et al all came back from France, did no one mention that Claire had lost baby Faith? I thought Jenny and Ian were told about that.

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, Grashka said:

Fuck. I don't know. Maybe I hallucinated it? But I could swear that I read this scene.... maybe I mixed up two different books.

I think it did happen. I have a very strong memory of Jamie bringing a rabbit and they were making a pie out of it. Jamie insisted that when her time came she send one of the boys up to get him, day or night, because he wanted to be there for her especially with Ian being arrested at the time. Then the conversation shifted somewhat and Jamie told Jenny Claire had been pregnant when he "lost" her.

39 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Hmm... I'm with @kariyaki on this one, because I don't recall that at all.  Wouldn't it have come up then when Claire came back?  I don't recall Ian in Edinburgh, or Jenny in Lallybroch, ever saying something like, "so... that kid you were pregnant with, is he/she still in 'France' too...?"  

Well, at the time Claire shows up at Lallybroch, there's a lot of other stuff going on--and it was 15 years after that conversation--I suspect it may have slipped Jenny's mind.

Edited September 19, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

That's in Drums of Autumn, right?

 

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Yes, I believe it was.

??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️??‍♀️

[ElsieH]

41 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think it did happen. I have a very strong memory of Jamie bringing a rabbit and they were making a pie out of it. Jamie insisted that when her time came she send one of the boys up to get him, day or night, because he wanted to be there for her especially with Ian being arrested at the time. Then the conversation shifted somewhat and Jamie told Jenny Claire had been pregnant when he "lost" her.

Well, at the time Claire shows up at Lallybroch, there's a lot of other stuff going on--and it was 15 years after that conversation--I suspect it may have slipped Jenny's mind.

It was during the rabbit pie scene, and it came up because he sterilized his knife  in the boiling water. She asked why he did that and he said Claire taught him. That's when he mentioned she was pregnant I think. 

[Bort]

I don't remember Jamie mentioning it to Jenny at all, I guess I'll have to give the book a look-see refresher. 

[toolazy]

23 hours ago, Glaze Crazy said:

Hector bought River Run with some of the French gold and it comes into play later when Jamie and Co. use some of it to pay for several different endeavours, money/wealth they otherwise wouldn't have access to in their circumstances. So I don't know how they can omit it's existence, but then again, many characters on TV and movies seem to have no problem doing stuff without obvious financial abilities too.

 

Just because they do away with Duncan's character doesn't mean that the gold doesn't exist or that it isn't later stolen and subsequently recovered by Jamie.  There are all kinds of ways that particular story line can play out without relying on one particular character.

[toolazy]

I just read that passage.  He does not cite Claire's pregnancy as a reason to want to be there when Jenny delivers Ian.  There is a brief mention of Claire due to boiling the dirk, but nothing about her being pregnant.

Remember, folks at Lallybroch were shocked (in a good way) when they learned of Bree's existence.  They wouldn't have been if Jamie or Claire had said anything. 

[ElsieH]

It was actually when he went to the house when Jenny delivered Ian. When she was asking him about getting married again and having children. I just went back and checked. Page 73 on my kindle. 

[DittyDotDot]

26 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Just because they do away with Duncan's character doesn't mean that the gold doesn't exist or that it isn't later stolen and subsequently recovered by Jamie.  There are all kinds of ways that particular story line can play out without relying on one particular character.

Not to mention that Duncan isn't really much of the gold storyline that I recall.

5 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

It was actually when he went to the house when Jenny delivered Ian. When she was asking him about getting married again and having children. I just went back and checked. Page 73 on my kindle. 

I was sure it happened, but couldn't remember when. The rabbit pie scene seemed very likely, but I wasn't sure. Thanks.

14 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Remember, folks at Lallybroch were shocked (in a good way) when they learned of Bree's existence.  They wouldn't have been if Jamie or Claire had said anything. 

Except, I recall Jenny saying that Jamie had told her Claire had been pregnant when they were separated when Bree showed up and it was one of the reasons Jenny didn't question Bree too much--that and her having the pearls and looking the splitting image of Jamie.

[nodorothyparker]

52 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

It was actually when he went to the house when Jenny delivered Ian. When she was asking him about getting married again and having children. I just went back and checked. Page 73 on my kindle. 

I did the same thing skimming this discussion because I also remembered reading it.  I have the big softcovers and it's page 61 there.  He mentions that Claire was with child when he "lost her" and doesn't elaborate beyond saying he wanted to be there when she delivered young Ian in case she needed help because he couldn't help Claire.

I hadn't really thought much about it but it actually does tie in very nicely with when Bree shows up and Jenny and Ian accept that she is exactly who she says she is pretty easily.

[Nidratime]

And it's page 74 in the mass market paperback. Now someone tells us where it's at in the Davina Porter CD? ;-)

Quote

"She was with child," he said softly at last, speaking to the reflection. "When she -- when I lost her." How else could he put it? There was no way to tell his sister where Claire was -- where he hoped she was.

[ElsieH]

30 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

And it's page 74 in the mass market paperback. Now someone tells us where it's at in the Davina Porter CD? ;-)

Yes that's what I was referring to. I would have quoted it myself but couldn't figure out how. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

I did the same thing skimming this discussion because I also remembered reading it.  I have the big softcovers and it's page 61 there.  He mentions that Claire was with child when he "lost her" and doesn't elaborate beyond saying he wanted to be there when she delivered young Ian in case she needed help because he couldn't help Claire.

I hadn't really thought much about it but it actually does tie in very nicely with when Bree shows up and Jenny and Ian accept that she is exactly who she says she is pretty easily.

Ah, okay. So it wasn't the rabbit-cooking scene.  Thanks for the reference - I found it.  

[FnkyChkn34]

I have a new question, and here seems to be a decent enough place for it...  Complete this sentence:  "If I were Claire, I'd..."

I mean, when she went back through the stones, what else should she have done.  She wrapped up her business at home, got Bree off to college, told Joe, found a dress that fit in with the time period, and took some photos and penicillin with her - but wouldn't you have done so much more?  

If I were Claire, I'd have learned how to MAKE penicillin (not just attempt experiments with bread, but really know what I was doing), and taken all available vaccines for Jamie.  Maybe I'd have even learned how to invent electricity, and indoor plumbing!  I'd have learned how to make toothpaste and other essentials that I've come to depend on daily.  I'd have shoved my pockets so full of stuff!  I didn't really like that she didn't do that...

[GHScorpiosRule]

From Episode 2: Surrender (Book Talk) thread:

3 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

I like the idea of expanding on Frank's role, mostly because it plays off of the love triangle that creates angst and tension. Something that maybe makes the tv show more complex and compellling, in my opinion.  

But the point of the series--the buik series, isn't focused on the triangle. Ultimately, it's about Claire and Jamie, their love, and life once she goes back to the 18th century. I can understand expanding Frank's role, but not to the point where he's looked upon and presented as this stalwart, perfect husband who was abandoned and betrayed while he stayed true blue. I've said it in previous season threads and I'll say it again--if you're going to show flaws of Jamie and Claire, you damned well better show Frank's flaws as well, And no, having Menzies play a dual role, where the second role was a motherfuckingmurderingratbadtarddoucheRAPIST doesn't count.

[cardigirl]

Just now, GHScorpiosRule said:

From Episode 2: Surrender (Book Talk) thread:

But the point of the series--the buik series, isn't focused on the triangle. Ultimately, it's about Claire and Jamie, their love, and life once she goes back to the 18th century. I can understand expanding Frank's role, but not to the point where he's looked upon and presented as this stalwart, perfect husband who was abandoned and betrayed while he stayed true blue. I've said it in previous season threads and I'll say it again--if you're going to show flaws of Jamie and Claire, you damned well better show Frank's flaws as well, And no, having Menzies play a dual role, where the second role was a motherfuckingmurderingratbadtarddoucheRAPIST doesn't count.

Admittedly, I came to the books (buiks) because of the tv show, so I may be more invested in that version, than the books. If I had read the books first, I might feel as you do.  It was the triangle that kept me watching. (And the scenery and the beautiful way the story is filmed.)  I kept thinking about what Frank must have thought when his wife (his WIFE) disappeared. How traumatic that must have been.  I loved the back and forth in the first season of Claire trying to return to Frank and remembering her past with him, but ultimately realizing that she wanted to be with Jamie instead. 

 And then, when the reverend is telling Frank that the opportunity to be a father might be worth taking the risk for, I was completely hooked on the second season by episode one.  :)  I just love the complication of three people caught up in events not of their choosing. Plus I enjoy visiting the 20th century as much as the 18th century in the show.

In my opinion, my enjoyment of the tv show has been enhanced by the slight change of focus.  

[FnkyChkn34]

37 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

From Episode 2: Surrender (Book Talk) thread:

But the point of the series--the buik series, isn't focused on the triangle. Ultimately, it's about Claire and Jamie, their love, and life once she goes back to the 18th century. I can understand expanding Frank's role, but not to the point where he's looked upon and presented as this stalwart, perfect husband who was abandoned and betrayed while he stayed true blue. I've said it in previous season threads and I'll say it again--if you're going to show flaws of Jamie and Claire, you damned well better show Frank's flaws as well, And no, having Menzies play a dual role, where the second role was a motherfuckingmurderingratbadtarddoucheRAPIST doesn't count.

I agree.  Frank was a conniving cheater, and was nearly from the day Claire returned.  So the fact that we haven't seen that yet bothers me a little bit.  I don't care that Claire was gone for 3 years and pregnant with another man's baby, making Frank so noble to "take her back."  Frank wanted kids, Claire was pregnant - problem solved.  Selfish reason, and he gave her ridiculous ultimatums while he still went behind her back.  Many times I wish Claire had said f off, I'll take care of myself.

[Nidratime]

I guess a fan brought this up with Diana:

Linda: Ron said Murtaugh's alive.Don't see how he won't mess up future stories if he lives past this season.Its rewriting your books.Cant sleep.

DG: Don't worry about it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

21 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I agree.  Frank was a conniving cheater, and was nearly from the day Claire returned.  So the fact that we haven't seen that yet bothers me a little bit.  I don't care that Claire was gone for 3 years and pregnant with another man's baby, making Frank so noble to "take her back."  Frank wanted kids, Claire was pregnant - problem solved.  Selfish reason, and he gave her ridiculous ultimatums while he still went behind her back.  Many times I wish Claire had said f off, I'll take care of myself.

Honestly, when Frank went off on his racist rant, it threw me, because I wasn't expecting it. Nothing written before would lead me to think that of him. And then I'm rolling my eyes, because Bree isn't a minor anymore, so he's just going to "take" a 20 year old daughter away? Like she wouldn't have a choice? But I will give him this--for someone who dismissed adoption as an option and insisted he only wanted his own biological children before Claire disappeared into the past the first time, he accepted and loved Bree unconditionally and thought of her as his own. The cynic in me thinks he originally accepted her because he'd learned he was sterile and couldn't have any of his own children, but he never let Bree feel or know she wasn't his daughter.  But that's ALL I'll give him credit for.

[AheadofStraight]

29 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I agree.  Frank was a conniving cheater, and was nearly from the day Claire returned.  So the fact that we haven't seen that yet bothers me a little bit.  

In the same article that spoiled the Murtagh info, Tobias mentions that they will explore Frank's other relationships:

Menzies: Essentially they've settled into something quite companionable. There's a lot of affection and they work well as a team. They're doing a great job raising Brianna. But no, a lot of that has burned away and he's seeing other people. And you'll see that explored further on the show. It's a strange compromised marriage, quite modern in a way, but Frank is a realist. He isn't delusional. He'd rather that, have Claire in his life and have Brianna. There's a lot to be grateful for, but he's not with a woman who loves him. Ultimately, when he does meet someone who can give him that, he goes for it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/outlander-surrender-recap-caitriona-balfe-tobias-menzies-ron-moore-interviews-1038768

[Eureka]

7 minutes ago, AheadofStraight said:

In the same article that spoiled the Murtagh info, Tobias mentions that they will explore Frank's other relationships:

Menzies: Essentially they've settled into something quite companionable. There's a lot of affection and they work well as a team. They're doing a great job raising Brianna. But no, a lot of that has burned away and he's seeing other people. And you'll see that explored further on the show. It's a strange compromised marriage, quite modern in a way, but Frank is a realist. He isn't delusional. He'd rather that, have Claire in his life and have Brianna. There's a lot to be grateful for, but he's not with a woman who loves him. Ultimately, when he does meet someone who can give him that, he goes for it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/outlander-surrender-recap-caitriona-balfe-tobias-menzies-ron-moore-interviews-1038768

Problem with this interpretation was it implies (or at least I am inferring) that it's OK with Claire that he's seeing other people because they've fallen into solely an affectionate partnership. But in the books it's clear that that is NOT OK with Claire. I mean yes, she did go away and came back pregnant and wanted Jamie, but she accepted he was dead and she and Frank did resume some sort of marriage. It's not like she was thinking at that point that she'd go back. 

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

I guess a fan brought this up with Diana:

Linda: Ron said Murtaugh's alive.Don't see how he won't mess up future stories if he lives past this season.Its rewriting your books.Cant sleep.

DG: Don't worry about it.

I guess this is an example of my other problem... not a problem, per se, but observation I guess.  The show is an adaptation of books.  The books are still here for anyone to read and they stand alone.  The show can stand alone.  The books weren't written as plays or screenplays to be acted out word for word with no variations whatsoever.  If people can't enjoy the show just because the show writers changed things, well, then, maybe this show isn't for them?  People say the same about every book to movie/tv show adaptation.  There's a reason why the phrase "the book was better" exists.  But that doesn't mean the show/movie isn't also good.  A strict comparison line by line, scene for scene, however, can ruin both.

[Haleth]

3 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Maybe I'd have even learned how to invent electricity, and indoor plumbing!

Bree takes care of the plumbing. ?

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I have a new question, and here seems to be a decent enough place for it...  Complete this sentence:  "If I were Claire, I'd..."

I mean, when she went back through the stones, what else should she have done.  She wrapped up her business at home, got Bree off to college, told Joe, found a dress that fit in with the time period, and took some photos and penicillin with her - but wouldn't you have done so much more?  

If I were Claire, I'd have learned how to MAKE penicillin (not just attempt experiments with bread, but really know what I was doing), and taken all available vaccines for Jamie.  Maybe I'd have even learned how to invent electricity, and indoor plumbing!  I'd have learned how to make toothpaste and other essentials that I've come to depend on daily.  I'd have shoved my pockets so full of stuff!  I didn't really like that she didn't do that...

She had to be careful about what she took with her.  Recall that she barely escaped being burned as a witch once and she wasn't eager to repeat the experience. As she said, she took a HUGE chance just bringing those photos.  

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Honestly, when Frank went off on his racist rant, it threw me, because I wasn't expecting it. Nothing written before would lead me to think that of him. And then I'm rolling my eyes, because Bree isn't a minor anymore, so he's just going to "take" a 20 year old daughter away? Like she wouldn't have a choice? But I will give him this--for someone who dismissed adoption as an option and insisted he only wanted his own biological children before Claire disappeared into the past the first time, he accepted and loved Bree unconditionally and thought of her as his own. The cynic in me thinks he originally accepted her because he'd learned he was sterile and couldn't have any of his own children, but he never let Bree feel or know she wasn't his daughter.  But that's ALL I'll give him credit for.

It was what? 1966?  And she was 17 or 18 - she was a senior in high school. He was dead for two years before they went to Scotland.  

Edited September 20, 2017 by toolazy

[morgan]

I love Claire but she definitely comes off as someone who wants to have her cake and eat it too.  She doesn't ever really come back to Frank, but is galled that he looks elsewhere.  Lol.

i find it interesting watching this series with my husband (non book reader).  He can't stand Claire as a character.  Curious to see as the series goes on if that ever changes?

[nodorothyparker]

4 hours ago, Grashka said:

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle regarding Frank debate. I do think the show expanded on his character and romanticized him, and I used to have no problems with it in season 1-2. But I think in season 3 that may be going a little too...far? It seems that many people watching the show are now feeling more sorry for him than for Claire&Jamie - I've seen it everywhere I looked, on twitter or in the commentary under show recaps, sudden dislike for Claire and outpours of love for Frank, as well as insisting that Claire could have found another great love with him if only she had tried more and been less "selfish". I don't know if that's the result the writers wanted?

I've never hated book!Frank. Upon reading all the books he emerges as quite a tragic albeit very flawed character. Sort of Severus Snape of Outlander - universum. A bitter, dejected husband but a loving devoted father, who was willing to prepare his not-biological daughter for every challenge she could face. The book story between Claire-Jamie-Frank is not a love triangle but it's not less complex because of it and ambiguous in many ways. Personally I love the way DG made a place for Frank in her story, with Brianna telling her children about "grandda Frank" even though they have never met him, and with Jamie quietly confronting himself as a father, contemplating the thought that Frank Randall was a better man than him in some ways. Also, I don't see anything in the books that would prove that Frank was cheating on Claire almost from the day she returned? But maybe I missed something.  I thought he went to seek some "comfort" when it became obvious that Claire would never be "his" again. Also, I don't see anything selfish about his desire to have a child. It's one of the most natural desires in the world.

Personally, after reading the books I got a picture of three people in impossible situation, who tried the best their could. Not a St Frank versus selfish, pathetic lovers Claire&Jamie, and not Frank the evil cheating douchebag versus St Jamie and St Claire. I don't know if the show will manage to do the same. We will see.

Quoting your entire post because it's so spot on with where I'm at on this issue too.

It really hit me in watching the scenes of Claire flinching and shying away from Frank  in the premier and later seeing complaints in various places that she was being selfish and not giving him a chance how utterly doomed their deal was from the start.  Because it wasn't honest in that they basically agreed to start over, now with a shiny new baby that wasn't biologically his, but they were each interpreting the letter of that deal very differently.  Frank clearly thought okay, she'll be sad for a bit for the sperm donor of this kid but we were married before and we're still married and we'll just pick up where we left off before.  He sees her time away as just an interruption in the life they were going to have anyway.  This completely ignores that Claire had long since stopped entertaining ideas about coming back.  She had moved on and had an entirely different life and different husband that she wanted.  She's now grieving that life and husband the way a widow would because for all practical purposes that's exactly what she is.  I don't know that Frank really understands that.  It's possible in agreeing to the deal, Claire thought that since she and Frank had been married before and got along well enough that once she had a chance to adjust they'd be like they were before and it would be all right.  But grief does funny things to people and you can't always predict the shape it's going to take.  In Claire's case, the shape it takes is pining for a ghost and throwing herself into her other passion of medicine.

I always got the impression that book Claire was fairly indifferent to Frank's side pieces and sort of accepted them as a matter of course, given the peculiarities of their situation.  I can't really remember her saying much at all about it until he announced that he was leaving and taking Bree with him, with the implication that he finally had found someone he considered worth leaving her for.  I can't even really fault him for that as he held up his end of the bargain long enough that Bree was no longer a child he had to play happy family for who would no longer be in the house as a buffer between them.

As I said in the episode thread, my husband is very much pro Frank when he can venture to offer an opinion at all.  He finds it highly convenient that Claire gets to have a husband in both time periods so willing to put up with all this.

[Bort]

7 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

I always got the impression that book Claire was fairly indifferent to Frank's side pieces and sort of accepted them as a matter of course, given the peculiarities of their situation.  I can't really remember her saying much at all about it until he announced that he was leaving and taking Bree with him, with the implication that he finally had found someone he considered worth leaving for her.  I can't even really fault him for that as he held up his end of the bargain long enough that Bree was no longer a child he had to play happy family for and would no longer be in the house as a buffer between them.

Yeah, me too, I never felt like Claire gave a shit about Frank's mistresses -- and in fact, was glad for them because it meant Frank largely left her alone to concentrate on her career and/or Brianna.

As for Frank's plan to "take" Brianna away from Claire... No way would that have worked. The one -- and I mean only one -- advantage that women had in those days was custody. You'd have to have been caught red-handed trying to murder your child before the courts would take it away from you. Fathers never got custody.

[nodorothyparker]

Wasn't Bree in high school or somewhere in that age range anyway?  I remember Frank saying something about how she could still finish school in England.  It wasn't like they were talking about a 7-year-old.

[FnkyChkn34]

24 minutes ago, morgan said:

I love Claire but she definitely comes off as someone who wants to have her cake and eat it too.  She doesn't ever really come back to Frank, but is galled that he looks elsewhere.  Lol.

i find it interesting watching this series with my husband (non book reader).  He can't stand Claire as a character.  Curious to see as the series goes on if that ever changes?

I definitely see flaws in Claire, but I feel like I'm not "supposed to" so I try to overlook it.  I think it's obvious that the author and the show writers want me to love Claire, so I do my best to do that.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Buik!Claire annoys me to no end, as my multiple comments in those threads indicate. I do like Show!Claire much better. But nothing will make me warm up to Frank. And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that he looks like Black Jack.

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I guess this is an example of my other problem... not a problem, per se, but observation I guess.  The show is an adaptation of books.  The books are still here for anyone to read and they stand alone.  The show can stand alone.  The books weren't written as plays or screenplays to be acted out word for word with no variations whatsoever.  If people can't enjoy the show just because the show writers changed things, well, then, maybe this show isn't for them?  People say the same about every book to movie/tv show adaptation.  There's a reason why the phrase "the book was better" exists.  But that doesn't mean the show/movie isn't also good.  A strict comparison line by line, scene for scene, however, can ruin both.

For the most part, I agree with you. But I am going to put on my HYPOCRITE HAT,? and say it's for this reason I hope that the In Death series never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER makes it to the screen. Be it on HBO, Showtime, Starz, whatever. There have been so many attempts, and there isn't ANYONE who can be Eve or ?❤️❤️??❤️❤️Roarke ❤️❤️??❤️❤️?that would satisfy me. Bad enough that Lifetime (like, what the fuck, Nora?) FUCKED up the handful of Nora Roberts' classic stories, whittled down to 1:42 minutes. Not to mention the horrid casting. Let them remain in the annals of the pages of buiks.?

Edited September 20, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

For the most part, I agree with you. But I am going to put on my HYPOCRITE HAT,? and say it's for this reason I hope that the In Death series never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER makes it to the screen. Be it on HBO, Showtime, Starz, whatever. There have been so many attempts, and there isn't ANYONE who can be Eve or ?❤️❤️??❤️❤️Roarke ❤️❤️??❤️❤️?that would satisfy me. Bad enough that Lifetime (like, what the fuck, Nora?) FUCKED up the handful of Nora Roberts' classic stories, whittled down to 1:42 minutes. Not to mention the horrid casting. Let them remain in the annals of the pages of buiks.?

I have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about, but since we seem to agree on a lot of different topics/shows, I'll agree as well.  ;-)  

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about, but since we seem to agree on a lot of different topics/shows, I'll agree as well.  ;-)  

The In Death series is a series written by J.D. Robb, a pseudonym for Nora Roberts. It's set slightly in the future; Eve is the protagonist, a NYC cop. There are over 40 books but only 2 and half years have passed in this world. I just used it as an example for why I don't want anyone to touch this series.

[Haleth]

3 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Wasn't Bree in high school or somewhere in that age range anyway?  I remember Frank saying something about how she could still finish school in England.  It wasn't like they were talking about a 7-year-old.

Exactly. Bree would want to go with Frank. She adored her daddy and clashed with her mother. Going to court for custody would strain the relationship further. 

[Bort]

33 minutes ago, Haleth said:

Exactly. Bree would want to go with Frank. She adored her daddy and clashed with her mother. Going to court for custody would strain the relationship further. 

Yes, and it would've made more sense for Frank to wait until Bree was 18 and Claire had no say in where she lived. Because he wouldn't win a court case and at that point, Bree was almost to that age anyway. 

[Tif]

Do you think they are going to introduce Tom Christie at Ardsmuir?  He ends up being pretty pivotal later on.  I haven't seen any casting info though.

[Dejana]

7 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

I always got the impression that book Claire was fairly indifferent to Frank's side pieces and sort of accepted them as a matter of course, given the peculiarities of their situation.  I can't really remember her saying much at all about it until he announced that he was leaving and taking Bree with him, with the implication that he finally had found someone he considered worth leaving her for.  I can't even really fault him for that as he held up his end of the bargain long enough that Bree was no longer a child he had to play happy family for who would no longer be in the house as a buffer between them.

As I said in the episode thread, my husband is very much pro Frank when he can venture to offer an opinion at all.  He finds it highly convenient that Claire gets to have a husband in both time periods so willing to put up with all this.

In Drums of Autumn, when John is at the Ridge and he and Jamie are up late playing chess, Claire is in bed trying to fall asleep but she's so tense that her fists are clenched and she's dug her fingernails into her palms to the point of pain. She finally realizes she's acting the same way she did during all those late nights that she spent lying in bed while Frank was "working late". When he'd finally come home, she says that sometimes she'd turn her back to him and other times she'd angrily try to test him with her body, to see if he could still perform for her or if he'd used up all his energy earlier in the night. Here's more of the passage from DoA (Chapter 26, "Plague and Pestilence", p. 401, trade paperback edition):

"Sometimes it would be months--even a year or more--between episodes, and we would live in peace together. But then it would happen again; the silent phone calls, the too-excused absences, the late nights. Never anything so overt as another woman's perfume, or lipstick on his collar--he had discretion. But I always felt the ghost of the other woman, whoever she was; some faceless, indistinguishable She.

I knew it didn't matter who it was--there were several of them. The only important thing was that She was not me. And I would lie awake and clench my fists, the marks of my nails a small crucifixion."

 

Now, whether Claire was correct about Frank's whereabouts, or if she had the right to feel jealous about his presumed cheating, considering her own lingering attachment to Jamie--those are separate matters from how hurt she felt about the idea of Frank's infidelity.

 

Yes, the series is an adaptation but adapting this particular story in a way that's fairly likely to make the female lead (and most prominent character) seem less sympathetic is...unwise, and could have further story ramifications down the road. Especially when the changes tend to favor a character whose actual time in the story diminishes with each book, unless TPTB decide in future seasons to bulk up Frank's airtime even more compared to his page count.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Dejana

[toolazy]

7 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I definitely see flaws in Claire, but I feel like I'm not "supposed to" so I try to overlook it.  I think it's obvious that the author and the show writers want me to love Claire, so I do my best to do that.

Here's the thing, though. It's possible to simultaneously love a character while still acknowleging that that they are not perfect people. So yeah, all three of them - Jamie, Claire and Frank - have traits that make me want to scream sometimes but that doesn't mean I don't love them.  Perfection is not a necessary condition for love. 

4 hours ago, Haleth said:

Exactly. Bree would want to go with Frank. She adored her daddy and clashed with her mother. Going to court for custody would strain the relationship further. 

Would she? Would she want to leave the country in the middle of her senior year in high school and go to an English boarding school?  Somehow I doubt that, no matter how much she loves her father. 

[DittyDotDot]

10 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I agree.  Frank was a conniving cheater, and was nearly from the day Claire returned.  So the fact that we haven't seen that yet bothers me a little bit.  I don't care that Claire was gone for 3 years and pregnant with another man's baby, making Frank so noble to "take her back."  Frank wanted kids, Claire was pregnant - problem solved.  Selfish reason, and he gave her ridiculous ultimatums while he still went behind her back.  Many times I wish Claire had said f off, I'll take care of myself.

The thing is, we don't really see that side of Frank until later in the books. As I recall, Frank is mostly depicted as this very selfless man who took Claire back and never asked anything of her in the books up until Claire tells Bree the truth and starts to put her affairs in order so she can travel back. For me, it was almost like Claire had been living the lie her and Frank had agreed on so long it had become truth, but once she stopped lying about Brianna's true father, she started to look more honestly at other things too. Personally, I don't think the show has actually changed Frank from the Frank of the books, it's just that we haven't gotten to the point where Claire starts to see Frank in a different light. 

It's like how everyone complained about the show changed how difficult it was to go through the stones from the book, but in fact, it's exactly as it was depicted in the book. It wasn't until Voyager we learned that not everyone survives the trip and that it got harder for Claire each time she went through.

10 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And then I'm rolling my eyes, because Bree isn't a minor anymore, so he's just going to "take" a 20 year old daughter away? Like she wouldn't have a choice? 

I'm pretty sure Bree was 16 and a junior in high school at the time. Still though, I'm not sure Bree wouldn't have a choice--legally speaking--at that time? 

10 hours ago, Grashka said:

Personally, after reading the books I got a picture of three people in impossible situation, who tried the best their could. Not a St Frank versus selfish, pathetic lovers Claire&Jamie, and not Frank the evil cheating douchebag versus St Jamie and St Claire. I don't know if the show will manage to do the same. We will see.

That was also my take on it all after reading the books. 

3 hours ago, Tif said:

Do you think they are going to introduce Tom Christie at Ardsmuir?  He ends up being pretty pivotal later on.  I haven't seen any casting info though.

Ooooh....Hmmm. Well, considering the books told us about Tom Christie and his role at Ardsmuir through "flashbacks" much later in the books, maybe the show is planning for that format as well? 

[Nidratime]

I saw the following big SPOILER on another forum:

 

A German TV guide spoilt when we will see Murtagh again.  It will be in the next episode and he will be a prisoner in Ardsmuir. At one point Murtagh gets severely ill and Jamie goes to LJG and begs for medicine. He recognizes LJG immediately as the boy in the wood from Prestonpans. 

[abbey]

so maybe Murtagh is going to get a dramatic death scene at Ardsmuir rather than Culloden?. I am now curious to see if this change will change anything else at Ardsmuir.

[FnkyChkn34]

19 hours ago, toolazy said:

She had to be careful about what she took with her.  Recall that she barely escaped being burned as a witch once and she wasn't eager to repeat the experience. As she said, she took a HUGE chance just bringing those photos.  

Yes, but she explained the concept of vaccines to Jamie, and he was very curious about the future.  She could have just shared it all with him and he'd understand.

[morgan]

Interesting.  I really was hoping not to see him in prison.  And now I am wondering if we will get his death scene on camera instead of him staying with the series long term.  Hmmmm....

[ElsieH]

5 hours ago, Nidratime said:

I saw the following big SPOILER on another forum:

 

A German TV guide spoilt when we will see Murtagh again.  It will be in the next episode and he will be a prisoner in Ardsmuir. At one point Murtagh gets severely ill and Jamie goes to LJG and begs for medicine. He recognizes LJG immediately as the boy in the wood from Prestonpans. 

If that is true, I sincerely hope they somehow explain where he has been all this time, and how he escaped the battlefield without meeting the same fate as the others who were shot in the aftermath. Otherwise it will feel (to me) like a cheap stunt that otherwise makes no sense and only serves to make the fans happy to see him again (which includes me, I love Murtagh-- but it really bugs me when simple things like that don't make any sense whatsoever). It's like how in Better Call Saul, they have resisted "stunt casting" to bring back characters from Breaking Bad, because they feel it would be a disservice to the story they are trying to tell. Those showrunners have said they will only do it if it makes sense and adds something to the plot they are advancing.

On the other hand, it would be nice if he really is just there to die and tell Jamie it doesn't hurt a bit and allow Jamie to say goodbye to him. I guess I'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

[Nidratime]

Well, historically, it is true that some Scots did manage to live and escape the battlefield of Culloden. Not everyone died. Since Murtagh is such a fierce fighter, however, I can't see him running away under his own power, especially without looking for Jamie. It's possible that, like Jamie, he was hurt and/or unconscious and carried off the field by other Scots and was ultimately caught.

[Nidratime]

Another teaser for the next episode.

[Atlanta]

20 hours ago, Tif said:

Do you think they are going to introduce Tom Christie at Ardsmuir?  He ends up being pretty pivotal later on.  I haven't seen any casting info though.

I wound up loving Christie. 

[toolazy]

The thing about Tom Christie is that we never heard of him until what? Book 5? 6?  He's basically a Diana retcon.  I doubt they want to go to the trouble of casting him now, when it would be a season or two before he reappears.  

Which makes me wonder if they're going to do the bit about Jamie being a Mason. 

 

Edit: That promo caused me to look up the history of Eggo waffles and I was surprised to learn that they've been around since 1953.  

Edited September 22, 2017 by toolazy