Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
bluebonnet

Time Travel: Say, Could That Lass Be I?

Recommended Posts

A place to discuss all the time traveling stuff in Outlander, with potential spoilers from all books and episodes.  

 

(by the way, help me come up with a better title)

Share this post


Link to post

To get really scifi nerdy for a minute...

 

If I suddenly found myself inexplicably 200 years in the past the first thing I would do is try to ascertain the nature of Time.  I'd want to know if this was an closed loop or open loop kind of situation. 

 

Closed loop - Time isn't changeable.  I always went back in time and my "present" has already been affected by it.  There's nothing I can do to change the future, because I will have always done what I will do not matter what it is I will do.  So I can't stop horrible things from happening, but also I can't inadvertantly do something that will evenutally let the Nazi's win WW2.

 

Open loop - Time is changeable.  I didn't necessarily go back in time originally, so now that I'm in the past I'm basically a free radical.  Who knows what I'll do or what mayhem I'll cause?  I can prevent Colloden, but I might also get my future husband's ancestor killed and thus prevent him from ever existing.  Since he didn't exist to take me to Scotland on our second honeymoon I never went back in time, so Colloden did happen and my husband did exist and we did go to Scotland and I did go back in time to prevent Colloden and get his ancestor killed, so I didn't go to Scotland...

 

I think it's pretty clear that Outlander and all its sequels are a closed loop situation, but Claire seems to be under the impression it's an open loop.  So I'm going to blame her for every shitty thing that's happened since.

 

I don't know if it's a closed or open loop or if Claire always went back, but my theory about Culloden happening despite her efforts is that she and Jamie did actually help Culloden happen by stopping the money flow to Prince Charles. In Book 3, when Claire meets up with Geillis again, Geillis tells her they can travel to change things and that she had done a lot to get money for the Scots (even beyond what she did in Book 1) when she was in Paris. I figured she might have been successful and the Rising might have succeeded if Claire and Jamie hadn't been working so hard to convince everyone at court not to support the Stuarts.

 

So if it's a closed loop, they all always went back and everything happened the same way every time. But if it's an open loop, because Geillis went back (later than when Claire went back, but arriving earlier), then Claire had to go back to fix all the stuff Geillis was going to mess up.

 

All I know is that at least with this story, my husband doesn't keep telling me they're doing time travel wrong, the way he did when I made him go with me to watch "Kate and Leopold."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

This reminds me of that joke where the iceberg didn't sink the Titanic, it was the added weight of all the time travelers trying to stop its sinking.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if this the right thread to bring it up, but someone in on of the other threads mentioned that Claire should send a message to her future self. First of all, I don't think the postal system was that reliable in 1743 and second, wasn't that a huge plot point in Back to the Future 2? I would HATE if the show went there!

Share this post


Link to post

My title suggestion is  Time Travel: Say, could that lass be I?

Love it.  Submitted the request to change it to this. 

 

I don't know if this the right thread to bring it up, but someone in on of the other threads mentioned that Claire should send a message to her future self. First of all, I don't think the postal system was that reliable in 1743 and second, wasn't that a huge plot point in Back to the Future 2? I would HATE if the show went there!

 

Just a reminder that this is a book spoilers thread so continue reading at your caution.

 

 

Claire and Jamie sent a whole stack of letters to Bree and Roger.  They used banks, iirc, rather than the postal system.  

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I heard about that although I haven't read that book. Until I do, I will continue to pretend it didn't happen.

Although, now that I think about it perhaps it is just the mental image it conjures up. Claire running through the rain looking for a clock tower and I don't think they have clock towers in the highlands.

This is really making me want to rewatch Back to the Future.

Edited by ohhellsyeah

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if this the right thread to bring it up, but someone in on of the other threads mentioned that Claire should send a message to her future self. First of all, I don't think the postal system was that reliable in 1743 and second, wasn't that a huge plot point in Back to the Future 2? I would HATE if the show went there!

This doesn't have anything to do with anything, but a few days ago I had been lax in texted my friend, so she sent me a text complaining about that.  I texted her back "Maybe I'm not ignoring you.  Maybe I fell backwards in time and hooked up with a hot Highlander." To which she responded, "I know that didn't happen because I didn't receive a two hundred year old letter saying 'Haha.'"

  • Like 11
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Claire and Jamie sent a whole stack of letters to Bree and Roger.  They used banks, iirc, rather than the postal system.

 

We also have characters leaving letters in an old desk on the off chance they'd be found and read too.  That one always seemed pretty iffy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know how time travel is supposed to work in this Outlander mythology and what kind of internal logic it follows.

 

The only way time travel makes any kind of sense to me thinking scientifically is by applying Quantum Physics. The concepts of time travel and teleportation  kind of give me a headache and freak me out. 

 

I think I prefer the "romantic" version of time travel ala SOMEWHERE IN TIME.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the box of letters.  Roger found them in the Reverend's stuff at the old house after they came back too. So, were they there all along or did they appear after Roger and Bree went and came back? 

 

And my comment in the DiA thread about the "slightly changed" thing, it was the newspaper notice that they found that sent them back in the first place.  I think Roger goes back to look at it afterwards and it's slightly different, but still there, so I guess Roger and Bree did change the past somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh yeah, that letter in the desk was super iffy as we're asked to believe that no one looked in the special spaces in nearly 250 years.  We definitely know Bryan utilized that hiding place.  Plus, when did he have a chance to put it in there? 

 

With the bank scenario, it made sense to me.  The history of specific banks would be known to them, most especially Roger.  And it's not entirely unusual for banks to have long hidden treasures within their vaults.  Whereas it would likely require an expert in the history of the postal system to determine how to make that option a viable one.  Post offices just don't work like banks do and it would probably be impossible to come up with even one post office that has been in the same location for 200 years, hasn't had any major structural or natural disaster issues that would have destroyed anything left in storage, not to mention just the concept of storage at a post office is generally on a monthly or yearly payment system.  

 

So two things: big house fire and Raymond.  Did Bree and Roger change history by returning or was it always going to change?  Then there is Raymond.  I think I red on Diana's website that Raymond was something like an original time traveler and that he can sense his descendants, who happen to be other time travelers.  It made me wonder if the Raymond element was introduced to bypass the typical time travel conundrums and paradigm by inserting something that is magical or otherworldly.  If it's just magic or completely alien, then it becomes easier to hand wave away the closed/open loop theories.  Aside from the stones, Raymond (and that other guy Roger and Buck run across, forgot the name) is the biggest fantasy element within the story.  An author came make up their own logic with magical fantasy elements.  

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the death notice was explained? Tom Christie thought they had died so placed the noticed. We learned also that the newspaper printers used the wrong date, realised it but we're too lazy to fix.

My thoughts on TT in the series is that it is not a loop exactly. They/Claire was always there, her actions may have caused Culloden but she was never going to change the future as she knew it. She has free choice throughout her life and is not predestined.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the death notice was explained? Tom Christie thought they had died so placed the noticed. We learned also that the newspaper printers used the wrong date, realised it but we're too lazy to fix.

 

But Bree and Roger both saw the same mistaken death notice which caused them to go back.  In the 1980's (or whatever year, can't recall), Roger returned to look at the notice and discovered it had changed.  

Edited by bluebonnet

Share this post


Link to post

I'm apparently in a minority in that I never found Raymond all that enthralling.  He was fine in DIA but I'm not dying to read a spinoff and I can accept the blue light in his hands as "magic" and just leave it at that.

 

Don't Jamie and Claire eventually conclude by the later books that you can probably change the small things but the big stuff is going to find a way to happen anyway?  I know Roger had some theories about predestination and how it fits time travel, but that was part of the he (almost) becomes a Presbyterian minister plot and I admit I got to a point I was skimming a lot of that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I also don't want a Raymond spin off.  My interest lies in the time travel aspect of it and whether or not he's introduced as the trump card; "it's just magic and magic in my story follows a set of rules I made up" sort of thing.  I think just knowing a bit more about Raymond will answer a whole lot of questions.  How do some time travelers have magical healing abilities?  Why can Jeremy and Mandy tune into one another, with Mandy also tuning into the parents even through the rocks?  If Jeremy and Mandy have children with other time travelers, will they be super insanely magical?  Is Raymond of this world or does this time travel thing work because of alien stuff?  So just lots of questions about time travel and abilities of several characters but all seems to circle back to Raymond due to Diana saying he was the original or something.  I really should find that quote because I might have misread it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

But Bree and Roger both saw the same mistaken death notice which caused them to go back. In the 1980's (or whatever year, can't recall), Roger returned to look at the notice and discovered it had changed.

I don't have the book, I think it was Echo, but they were two different notices-the one by Tom Christie where they died, different paper and one from the Onion.(I could be wrong).

I'm not that intrigued by Raymond either unless it is to find out more about TT.

The traveler that Buck and Roger come across is Jerry MacKenzie, Roger's father. I highly recommend reading the story A Leaf in the Wind on All Hallows. It is a great short story and tells about Jerry's disappearance.

I'll put this under spoiler tags since it may not have been read by as many as the main books.

The twist where it is Roger who sends Jerry back to the present only to have Jerry killed while saving Roger is my favorite. So heartbreaking! Roger saved his own life.

Oh I also wanted to ask about the Bank of Scotland box. Wasn't it found in the Reverend Wakefield's manse? It was held by the bank but then handed over to him and he held it until he died because the name was Jeremiah. Why didn't they go through all those boxes? I bet there is other stuff there!

Edited by peacefrog
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'll need to recheck the book as it's likely what I chose to remember isn't correct at all.  I thought the change in the death notice is what caused Roger to really question the idea of predestination Presbyterian stuff.  My eyes did glaze over every time the minister stuff came up.  

 

Not Jerry Mackenzie.  I meant that other one who was with Geillis.  Hector?  The one who healed Roger's throat.  He's one of those time traveling magical healers.  But now I'm really interested in what happened with Jerry Mac.  I haven't been able to get into any of the side stories yet (my mind is just too saturated with Outlander that it's rejected all new material).  Would you mind sending me a PM with extra spoilers on that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ha!Nidratime, me too. I'm so lost (and don't know who half these characters are) so I think it's time for me to peace out on this conversation. :)

I will say in general that since time travel is not possible, I don't really require it to make sense. The key is to make the rules within the fictional universe consistant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious if anyone's acceptance of the time traveling changed over the course of the books.  In general, I'm a lot like ohhellsyeah in that sci-fi and fantasy elements don't need to make sense, just need to have a logical consistency within the story.  For the first two books, I really had no desire to question the time travel because it felt more like a MacGuffin, just a way to kick off the story.  And I was fine with that.  Even with the introduction of gemstones as a means to travel and steer and the Geillis stuff in Voyager, I was still fairly uninterested in really questioning the time travel stuff.  Geillis was a crazy psychopath so it was rather difficult to take her seriously.  The time traveling still felt like this background plot device.  Echo and MOBY are the books where it became more difficult to just accept the time traveling thing as something not worth questioning.  Part of that is because I find Roger and Bree to be a lot less interesting when they aren't around our heroine and her husband.  I didn't care about their career issues or their relationship or even their parenting throughout those books.  But there was also a whole lot of time traveling and other travelers going on around them.  Roger, Bree, the kids, Buck, Jerry, Hector, Geillis, plus that entire kidnap plot.  

 

It became a lot harder to just accept the time traveling because it was always so in my face and with characters I wasn't all that attached to to begin with.  Then, while I felt satisfied with Roger, Bree and kids returning to Fraser's Ridge in Claire's time, I was irritated that it cut off with no explanation of how they arrived seemingly healthy.  Going through the stones is supposed to be terrible and severely damaging to the body.  Claire felt certain she wouldn't survive another crossing.  Roger and Bree both thought about how terrible it was.   They have now been through four times.  Bree didn't seem to suffer too many ill effects on her third time through and I can't remember if Roger had serious issues, though it's certain Buck did seeing as how he almost died.  I can deal with the kids having little problems because they have super genes or something.  It is just became harder to accept the time traveling without question over time since it seemed like the more it was used, the less consistent it became.  Anyone else feel this way?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So is that where the gemstones make a difference? Claire has never traveled with a gemstone, just her gold and then silver rings.  I don't think Bree did the first time (just the silver bracelet and the pearls) but Roger did.  I think all the other times they travel they have gemstones.  I think even Buck had a gemstone when he went through to the future.  But then again, Donner had a gemstone and he said it was still bad and the one companion that went to the same time as he did was DOA.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I do think some of the rules are not consistent with travel in the first book. Claire only had her gold ring. TT is described as terrible but they never seem to suffer any side effects except for throwing up and saying it was horrible. As far as long term effects nothing yet. Buck had issues but he might have had heart issues before.

One rule I like is that they can't travel anywhere they already exist.

Share this post


Link to post

One rule I like is that they can't travel anywhere they already exist.

 

 

Well ... that makes sense. Why would you travel somewhere you already exist? You're already there, by definition.

Share this post


Link to post

I highly recommend reading the story A Leaf in the Wind on All Hallows. It is a great short story and tells about Jerry's disappearance.

 

I also recommend The Space Between: An Outlander Novella. It has some interesting revelations about some side characters in Book 2,

particularly regarding time travel.

I spoiler-tagged that for anyone who hasn't read that book. It surprised me when I read it.

Share this post


Link to post

I never really care about the particulars of things like time travel or dragons or other sci-fi stuff in books.  I just want there to be some kind of logic and consistency.

 

My feelings about it in this series were much the same as bluebonnet's.  In the first two books, the time travel is just a means to get her there and back.  They don't really know how or why it works and it really doesn't seem to matter.  Voyager introduces all the blood and gemstone magic, but Gellis is clearly insane and Claire doesn't need it so whatever.  Fiery Cross and Breath of Snow start the idea of lots of other people trying and sometimes failing to get through to specifically change history, and of course then we get Donner who proves that even idiots can time travel even if they do it badly.  By the last two books, though, the stones were starting to feel almost like a revolving door for some of these characters with rules that seemed to vary.  And while I don't care as much about the MacKenzies in modern times either, we get no explanation about how they can apparently bounce around between three separate times periods with seemingly no ill effects despite being told over and over how dangerous this is.

Edited by nodorothyparker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Well ... that makes sense. Why would you travel somewhere you already exist? You're already there, by definition.

It's an important rule in Outlander because you can die or get "steered" to another time. Other stories like Back to the Future and Lost allow one person/thing existing twice in a period of time.

Share this post


Link to post

Knowing that rule came in handy when reading about William Buccleigh wanting to get with his mother in MOHB.  I knew from the genealogical timeline and what had already been written about his paternity that we hopefully weren't going to go there, but the whole thing still made my head want to explode.

 

I am curious to see after Roger and Jenny presumably meet up on the ridge if anything will be made of the fact that he's now known her in two separate time periods.  Probably not, but it could be interesting since we know she never fully believed the time travel explanation in Echo.

Share this post


Link to post

 

And while I don't care as much about the MacKenzies in modern times either, we get no explanation about how they can apparently bounce around between three separate times periods with seemingly no ill effects despite being told over and over how dangerous this is.

 

Since MOBY, I've been wondering if there isn't something to the later generations being a bit hardier when it comes to the travel.  I mean, there's all the research out in regards to people living longer as time moves forward due to medical advancements and live just being easier in general than back in the day - maybe that comes into play a bit in the time travel?  If your body can last longer - maybe the effects of the travel impacts you less?

 

If there is a next book, I'd like to see the two couples sit down and think out Roger's book a bit more - define it the best way they know how.  Maybe that would then tie in to running into Raymond again somehow.

Share this post


Link to post

 

William Buccleigh wanting to get with his mother in MOHB.

You know, of all the disturbing things Herself had put in these books, that's the one that most made me say "Huh?"  I mean I know Freud thought all men wanted to "get with" their mothers, but I thought that idea had basically been discredited.  Buck's no angel but that seems such a weird thing to add to his psychological make-up.

 

This is the time-travel thread so I'll just weigh in to say that I think the reason the second book never ponders was would happened to 18th century Claire if Frank is never born is because if it went there -- if it had been suggested to Jamie that killing BJR would cause Claire to cease to exist in the 18th century -- and Jamie STILL challenged BJR to a duel -- well that would be a pretty horrible betrayal by him.

Share this post


Link to post
This is the time-travel thread so I'll just weigh in to say that I think the reason the second book never ponders was would happened to 18th century Claire if Frank is never born is because if it went there -- if it had been suggested to Jamie that killing BJR would cause Claire to cease to exist in the 18th century -- and Jamie STILL challenged BJR to a duel -- well that would be a pretty horrible betrayal by him.

Yes, Jamie was in a difficult position where Frank was only an idea to him, and one that he was jealous of at that. I don't think his actions were spiteful towards her other husband, but I do think that if Claire's existence was at risk, and not the existence of some guy he didn't even know, he would have behaved differently. 

Share this post


Link to post

Have you ever thought about what you'd bring if you had the opportunity to go back in time like in the books? You see a lot of people saying a solar charger and a Kindle with lots of technical books so they could "invent" stuff and rule the world. I think I would bring a package of really good sewing needles. As the chances of me hooking up with a handsome young highlander or ruling the world are pretty nil I would think my survival would be tied to earning the trust of the women of the house. Sewing is not the worst of the menial tasks one could be assigned. 

I will admit that I borrowed this from the time travel novel The Book of Kells by R.A. MacAvoy. When the 20th century guy wants to

go back with a present for his 10 century beloved he empties his bank account and buys all the colorful thread and needles he can carry

. It is a fun read. 

I'm not sure if this fits the thread description. My college roommate, who introduced me to Outlander, and I would have long winding discussions about what we'd do if we went back in time. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone ever see the Ben Stiller sketch B Minus Time Traveler? (YouTube Link)  If I went back in time that would be me.

 

If I had some preparation I would take several boxes of hot cocoa mix.  I feel that would be a universal currency.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Fire bunny, I knew I should have paid more attention in Spanish class. Favorite part: this is going to be as disastrous as Washington sinking in the Delaware with all those shoes. At least we now know THAT's not Claire's fault.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 That's just as good as Claire trying to remember the specifics of Molly Pitcher and the battle of Monmouth from Bree's elementary school coloring book.  Or her telling Jamie that Benedict Arnold would be the most famous traitor in American history but she couldn't remember when or how.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I never thought of sewing supplies, but that's an excellent idea.  I like to pretend that I'd do really well if I were thrown back through time.  When I'm honest with myself, I realize I'd be killed almost immediately.  I have all the right survival skills.  Great sense of direction, can start a fire, shoot a gun, gut an animal, etc.  Drop me in the middle of a deserted forest or on a mountain and I'll thrive.  Drop me into a place where other people actually live and I'll flounder.  I'd be way worse than Claire could ever have been.  I can't sew, I can barely cook, I'm too outspoken, and I don't have any skills that would be immediately useful and acceptable such as healing.  I am a teacher and I've worked in a daycare so if I got in well with the children things might work out.  However, getting to the point of being trusted around kids would be a serious hurdle.  I think the only extra thing I have going for me is a degree in Anthropology and an extensive travel history.  Some of the skills I've picked up with that might help me navigate the first few days in a completely different culture.  But seriously, I'm an atheist woman with poor eyesight who talks too much.  I'd be burned at the stake.  

 

Though, if I did bring some sewing supplies, I might include lots of thread.  As a last resort, I'd set up shop threading eyebrows and mustache fuzz.  I can do that pretty well.  It might be a way to get in with the women.  Help make them feel better about themselves and they may cherish me.  Then I could become the village tutor and nanny.  

Share this post


Link to post

I've just thought of a great new "reality" tv show. Kind of a cross between Survivor and The Amazing Race, Where random people are "transported" back in time and try to survive in that time period and try to get back to their time following clues. If they suck they get "killed" aka eliminated from the game. I think the first few people would have no idea what was going on and get eliminated when dumped in the middle of a battle like Claire and they don't react fast enough. Others would get farther along but probably eliminated as witches because they say too much, etc.

Edited by Rekilt
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

My roommate always argued that we should bring spices. Valuable and easy to carry but I would counter that that is too close to potions and the whole witch thing. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Now that I've finished all the books I can venture in here.

So apparently to get to another time you think about a person there who you're close to and that helps you steer. Now I remember reading in one of the books Claire thinks the reason she ended up in 1743 is because she had been hearing about Jack Randall from Frank and he was the first person she encountered (No idea which book or if I'm even remembering it correctly). I don't really buy that though, that at that moment when she heard the stones he was on her mind somewhere. My theory is that it has something to do with Jamie's ghost having watched her the day before. I don't know how but I like to think subconsciously she was thinking of him which is why she ended up where she did.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The way I understand it, there's a kind of default setting of backwards 200ish years for times that are accidental time travel or not planned, and then you can also use some elemental forces, gem stones or blood or fire to control it more, and that's when you need to focus on someone at the other end. Geilis did that, as did the Indian guys, and of course our main characters do it later too, but I think Claire's first time was just an accidental 200ish years trip. That's why all the fairy stories talk about 200 years. If that wasn't the default, then there'd be very different fairy stories.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am curious to see after Roger and Jenny presumably meet up on the ridge if anything will be made of the fact that he's now known her in two separate time periods.  Probably not, but it could be interesting since we know she never fully believed the time travel explanation in Echo.

One of my most anticipated scenes! I wonder if Herself has written any of that down yet, and if she could be convinced to share in #dailylines.  I like Jenny but I really need her to actually believe, I don't think she can be closer to Jaime & Claire until she does, and they really need more people who they can completely trust.

 

My roommate always argued that we should bring spices. Valuable and easy to carry but I would counter that that is too close to potions and the whole witch thing. :)

Cooking would be my in, if they gave me a chance to explain/demonstrate before burning me at the stake.  And yes spices are very valuable and a status symbol as well ("my chef has made the most decadent Mulligatawny Chicken Stew for our dinner tonight, I am sure you will love all the exotic spices."). Now I am planning my mental list when I do go back in time.

 

 

I want to find a scene in the books, but I already re-read them all back to back, and I finished before Christmas so it is not even fresh in my mind.  So I can't find what I want.

I like how Jaime explains how Claire "knows" to the Indian Chief in warning on his last trip out to the tribes.  What book is that in, MOBY? (which my mother has so I can't even look it up). I think that I like the idea that TT is a closed loop with definite "big" events that cannot be changed, but you can try and change the little things to protect those you care about. Like Fate and Free Choice have a happy little marriage.

 

I wonder how different it would be if Frank was the one that had traveled back in time, he would actually KNOW historic details.

 Someone should write that book ;)

Edited by Liser78
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

TT is a closed loop with definite "big" events that cannot be changed

The Doctor (as in Doctor Who) would describe those as fixed points in time.

 

And now you two have gotten me all excited at the prospect of Jenny recognizing Roger (who hasn't aged a day.)  Oh I hope that happens.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So time runs parallel on both sides, right? It kinda feels like the rule should be the portal is like 200 years on each side, but it doesn't seem to be sticking to that. They could eventually have a sitch where Amanda from 2000 comes back to 1780, right?

Share this post


Link to post

So time runs parallel on both sides, right? It kinda feels like the rule should be the portal is like 200 years on each side, but it doesn't seem to be sticking to that. They could eventually have a sitch where Amanda from 2000 comes back to 1780, right?

 

I've always thought it runs parallel while you are in a time that is not your own, but when you are in your own time, you can control (to some extent) the amount of time you cross to another time. Diana Gabaldon hasn't really addressed it, though, I think. People in the books have theories, but I think that's it so far.

Share this post


Link to post

I keep thinking they're going to find some way for Amanda and Jem to be grown-ups, without Jamie and Claire being in their 80's.  At that point, especially with Jamie, it would REALLY start pushing it for them to be alive. I feel like when Jamie or Claire dies, the series dies, but I'm also positive that Amanda and Jem are going to hit adulthood. The only way is to have some kind of deal where Amanda grows up and then winds up going back to 1780 or something.

 

In any event, it's interesting how they measure their ages, since it can't be done by the calender.

 

"Present time", so to speak, is now 1980, right? Or is there no real home time/base?

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post

I'm completely new to this, but am fascinated by the idea that time past is still "alive" at the 200-year mark (or thereabouts), but not before then.  I was trying to conceive of a way that the adult children could go back in time to be with their still-alive parents in the 1780s, but I think this narrow frame of time travel (200 years back) would preclude that.  Otherwise, the main characters would always be alive someplace on the time continuum.  Now, if Bree or her children could use gemstones to go back to, say, 1743, when Claire arrives back in time, but before Bree is born.  What a party. 

Share this post


Link to post

But then they might have to leave before she is there the first time, depending on whether this time travel universe allows two of you to be in the same time. Many don't. Considering what happens to Roger, I think this might be one that doesn't allow that.

Time travel is confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/1/2014 at 9:16 PM, bluebonnet said:

Love it.  Submitted the request to change it to this. 

 

 

Just a reminder that this is a book spoilers thread so continue reading at your caution.

 

 

Claire and Jamie sent a whole stack of letters to Bree and Roger.  They used banks, iirc, rather than the postal system.  

Claire should have told Brianna a location to get them before she left to go back. Brianna would have to ask Roger to pick them up. 

 

 


 

I thought of Jamie having an injury that would say result in a permanent disability where Claire knew it could be easily solved with 20th century medicine and sending him to the future for that. Or a kid with a club foot that in 1700s would just be and they would be lame. But 20th century surgery could have him walk normally.  
 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size