Ask the Outlanders: Questions for the Bookreaders

[WatchrTina]

Summer, the short answer is that we can't know for sure what the show runners will do.  Yes the scene you mention comes at the end and may very well be the last scene of the season.  Or not. (Read that in Mrs. Graham's voice.)  Slipping behind the spoiler bar now.  

The second book takes place in two time periods -- it picks up the Jamie-and-Claire story almost immediately from where we last saw Jamie and Claire at the end of book 1 but the VERY first chapter jumps forward in time to Claire's original time + 20 years, where Claire has been living and has raised Jamie's child -- a child born after she goes back through the stones to her original time.  The book flashes back and forth between the two time lines.  One time line focus on the goings-on with Jamie and Claire in Paris and then Scotland leading up to the Jacobite rising and ending just before the battle of Culloden, when Jamie sends Claire back through the stones.  That story-line is interspersed with chapters that follow Claire's life in the 1960s, when, following Frank's death, she decides to research what happened to Jamie's men.  There is no doubt in her mind that Jamie himself died at Culloden (as he intended) but he had set wheels in motion that he hoped would save his men. Claire asks a historian (Roger) to help her find out what happened to Jamie's men.   The last sentence of the book is "He [Jamie] meant to die on Culloden Field,"Roger whispered.  "But he didn't." Boom.  Season over.  It will be brutal.

Edited July 19, 2015 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

jjj see my answer above.  You were almost right about how DIA ends but you anticipated what happens in Voyager.

 

As for your question about Geillis Duncan,

Claire handles Geillis' bones while she is in Boston.  I can't recall if it just something that we are told about from her life as a doctor there or if it happens while she is preparing to travel back to find Jamie and she is putting her affairs in order with the help of Joe Abernathy.  In either case I'm almost certain it happens in Book 3, because Diana probably hadn't decided the end of Geillis's story prior to writing Book 3.  As to when Claire recollects having handled those bones and putting two-and-two together, I assume it happens in Book 3 but I don't specifically recall her making the connection.

Edited July 19, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Summer]

Thanks, jjj and WatchrTina!  Ah the heartbreak!!  At least I am prepared, which is the way I like it :)

Edited July 19, 2015 by Summer

[jjj]

jjj see my answer above.  You were almost right about how DIA ends but you anticipated what happens in Voyager.

 

As for your question about Geillis Duncan,

Many thanks, WatchrTina, for the clarification to my earlier answer and for the answer to my separate question!  I greatly appreciate the knowledge of your deeper reading! Oh, and based on what I have read in the past day,

Claire is asked by Joe Abernathy to study the bones, in the presence of the person who brought the bones to Joe.  Joe comments that she, Claire, has a sensitivity that allows her to offer an empathetic diagnosis of remains; so this is an actual scene in the book. I think it would be hard to have it make sense in a television series, unless flashbacks were used, because the actual killing of Gillian happens so much later. Thanks again!

Edited July 19, 2015 by jjj

[bearcatfan]

Many thanks, WatchrTina, for the clarification to my earlier answer and for the answer to my separate question!  I greatly appreciate the knowledge of your deeper reading! Oh, and based on what I have read in the past day,

Claire is asked by Joe Abernathy to study the bones, in the presence of the person who brought the bones to Joe.  Joe comments that she, Claire, has a sensitivity that allows her to offer an empathetic diagnosis of remains; so this is an actual scene in the book. I think it would be hard to have it make sense in a television series, unless flashbacks were used, because the actual killing of Gillian happens so much later. Thanks again!

I just finished Voager over the weekend and I don't think that scene will be necessary but your understanding of that scene is correct.

I don't think she realizes it yet in Voyager as I don't recall a scene where she recognizes it. I will admit that some of the book, starting with the slaves and the crocodile, is a bit confusing to me so it's possible I missed it. I was reading it so fast, I'll need to go back and reread it.

[Avaleigh]

I am trying not to spoil myself on everything but I've been reading through this thread and damn it if I'm not super tempted to read the books now. I have a lot on my plate at the moment but I might need to make this happen. I wonder how just skipping to the second book in the series would work out? Probably not well, I'm just impatient to get to the next part of the story.

 

My questions, I don't get upset about spoilers, I love any and all details--

I'd love to know more about Dougal and how he comes across in the books. Is he pretty similar or are there some pretty major differences?

I've read that he actually did save Geillis--did he really love her? Do they get back together? What happens to Geillis? I read that she and Claire end up being enemies and I'm curious as to how this comes about.

 

The stones and time travel

Can somebody explain what the deal is here? How do Jaime and Claire figure out that she'll just be able to return if she wants to? How do they know that it's even safe for her to return? I get the whole she's having a difficult pregnancy part so she wants to have access to better medical care, but I'm curious as to how they were so sure that she'd be able to return to the future safely or even get back to the right time. Who's to say she wouldn't return in the 1980s or something?

 

Regarding Geillis and time travel--how does she know about Claire? How did Geillis find out about the time travel? Are there other time travelers in the series apart from these two?

[Dejana]

My questions, I don't get upset about spoilers, I love any and all details--

I'd love to know more about Dougal and how he comes across in the books. Is he pretty similar or are there some pretty major differences?

I've read that he actually did save Geillis--did he really love her? Do they get back together? What happens to Geillis? I read that she and Claire end up being enemies and I'm curious as to how this comes about.

The stones and time travel

Can somebody explain what the deal is here? How do Jaime and Claire figure out that she'll just be able to return if she wants to? How do they know that it's even safe for her to return? I get the whole she's having a difficult pregnancy part so she wants to have access to better medical care, but I'm curious as to how they were so sure that she'd be able to return to the future safely or even get back to the right time. Who's to say she wouldn't return in the 1980s or something?

Regarding Geillis and time travel--how does she know about Claire? How did Geillis find out about the time travel? Are there other time travelers in the series apart from these two?

Some answers:

1. In the books Dougal

features in the second book but he's not around Jamie and Claire as consistently, so there's less insight to his POV. He saves her from the death sentence (involving same fakery with another corpse) and takes her to France when he didn't have to, and some would look at that as an expression of love, at least for her having his child. Geillis moves on to other men when she is in France. She really makes an enemy of the Frasers when, years later, she absconds with Jenny and Ian's teenage son on a ship across the Atlantic, as part of a ritualistic virgin sacrifice. Since he's not a virgin, he's spared (but Geillis preys on him for sex). Claire and Jamie have to sail to the "New World" to rescue him.

2. As for the stones and time travel,

Claire has noted previously that it's always around 200 years in the songs/stories with time travelers, and the person always gets back to her own time. When Jamie took Claire back to the stones for the first time, she had a physical, violent reaction to them and began to disappear before Jamie pulled her back. He does go on to leave her alone to decide, but that's why he believes her about the time travel. Book fans were a bit up in arms about how the TV show portrayed this part of the story. It's only the later books where Claire really thinks about where you could end up when you go through the stones, so I guess it's a leap of faith on Claire and Jamie's part that Claire will end up in her time, when she goes forward.

Geillis

is from the 1960s when she travels backwards. It's revealed in a later book that she studied other strange happenings around the stones and suspected cases of time travel to determine what went wrong. Claire shows up on this list, but at the time, Gillian (the name she went by in the 1960s) looked at Claire as a mere disappearance rather than a successful time traveler. But once she was back in the 1740s, in addition to viewing Claire's oddness as the signs of a fellow 20th century person, she may have realized that Claire Randall, the twentysomething housewife from her notebook on time travel, is one in the same with Claire Beauchamp Fraser in the 1940s. Gillian theorized that blood sacrifice helped a person steer to the time they wanted to go, and that's how she was able to travel beyond 202 years, because she'd killed her husband just before her journey and went back with a purpose, to support Bonnie Prince Charlie and stop Culloden from happening. I think she ended up farther back than she'd hoped, but made the best of it.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Dejana

[CalamityBoPeep]

 

The stones and time travel

Can somebody explain what the deal is here? How do Jaime and Claire figure out that she'll just be able to return if she wants to? How do they know that it's even safe for her to return? I get the whole she's having a difficult pregnancy part so she wants to have access to better medical care, but I'm curious as to how they were so sure that she'd be able to return to the future safely or even get back to the right time. Who's to say she wouldn't return in the 1980s or something?

 

Regarding Geillis and time travel--how does she know about Claire? How did Geillis find out about the time travel? Are there other time travelers in the series apart from these two?

 

 

Some answers:

2. As for the stones and time travel,

Claire has noted previously that it's always around 200 years in the songs/stories with time travelers, and the person always gets back to her own time. When Jamie took Claire back to the stones for the first time, she had a physical, violent reaction to them and began to disappear before Jamie pulled her back. He does go on to leave her alone to decide, but that's why he believes her about the time travel. Book fans were a bit up in arms about how the TV show portrayed this part of the story. It's only the later books where Claire really thinks about where you could end up when you go through the stones, so I guess it's a leap of faith on Claire and Jamie's part that Claire will end up in her time, when she goes forward.

 

 

Re: Claire and the stones:

 

That first time Jamie tried to put her through the stones, she also noted to herself that she had felt a spark in the chaos that was Frank.  I think this is the point where she began to suspect that it was possible to use the emotional connection with another person as a navigational tool.  As for coming back, both she and Jamie felt like it was goodbye forever when he brought her to the stones right before Culloden.  He intended to die in the battle.  She might have died in the attempt at traveling.  (But she would have likely died if she stayed, with the difficult pregnancy, along with extreme physical hardship after Culloden.) They never thought she'd attempt a return trip.  Very tragic.  (But of course, we all know that she did.)

 

Re: your third question:

 

Yes, there are a few other time travelers sprinkled throughout the series.  Some are really interesting characters, others you just wish would go on and die already.

Edited August 7, 2015 by CalamityBoPeep

[cypfan]

Who is Lord John Grey?  Is he related to Jamie?  I became intrigued after I saw the  audition video? that was put online today. Thank you in advance for your always thoughtful answers.

[DittyDotDot]

Who is Lord John Grey? Well, that's kind of complicated, but I'll give it the old college try:

We first meet William (John) Grey in Dragonfly in Amber. He's a teenage boy who happens upon Claire and Jamie in the woods just before the battle of Prestonpans. It's one of those things--that happens frequently with this book series--you think innocuous and probably could've just skipped, but later spawns a huge story arc. In Voyager he becomes a bigger character and that's where it gets a bit more complicated. I'm not sure how much you actually want to know, so I'll just say, he is in love with Jamie--but not sadistically so, like Black Jack was. He and Jamie eventually become good friends, but he is not related to Jamie...exactly. He does end up raising Jamie's illegitimate son as he marries the boy's mother's sister who dies giving birth to the boy. He also helps Jamie out immensely throughout the whole series.

 

I can provide more details if you want, cypfan, I'm never sure exactly how much information is really wanted sometimes.

[Petunia846]

Where's the video?

[cypfan]

Thank you DittyDotDot , I think that is enough info for now.  I thought perhaps he was going to be an unknown relative to Jamie.  You are too good to me DDD :)  Hope you go to Sam"s Twitter and watch the short interview he just posted.

 

Petunia, I saw a young man doing a self tape audition as Lord John.  Someone on Tumblr linked the video.  They said that they knew the dialogue was from the books but were not sure that it was an official audition or just someone posting it online on their own.  I will look for it but since I am an internet wanderer I may not be able to find it. The scene was in the woods where the characters first meet.

Edited November 5, 2015 by cypfan

[cypfan]

Petunia  i FOUND THE LINK!! and posted it in the Media Thread.  Enjoy.

[cypfan]

• Just saw on starz that Clive Russell has been cast to play Jamie's manipulative grandfather in Season 2.  Are you up to telling me why his grandfather is in Season 2.  Hasn't he long been dead?? 
• Also, if you have the generous time and will and only if it is important to the main storyline , what is the Fraser Prophesy?

         

         You are all so kind to fill us non-readers in on the details.  I am a book reader but not Outlander.  I learned back in the Godfather days never to read a book and then go see the movie.  I am willing to read the books after the shows air.....many years from now.  :) Funny, I read mysteries and never skip to the back of the book but don't mind Outlander spoilers within reason.  Maybe, it is because I know the tv show may actually make a different interpretation of the book.

[DittyDotDot]

Jamie's maternal Grandfather is deceased, but I'm assuming they are referring to:

Jamie's paternal grandfather--Auld Simon Fraser (The Old Fox), Lord Lovat. He's actually one of those real historical figures we mean in Dragonfly in Amber. He has a part to play in the uprising and there's some, shall we say, family tension too.

 

The Fraser Prophesy:

states that the next ruler of Scotland will be of the last of Simon Fraser's bloodline. That storyline doesn't come into play until Voyager, though.

 

As always I can provide more details if someone wants.

Edited November 12, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[GrailKing]

Hello and happy 2016

Small intro I'm a retired male who was looking for my GOT fix after season 5 and people pointed me to Outlander so here I am.

I truly don't mind spoilers so if you think you may spoil me by answering more then normal put that fear to rest, I like to use the book and show as a journey to the spoilers so people who may not want to be overly spoiled should consider carefully if they click onto any questions asked by me.

So I checked out Outlander season one and after the third episode bought the  first book, book 2 I'm buying next week.

My question (s)

1. Why should I feel good about Claire ? she had 2 chances ( at least per show ) to go back to Frank yet she decides to stay with Jamie ( get up soldier ) basically because,  she got hot for the passion of a man 5 years younger yet admitting that Frank was a good man and a good lover.

 

2. When she does go back she eventually hates Frank because of his affairs yet she's the one having someone else is child, and she seems to ( didn't get to book 2 yet) use Frank to obtain an education and father B. why should she be offended?

3.I'm sure BJR features have some reasoning behind it, though I don't think he's Franks great>>>>> grandfather, I think Frank missed something or Claire misinterpret something.

 

[DittyDotDot]

Hello and happy 2016

Small intro I'm a retired male who was looking for my GOT fix after season 5 and people pointed me to Outlander so here I am.

I truly don't mind spoilers so if you think you may spoil me by answering more then normal put that fear to rest, I like to use the book and show as a journey to the spoilers so people who may not want to be overly spoiled should consider carefully if they click onto any questions asked by me.

So I checked out Outlander season one and after the third episode bought the  first book, book 2 I'm buying next week.

My question (s)

1. Why should I feel good about Claire ? she had 2 chances ( at least per show ) to go back to Frank yet she decides to stay with Jamie ( get up soldier ) basically because,  she got hot for the passion of a man 5 years younger yet admitting that Frank was a good man and a good lover.

 

2. When she does go back she eventually hates Frank because of his affairs yet she's the one having someone else is child, and she seems to ( didn't get to book 2 yet) use Frank to obtain an education and father B. why should she be offended?

3.I'm sure BJR features have some reasoning behind it, though I don't think he's Franks great>>>>> grandfather, I think Frank missed something or Claire misinterpret something.

 

 

Welcome to the whacky world of Outlander, GrailKing! I'll just dive right in...

 

As to the first,

I don't know that you should feel good for Claire, necessarily. Personally, I don't think of Frank as a bad guy, just not the right guy for Claire. Sure, he makes mistakes, but so does Claire and she struggles with the choice she made throughout the series. In my mind, Claire's decision isn't about who Claire should be with--Jamie or Frank--but who Claire wants to be--a 1940s housewife or a 1740s healer. I think Claire found something of herself in the past and that's why she ultimately stays. I guess, what I'm saying is, I don't feel good for Claire for staying with Jamie, but I do feel good for Claire for choosing the life she wanted. 

 

To the second,

I wouldn't say Claire hates Frank, but they do have some huge problems when she does return to the future. She's very much aware of how she shouldn't have the right to be angry about his affairs, but at the same time, she is human. It's unfortunate Claire and Frank never really communicate with each other, but Claire acknowledges she had a role to play in the failure of their marriage, too. However, she doesn't use Frank to get an education or to get him to raise her daughter by another man. Claire tries to get Frank to leave her when she first returns, but he refuses--he thinks only a cad would leave her pregnant and penniless--and he eventually stays because he does love Brianna. Claire never tries to "hang on" to Frank; he was free to leave whenever he wanted. 

 

And, to the third,

I'll just say: you are correct sir. I think I'll leave it at that for now. ;)

Edited January 14, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[GrailKing]

Thank You DDD,

 

As I said I'm getting book 2 next week so I will find out the emotions from both, though I don't believe any of it will be from Frank's POV.

 

As far as question three, I guess I'll get more answers when I delve into the spoilage post.

:@)

I don't usually go into science fiction or Fantasy I tend to like historical fiction and crime, so my book experience is limited to: LOTR, ASOIAF, HG Well's Time machine and now Outlander not counting King Arthur and Parke Goodwin, Persia Wooly and Joan Wolf ,Stephen Lawhead etc.

Edited January 14, 2016 by GrailKing

[MedievalGirl]

Grailking

Another thing on your first point
 

Somewhere in Outlander the book around the time Claire chooses Jamie she mentions that any time she tries to think about Frank, Black Jack's face appears. It can't be easy to think fondly of Frank when his face makes you sick. They don't mention this at all in the show. 

[Atlanta]

Grailking

Another thing on your first point

 

Somewhere in Outlander the book around the time Claire chooses Jamie she mentions that any time she tries to think about Frank, Black Jack's face appears. It can't be easy to think fondly of Frank when his face makes you sick. They don't mention this at all in the show. 

Was a book reader before seeing the show. That does make things mega complex for Claire.

She does encourage him to leave her, but he does the honorable thing and stays with her. I'm not a Frank fan since he continue affairs, but on one hand, she's still in love with another man and he raises the child lovingly & even trains her to live in the wild and shoot. I also didn't like that he was trying to take Brianna away from Claire with one of his mistresses. Claire comments that this particular one must be special.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Athena
Hid additional spoiler.

[toolazy]

Grail King,

 

What two chances did Claire pass up to go back to Frank? She only voluntarily stayed the one time. All of her other efforts to get back were either thwarted by others except for the very last time, before Culloden.

Edited February 4, 2016 by toolazy

[GrailKing]

Grailking

Another thing on your first point

 

Somewhere in Outlander the book around the time Claire chooses Jamie she mentions that any time she tries to think about Frank, Black Jack's face appears. It can't be easy to think fondly of Frank when his face makes you sick. They don't mention this at all in the show. 

As far as mentioning it in the show, I don't think it needed mentioning; I think an average person could tell when Claire first saw BJR and stated he wasn't Frank though he looked like him knows this is going to be a mind f@#* for her, as I mentioned in point 3.

She does sate she has a problem reconciling the ancestor to the man she knows 200 years up the chain.

Because of work and weather I'm still in the chapter after Claire's strapping just before Bragrennan where Jamie is talking about his whippings, it's here in this chapter I believe Claire decides to let Frank and 1945 go as she states Jamie and 1743 are more real to her then Frank and 1945.

[GrailKing]

Was a book reader before seeing the show. That does make things mega complex for Claire.

She does encourage him to leave her, but he does the honorable thing and stays with her. I'm not a Frank fan since he continue affairs, but on one hand, she's still in love with another man and he raises the child lovingly & even trains her to live in the wild and shoot. I also didn't like that he was trying to take Brianna away from Claire with one of his mistresses. Claire comments that this particular one must be special.

I didn't get here yet as stated above, but my question

here is why not JUST leave? Did Frank hold her at gun point? Why try to convince him to leave her, that's manipulating a person again just leave, but I think she can't because 3 years of her life is missing and this creates some problems for her as far as life concerns for her and the baby, money etc so she stays then expects Frank to abstain from relations, yet she tells him she basicly  wasn't going to love him any more . As I stated did not get to the return of Claire yet but I'm sure I'm going to be split about what Frank does with regards to Bree and I'm aware of people stating Frank is gas lighting Claire. My main point is, Claire should have just said good bye and make it on her own; I think it fits more of the type of personality she is.

 

ETA spoiler tag for article.

Edited February 6, 2016 by GrailKing
Added spoiler tag.

[GrailKing]

Grail King,

 

What two chances did Claire pass up to go back to Frank? She only voluntarily stayed the one time. All of her other efforts to get back were either thwarted by others except for the very last time, before Culloden.

I said as far as show she had two chances, not pass up BOTH chances, one was stopped by the British soldiers, but she did pass up the second, I also haven't gotten to the part where Jamie brings her back to the stones to let her decide but I thought she gets two shots at it and I thought Jamie pulls her back the first time, then leaves her alone to make her decision.

[GrailKing]

Welcome to the whacky world of Outlander, GrailKing! I'll just dive right in...

 

As to the first,

I don't know that you should feel good for Claire, necessarily. Personally, I don't think of Frank as a bad guy, just not the right guy for Claire. Sure, he makes mistakes, but so does Claire and she struggles with the choice she made throughout the series. In my mind, Claire's decision isn't about who Claire should be with--Jamie or Frank--but who Claire wants to be--a 1940s housewife or a 1740s healer. I think Claire found something of herself in the past and that's why she ultimately stays. I guess, what I'm saying is, I don't feel good for Claire for staying with Jamie, but I do feel good for Claire for choosing the life she wanted. 

 

To the second,

I wouldn't say Claire hates Frank, but they do have some huge problems when she does return to the future. She's very much aware of how she shouldn't have the right to be angry about his affairs, but at the same time, she is human. It's unfortunate Claire and Frank never really communicate with each other, but Claire acknowledges she had a role to play in the failure of their marriage, too. However, she doesn't use Frank to get an education or to get him to raise her daughter by another man. Claire tries to get Frank to leave her when she first returns, but he refuses--he thinks only a cad would leave her pregnant and penniless--and he eventually stays because he does love Brianna. Claire never tries to "hang on" to Frank; he was free to leave whenever he wanted. 

 

And, to the third,

I'll just say: you are correct sir. I think I'll leave it at that for now. ;)

I didn't answer to the first spoiler, I stated the same in another thread, she was adrift after the war ended as far as her future and trying to get reconnected to her husband and then continue on as a 20th century woman with it's own form of shackles, when she fell through the stones even though she was A: 'second class citizen / property, AKA woman; she had knowledge and skills that the inhabitants did not this leads to B: giving her a real purpose to be there which may lead to C: respect.

As far as spoiler two, I answered this above, whether people agree or disagree she should have let him down as best she could then move on, not try to convince him to leave her; that's manipulation .

Edited February 6, 2016 by GrailKing

[DittyDotDot]

I didn't answer to the first spoiler, I stated the same in another thread, she was adrift after the war ended as far as her future and trying to get reconnected to her husband and then continue on as a 20th century woman with it's own form of shackles, when she fell through the stones even though she was A: 'second class citizen / property, AKA woman; she had knowledge and skills that the inhabitants did not this leads to B: giving her a real purpose to be there which may lead to C: respect.

As far as spoiler two, I answered this above, whether people agree or disagree she should have let him down as best she could then move on, not try to convince him to leave her; that's manipulation .

 

I think some of these things will be much easier to understand and discuss once you read it. Right now it seems like you've made some very strong opinions based assumptions from other people's interpretations, which are sort of taken out of context. There's just a bit more to it than one can really sum up here, so I encourage you to read the books so you get the full context. I think you might be surprised to find it's less of who was right or wrong, but just a couple people living in an impossible situation and trying to make the best of it. Plus, a lot of it is just interpretation. The books really jump around with Claire and Frank and it's mostly told in short snippets here and there rather than really delving in.

 

However, I didn't mean to imply Claire manipulated Frank.

Claire is flat out honest with Frank, no trickery that I recall, at all. Frank simply wouldn't go away and Claire didn't have the will to do anything about it at the time--all she has the energy for right then was to survive. You might want to consider that when Claire first returns through the stones, she's back in her time after almost three years in the past where she was at the tail end of a war; mourning the loss of Jamie, her family she had found in the past and the life she had chosen; disorientated, malnourished, pregnant, hormonal and emotional; and basically just broken. I don't think Claire really starts to put herself back together until after Brianna is born. By the time she really does start to find herself again, there's Brianna to consider. Claire doesn't want to take Brianna from a father she loves no more than she wants to hurt Frank again by taking Brianna from him. She really does consider Frank and Brianna before herself and tries to make the best of the situation rather than making more of a mess of it. This is the point where I began to truly see Claire as an adult and not so self-absorbed as I found her in the first two books.

 

[GrailKing]

I think some of these things will be much easier to understand and discuss once you read it. Right now it seems like you've made some very strong opinions based assumptions from other people's interpretations, which are sort of taken out of context. There's just a bit more to it than one can really sum up here, so I encourage you to read the books so you get the full context. I think you might be surprised to find it's less of who was right or wrong, but just a couple people living in an impossible situation and trying to make the best of it. Plus, a lot of it is just interpretation. The books really jump around with Claire and Frank and it's mostly told in short snippets here and there rather than really delving in.

 

However, I didn't mean to imply Claire manipulated Frank.

Claire is flat out honest with Frank, no trickery that I recall, at all. Frank simply wouldn't go away and Claire didn't have the will to do anything about it at the time--all she has the energy for right then was to survive. You might want to consider that when Claire first returns through the stones, she's back in her time after almost three years in the past where she was at the tail end of a war; mourning the loss of Jamie, her family she had found in the past and the life she had chosen; disorientated, malnourished, pregnant, hormonal and emotional; and basically just broken. I don't think Claire really starts to put herself back together until after Brianna is born. By the time she really does start to find herself again, there's Brianna to consider. Claire doesn't want to take Brianna from a father she loves no more than she wants to hurt Frank again by taking Brianna from him. She really does consider Frank and Brianna before herself and tries to make the best of the situation rather than making more of a mess of it. This is the point where I began to truly see Claire as an adult and not so self-absorbed as I found her in the first two books.

 

I think once I get into Claire and Frank I will most likely soften on her, correct me if I'm wrong but DG gives no POV from Frank at all just Claire's?

[GrailKing]

As a note: with Claire

trying to change the future (maybe more than once)does DG bring forth ramifications for the endeavours?

Edited February 6, 2016 by GrailKing

[DittyDotDot]

I think once I get into Claire and Frank I will most likely soften on her, correct me if I'm wrong but DG gives no POV from Frank at all just Claire's?

 

You might soften on Claire, but I must confess I didn't really warm up to her until book four. It was sometime in Drums of Autumn where I realized Claire had really grown a lot and I should maybe give her a break once in a while. And, you are correct:

The POV does eventually shift from Claire, but none from Frank, as I recall. It's funny, when I was reading the first two books I kinda was wanting some POV from some different characters, but by the eighth book I was kinda wishing we could shift back to only Claire. It's not really possible by that point in the series; I guess I'm just fickle that way.  

 

 

As a note: with Claire

trying to change the future (maybe more than once)does DG bring forth ramifications for the endeavours?

 

Yes and no.

Claire and Jamie talk about some of the ramifications and there's some stuff with regards to Frank not existing if Black Jack is dead, but since they fail at changing the fate of the Highlands, there's no tangible ramifications they have to live with.

Um, I think I'll leave it at that for now.

[GrailKing]

You might soften on Claire, but I must confess I didn't really warm up to her until book four. It was sometime in Drums of Autumn where I realized Claire had really grown a lot and I should maybe give her a break once in a while. And, you are correct:

The POV does eventually shift from Claire, but none from Frank, as I recall. It's funny, when I was reading the first two books I kinda was wanting some POV from some different characters, but by the eighth book I was kinda wishing we could shift back to only Claire. It's not really possible by that point in the series; I guess I'm just fickle that way.  

 

Coming from ASOIAF, I’m spoiled as far as being in the heads of main characters and some how feel this hurts Frank or us in reading just from Claire's POV, but I also get your feeling as far as too many pov esp. if said pov is doing nothing or rambling for many chapters.

 

 

 

Yes and no.

Claire and Jamie talk about some of the ramifications and there's some stuff with regards to Frank not existing if Black Jack is dead, but since they fail at changing the fate of the Highlands, there's no tangible ramifications they have to live with.

Um, I think I'll leave it at that for now.

I DL the family tree so my thoughts about BJR proved out, I'm going to buy the companion books with the family tree(s)

I'll do just as I do with ASOIAF: buy the books, watch the series, buy the disk, the only thing I'll do different is unlike ASOIAF where I bought the audio cd ( I travelled a lot with my former job)Roy Doltrice was so good on them, I won't buy the CD for two reasons, my Niece let me take hers while I brought my daughter back to college, and it took me less then 10 minutes to know I won't like the version put out; I didn't like the male voice doing the prologue and the female voice was grating, I didn't expect Catriona Balfy but some one at least close to her tone.

[toolazy]

I didn't answer to the first spoiler, I stated the same in another thread, she was adrift after the war ended as far as her future and trying to get reconnected to her husband and then continue on as a 20th century woman with it's own form of shackles, when she fell through the stones even though she was A: 'second class citizen / property, AKA woman; she had knowledge and skills that the inhabitants did not this leads to B: giving her a real purpose to be there which may lead to C: respect.

As far as spoiler two, I answered this above, whether people agree or disagree she should have let him down as best she could then move on, not try to convince him to leave her; that's manipulation .

 

 

I'm confused as to whether or not you've read the parts of the book you're commenting on. If you haven't, once you do you will better understand where Claire's head was at when she first got back to the 20th century.

She was physically ill, starved, pregnant and heartbroken.  She was in no shape to be manipulating anyone.   I think this will be much more understandable once you read about it. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I'm confused as to whether or not you've read the parts of the book you're commenting on. If you haven't, once you do you will better understand where Claire's head was at when she first got back to the 20th century.

She was physically ill, starved, pregnant and heartbroken.  She was in no shape to be manipulating anyone.   I think this will be much more understandable once you read about it.

 

I get where GrailKing is going with this.  If:

Claire is flat out honest with Frank, no trickery that I recall, at all. Frank simply wouldn't go away and Claire didn't have the will to do anything about it at the time--all she has the energy for right then was to survive.

is true, then that is a form of manipulation in itself.  Trying to get someone to do something you really want to happen - but don't want to shoulder the "blame" for it - IS manipulative.  It's not honest.  It's cowardly, in fact. Regardless of your "reasons".   

Edited February 7, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[DittyDotDot]

Trying to get someone to do something you really want to happen - but don't want to shoulder the "blame" for it - IS manipulative.  It's not honest.  It's cowardly, in fact. Regardless of your "reasons".

 

I just never got the sense Claire was trying to shuck the blame.

It's more that she's in a sort of state of shock and really doesn't care about much of anything at the time. But I think she was completely honest with Frank and was in no way trying to get him to leave so she could say it wasn't her fault. I do think if Claire had been in a better frame of mind when she first returned she would've just left Frank and raised Brianna by herself. It's really for the best that Frank didn't listen to her considering her state of mind. If he hadn't stepped up and made a bunch of decisions, I imagine she would've tried to go back through the stones and either died in the attempt or died from the pregnancy later.

Edited February 7, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I just never got the sense Claire was trying to shuck the blame.

It's more that she's in a sort of state of shock and really doesn't care about much of anything at the time. But I think she was completely honest with Frank and was in no way trying to get him to leave so she could say it wasn't her fault. I do think if Claire had been in a better frame of mind when she first returned she would've just left Frank and raised Brianna by herself. It's really for the best that Frank didn't listen to her considering her state of mind. If he hadn't stepped up and made a bunch of decisions, I imagine she would've tried to go back through the stones and either died in the attempt or died from the pregnancy later.

 

Okay, that excuse might work for the first few months - maybe even a year or two - after Claire returns.  But she spent, what 18 years? with him.  She wasn't in shock that whole time,

Edited February 7, 2016 by Athena
Added spoiler tag

[DittyDotDot]

Okay, that excuse might work for the first few months - maybe even a year or two - after Claire returns.  But she spent, what 18 years? with him.  She wasn't in shock that whole time,

 

As I said,

at first, she was in shock, but then later she realized she had got herself into a pickle and decided to try and make the best of the situation--mostly for Brianna's sake. Leaving Frank would've taken Brianna away from a father she loved and a father who loved her too. It's just not a black and white situation, IMO.

 

As I've always said, IMO, there is no clear-cut villain in this relationship. Both parties contribute to it's good and bad times.

[GrailKing]

As I said,

at first, she was in shock, but then later she realized she had got herself into a pickle and decided to try and make the best of the situation--mostly for Brianna's sake. Leaving Frank would've taken Brianna away from a father she loved and a father who loved her too. It's just not a black and white situation, IMO.

 

As I've always said, IMO, there is no clear-cut villain in this relationship. Both parties contribute to it's good and bad times.

Shock from what?

being forced to leave Jamie or going through the stone to the 20th century? upset I understand; yes she found the love of her life 200 years back but she and the baby are in a much better place health and safety wise and she's been through the stones before and she landed exactly in the proper time so at most a year of recovery and then she could leave before Frank gets attached to Brianna, she may not become a doctor right away but she have time to do so later or go back to Jamie and take her chances.

And if she did try to make Frank

leave her  for what ever reason it is manipulation especially if she stayed with him for years.

The best choice for Claire would have been to leave Frank; because she doesn't see  Frank at all any longer she sees BJR.

I understand the conflict with in her, but the best choice would be to leave Frank after Brianna's birth, before he got attached.

There are no villains here at all (except BJR) but victims.

Damn, I want to rush into that section to read it LOL.

I also put too many spoiler tags but I think it proper.

Edited February 7, 2016 by GrailKing

[GrailKing]

I just never got the sense Claire was trying to shuck the blame.

It's more that she's in a sort of state of shock and really doesn't care about much of anything at the time. But I think she was completely honest with Frank and was in no way trying to get him to leave so she could say it wasn't her fault. I do think if Claire had been in a better frame of mind when she first returned she would've just left Frank and raised Brianna by herself. It's really for the best that Frank didn't listen to her considering her state of mind. If he hadn't stepped up and made a bunch of decisions, I imagine she would've tried to go back through the stones and either died in the attempt or died from the pregnancy later.

I do think if Claire had been in a better frame of mind when she first returned she would've just left Frank and raised Brianna by herself.

 

Would she?

I'm not saying it's wholly intentional,

but once back what was she looking at, explaining where she's been, how is she going to provide for her daughter, where is her support system etc. she may not have fear of death or rape hanging over her but she has no support system or even the minutest of financial support no security, in a way she came back worst off then when she left Jamie but Frank was there and she took it, it was security.

if it was only a year or two max, I could give her a pass, but twenty years

is a whole different matter especially considering what we know of this woman's firery personality

putting a knife to Jamies chest threatening to gut him if he ever raises a hand to her again, speaking her mind sometimes at great cost to herself, survive a war and the many deaths she's seen, putting her self in harms way to save Jamie, taking imitative to try and put her and Frank back together after the war etc. she didn't need twenty years to be on her own

[GrailKing]

Shock, because she suddenly abandoned a very different life style - to put it very mildly - and went back to the life she had left behind 3 years ago, shock, because she was transported to 1948 literally from a middle of warzone and shock, because she just lost her beloved husband and was deprived of all chances to mourn him properly. Usually people find some peace in mourning their beloved ones who passed away, but Claire was deprived of all possibilities to do so, because of the abnormality of their situation: there was no body, no funeral, no grave she could vistit. No people around, who knew Jamie and with whom she could talk about him and share her grief. Finally, she didn't even know how he had "died" and was left to imagine all ghastly possibilities: did he suffer a lot? Was is quick? Was it...slow? Did he die on the battlefield? Or maybe survived to be executed later in public, like his grandfather Simon Fraser? Well, one can only imagine what must have been brewing in her head. Personally I think that's one of the reasons she hadn't gone looking for traces of Jamie's in archives earlier. She was probably afraid what she could find. In DIA, she is heartbroken when she learns from Roger what had become of people who were  only her acquaintances in XVIII, one can imagine her pain if she learned something equally awful about Jamie.

 

Frank fell in love with Brianna the first time he saw her. At that point Claire was still too fragile emotionally and physically to do something about it. Then, it was already too late I think. Claire already felt guilty about breaking her promises to Frank, she couldn't possibly separate him from only daughter he could have had, and she couldn't deprive Brianna of only father she knew. She respected their bond too much.

 

Also, I don't recall Claire ever saw BJR's face when she was looking at Frank.

 

I don't think she was deprived to mourn properly,at least not  20 years, she may be afraid to find out facts but she had enough to mourn and keep his memory and she has

Brianna .

She actually has more then what she left Frank with in the same amount of time.

In book one, every time or nearly so,

when she sees or thinks of BJR she also sees or thinks of Frank and vice versa, also she can't believe they are related, she even mentions about eye twitches being the same.

Claire extended her pain and Franks by staying so long.

I don't recall a question being answered :

how old was Brianna when Frank told Claire he wanted to take Brianna with him and his lady friend?

[DittyDotDot]

Shock from what?

being forced to leave Jamie or going through the stone to the 20th century? upset I understand; yes she found the love of her life 200 years back but she and the baby are in a much better place health and safety wise and she's been through the stones before and she landed exactly in the proper time so at most a year of recovery and then she could leave before Frank gets attached to Brianna, she may not become a doctor right away but she have time to do so later or go back to Jamie and take her chances.

[GrailKing]

Again, I think you need to read it before jumping to conclusions. It seems you're making a lot of assumptions right now.

 

Not jumping to conclusion but I am making a few assumptions, but I will as I always say give my final view once I read the appropriate sections in full and not piece meal.

 

Grashka explained the first spoiler quite well:

culture shock, shock of losing her husband. Basically grief with no outlet. There was no one she could talk to about her experiences and Frank was prone to pretend it just didn't happen. She had Brianna, but that almost made it worse. Brianna was a constant reminder of Jamie and the life she lost. She might have been able to forget and move on if she didn't have Brianna.

 

The second spoiler tag:

Claire had money from her uncle and could've made a life of her own. Frank says only a cad would leave her pregnant and penniless, but Claire admits later she wasn't without options if she had had the frame of mind to consider them. She didn't really care if she lived or died when she first returned. Brianna's birth changed all that for her; it gave her a purpose and reason to live. That's when she started to put herself back together.

 

But this is only good for so long, 20 years is well beyond frame of mind thinking, as I said one or two years I understand, longer kind of hard to defend that thinking.

 

As to BJR,

I don't think Claire had problems separating Black Jack Randall and Frank Randall. They may have looked alike, but she was aware they were different men and I don't remember that being a factor in her feelings for Frank.

 

It seems like you've made the assumption

Claire hates Frank and only stays with him because he can provide her with a father for her child and an education. That's just not how I read it. Claire does care about Frank and they do have some happy times. Brianna says they had a happy home and didn't know there were any problems between Frank and Claire. It's just that Claire can't forget about Jamie and closes off a big part of herself from Frank. Which understandably breeds resentment in Frank. But, I never thought Claire resented Frank, even after all the affairs and his threat to take her daughter away from her. She understands he acted the way he did was because she couldn't give him what he needed. But, she is hurt by Franks actions none-the-less, though. To me, that's proof that she does care about Frank, just not in the way Frank wanted or needed. You are correct that Claire staying caused more hurt in their relationship, but that's a two-way street and Frank could've moved on and saved them all some pain too. They both knew where the other stood and chose to stay together--as many people did in that time period--mostly for Brianna.

True Frank could move on, but he has no obligation or need  to physically do so, Claire could/should move out and on.

It's sort of a married couple who owns home and children and one betrays the other yet the betrayer demands the innocent party leave the home, but they don't and it's really terrible situation (my wife and  I were true witness to this in true life)

 

 

Brianna was 16. If I recall properly, Claire jumps to the conclusion Frank is leaving her for another woman, but Frank denies this. It's unclear if he was going to take her away with a lady friend because Frank dies later that night and they never get a chance to resolve the fight they were in the middle of before Frank stormed out. Up until that night, Claire had no idea Frank was planning to take Brianna back to the UK. So, the passage you read, where Claire says she loved Frank at one time, was in the aftermath of this fight and Frank's sudden death--all within a few hours.  

 

 

What I read and remember Claire stated it twice once while arguing and one over his body in the hospital.

It's a pity that DG did not give POV of all three .

 

ETA:

I've always had a theory on why Frank suddenly decides to leave Claire and take Brianna to England. Frank did finally believe Claire had lived 200 years in the past because he found evidence that Jamie existed. He taught Brianna to shoot, hunt and survive in the event she would end up in the past, too. So, I wonder if it will be revealed at some point Frank decided to take Brianna away from Claire because he found evidence Brianna travels at some point too and, in his own way, was trying to protect Brianna instead of trying to deliberately hurt Claire.

From what I read, I agree he was being proactive and protective of Brianna.

Edited February 7, 2016 by GrailKing

[DittyDotDot]

GrailKing, IMO, you've taken a very strong opinion about something you haven't even read yet and seem pretty certain those of us who have read it have it wrong. I've done my best to answer your questions and give you some context, but I really don't see the point in continuing to debate this until you've read it and have all the information yourself. Right now you're making a lot of assumptions and jumping to conclusions that may, or may not, pan out. Perhaps once you've read it you'll understand our comments here better?

 

I understand you have a dislike of Claire--I'm not enamored with her either--but I would urge you to try and read it with an open mind. You might be surprised to find most of the characters in this series have a valid point of view. Doesn't mean the characters always act as one would like, though, or that you will like them all, just that if you read it without prejudice you might find you understand where they're coming from better.

[GrailKing]

GrailKing, IMO, you've taken a very strong opinion about something you haven't even read yet and seem pretty certain those of us who have read it have it wrong. I've done my best to answer your questions and give you some context, but I really don't see the point in continuing to debate this until you've read it and have all the information yourself. Right now you're making a lot of assumptions and jumping to conclusions that may, or may not, pan out. Perhaps once you've read it you'll understand our comments here better?

 

I understand you have a dislike of Claire--I'm not enamored with her either--but I would urge you to try and read it with an open mind. You might be surprised to find most of the characters in this series have a valid point of view. Doesn't mean the characters always act as one would like, though, or that you will like them all, just that if you read it without prejudice you might find you understand where they're coming from better.

Not really, and I don't dislike her I think she's intriguing but flawed; and her flaws (after falling through the stones)are what added to her situation .

Most characters have valid points of view, especially  when seen from their views only.

[Atlanta]

Even after rereading the books after a not looking at them for months, I pick up things I never noticed before. There's a lot going on in this series. I think if you read them, you'll find that Diana doesn't write in a black and white world. There's many shades of gray. :)

[GrailKing]

Even after rereading the books after a not looking at them for months, I pick up things I never noticed before. There's a lot going on in this series. I think if you read them, you'll find that Diana doesn't write in a black and white world. There's many shades of gray. :)

I understand that, I like the character, I think she could had handled some of her situations better.

I also think Frank  at least in book 1, some readers misread him and through what I scanned, and from the many inputs here, it's possibly the same later on, but I did reserve the right to edit my thoughts on him in the later books.

And this is DG story, if she wrote Claire to my or others expectations we would not have a story.

I'm going to be posting a question, not sure if this is the correct spot so the Moderator can move it to a more suitable thread if need be.

[toolazy]

 

ETA:

I've always had a theory on why Frank suddenly decides to leave Claire and take Brianna to England. Frank did finally believe Claire had lived 200 years in the past because he found evidence that Jamie existed. He taught Brianna to shoot, hunt and survive in the event she would end up in the past, too. So, I wonder if it will be revealed at some point Frank decided to take Brianna away from Claire because he found evidence Brianna travels at some point too and, in his own way, was trying to protect Brianna instead of trying to deliberately hurt Claire.

 

Ooh, I like that.

That would explain what certain did appear to be dickish behavior.  By the way, Brianna was 17 or 18 - she was a senior. One of Claire's arguments against Frank taking her was that she would want to stay and graduate with her class. 

 

[GrailKing]

Ooh, I like that.

That would explain what certain did appear to be dickish behavior.  By the way, Brianna was 17 or 18 - she was a senior. One of Claire's arguments against Frank taking her was that she would want to stay and graduate with her class. 

 

was this taking place in the USA? and the year was what? if Bree was a US Citizen and this happens in 1968 or later she  was an adult  and Claire or Frank wouldn't have any say ;leagaly speaking and does she travels before college or after?

[GrailKing]

Again, I think you need to read it before jumping to conclusions. It seems you're making a lot of assumptions right now.

 

Grashka explained the first spoiler quite well:

culture shock, shock of losing her husband. Basically grief with no outlet. There was no one she could talk to about her experiences and Frank was prone to pretend it just didn't happen. She had Brianna, but that almost made it worse. Brianna was a constant reminder of Jamie and the life she lost. She might have been able to forget and move on if she didn't have Brianna.

 

The second spoiler tag:

Claire had money from her uncle and could've made a life of her own. Frank says only a cad would leave her pregnant and penniless, but Claire admits later she wasn't without options if she had had the frame of mind to consider them. She didn't really care if she lived or died when she first returned. Brianna's birth changed all that for her; it gave her a purpose and reason to live. That's when she started to put herself back together.

 

As to BJR,

I don't think Claire had problems separating Black Jack Randall and Frank Randall. They may have looked alike, but she was aware they were different men and I don't remember that being a factor in her feelings for Frank.

 

It seems like you've made the assumption

Claire hates Frank and only stays with him because he can provide her with a father for her child and an education. That's just not how I read it. Claire does care about Frank and they do have some happy times. Brianna says they had a happy home and didn't know there were any problems between Frank and Claire. It's just that Claire can't forget about Jamie and closes off a big part of herself from Frank. Which understandably breeds resentment in Frank. But, I never thought Claire resented Frank, even after all the affairs and his threat to take her daughter away from her. She understands he acted the way he did was because she couldn't give him what he needed. But, she is hurt by Franks actions none-the-less, though. To me, that's proof that she does care about Frank, just not in the way Frank wanted or needed. You are correct that Claire staying caused more hurt in their relationship, but that's a two-way street and Frank could've moved on and saved them all some pain too. They both knew where the other stood and chose to stay together--as many people did in that time period--mostly for Brianna.

 

 

 

Brianna was 16. If I recall properly, Claire jumps to the conclusion Frank is leaving her for another woman, but Frank denies this. It's unclear if he was going to take her away with a lady friend because Frank dies later that night and they never get a chance to resolve the fight they were in the middle of before Frank stormed out. Up until that night, Claire had no idea Frank was planning to take Brianna back to the UK. So, the passage you read, where Claire says she loved Frank at one time, was in the aftermath of this fight and Frank's sudden death--all within a few hours.  

 

 

ETA:

I've always had a theory on why Frank suddenly decides to leave Claire and take Brianna to England. Frank did finally believe Claire had lived 200 years in the past because he found evidence that Jamie existed. He taught Brianna to shoot, hunt and survive in the event she would end up in the past, too. So, I wonder if it will be revealed at some point Frank decided to take Brianna away from Claire because he found evidence Brianna travels at some point too and, in his own way, was trying to protect Brianna instead of trying to deliberately hurt Claire.

I was re-watching the Garrison Commander episode just now and in it BJR 

drew a picture of Claire

, so I went to the chapter but it's not in it, and I don't recall it being done in book 1 though I'm still reading, but it doesn't mean it wasn't later so was it done later or no?

It also need not be from

BJR

.

Edited February 9, 2016 by GrailKing

[Petunia846]

That episode is almost entirely new material. (So, no...the drawing is not in the book.)

Edited February 9, 2016 by Petunia846

[GrailKing]

That episode is almost entirely new material. (So, no...the drawing is not in the book.)

none, odd the runners would put that scene in.

[DittyDotDot]

was this taking place in the USA? and the year was what? if Bree was a US Citizen and this happens in 1968 or later she  was an adult  and Claire or Frank wouldn't have any say ;leagaly speaking and does she travels before college or after?

 

As I recall,

Bree is 16 or 17. I didn't think she was done with school yet--I thought she was just finishing high school two years later when Claire takes her to Scotland, but thinking on it now, I think she was just finishing her freshman year in college--when Frank tells Claire he's taking her to England. What I remember of that fight was: Frank starts by saying he's heading to England early (apparently he had a sabbatical planned for later that year) and he wanted Bree to come with him. Claire says Bree and her can join him in the summer once Bree is out of school, as they had planned (if I remember right it wasn't long before spring break when Frank dumps this on Claire). Frank then ponies up and tells her it's not temporary; he's leaving her and taking Bree with him. Claire jumps to the conclusion he's leaving her for another woman--"this one must be pretty special"--Frank denies it, but is shocked to learn Claire knew of his affairs. Apparently he was quite discreet about them, but a couple of the girls (I got the impression most of them were his students) came to Claire to try and get Claire to leave him so they could be together. At that point, the fight is on--Frank says he's taking Bree so she doesn't end up fucking a black man because Claire's morals are obviously so loose herself (in Frank's opinion). I personally never attributed Frank as being racist from this one comment because it was in the middle of a fight and he's never said anything of the sort or given me that impression before (and he was dead after, so...). It's not out of the range of possibilities, but I think Frank's just projecting his own pent up anger about Claire and Jamie, if you ask me, and it's not about the guy being black, but the son of a close male friend of Claire's.

 

 

Background:  

Claire has a very close friend at the hospital--totally platonic--who is black and Bree has been hanging out with his son who is part of the black movement in the '60s. The rumors were that Claire and Joe were more than friends, but, as far as I know, that wasn't the case. I don't recall what year this is exactly because I gave up trying to keep the years straight--it'll drive you crazy later--but, Bree doesn't travel till, I think, five years after Frank dies. I believe it's two years later when Claire takes her to Scotland to tell her about Jamie, they spend some time in Scotland, not sure how long, Claire travels (1968) and Bree goes back to college and her regular life. It's over two years after that, I believe, Bree makes her own trip through the stones.

 

I hope I didn't give you too much. These books are long and these events are doled out over all eight books that it's really hard to sum them up in a readable snippet on a message board. I know you said you don't mind spoilers, but sometimes too much information can take the joy out of reading it for yourself. Some surprises can be fun, or they are for me, anyway. 

Sorry, didn't see there was another page:

 

none, odd the runners would put that scene in.

 

Well, get prepared, the back half of the season diverges quite a bit from the books. I think they're trying to make a show that will have surprises for both book readers and non-book readers. Some things I felt came off better and some, not so much. 

Edited February 9, 2016 by DittyDotDot