Ask the Outlanders: Questions for the Bookreaders

[Starla]

Thanks Petunia! I could swear that button wasn't there before, and I have looked for it multiple times. Apparently my brain has been blocking it out for over a year now.

 

Also, why is it that the media for season 2 stated

that they jump ahead 20 years, is the book like that too? Is this one written as flashbacks so that the actors can maintain some of their ages and explain what happened?

. Personally, I am not looking forward to that. 

 

Regarding the timeline (this relates to books 2 and 3):

Most of book 2 still takes place in the pre-Culloden years after the end of Outlander (1743-1745), so we won't lose 20 years right away. Claire goes back through the stones at the end of book 2, so the 20 year time jump for her and Jamie in the 18th century doesn't actually happen until book 3. However, the book has flash forwards to the future where Claire tells her daughter about what happened in the past. Those scenes are 20 years in the future in the 20th century, after Frank has died and her daughter is grown. I think Claire is around 50 years old. These future scenes take place over a few chapters at the beginning and ending of book 2, but are not a huge part of the book. It will be interesting to see how they are integrated into Jamie and Claire's regular storyline in Season 2.

 

 

 

 

[riverheightsnancy]

Thank you everyone for the answers. Can't wait for season 2 now. I may try to read the books, but really should be focusing my reading time on Dissertation right now! 

[CalamityBoPeep]

Re:

 

 I also wondered if Frank ever searched for her name in the historical records and "found" her listed and somehow figured out that is what happened? 

 

Spoiler for book 2:

You are given the strong impression that he has, since part of what prompts Claire to tell her daughter about her natural father is that they find "Jamie's headstone" which lists Jamie's full name, and "Beloved husband of Claire"; but it baffles Claire as to why it would be where it is.

 

Spoiler for later books:

 

Later books reveal that it is a fake headstone and that Frank likely had it put there. Also, he leaves a letter for Brianna.

[cypfan]

Jamie and all age 20 years in season 2 as in DiA

    In the LA Times online chat with Sam today, the interviewer says that .....

 

Please excuse the spoiler tag in the wrong place.  Can't seem to put it in the correct place in the sentence.

 

This spoiler, if correct, makes me apprehensive that the show and story is being excessively rushed.   I want to wallow in their relationship and become comfortable with all the new characters.  Can this be accomplished in a 13 episode season?

[GHScorpiosRule]

Jamie and all age 20 years in season 2 as in DiA

    In the LA Times online chat with Sam today, the interviewer says that .....

 

The only thing that makes sense if the interviewer had it right is, that

the season ends with Jamie in Ardsmuir? And even that sould be wrong! Because he's still 25 when Voyager opens

.  Unless the interviewer misspoke, I got nothing.

Edited June 22, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[cypfan]

aging look

Thanks GHScorpiosRule.  Sam even says that he has discussed the .....with Ron Moore.

 

Hmmmm I luv the show so much (haven't read the books) that I wonder if a 13 episode season is enough air time to encompass all of a Book 2.

 

It feels rushed.

[chocolatetruffle]

That spoiler has me scratching my head.  I suppose they could pull out some scenes from the next book, but why would they do that?  I guess they have some surprises planned for book readers too.

 

ETA: after listening to the whole thing I think the interviewer just got it wrong in the way she asked the question and then Sam kinda glossed over the answer as far as exactly when this was going to happen.

Edited June 22, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, it just hit me. It's possible that

while they show Claire in 1968, they may flash to Jamie, at the same time, who would be 20 years older, so we could "see" Jamie was still alive. Deviating from the book, if you will.

That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

[Petunia846]

Cypfan, regarding that spoiler and feeling rushed, to calm your fears...

the 20 year jump is kind of handled disjointedly. In the next book it is a framing device, we start with a few chapters on Claire 20 years in the future but then she goes into telling the story of her time in France and Scotland with Jamie and that forms the majority of the book, then we go back to her in the future for a few chapters at the end of the book. It's kind of shocking, but there is PLENTY of time to spend with Claire and Jamie. In book three we start out in the future again but then we go through all the things that have happened for Claire and Jamie in the intervening years, so again, not rushed. There is a 20 year span when they're apart, but the gaps are filled in, it's not anything that will majorly impact next season, and there's still tons of story to be told after that. I mean, this is book 2 and 3 we're talking about, and there are 8 of them now plus novellas and side novels and stuff.

 

 

Okay, it just hit me. It's possible that

while they show Claire in 1968, they may flash to Jamie, at the same time, who would be 20 years older, so we could "see" Jamie was still alive. Deviating from the book, if you will.

That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

That would annoy me if they do that, because

the whole thing that makes that plot device worthwhile is the surprise at the end that he's not actually dead.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Petunia846

[cypfan]

Okay, thank you Petunia and GHScorpio.  I should have thought of that since the show has used that technique in other events.

 

As an aside, I stumbled on  the Outlander marathon  while searching for a movie on a lazy Saturday . Saw a few minutes of the Lollybroch episode and was "hooked". I set the dvr to record the finale.  I never dreamt that I would want to watch the series. After the finale, I was up all the night binge watching on Starz on Demand and  then went cruising the internet for all things Outlander. 

 

Obviously, I have still not come down from the high of a newbie. I feel like I imagine Jamie did the morning after his wedding day, euphorically satisfied yet can not wait for more.  lol

[Petunia846]

Welcome! Enjoy the high. If you're needing more of a fix, I recommend the podcast "The Scot and the Sassenach". There are several Outlander podcasts, but they're my favorite.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, thank you Petunia and GHScorpio.  I should have thought of that since the show has used that technique in other events.

 

As an aside, I stumbled on  the Outlander marathon  while searching for a movie on a lazy Saturday . Saw a few minutes of the Lollybroch episode and was "hooked". I set the dvr to record the finale.  I never dreamt that I would want to watch the series. After the finale, I was up all the night binge watching on Starz on Demand and  then went cruising the internet for all things Outlander. 

 

Obviously, I have still not come down from the high of a newbie. I feel like I imagine Jamie did the morning after his wedding day, euphorically satisfied yet can not wait for more.  lol

 

 

cypfan, if you go to the media thread, chocolatetruffle clarifies the interview. As to what Sam actually said, so what I said is moot.

Edited June 23, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[cypfan]

 Thank you again for the info. and the referral to the podcast. I too am an old Robert and Anna fan and a BN board member.

[WatchrTina]

 

That would annoy me if they do that, because  

the whole thing that makes that plot device worthwhile is the surprise at the end that he's not actually dead.

I suppose they could end season 2 with

Claire receiving the news that Jamie is not dead (that's how the book ends, isn't it?) -- cue the dramatic music and Claire's shocked face -- and then cut to a clearly older Jamie waking up from a dream and crying out "Claire!" and then end the season.  It would be a heck of a hook.  But I don't think they need it.  Just finding out he survived is enough of a hook to keep viewers coming back for season 3.

[Petunia846]

Yeah, WatchrTina, that's the only way I'd be okay with it.

[cypfan]

I have noticed that Cait has not tweeted in several days.

In an interview a while ago Sam mentioned being a peripheral character in the early episodes.

Does book 2 focus heavily on Claire to the extent that Jamie is,again more peripheral to the early episodes.

Okay I need reassurance that I will get my jamie fix.

[Dejana]

I have noticed that Cait has not tweeted in several days.

In an interview a while ago Sam mentioned being a peripheral character in the early episodes.

Does book 2 focus heavily on Claire to the extent that Jamie is,again more peripheral to the early episodes.

Okay I need reassurance that I will get my jamie fix.

 

Without spoiling too much I'll say that

Book 2 doesn't pick up exactly where the end of Book/Season 1 left off, but Claire and Jamie do spend the bulk of the story together. If the show tells the story in the same order as the book, then Sam wouldn't be filming much for the early episodes.

[cypfan]

Thank you Dejana. Your answer confirms to me the answers I received to my up thread question about

20 years.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Athena
Spoiler tag

[cypfan]

Not sure where to inquire about this subject. I could not find an archive that might have a thread about episode 1.01, Sassenach.

 

After having watched the entire season 1 several times, I have some general questions concerning the first / pilot episode.

 

1.  Frank and Claire stand on the bed. Frank tells her of the doodle he made of her palm lines.

He says "Claire" as if he is about to tell her something with which he has been struggling.  Claire "Shh" es him.  

So is there a coming revelation from Frank?????  What can it be?  While there is a comfortableness in Frank's love making, it seems to lack the spontaneity and passion of a newly reunited  - 5 year separated - young couple.

 

2.  The little cookie tray boy.  From other threads, I have gathered his name 

Roger Wakefield

but I must repeatedly miss how he is related to the housekeeper or minister.  Did I miss his introduction?

 

3.  Funny,  the short scene that I barely noticed the 1st couple of times I watched now has me the most puzzled.  The Highlander standing in the rain watching Claire as she brushes her hair.  I assume it is Jamie.  I have twisted my mind to see how Jamie knows her at that time or has Claire travelled and ???? Oh I give up.  My question is, will I come to understand this brief scene either through the series or by reading the books?

 

Happy Independance Day my fellow Americans.!

[WatchrTina]

I'll answer the last question first.  The show has not conclusively answered the question of who or what was standing in the plaza watching Claire.  At first Frank assumes it is a man.  Then, when he tells Claire about it he (half-jokingly) proposes that it might have been a ghost.  Later in the episode, he seems to have concluded that it was actually was a man and speculates that it was a soldier Claire met during the war.  The question is never answered -- who (or what) did Frank see?  The only hint comes in episode 8, "Both Sides Now" when we see an artist's sketch at the police station that has been made (presumably) from Frank's recollection.  The face is too vague to definitively answer the question but take a hard look at the broach in that sketch, compare it to the one that Jamie shows to Murtagh in episode 7, and draw your own conclusion.  It seems clear to me that what Frank saw was the ghost of Jamie (they walk on that night in Highlands according to lady at the front desk) but your milage may vary.

 

I don't recall cookie-tray-boy's relationship to Reverend Wakefield ever being spelled out in the show.  (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)  Readers know who he is from the books but for now I don't think TV-only viewers know who he is.

 

As for your first question -- I don't think anyone knows what Frank was going to say.  I assumed he was going to say something acknowledging the awkwardness they are both feeling and Claire shushes him in favor of getting straight to some sexual healing of the wounds in their marriage wrought by the war.  I find that scene hard to watch because the awkwardness and the trying-really-hard is so realistic it makes me uncomfortable. 

Edited July 4, 2015 by WatchrTina

[cypfan]

Wow, thank you WatchrTina for the quick and thoughtful answers.  I have become entranced by the show and am so tempted to read the first book but I haven't reached the point where I can tear myself away from the visual story.  

 

BTW is there an archive or an episode one thread that I can read?   I do not want to be a nuisance. If I can garner answers through my own research, I will. Thanks again WT.

[Athena]

BTW is there an archive or an episode one thread that I can read?

 

All the episode threads can be found via the main page of this forum. The subforum for S01 will be created at a later date.

 

We didn't split between book talk and no book talk until the series split in half. So there is only one episode thread. Here is episode 1x01 Sassenach.

 

Furthermore, I have moved your posts to the Ask the Outlanders thread just because you can get more answers here spoilers or not.

[Liser78]

About  the wee lad, I don't see him at all in the first episode. You confused me, I don't even think he is mentioned. So of course I had to go back and rewatch (the horror!)

 

We officially meet the lad in episode 8 where he brings in biscuits, but it is not explained just exactly who he is.  

 

sorry Athena, I must have posted at the same time you moved the question and I don't know how to move a post.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Liser78

[lianau]

Cookie boy

is Reverend Wakefield's adopted son . His parents died in the war and he came to live with his maternal great uncle who adopted him .

Edited July 6, 2015 by lianau

[cypfan]

lianau,,,,,and liser78 thank you for your research and post.  I thought that I kept missing the boy's introduction. Then I fantasized that somehow he was a young Jamie in another life,  Oh it hurts my head when I think about the Sy/Fy aspect of the show. lol

[Summer]

I gotta ask you guys: what is the "infamous red dress" scene?  Spoil away, please and thank you!

[WatchrTina]

It's not really much of a spoiler.  

Jamie and Claire are invited to an event early in their stay in Paris and Jamie has the idea if his wife is dressed in a manner that attracts a LOT of attention that will further their efforts to become acquainted with all the political players in Paris.  (Also if everyone is staring at Claire they are less likely to pay attention to Jamie and any whispered conversations he might be having.)  So he encourages Claire to visit the dress-maker and pull out all the stops.  The result is the red dress.  When he sees it, he has second thoughts about allowing her out of the house wearing it.  A compromise is reached involving her agreeing to carry the biggest fan she owns (usable both as cover-up and as weapon if needed).  Men at the party react as expected.  Jamie struggles to deal with the situation.  Hilarity and fisticuffs ensue.

Edited July 12, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Summer]

Thank you WatchrTina!  Sounds like a fun scene and I can only imagine what Terry Dresbach will create for the occasion.

[jjj]

I am completely new to this, and have two questions -- I do not mind complete spoilers, but am very curious:  (1) Does Frank ever get to see Claire again?  Does she manage to get back at all?  and (2, possibly related to my first question), who is the mysterious figure on the street in the rain that Frank sees and who then disappears in Episode One?  The recap here actually confused me, because it said that it has a completely different meaning the second time we see it.  Does that mean the second time I re-view the scene?  Or the second time the scene occurs in a later episode?  (This is related to my question 2.)  I am so curious for any answers on these questions, the more details, the better!

[Petunia846]

Question 1:

Yes, Claire does eventually go back to Frank, but it is under duress and their lives together are not really happy. She also eventually goes back in time again and goes back to Jamie, but it is after many years and after Frank has died. I'm not really sure how many details you'll really appreciate. You say the more the better, but it sounds like you like Frank, and they're not really good details about him, so I'm going to leave a little space and then write more...

 

When Claire goes back to the 40s it is because it's too dangerous for her in Scotland, due to the war and due to a difficult pregnancy. She really needs modern times to survive and Jamie asks her to go so that she'll be able to live and their child might be able to live. They think they'll never see each other again because it's hard to go through the stones and Jamie's about to go into a battle he plans on dying in. When Claire gets back, Frank is not thrilled that she's married and pregnant, but he refuses to divorce her and ends up falling in love with the child. They move to Boston to get away from everything that's happened. Claire goes to medical school and becomes a doctor which sometimes makes her feel like a bad mother, but Frank is a good father to the baby. Claire still really loves Jamie though, so they don't get along and Frank has lots of affairs, culminating in one that he plans to move to England with and wants to take their daughter along too. He ends up dying before that happens though, in a car accident. Sometime after that, Claire takes her daughter back to Scotland because she wants to research what happened to the people she knew in the past. She still thinks Jamie died shortly after she left and she's never had the strength to research that and see it in print. She ends up telling her daughter the truth about her paternity, and eventually through their research, they learn that Jamie didn't die in that battle. They figure out all the things that happened to him in the years following, and have a suspicion about where he would be "now" if Claire were to go back in time again (since it's always roughly 200 years). Claire takes the chance and goes through the stones again, finds Jamie again, and they go off on lots more adventures. (And that's basically the midway point for the third book...out of eight.

 

Question 2:

First of all, we don't really know the truth about the figure in the street, even after the eight books there have been so far. I believe the author has said that she knows who/what it is and it's something that will be revealed at the end of the last book. Whether I'm remembering correctly and whether she sticks to that, well...  Anyway, it's obviously Jamie in some form. Whether he's a ghost, some other kind of spirit, or what, we don't know. How he manages to be there, we don't know. Why Frank can see him, we don't know. I think the point about the different meaning in the recap is that the first time you watch you haven't seen Jamie, so the man is just a random highlander, but the second time you watch, you've seen Jamie in the second half of the episode, so you recognize him there in the 40s and realize that whoever this man is in the past he's going to be a central part of the story.

 

 

ETA: Spoiler tags were acting wonky. Eeep!

Edited July 16, 2015 by Petunia846

[Summer]

I have a question regarding Geillis Duncan:

 

What happens to her? Was she really burned at the stake like it was implied in The Devi's Mark? If so how did Roger come to be and how does Geillis show up again in the 1960"s?

Edited July 16, 2015 by Summer

[WatchrTina]

Regarding Geillis:  There is a hint in the show that it is against the rules to burn a witch who is pregnant.  You see a one of the judges protesting "Wait, she's pregnant!" as she is carried out.  As to what happens next, in the books 

we learn that she was NOT burned right away. The baby was born and given to a MacKenzie couple to raise -- a pair who had just lost their infant son (this baby is Roger's ancestor.) Then Geillis is "burned" in the book -- except it is not really her -- it's a corpse of a woman who recently died of illness.  Dougal pulls that off to save the mother of his child. Note that the Geillis we see in the 1960's is Geillis before she goes back in time.  She traveled back more than 200 years -- "aiming" for the time she wanted through various means including blood sacrifice and gemstones --  and arrived in the past at an earlier point than Claire. Geills also surfaces again in Book 3 after her faux burning but I won't spoil the circumstances.

Edited July 16, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Summer]

Thanks, WatchrTina!  So then:

 

Is the Roger we see as the little boy who grows up to be Bree's boyfriend the ancestor not the actual son of Geillis and Dougal?

[Nidratime]

No, Roger is the descendant of Geillis and Dougal. His ancestor is the child that is taken from her, "before she was burned" to be raised by a Mackenzie Clan couple who just lost their own child. So, essentially, Roger and Bree are very distantly related.

[Summer]

Ahhhh, thanks, Nidratime!  :)

[jjj]

Question 1:

Question 2:

First of all, we don't really know the truth about the figure in the street,

 

ETA: Spoiler tags were acting wonky. Eeep!

THANK you so much for these replies!  I will not have time to read the books in the foreseeable future, but really wanted to know these details -- and yes, I wanted all the detail you very kindly provided!  It is not even that I am attached to Frank, but wondered if he was just a framing story for whom there was no need after the opening episode/book chapters.  Plus, I am trying to get some kind of handle on the time travel "rules" (I realize they will be flexible according to what the author wants to do!), and did not know if any character who can time travel can go back and forth to any particular time -- and that is what the figure on the street suggested to me, that it was someone from the past who had chosen to come to the future at that particular moment when Claire had arrived.  Or that maybe Hallowe'en allowed some time travel otherwise not possible (special codicil to the "rules" of the time travel!).  At any rate, I'm glad I did not miss the meaning of the figure on the street so far, and really appreciate all the summary information you provided! 

[lianau]

No, Roger is the descendant of Geillis and Dougal. His ancestor is the child that is taken from her, "before she was burned" to be raised by a Mackenzie Clan couple who just lost their own child. So, essentially, Roger and Bree are very distantly related.

I love it when Brianna and Roger try to figure that out in book 4  , William Buccleigh  Mackenzie and Jamie are cousins  and Brianna  ist Jamie's daughter but how do you count the generations between WBM and Roger ?

[bearcatfan]

I love it when Brianna and Roger try to figure that out in book 4  , William Buccleigh  Mackenzie and Jamie are cousins  and Brianna  ist Jamie's daughter but how do you count the generations between WBM and Roger ?

I haven't gotten to book 4 yet but I can tell you how to count cousins. The children of your first cousin are your second cousins; the children of your 2nd cousin are your 3rd cousins and so on.

 

Therefore, Brianna and WBM would be 2nd cousins. His children would be Brianna's 3rd cousins. I'm not sure how many generations are between WBM and Roger but it stands to reason there are quite a few. Therefore, while Brianna and Roger are related, it's so distant that even in modern times, a relationship would not be frowned upon.

 

I know this because my cousin married my husband's brother. It makes my nieces and nephew my 2nd cousins as well. It sounds incestuous but it's not and truthfully, most people can't comprehend it no matter how simply it's explained.

[auntlada]

I haven't gotten to book 4 yet but I can tell you how to count cousins. The children of your first cousin are your second cousins; the children of your 2nd cousin are your 3rd cousins and so on.

 

Therefore, Brianna and WBM would be 2nd cousins. His children would be Brianna's 3rd cousins. I'm not sure how many generations are between WBM and Roger but it stands to reason there are quite a few. Therefore, while Brianna and Roger are related, it's so distant that even in modern times, a relationship would not be frowned upon.

 

I know this because my cousin married my husband's brother. It makes my nieces and nephew my 2nd cousins as well. It sounds incestuous but it's not and truthfully, most people can't comprehend it no matter how simply it's explained.

The children of your first cousin are your first cousins once removed. Your children and the children of your first cousin are second cousins to each other.

[WatchrTina]

My understanding is that Auntlada is correct.  Therefore  

Jamie and Roger are 1st cousins X times removed and Brianna and Roger are 2nd cousins (X-1) times removed.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I gots a question!

when does Claire get the fever and held on trial

in Breath as I've seen in the buik thread?

[Petunia846]

I don't remember,

is she training Malva yet? At some point she and Bree (I think) find some tenants who are really ill and then a lot of other people get it and then finally at the end of that Claire falls ill, but it seems like it's with something different.

Or honestly I could be totally off. My memory is crap these days.

[WatchrTina]

Answering GHScorpiousRule's question (with thanks to Petunia846 for reminders) 

ETA: I deleted most of my response because I was over-answering and spoiling too much.  Petnunia846 is correct that the training of Malva by Claire is a clue that Claire's illness is coming up.  The trial (as I recall) is close to the end of the book.

 

Note to Petunia846 I recall the scene you are thinking of but I don't think that is where 

Claire gets sick. It is the training of Malva that leads to Claire's illness if I am recollecting correctly.

Edited July 18, 2015 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

recollecting correctly

Claire has trained Malva and told her about bacteria, viruses and parasites as the origins of diseases. Malva is testing that theory with Claire and her father who both do not suffer from that diarrhea going around

[Petunia846]

Well yeah, Claire gets sick at the cemetery where they're burying some of the dead.

[jjj]

I have not read the books (no time, just came to all this!), and have a question about Malva, based on what I have read about her:

Does she know that Allan had a different father than Malva?  And is that
how she came to be pregnant by Allan?  Also, I keep reading references to
the fondness Tom Christie has for Claire -- does he stay alive so far in the
books, and has he ever been in Claire's life when she thought Jamie was not
alive?  I'm just trying to understand the Tom/Claire dynamic.

]

Edited July 19, 2015 by jjj

[WatchrTina]

Here is what I recall about the Malva & Tom Christie storyline.

Tom does know that Malva was fathered by another man. I think that's why he left his wife. (Or did she die in childbirth?) I do not recall if Malva & Allan know they have different fathers. It would still be incest either way since they are half-siblings.

As for Tom . . . he carries a torch for Claire for a long time but no, he was not around for the few chapters in Book 7 where Claire thought she had been widowed. The role Tom does play is that he's the one who puts an announcement in the paper regarding the death of Jamie & Claire in the fire on Fraser's Ridge. He hears wrong information and, out of his lingering feelings for Claire, is moved to put the announcement in the paper. So really, he's the whole reason Brianna and Roger are in the 1700s. Imagine his shock when he runs into Claire later on.

Edited July 19, 2015 by WatchrTina

[jjj]

Here is what I recall about the Malva  & Tom Christie storyline.

Wow, thank you very much, WatchrTina! 

I had been puzzling over the newspaper announcement, and had no idea that Tom

was the one who put it in the paper.  I was not even sure if Malva/Allan were half-siblings [did not know if they had the same mother], so thanks for

clarifying that, also!

[Summer]

I hope you guys don't mind all my book questions and you're not all rolling your eyes and saying "Jeez, Summer, just read the damn books"!"  But...I just can't....Sam and Catriona ARE Jamie and Claire for me and try as I might whenever I read any excerpt I just don't get them in my head.  Also I like to know what is coming.  I never watched Outlander (and Sons of Anarchy, too) live, I would read the recap the day after the show aired and then watch the episode On Demand.  I found I enjoyed both shows SOOO much better when I knew what to expect.  Weird, I know, but I yam who I yam :)  

 

So in regards to DIA,  I will put behind spoiler tags just in case:

When does Jamie send Claire back through the stones? Is it midway through the book? At the very end? I imagine that is a heartbreaking scene and what I am really hoping is that is not the last scene for Season 2 and we're left with the heartbreak of that image for yet another whole year.

[jjj]

I am ready to be corrected by someone who knows more than me, but here is my understanding of the answer to your question:

The 1960s are the framing story for DiA, at the beginning and end. Most of the action is back in the 1740s, and near the end of DiA, Claire is sent back to the future because of her pregnancy and the opportunity of better care in the future -- which turned out to save her and Bree's life. But the final framing chapters are sending Claire back again to find Jamie, whom she learned had not died in battle as she had supposed. So, she is sent to the future near the end of DiA, then back to the past at the very end. I also read somewhere on these threads that the framing structure is likely to be handled differently in the television series -- more back and forth, maybe, in terms of storytelling?

 

Here is my own question: 

Claire see the bones of Gillian before she actually kills her; and I read that in a later novel, Claire realizes that she had actually handled the bones of Gillian in the 1960s. In what book does she realize this?