The Books vs. The Show: Comparisons, Speculation, and Snark

[WatchrTina]

 

 

. . . what happened to Ned during the witch trial <snip> he was there arguing for her and stalling, had gotten her a nicer place to sleep and some food and said the next day she needed to be quiet and let him do all the talking. The next day he wasn't anywhere in sight when they decided to see if Claire would float.

. . . the "water horse" at Lock Ness. Either they skipped that part on the show entirely or they are doing at a different point

 

In the book Ned's failure to show up the second day is unexplained but you find out what happened in The Exile" (the graphic novel version of the first half of Outlander)  That's not part of the big books we are allowed to discuss here so I'll slip behind the spoiler bars 

In "The Exile" Colum is taken suddenly ill during the trial and calls Ned to his side as he contemplates what to do about the Clan in case he dies. Is he REALLY sick or is he just faking it to stop Ned from going to Claire's aid again? It's not clear. It's also entirely possible that Ned's failure to turn up on the second day is a plot hole in the first book and Diana cooked up Colum's illness for The Exile in an attempt to fill that hole.

 

In the show, however, it was explained differently (at least in the script)  A deleted scene on the DVDs shows a beaten and bloody Ned going back to Colum.  Colum isn't happy with Ned for putting himself in harm's way for Claire's sake but he does at least smile when Ned says "she got away."

 

As for the Loch Ness Monster, Ron has said he chose to not include that bit because it was just too fantastical and Outlander the TV show is -- with the exception of the time-travel bits -- grounded very much in realism.

[DittyDotDot]

As for the Loch Ness Monster, Ron has said he chose to not include that bit because it was just too fantastical and Outlander the TV show is -- with the exception of the time-travel bits -- grounded very much in realism.

 

Well, that's slightly disappointing, but not sure how they'd pull it off on the show reasonably anyway. Thanks, though, WatchrTina, it helps sometimes to have one's expectations aligned ahead of time.

 

Oh, and, I'm going with Ned disappearing as a plot hole and Diana making it up later in The Exile. I've only seen a few pages from that one, but I kinda felt like that was what she was doing with the graphic novel anyway--filling in the "holes" she left the first time around. Ah, well, whatcha gonna do, right? I know this was her first book, so I can be forgiving here. I'm less so in later books. 

[areca]

I actually didn't find that bit fantastical at all, especially when we learn later that there are places under water and under ground that allow travel...

[WatchrTina]

Okay, here's some wild-ass speculation about DIA/Season2 based on the most recent casting news.  A young actor has been cast as "William Grey".  Now either someone made an error in his IMDb page or my boy Lord John will be going by a different name in Season 2.  Why?  Here's my wild-ass guess.  Since Hal is, at this time, not going by his title of Duke, it would be awkward to have his little brother in his regiment going by the title of Lord John (which signifies the son of a Duke) so I'm guessing John, refusing to addressed as just-John (instead of Lord John) compromised with his bother and agreed to go by his middle name for this campaign.  Note, I have no idea if William really is John Grey's middle name.

 

Or maybe John's really too young to be on this campaign and people who know the family would know that so Hal snuck him into the regiment as "cousin" William.

 

And maybe when Jamie meets "William" Grey in the forest it's going to cause him to flashback to his own late brother William.

 

Or maybe it's just a typo in the IMDb

[DittyDotDot]

Lord John is introduced to us in Dragonfly in Amber as William Grey, second son of Viscount Melton. I just looked it up to be sure, William is his middle name. I was really confused at first when reading Voyager because I remembered his name as William, but got the impression he started using John so as not to be associated with some scandals of his youth.

 

ETA: I don't recall him being referred to as "Lord" John until late in Voyager. Seems like my first recollection of the title is when Claire meets him on the plague ship, but I could be totally mistaken on that.

Edited November 12, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[nodorothyparker]

I know there's an interview out there with Gabaldon somewhere or maybe she wrote about it on her CompuServe site.  I can't remember now and I'm too lazy to look for it.  Basically, she called him William Grey in DIA and then realized while writing Voyager that she wanted Jamie's son to be named William and that it would be too confusing given the plotting for them both to have the same name.  So since he'd only been in one scene up to that point it was easier just to rename him John with a handwaving of oh William's one of his middle names that he sometimes went by.

Edited November 12, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[DittyDotDot]

I know there's an interview out there with Gabaldon somewhere or maybe she wrote about it on her CompuServe site.  I can't remember now and I'm too lazy to look for it.  Basically, she called him William Grey in DIA and then realized while writing Voyager that she wanted Jamie's son to be named William and that it would be too confusing given the plotting for them both to have the same name.  So since he'd only been in one scene up to that point it was easier just to rename him John with a handwaving of oh William's one of his middle names that he sometimes went by.

 

I wondered if it wasn't due to all the Willies cropping up. Wait, I really didn't mean that to sound dirty! 

 

TBH, I highly doubt that Diana had really imagined anything more for the character back when she put him in Dragonfly in Amber, so a name change doesn't really seem that big of a deal anyway. She did make it seem reasonable why he was using a different name at least. 

 

Which now that I've thought about it, it might have been kinda funny if he had stayed a William and ended up adopting a William. I sometimes have though Willie was more like John in many ways than Jamie, sans appearance. 

 

And, now I'm thinking that I would so love Lord John to tell William about how he first met Jamie anyway. I just think it might be funny for them to exchange notes on how they both were taken unawares as young officers. It could be a great little character beat for both Lord John and William.

 

 

Well at least he died in his beloved godson's arms and not alone somewhere in cold mud as many others. That's a comfort I think. And at least we are not going to see it until season 3. Unlike Rupert which I suppose they are going to show as it went in DIA. I've always thought it was an oddly beautiful scene: Rupert dying, Dougal sobbing, Jamie crying and Claire comforting all three of them, solid as a rock.

 

Yeah, Murtagh did get a good honorable death. God, I was just thinking about how much I adore how well some of the actors have brought some of these characters to life. It just dawned on me, we're going to lose almost all of them from the show at the end of this season. It has to be done. And, they get good deaths, not to mention we'll get more lovely characters, still though... .

[WatchrTina]

Somebody tweeted this photo of Duncan (Murtagh) from RingCon holding a sign that says #SaveMurtagh.

 

https://twitter.com/alexana303/status/664139729248641024

 

I have to say I agree with the sentiment.  We've already seen Book!Angus morph into a different character on the show and I'm pretty sure Season 1 Willie (who does not appear in the book) is going to turn out to be the same Willie who witnesses the unfortunate incident between Dougal and Jamie at the end of Book 2.  So I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility for Murtagh to survive Culloden and end up in prison with Jamie and then end up in America with him like a certain character named Duncan who I love but who I will part with to save Murtagh.

[Nidratime]

That would be lovely. For once I would be happy to see the show divert from the book.

[nodorothyparker]

I don't dislike Duncan (although not particularly thrilled with him in Snow and Ashes) but I've never been wild about him either. I'd be up for subbing Murtagh in for him. The actor is really lovely and does a lot with the role.

[Petunia846]

I would happily handwave any age issues and book deviations to keep Murtagh around in place of Duncan. Quite happily.

[DittyDotDot]

Goodness, I started watching the back half of the season today. Maybe it was a mistake to read the books first, but Claire's rescue from Fort William and strapping just didn't work for me on the show.

 

First, I found the timeline far too truncated so the build up gets totally lost and the payoff feels frivolous, to me. I also thought it a weird choice to have the that first argument between Claire and Jamie after the rescue be staged in front of the other men like that. I found it hard to believe that Jamie would bare himself so much in their presence.

 

Mostly though, the tone of the strapping scene on the show seemed far more comedic than I felt it deserved. It's very ironic that I'm complaining about the show lightening up a bit since I've always thought the show took itself a bit too seriously compared to the books. But if any scene deserved to be taken too seriously, that would be one, IMO. 

 

Oh, and, the transition to them returning to Leoch was none other than whiplash for me. Maybe I'm just kinda sad they cut out the scene where Jamie and Claire walk in the moonlight when Claire is too sore to ride and Jamie recants his many humiliations? It all came to the same, in the end, but somehow everything was just too fast for me to buy Claire forgiving Jamie so readily and without him giving something of himself to bridge the gap. I think it was a mistake to not have Claire's inner dialogue in this episode. I didn't necessarily mind having Jamie's, but just didn't find it particularly necessary.

 

On the other hand, I rather enjoyed Column's angry dance with the three weasels after their return to Leoch. If nothing else, the show has brought the politics of the clan MacKenzie to life more for me than the books did. Many of the characters I've come to adore on the show were barely even present in the book. 

 

Anyway, this episode covers a lot of ground in a span of what seems like a few days but was at least a couple months in the books. Maybe they should've split it into two episodes? One to deal with the aftermath of the rescue and one to deal with the politics back at the castle. I do understand they only have so many episodes to get a lot--and I mean a whole helluva lot--of stuff done, though. I guess I have no answers.

 

 

Somebody tweeted this photo of Duncan (Murtagh) from RingCon holding a sign that says #SaveMurtagh.

 

https://twitter.com/alexana303/status/664139729248641024

 

That is totally adorable!!!

 

I'm of two minds about this. First, I love what Duncan has done with the character, but I also feel like, storywise, it's important for to loose him and all the others as well. It's the end of the clans and if they start saving all these characters will we really feel the loss? But, I do adore what Duncan has done with Murtagh....I'm nothing if not whishy-washy today. ;)

Edited November 14, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[lianau]

Murtagh belongs into the first two books . He doesn't fit into the later ones and it would feel too much like network meddling .

[DittyDotDot]

Okay, I'm not sure what they're doing with characterization anymore. They did a great job in the first half of the season, but now characters just aren't making a lot of sense. I never got the sense that Dougal actually cared for Geillis and no way Geillis gave a crap for Dougal--she's a nutcase who cares for no one but her self and her cause. And, the Duke of Sandrigam is made out to be a silly coward and idiot? Good luck selling all his conniving machinations later. Not to mention Colum is made out to be weak and needing his nephew to tell him how to navigate through the clan politics. I actually don't understand how clan MacKenzie hadn't folded some years before with Colum and Dougal leading it by the way they were presented on the show. 

 

I now understand why folks thought the stones didn't work and that's why Claire stayed. If I hadn't read the book I might have gotten that impression too. Overall, it worked for me, but I don't know if that's because I read the book and knew what was going on there. I actually was a bit disappointed they changed the part where Jamie at first thinks Claire is a dream, though. Not a biggie though, just something that kinda starts the notion of Jamie having some very...shall we say...vivid dreams. 

 

I'm of two minds on the Lallybroch episode. I did think Jamie and Claire settled into to Lallybroch a bit too easily in the book and it seemed like it was a bit of a risk for them to go there when Jamie was a hunted man. So I appreciated how they tried to show things being a bit of a challenge for Jamie to try and step into his father's shoes and I do think it was smart they had the promise of a pardon before going there. However, there seemed to be too much bitchiness and not enough of that underlying affection for my taste. I did think they did well with Ian and Jenny though. Ian doesn't look at all what I pictured, but the actor captures his quiet way rather nicely.

 

On a related note: Jenny's flashback scene to what happened with her and Randall was very chilling. I was captivated by how well they desaturated the color, but somehow Randall was was still this creepy color of red--like a little devil. 

[nodorothyparker]

The pacing in the back half of the season is a huge problem for me too and why I didn't like it nearly as much as I wanted to.  But Ron Moore has said in repeated interviews that he was set on Jamie in the window as his halfway point and once he set that in stone I think it was inevitable that what happened did.  Well, that and once you decide to devote one entire episode of your available eight to singing various renditions of Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy and two more to torture and sexual violation. 

 

I liked the McKenzies and a lot of the supporting players a lot more in series than in the book too, where many of them barely registered as characters.  But yeah, the TRU LUV 4EVA between Dougal and Gellis completely strains credibility.  In the books it's pretty clear she was using him as a means to an end to further her beloved Jacobite cause.  His wife lives and dies entirely offpage and we're told they never spent much time together, so it makes a certain amount of practical sense that he'd be filling his needs elsewhere.  That worked for me.  The very notion of them as star-crossed lovers did not.

 

The Duke of Sandringham is better onscreen in the sense that at least they weren't trying to play him as a predatory pedophile for laughs.  That's about all I'll say about it though.  I think a lot of people who didn't read the books thought that maybe the stones didn't work rather than Claire making a well thought out choice.  That scene is one that defines so much of the entire series going forward and it just fails on all levels.

[DittyDotDot]

I though the Duke's portrayal on the show was rather hammy and over the top (from what I remember he wasn't so floppy in the book, Claire even thought the rumors about him may be off the mark). I've always been of two minds about "fun story times" at Leoch when Jamie talks about his perturbations with Duke at the age of 16. Because from our point of view it was about grown up man trying to rape a kid. But back then they have different sensibilities and might have been enamoured with the story of their young clever kinsman leading a snobbish Englishman by his nose.

 

I thought the portrayal on the show was hammy and over the top too. I always took Jamie's story to be more of a young jackass who has a title, money and power and someone who was used to getting his way--it just happens his sexual preferences had him forcing himself on young men rather than young ladies. And, Jamie's story is mostly told as entertainment and probably embellished a bit here and there. Plus, part of the reason Jamie tells the story, in the first place, is to innocently let Colum know why Jamie suddenly left Leoch since there were rumors floating around that Jamie and Colum's wife had been having relations at the time. So, I don't think it's told for us to get a true sense of the Duke's character.

 

But, when the Duke returns in the books he's not portrayed as that same man--it has been something like 8 years. Jamie says that he liked the Duke and enjoyed their hunting trip; they sat around the fire talking and telling stories which indicated he wasn't that same entitled jackass he had been before. Also, the Duke in Dragonfly in Amber is not a silly little cowardly man at all; he's conniving and uses people to his own benefit and would not ever be so easily trapped by Claire and Jamie. 

 

 

Dougal - actually I like the show version of the character better. Dougal-Geillis thing may not work in the wake of what we know of them from book 3 but I was so impressed by McTavish performance when he declares his love for her and get exiled that I'm willing to get along with it. Besides maybe the show will make both characters more ambigous instead of straight up villains they turned out to be in the books?

 

I too adore show Dougal and in most ways prefer him the Dougal of the book. It's just he and Colum together don't make the cunning MacKenzie picture they were painted in the book. Colum never needed to raise his voice in the books, exuded power and authority. And, while Dougal was very impetuous in the books, he never struck me as actually the fool he looks sometimes on the show.

 

It's funny you mention villains because I never really saw either Geillis or Dougal as villains...not exactly anyway. Sure, their interests run opposite Claire and Jamie's most of the time, but I don't really see it as villainy, per se.To me, Geillis is an extremist and a bit of a sociopath as well. I think of her as crazy more than villainous. Same with Dougal, he's doing what he thinks necessary to protect his family and the clan. I don't even really think of that bastard Black Jack as a villain, but a sadistic asshole who should just be put down. They all engage in acts of villainy from time to time, but overall I just think of them as damaged people.

 

 

Once I separated book!Lallybroch from show!Lallybroch I began to love those two episodes. Initially I was disappointed because for me Lallybroch was always such an epitome of true home one always wish to come back to. It was the first place Claire claimed as her home, place worth fighting for and it's the running motif through the entire series of books. It's also the second honeymoon for Jamie and Claire, their share of happy family times before the darkness. The show!Lallybroch had a sober, completly different, melancholic tone and missed humor. 

 

That's exactly it. I do think what they did with the family dynamic is probably a more realistic portrayal than in the book, but tonally it just felt cold rather than the warm feeling I got from the book. Some things I thought played out better here than the book, it's just the overall tone that didn't work for me. Like the scene where Jenny and Jamie finally admit how each blamed the other for their father's death. It was always so weird to me in the book how Claire was witness to some of these private moments--I know she has to be for the narrative structure to work in the books--but I like how they gave Jenny and Jamie a private moment for that.

 

Maybe it's also that Lallybroch doesn't match with the vision I had of it? It seems bigger and somewhat more pretentious than I had pictured when reading the book. Whereas I pictured something more quaint and full of life. In general, though, most of the interior sets on the show are bigger than I pictured. I kinda hand wave that though; I imagine it would be very hard to film if the quarters were as tight as they should be for the time period.

[DittyDotDot]

Guys, I really liked The Search. This episode was great at highlighting more aspects of Scottish culture and landscape. From Claire and Jenny teaming up--I was grinning so hard at them playing good cop/bad cop, but not intentionally and Murtagh's assertion that they are natural outlaws--to Murtagh and Claire's singing across the Highlands. Murtagh generally amused me in this episode. I love how he's always a man with a cunning little plan. How cute was his annoyance that the audiences weren't enthralled with his dancing. I also found it rather amusing how he was first annoyed with Claire for not believing the plan would work and then just as annoyed when she decided to commit to it fully. Seems I have a bit of a soft spot for curmudgeons. ;) 

 

As a side note: I noticed Dougal didn't tell Claire that Geillis's baby lived. I wonder how Claire is going to know Roger is her descendant? Maybe the show is going to deviate from this point?

 

I also enjoyed The Watch quite a bit. It's a huge deviation from the books, but I thought this one worked out rather nicely. I wouldn't have minded seeing them settle into Lallybroch a bit more, but it did give us a nice glimpse into Ian and Jamie's relationship plus, they managed to tie up Horrucks and The Watch plot points from the first half of the season. 

 

The last two episodes I have mixed feelings about. They didn't offend me, but I just think they may have gotten caught up in the idea they were doing something controversial and they didn't want to appear like they were afraid to do it, so the actual story kinda got lost, IMO.

 

Anyway, I think the rescue episode would've been far more powerful if they had put us back in only Claire's POV for the episode and we didn't see Jamie until Claire found him on the floor. The uncertainty as to what had happened to him I think would've actually helped with building the tension throughout the episode. I also think there was too much talking between Randall and Jamie. However, I did love Angus and Rupert in this episode and wee Willie was a total delight! It was really nice to have the gang back together again. And Murtagh's grin when he realized he had another cunning plan at the end was totally what I envisioned when I read the book. Oh, and I for one am glad they cut out the wolf nonsense.

 

As to To Ransom A Man's Soul: I don't know, I just didn't feel it. Intellectually, I understand it and all, but I just didn't feel it like I expected to. Kudos to Sam and Tobias for going there, but I found I didn't actually needed them to go there. In fact, I'm of the general belief that less it more and when a show tries to give me more I begin to wonder if they think the audience isn't smart enough to follow along without all the arrows and diagrams.

 

I think it was a mistake to have Jamie immediately falling into darkness after the rescue. In the book, there's this almost great sigh of relief when they get him back. They treat his physical wounds as best they can, but the emotional ones are left to fester. I just didn't feel those gaping emotional wounds as I did in the book. And, Claire's talks with with the priest didn't have much impact on me either. I don't know, maybe I was too sullied by the book to be able to feel it?

 

I will say the opening of the episode was very effective for me right up until Claire jumps into that wagon. To see Jamie laying there and begging Black Jack to kill him and then the sounds of the cows in the hallway--it was very eerie--and then the music kicks up and we're off! I also found the scenes at the end of them on the ship were beautifully shot. It probably didn't hurt to have Murtagh standing behind Claire and Jamie smiling. I do seem to love me some Murtagh. ;)

 

The pacing in the back half of the season is a huge problem for me too and why I didn't like it nearly as much as I wanted to.  But Ron Moore has said in repeated interviews that he was set on Jamie in the window as his halfway point and once he set that in stone I think it was inevitable that what happened did.  Well, that and once you decide to devote one entire episode of your available eight to singing various renditions of Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy and two more to torture and sexual violation. 

 

I actually wonder if the mistake was declaring each book to be one season? The first half of the season the pacing worked fine for me, it's just the back-half that felt very rushed. I wonder if it wouldn't have been smarter to end the first season on Claire's decision at the stones? That would've given them the time to build up Jamie and Claire's relationship--Claire's constant conflict in trying to keep from falling in love with Jamie and still planning to try and get back to the future--and they could've really developed the inner workings of Clan MacKenzie. Then the second season, with less episodes--could be Lallybroch through the first half with Jamie getting captured early in the second, then the searching, rescuing and ending the second season with them heading to France. Dragonfly in Amber could easily be two seasons--although I wouldn't actually mind skipping some of the French intrigue, myself--and so could Voyager. Later books might be easier made into one season, but the first three I've always thought of each as being almost two books in one.

 

Ah well, I doubt there's anyway to adapt them fully and not have someone disappointed. Overall, I think they did okay considering. I almost always find I prefer the written version to a screen version, so I'm probably biased to begin with. Maybe I'm not the right person to judge it fairly?

[DittyDotDot]

I was rather disappointed when I read - I think it was either "Fiery Cross" or "Breath of Snow and Ashes" - that Dougal really tried to kill Jamie back then when he was young outlaw stealing cows in the Highlands. Someone hit him in his head so hard he was recovering in France for months. Jamie believed that person was Dougal but his uncle denied it rather vehemently when confronted by Claire before Wentworth and seemed very genuine. I believed him at least. I thought that despite of being a calculating and ruthless type, deep down he had a love for Jamie. After all he not only tutored him in fighting skills but also looked after him twice - after Fort William and after...well...after he tried to kill him ;-)

 

I think that's what makes Dougal a great complex character. I think he does care for Jamie, but Jamie is also a threat to his own goals and he seems to be in constant conflict with himself what to do about it. That's why I say I don't see him as a villain in the traditional sense.

 

I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but I'm still not 100 percent sure Dougal did put the axe to Jamie's head. Jamie said that Dougal's words were, "Sister's son or no--I would that I had killed you, that day on the hill. For I knew from the beginning that it would be you or me."  He doesn't actually say he did the deed himself, but is just wishing he had. Although, it would also be in perfect character for Dougal to do the deed, then not be able to finish it--since he is in constant conflict with regards to Jamie--or it could be that Dougal was telling Claire the truth about finding him in that state, but just omitted the part where he seriously considered finishing the job? 

 

Perhaps, it could be we learn that it wasn't Dougal who actually attacked Jamie at some later date? Diana has done stuff like this many times over in the books. Or, it could just be me looking for something that isn't there? Hard to tell with me, sometimes. ;)

 

 

To be honest I found that part of the episode unintentionally comical. For me at this moment all of Randall's menace went straight out of the window and I found him truly scary up to this point. But he kept blabbing, crazy like a bat, making all those plans to get under Jamie's kilt and it was getting more and more ludicrous. 

 

Yeah, there was a great deal of sighing coming from me. In general, I don't find big talk all that menacing and I just kept thinking, "Blah, blah, blah...shut up an get on with it, you big blowhard." 

 

Same thing with the scenes in the next episode of Randall telling us how his hands were Claire's hands and his hair was Claire's hair--kind of felt like someone was drawing elaborate diagrams so I could follow along--it was very distracting, IMO. Just like with jokes: if you have to explain the plot, it's probably not a very good one to begin with.

 

I gave some detailed thoughts on the matter in the episode thread so I will just say - I really think the book focused more on the spiritual aspects of Jamie's drama, turmoil in his mind and soul while the show dwelled on physiology. It did not work for me at all. Also I feel Claire really go lost in the shuffle.

 

Exactly! I found it a such a weird choice how they focused on that brand as the physical representation of his emotional wounds. Granted, it's harder to show a spiritual battle so they probably focused on a physical one people could see, but I just didn't connect with it. And, Claire was totally lost in the kerfuffle. They tried to sell me on her state of mind, but it was too underdeveloped for me to buy it in the end. Like I said, there just wasn't enough time to fully service everything, IMO.

[Andorra]

Where can I sign for the "Save Murtagh" campaign?? I would do so in a minute. It would be great if Murtagh would replace Duncan!

[DittyDotDot]

Thought you guys might get a kick out of this in light of our recent discussion about POV: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/2/d/1HuexW2B_BgjXihcdjbyRo3ILChGmbjcaqlGSrzTxgmg/pub?gid=6#

 

It's a chart of all the POV uses starting with Dragonfly in Amber--Oulander being obvious in that it's only Claire's POV. First, I must comment on how I am routinely surprised--and maybe shouldn't be anymore--at the myriad of things one can find on the internet and usually by accident. Second, it appears Jamie's POV is used more than I recall. And apparently Fergus has had one instance of POV in An Echo in the Bone...I can't for the life of me remember what that was, though. I'm too immersed in the Lord John stories right now, but I'll have to check this out at some point.

[peacefrog]

Fergus POV n Echo IIRC is when he tells Jamie that he is his father. I think he also has a few paragraphs in MOBY somewhere?

Also Jamie has a passage in DIA where it segues into his POV when he describes a battle. It's very subtle as it starts by him telling Claire but then it changes.

Edited November 29, 2015 by peacefrog

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, I think you're right, peacefrog, I was thinking that was from Jamie's POV, but thinking on it more ...

 

And in MOBY, it's probably when he was hiding after the warrant for his arrest was issued before the British left Philadelphia?

 

It's just funny to see it all lined out in a spreadsheet like that.

[WatchrTina]

 

It's a chart of all the POV uses starting with Dragonfly in Amber--Oulander being obvious in that it's only Claire's POV.

That chart is marvelous.  Though it did get me wondering who the hell William Tryon is in The Fiery Cross.  I don't recall that name at all and we get in his head three times according to that chart.

 

So . . . you know . . . Google.  And my Kindle.  The chapters referenced include letters and journal entries written by Governor William Tyron during the first stirrings of the American Revolution.  Not quite the same as him being a POV narrator but from the point of view of this chart, I get it.

[GrailKing]

Since I'm new, I want to bump this for info, so far I'm 1/2 way through the first book, bought book 2, and at my local B&N skimmed through book 3. I don't care if you over spoil.
FROM SEASON ONE OF ( sorry cap lock) outlander and through book 1 Claire doesn't come off as a good person, not evil, not bad but sort of self centred, her pleasures come first, she thinks she's all knowing etc. I mean it took a literal spanking to get her to realize she's endangering herself and others, in a span of a month she marries a young hunk, and decides not to go back to Frank until forced to by Jamie in later books,even then she showed lack of understanding because if she died then no daughter, no life and she totally screw up a natural time line.

Now my main question here is what did Frank do that: 1. made Claire said at least twice when I skimmed the books "I loved you once Frank" their argument (not sure over what as I was just skimming) and over Franks dead body.

2. I understand Frank is sort of staid,boring but not evil, bad or from the first book or show self centred, and Claire even stated he was good in bed and knowledgeable, yet people here don't like him and the reasons range because he's boring to because he cheated and Claire can't stand that ( really, look who's calling the kettle black) as I said I only skimmed the next two books so was Frank having affairs during or prior to his marriage with Claire or did he start sometime after she disappeared and continued when she returned?

[WatchrTina]

Regarding Frank's fidelity -- in both the book and the show (episode 1) we see Frank tell Claire that if she slept with someone else during the war he would not hold it against her.  I, for one, have always interpreted that as Frank projecting his own guilt onto Claire.  I think he was unfaithful to her but has excused his own lapse because it was a time of war and is "generous" enough to offer Claire the same get-out-of-jail-free card.  Only Claire WAS faithful to him.  There is no proof of this -- it just my interpretation of his behavior, but since he cheats on Claire later in their marriage, I don't think I'm off base.

 

If Claire had not gone through the stones and returned 3 years later pregnant by another man, would Frank have stayed faithful?  Who can say?  I suspect not.

 

We see a lot more evidence in the book of how much Claire misses Frank.  There's very little time for that in the show.  In the book she and Jamie even talk about Frank on their wedding night.  Claire is not a happy bride and she feels real guilt about her responding to Jamie in bed (though she does get swept up in some newlywed bliss pretty quickly since the sex is SOOO good  -- and who can blame her really?)  Book Claire and TV Claire both run straight from the glen to the stones once each realizes how close she is to being able to return to Frank.  So I do think she really loved him.  But Jamie is who she's meant to be with.  Both come to realize that though BookClaire has MUCH more time to come to that realization than TVClaire.  And despite that BookClaire agonizes over the decision at the stones after the witch trial.  TV Claire probably did too but since we weren't shown that (grumble, grumble) TVClaire does seem to throw away her first husband in a fairly cavalier manner.

 

I like book Claire and TV Claire.  I do think she comes off as a good person.  If I had gone through what she went through I probably would have just curled up in the fetal position and waited to die.  She adapted and thrived in two terrible situations -- World War II and an unexpected trip through time.  She's not Miss Congeniality but I think she's pretty awesome.

Edited January 20, 2016 by WatchrTina

[GrailKing]

How are we going to define unfaithful?

I think it be natural for people to project their thoughts about Frank, when he asked the question, but as far as I can tell no proof of infidelity during the war on Franks part,Claire herself said she did do some things hug, kiss, she just stayed away from intercourse from how I read her; back to Frank, we read and visually see he has a legit reason for asking that question when he comes upon a stranger looking at his wife through her bedroom window.

 

Claire is not a happy bride and she feels real guilt about her responding to Jamie in bed (though she does get swept up in some newlywed bliss pretty quickly since the sex is SOOO good  -- and who can blame her really?)

 

I don't think you or I would say that if it was one of our spouses and if people do think this, then they can't truly shit on Frank ,my opinion.

There is no doubt Claire is a survivor, but until I get to book3? I'm reserving if I think she treated Frank fairly or not, as of book one so far I truly think she could have gone back but as you say the sex was sooooo good and she gave Frank up.

I also think Black Jack Randall played on her psyche when she did come back and hooked back up with Frank.  

 

As far as if Claire came back not pregnant, would he stay faithful?, probably not she was gone what a year or a bit more, he thought the worst and she let that happen with her decision to stay with Jamie, if you thought she could not be blamed for the sex being so good for her, then you or anyone else can't say the same for Frank.

==========================================================================================================

Since this is also labelled  speculation, has anyone stated how they think the books would end?

I saw some in other areas of the net and sort of thought one would be somewhat on course.

Edited January 20, 2016 by GrailKing

[DittyDotDot]

Yes, Frank is not generally liked around these parts, but I tend to be the odd person out on that point. The thing I see is that neither Frank or Claire were the bad guy in their relationship; they both made mistakes. IMO, they were a couple of people who did like and care for each other, but that wasn't enough to carry their relationship. Both of them were unfaithful, just in different ways. In the years after Claire returns, Frank was physically unfaithful and Claire was emotionally unfaithful and I think that's probably true of the years prior to Claire going through the stones, too. However, to Frank's credit, he did seem to truly love Brianna and did his best to protect her, even if he did it somewhat dishonestly at times. 

 

As to what Frank did that made Claire utter the line "I once loved you,"? Well, it wasn't just that he slept around.

Claire was straight-forward with Frank and told him everything about Jamie and where she'd been for the last few years. At first Frank didn't believe her and decided he'd do some research to prove to her she was crazy, but found evidence to support that she wasn't. Frank concealed these things from Claire and and allowed her to continue to think he thought she was crazy. Which bred some resentment from Claire, I think. Also, just before he died, he dropped a bomb that he was leaving Claire and taking Brianna with him back to England. I do think Frank thought he was protecting Brianna, in his own messed up way, but that fight is really fresh on Claire's mind right then. It's most just lots of little things that built up over the years rather than just one thing. But, like I said, Claire made her mistakes too. She really didn't want to be with Frank anymore, but he wouldn't go away.

 

Anyway, I agree that Claire comes of as very self absorbed, in both the book and the show, but I'm okay with that. There are times when I really couldn't connect with her in the early books, but she does grow a lot throughout the series, IMO and I love her quite a bit more later. I don't think of Claire as a bad person, though, she cares about people and generally tries to do the right thing. I may not always agree with her, but she does at least consider the consequences and try to do her best. Which is more than I can say for most people. I guess I just like my characters to be realistic and I do think both Claire and Frank are fairly realistic characters--despite one being a time traveler and all. ;)

Edited January 20, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[nodorothyparker]

Although I really didn't care for the all Frank all the time of the midseason finale, I'm one who's fairly sympathetic to the character because he was put into an entirely impossible no-win situation.  

 

I tend to read his giving Claire retroactive permission to have cheated in the beginning as either he did and he's seriously projecting or he got close and/or seriously thought about it and is again projecting.  But either way it reads like Gabaldon was trying to lay groundwork for justifying the Claire/Jamie relationship that was to come.  Which, without it there's no story no long-running series, so whatever.  When Claire shows up again after nearly three years with a fantastical story about having married another man in another time period, so sorry about that, and a verifiable pregnancy from somewhere, Frank to his credit does step up even if he wants very much to believe she's making the whole thing up.  He is by every account a good father to Bree.  And yes, the evidence certainly very strong points to him being serially unfaithful after Claire's return, but again there's that impossible situation he's in.  They're in a time when divorce just doesn't really happen and his wife has made no secret of the fact that she's pretty checked out where he's concerned and in love with a ghost she will be eternally pining for.  That's got to be tough to live with.

 

I can't really fault Claire for being self-absorbed in the beginning.  This completely unbelievable thing has happened to her and stranded her in this very foreign time period.  She really has no idea how it works or what it all means in the bigger scope of things.  As the series progresses, we see other people who knowingly and deliberately go back in time also make some pretty big blunders or treat it all like a day trip to the living history museum, so she can hardly be faulted for getting a lot of it wrong in the beginning when she hadn't really advanced from thinking no further than how it affects her.

[GrailKing]

Yes, Frank is not generally liked around these parts, but I tend to be the odd person out on that point. The thing I see is that neither Frank or Claire were the bad guy in their relationship; they both made mistakes. IMO, they were a couple of people who did like and care for each other, but that wasn't enough to carry their relationship. Both of them were unfaithful, just in different ways. In the years after Claire returns, Frank was physically unfaithful and Claire was emotionally unfaithful and I think that's probably true of the years prior to Claire going through the stones, too. However, to Frank's credit, he did seem to truly love Brianna and did his best to protect her, even if he did it somewhat dishonestly at times. 

 

As to what Frank did that made Claire utter the line "I once loved you,"? Well, it wasn't just that he slept around.

Claire was straight-forward with Frank and told him everything about Jamie and where she'd been for the last few years. At first Frank didn't believe her and decided he'd do some research to prove to her she was crazy, but found evidence to support that she wasn't. Frank concealed these things from Claire and and allowed her to continue to think he thought she was crazy. Which bred some resentment from Claire, I think. Also, just before he died, he dropped a bomb that he was leaving Claire and taking Brianna with him back to England. I do think Frank thought he was protecting Brianna, in his own messed up way, but that fight is really fresh on Claire's mind right then. It's most just lots of little things that built up over the years rather than just one thing. But, like I said, Claire made her mistakes too. She really didn't want to be with Frank anymore, but he wouldn't go away.

 

Anyway, I agree that Claire comes of as very self absorbed, in both the book and the show, but I'm okay with that. There are times when I really couldn't connect with her in the early books, but she does grow a lot throughout the series, IMO and I love her quite a bit more later. I don't think of Claire as a bad person, though, she cares about people and generally tries to do the right thing. I may not always agree with her, but she does at least consider the consequences and try to do her best. Which is more than I can say for most people. I guess I just like my characters to be realistic and I do think both Claire and Frank are fairly realistic characters--despite one being a time traveler and all. ;)

 

======================================================================

 

how long were Frank and Claire separated before she went back?

 

Also where is the basic quote function? for a single reply?

As far as Frank protecting  Brianna, In what way did you think his thoughts were messed up, the fact that he wanted Claire to let Brianna  think Frank was her true dad and not Jamie?

From a 20th century point of view I think he be correct, as you said his investigation proved other wise, but also he if I read comments and me skimming through other books are correct he was a full time father to her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2016 by GrailKing

[GrailKing]

I think to fully understand Claire relationship with Frank and her feelings for him, one have to read through the entire series or at least most of it. It's never brushed away and Frank never leaves Claire, no matter how very much in love she is with Jamie. Actually her attitude regarding Frank is one of the reason I respect her character so much. Despite of shell of it, she is a woman who deeply respects her commitments, promises and marriage bond. She never takes off the wedding ring she got from Frank, she even gets into a very dangerous fight over it with someone who wants to rob her in later books. The flashes to her marriage with Frank appear through the course of the novels and with Claire we come to a realization that even though it wasn't exactly a happy marriage as a whole, it certainly did have some happy moments. Claire cherishes those moments in some way, as well as keeps all good memories of Frank and every time he stepped up not only as Brianna's father, but also as her husband. She acknowledges at one point that in some way she did love him, only it wasn't enough and she feels guilty about it. It wasn't Frank's fault and it wasn't her faut that she couldn't love him as much as she loves Jamie. As the series continues, Jamie is no longer a "young hunk" but a mature and then aging man with a body careworn by exhausting work and mistreatment, he and Claire are no longer young lovers who have hot sex all over the place but a couple of mature people who share something very special. That's the trick of "Outlander" I think - it's a story about love and marriage through tears, sweat and blood but also so much joy and laughter despite of hardship.

 

Claire may indeed appear a bit bratty and too brash for her own good in the first two books but then she grows up into amazing woman, very honest with herself and others and compassionate towards everyone. As for Frank, I don't think Gabaldon has ever tried to prove he was a lesser man than Jamie, just totally different, both of them have their share of flaws.

I hope to be through book 2 before season 2 starts, especially since Winds of Winter won't be out ( sorry still first since I started with it first )and I won't have to split reading time between three books ( I Claudius ), and the series puts my wife in the room with me ( she can't handle GOT)as she likes Outlander.

[GrailKing]

Couple of more questions.

Do we get Claire seeing or meeting any of her ancestors? with a story of this scope I can't believe she would not at least run into a couple of them, the only tree I have is one from the top of the thread and she is just there, I also thought it funny that one of the earliest McKenzie’s named was Caitriona.

 

2. I know Claire like many are unreliable narrators to some point and also missing or basing things on no or wrong information; my case in point is when she is in the B & B and Frank and the reverend were talking about BJR I think Frank is misreading or failed to find info he needs ( of course he may later )to find his true ancestors, in short I don't think BJR is his 6X grandfather, but his looks to Claire and his freaking abuse of her, Jenny and Jamie definitely colored her feelings to a point with Frank, how could it not.

P.S. After looking at the tree going down I see I was correct, does Frank ever learn that info?

[GHScorpiosRule]

how long were Frank and Claire separated before she went back?

 

As far as Frank protecting  Brianna, In what way did you think his thoughts were messed up, the fact that he wanted Claire to let Brianna  think Frank was her true dad and not Jamie?

From a 20th century point of view I think he be correct, as you said his investigation proved other wise, but also he if I read comments and me skimming through other books are correct he was a full time father to her.

Regarding your first question: do you mean how long were they separated the first time? Three years. If you mean, when she returned to the 18th century? They weren't separated. Frank died. And then Claire learned two years later after he died, that Jamie didn't die at Culloden, so she made plans and went back.  She and Frank had been married for 20 years or so.

 

As for Frank protecting Brianna? I will grant that he was a very good father to Brianna, and he loved her.  And I understand why he wouldn't want her to know how Frank wasn't her natural father was, and how Jamie was.  But Frank isn't really very well fleshed out in the books, and the glimpses we did see of him, separating his love for Brianna; he was a serial cheater and a racist. He didn't want to leave Claire and take Brianna because he thought Claire was a bad mother; it was because he didn't want her "fucking" a Black man, just like he thought Claire was doing, with her colleague and friend, who was Black. He was an asshole about the whole thing.  The night he planned to do this, he was in a car accident and was killed. So he never got the chance to steal Brianna from Claire.

 

So what we see of Frank in the show? 90% of it is the show and wasn't even in the books.

[GrailKing]

Regarding your first question: do you mean how long were they separated the first time? Three years. If you mean, when she returned to the 18th century? They weren't separated. Frank died. And then Claire learned two years later after he died, that Jamie didn't die at Culloden, so she made plans and went back.  She and Frank had been married for 20 years or so.

 

As for Frank protecting Brianna? I will grant that he was a very good father to Brianna, and he loved her.  And I understand why he wouldn't want her to know how Frank wasn't her natural father was, and how Jamie was.  But Frank isn't really very well fleshed out in the books, and the glimpses we did see of him, separating his love for Brianna; he was a serial cheater and a racist. He didn't want to leave Claire and take Brianna because he thought Claire was a bad mother; it was because he didn't want her "fucking" a Black man, just like he thought Claire was doing, with her colleague and friend, who was Black. He was an asshole about the whole thing.  The night he planned to do this, he was in a car accident and was killed. So he never got the chance to steal Brianna from Claire.

 

So what we see of Frank in the show? 90% of it is the show and wasn't even in the books.

So 3 years between Oulander and Voyager or between Outlander and DIA?

I knew Frank died, I mentioned it in a question I had either this thread or another.

As for Frank being a "serial cheater"  when Claire came back 3 years later and pregnant he didn't owe her diddly, she had at least two chances, the first she never got to the stone, and the final ( not sure if there are more than two at the moment) she pondered for hours and chose Jamie, what did the priest near the end of the book tell her about her life and Frank's life now being changed with her decision to stay with Jamie; Claire went back because Jamie had the good sense to keep her safe but also the unborn child, Claire at that moment did not and from skimming and reading threads she actually blamed the unborn at least until she was born.

So Frank is hated because he's having affairs after Claire is back boohoo for her, it resulted from her decisions, but Frank provided for her and the child and actually raised her well and Claire was able to become a doctor.

Until I see proof that he was definitely cheating on her in the first 8 years of marriage before she fell through the stones, he's free to have woman, and if the author decides to throw in Frank cheating during their first 8 years it would come off as just another book where all men are scum, he may not be macho, built like a brick but he survived sending people to die, a war, a wife who disappeared then comes back preggers 3 years later with a story that she went back 200 years and fell in love with a virgin and he's being hated by quite a few readers nope I can't give Claire a pass, on top of this Frank's a 20th century scholarly man and it is I assure you to think someone telling that tale to us would be looked on as slightly coo-coo.

As far as racist he was and so was Claire she had all sorts of names for Jamie when he left her for Horrack, for Frank it was a product of his time and the mid late sixties was a racial war zone in the states ( I grew up in it ) and it's still a problem, better but still there, people are putting 21st century logic in an era when interracial mixing was in a real infancy, people may not like it but you can't beat him for it, and unfortunately he is also colored by Claire’s actions once she returned from the stones.

I know he died and he can't call it stealing if you tell the mother before hand, but I haven't gotten to that book yet, and do we ever get POV from Frank or Briana, or is it just Claire?

Wow this turned out longer then I thought, I'm getting ready to read the infamous spanking scene by Jamie that many here alluded to, and when I get to the Wentworth chapter I'm sure it's going to be worst than the show ( my wife covered her eyes ).

[GrailKing]

Although I really didn't care for the all Frank all the time of the midseason finale, I'm one who's fairly sympathetic to the character because he was put into an entirely impossible no-win situation.  

 

I tend to read his giving Claire retroactive permission to have cheated in the beginning as either he did and he's seriously projecting or he got close and/or seriously thought about it and is again projecting.  But either way it reads like Gabaldon was trying to lay groundwork for justifying the Claire/Jamie relationship that was to come.  Which, without it there's no story no long-running series, so whatever.  When Claire shows up again after nearly three years with a fantastical story about having married another man in another time period, so sorry about that, and a verifiable pregnancy from somewhere, Frank to his credit does step up even if he wants very much to believe she's making the whole thing up.  He is by every account a good father to Bree.  And yes, the evidence certainly very strong points to him being serially unfaithful after Claire's return, but again there's that impossible situation he's in.  They're in a time when divorce just doesn't really happen and his wife has made no secret of the fact that she's pretty checked out where he's concerned and in love with a ghost she will be eternally pining for.  That's got to be tough to live with.

 

I can't really fault Claire for being self-absorbed in the beginning.  This completely unbelievable thing has happened to her and stranded her in this very foreign time period.  She really has no idea how it works or what it all means in the bigger scope of things.  As the series progresses, we see other people who knowingly and deliberately go back in time also make some pretty big blunders or treat it all like a day trip to the living history museum, so she can hardly be faulted for getting a lot of it wrong in the beginning when she hadn't really advanced from thinking no further than how it affects her.

If DG did not put the figure of a man standing in the rain looking at Claire I would be more inclined to agree to some point since from Claire's thoughts she thought about it,so why would Frank not, but; I don't think he was projecting, like Claire he saw terrible things in the war, he had to order people to do things that could, would and did get them killed, he was in the intelligence division during the war, he sees a stranger staring at his wife he physically sees this, his questions are reasonable but at the same time Claire's reaction is also reasonable but as readers; I think many are projecting feelings as if Frank had ulterior  motives yet not taking in the visual evidence given to us or dismissing them out of hand.

[GrailKing]

Also defending Claire, Frank etc. is great, but anyone want to speculate how the series will end?

I think with Claire doing the narration, I be wondering if the voice over is because Brianna is reading her mom's journal or if Claire is on her final hours and telling someone else her tale.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

So 3 years between Oulander and Voyager or between Outlander and DIA

 

I think this is correct: It's 3 years from the time Claire goes through the stones to 1743 and goes back to the stones to the 20th century.  We see that in DIA, although DIA actually starts 20 years hence and goes into "flashback" mode - if that makes sense.  Sorry if I did not explain that well.

 

 

As far as racist he was and so was Claire she had all sorts of names for Jamie when he left her for Horrack, for Frank it was a product of his time and the mid late sixties was a racial war zone in the states ( I grew up in it ) and it's still a problem, better but still there, people are putting 21st century logic in an era when interracial mixing was in a real infancy, people may not like it but you can't beat him for it, and unfortunately he is also colored by Claire’s actions once she returned from the stones.

 

Good point about racism in the early to mid 20th century.  Jamie had (has?) all kinds of bigotries, but he gets a pass on them from lots of folks, because he's from the 18th century - and well, we can't apply 21st century morals to the 18th century time period, can we?  However, Frank then gets vilified for being a product of his time period as well.  Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy.

[peacefrog]

I don't hate Frank, I think both him and Jamie are products of their time. However, you don't accuse your wife of having affairs just because someone is looking at them, that is blaming the victim.

We don't get much characterization of Frank in Outlander but what does subtly show is Frank and Claire want different things, at least from Claire's viewpoint. Frank wants a wife at home who doesn't swear and a child but only one born from them. I get from Claire's narration that Frank wants a girl(probably the girl Claire used to be before the war) and not a woman. As the series goes on we learn that Frank steps up and contradicts this by his actions. He's not off the hook because other actions by him are pretty bad as well but they are all flawed. Jamie is not the only draw to the 18th century for Claire. She found family and a purpose there.

My speculation is that Frank knows more than what we've been shown, maybe he even knew but did not believe in the stones prior to Claire going back. In A Leaf On the Wind of All Hallows Eve he was aware of Roger's father disappearance.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I don't hate Frank, I think both him and Jamie are products of their time. However, you don't accuse your wife of having affairs just because someone is looking at them, that is blaming the victim.

 

I never thought Frank accused Claire of having an affair so much as inquired about the possibility.  And he seemed pretty forgiving if she had.  To be fair, in the book, didn't Claire accuse Jamie of having an affair with Laoghaire right after they got back to Leoch in Outlander just because she saw Laoghaire look at Jamie in the hallway (while he was carrying Claire) and he quickly washed his face and left the room?  

 

We don't get much characterization of Frank in Outlander but what does subtly show is Frank and Claire want different things, at least from Claire's viewpoint. Frank wants a wife at home who doesn't swear and a child but only one born from them. I get from Claire's narration that Frank wants a girl(probably the girl Claire used to be before the war) and not a woman. As the series goes on we learn that Frank steps up and contradicts this by his actions. He's not off the hook because other actions by him are pretty bad as well but they are all flawed. Jamie is not the only draw to the 18th century for Claire. She found family and a purpose there.

 

I don't think this is too unusual for the time or particularly reprehensible on Frank's part.  Remember, practically the entire world was just coming out of a horrific war.  Many - probably most - people wanted or wished they could go back to the 'innocent' way things were before the war:before they learned what evil people like Hitler were actually capable of.  A lot of pop culture of the 50's was born from this desire.

 

My speculation is that Frank knows more than what we've been shown, maybe he even knew but did not believe in the stones prior to Claire going back. In A Leaf On the Wind of All Hallows Eve he was aware of Roger's father disappearance.

I think you are right that book Frank knows more than has been revealed.  In the show we see Frank learning about the stones and not believing.  I wonder if that will come into play later in the series?

[tcay]

When you entertain the possibility that he knew about time travel and that Jamie likely survived, then Frank was gaslighting Claire, which is a form of abuse. The affairs after she returned do not offend me since she was not much of a wife at that point. But his emotional warfare does bother me, and his plot to take Brianna away to another country was stupendously awful. 

 

But he did a very honorable thing in raising Bree, and he never treated her poorly. This is all to say the characters are complicated and I don't think any of them are more right than the others. I don't see a point in the scorekeeping. 

[Athena]

Also defending Claire, Frank etc. is great, but anyone want to speculate how the series will end?

I think with Claire doing the narration, I be wondering if the voice over is because Brianna is reading her mom's journal or if Claire is on her final hours and telling someone else her tale.

 

Brianna is a central character from Book 3 onwards and has adventures with Claire, others, and on her own as well.

 

Speculating on how this series will end is not the same as speculating on the Song of Fire & Ice because there is more political machinations, white zombies, who will rule, etc. While there is lots of violence and some fantasy aspects to this series, most of it is a multi-generational family saga crossing two continents and it adheres to established history more or less. The goal for most of these characters is to live happily together; the wars and politics happen to them more than anything. We are waiting for Book 9 and Gabaldon has not really revealed when the books will finish.

 

We'll probably find out the reason of Jamie's ghost in Book one. Claire's powers and the time traveller aspect will be explored further. I do think the series will end on a happy note or that Jamie and/or Claire die in each other's arms, happy they had each other. I do not think any of this is being logged anywhere in the traditional sense.

[GrailKing]

•  

  I don't hate Frank, I think both him and Jamie are products of their time. However, you don't accuse your wife of having affairs just because someone is looking at them, that is blaming the victim.

  We don't get much characterization of Frank in Outlander but what does subtly show is Frank and Claire want different things, at least from Claire's viewpoint. Frank wants a wife at home who doesn't swear and a child but only one born from them. I get from Claire's narration that Frank wants a girl(probably the girl Claire used to be before the war) and not a woman. As the series goes on we learn that Frank steps up and contradicts this by his actions. He's not off the hook because other actions by him are pretty bad as well but they are all flawed. Jamie is not the only draw to the 18th century for Claire. She found family and a purpose there.

  My speculation is that Frank knows more than what we've been shown, maybe he even knew but did not believe in the stones prior to Claire going back. In A Leaf On the Wind of All Hallows Eve he was aware of Roger's father disappearance.

  What are you basing your answer on?

Frank  / WE  sees a stranger looking at his wife in a pouring rain, he tells his wife and he asked if someone she treated be pining for her and he would not take offence (I'm not sure if I would believe that myself )he was truthful in it was happening through the war, but Claire did take offence though Claire tells us she did part take everyone did it was the danger of war she just stopped at intercourse where others did not, THAT is NOT BLAMING the VICTIM, CLAIRE was NOT a VICTIM OF ANYTHING BUT THE WAR AS WAS FRANK.

(BOLDED for emphasis, not anger )

Frank like Claire spent years in the war, her job was to heal, his was to find the enemies and their secrets and send people to their death to get them.

Frank is asking questions on his experience and PHYSICAL evidence, what are you basing your answer on? a gut feeling, Claire's reaction? non of those are valid for accusing Frank of infidelity at least prior to Claire falling through the stones.

 

I'm quite sure one of the reasons Claire stayed was she found an actual purpose in life again and she actually felt freer, no 20th century constraints, different values also, even though woman were looked on as property for the men it was more of an equal partnership in a marriage as they had to be a team to survive those times, it did take Claire a while to learn that; after the war many woman lost their jobs and at that time it was a woman's place is in the home mentality a 20th century form of partnership probably not as useful as the 18th century type as for the most part people are relatively safe in their countries now .

She was looking at being in a 20th century subservient role, that is not what this woman is; she's a go getter and would end up eventually where she did end up in the sixties a doctor.

 

I may have missed something about him wanting a girl, I remember Claire looking at lil Roger(?) and asking Frank about adopting and his reply about how he feel that would be an intrusion, and he doesn't think he could love another couples child, where do you get the feeling he wants a girl? did he say he hopes theirs looks like her?

 

I also believe Frank knows more about the stones then what we are told, but I think he learned much of it after Claire returns, but I haven't gotten to that book yet, but I did get past Claire being beaten to an inch of her life last night.

When you entertain the possibility that he knew about time travel and that Jamie likely survived, then Frank was gaslighting Claire, which is a form of abuse. The affairs after she returned do not offend me since she was not much of a wife at that point. But his emotional warfare does bother me, and his plot to take Brianna away to another country was stupendously awful. 

 

But he did a very honorable thing in raising Bree, and he never treated her poorly. This is all to say the characters are complicated and I don't think any of them are more right than the others. I don't see a point in the scorekeeping. 

Since I'm not there yet how old is Brianna at this time, out of college, in grade school?

[GrailKing]

Brianna is a central character from Book 3 onwards and has adventures with Claire, others, and on her own as well.

 

Speculating on how this series will end is not the same as speculating on the Song of Fire & Ice because there is more political machinations, white zombies, who will rule, etc. While there is lots of violence and some fantasy aspects to this series, most of it is a multi-generational family saga crossing two continents and it adheres to established history more or less. The goal for most of these characters is to live happily together; the wars and politics happen to them more than anything. We are waiting for Book 9 and Gabaldon has not really revealed when the books will finish.

 

We'll probably find out the reason of Jamie's ghost in Book one. Claire's powers and the time traveller aspect will be explored further. I do think the series will end on a happy note or that Jamie and/or Claire die in each other's arms, happy they had each other. I do not think any of this is being logged anywhere in the traditional sense.

I'm thinking she may die in the present and buried by Bree next to Jamie and the spirits finally meet and a closing scene of them in the 18th century.

I'm not there yet but Bree and her family are still alive correct?

If so, I can see Bree and Roger time travelling and sleuthing the course of history to update too are present time things we eventually discovered historically wrong and getting into a whole lot of trouble.

 

ETA: I could also see Bree rebury  Frank on the other side of Claire symbolism of the story line.

Edited January 21, 2016 by GrailKing

[Athena]

I'm thinking she may die in the present and buried by Bree next to Jamie and the spirits finally meet and a closing scene of them in the 18th century.

I'm not there yet but Bree and her family are still alive correct?

If so, I can see Bree and Roger time travelling and sleuthing the course of history to update too are present time things we eventually discovered historically wrong and getting into a whole lot of trouble.

 

ETA: I could also see Bree rebury  Frank on the other side of Claire symbolism of the story line.

 

It's unlikely Claire will die in the present, but you'll have to read at least Book 3 or 4 to understand that.

 

Yes, Bree and her family are still alive and they do time travel more than anyone else in this series by the time we left him off in Book 8.

[GrailKing]

I'm being many books behind can't wait to see how the death of Claire would affect the present, since I know when she dies is after Bree's birth she's safe, I know Bree was snotty  at some point to both Claire and Frank, but she also loved Frank as a dad if that will play in to the final scene.

I can actually see the graves stones of Jamie,Claire, Frank and Bree's way of honouring all three.

 

But I also have to wait and see how Claire and Frank flesh out in book 3 before he buys the farm, I'm sure he's going to be pissed why wouldn't he and BJR is going to rear his ugly head from Claire's time travel, but I'm still in book 1, and page 9 of this forum reading things from 2014 so between there and here I will surely find this stuff out.

Right now though I'm re-watching GOT S5 unbowed,unbent,unbroken or as I call it and many others also, The Rape of Sansa Stark.

[asp]

I'm being many books behind can't wait to see how the death of Claire would affect the present, since I know when she dies is after Bree's birth she's safe, I know Bree was snotty  at some point to both Claire and Frank, but she also loved Frank as a dad if that will play in to the final scene.

I can actually see the graves stones of Jamie,Claire, Frank and Bree's way of honouring all three.

 

But I also have to wait and see how Claire and Frank flesh out in book 3 before he buys the farm, I'm sure he's going to be pissed why wouldn't he and BJR is going to rear his ugly head from Claire's time travel, but I'm still in book 1, and page 9 of this forum reading things from 2014 so between there and here I will surely find this stuff out.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I get the feeling you're trying to jump the gun on a lot of fronts. I totally understand your eagerness to try and find out how the whole story develops, and reading 8 ginormous books can be a daunting task...but it's also a lot of fun.

 

You're drawing conclusions from other people's perceptions and points of view, and through skimming threads about a family saga, that spans a couple of generations and two time lines, you're bound to end with some preconceived ideas about the characters.

 

Characters grow and mature, stories unfold and little details that seem meaningless at the time, are important to the whole saga. Diana's writing isn't smooth sailing. You will plod... and skim, but you will find so many gold nuggets....it will be worth your time.

 

Be patient and enjoy the books!

 

(Advice from an old lady, and also this is none of my business, so you just go ahead and do what you must! :D)

[GrailKing]

Oh I'm patient, and the journey is usually more  fun to get to then the destination .

As far as old, drop a line to GRRM because I fear we both be dead before I read his last chapter, being a year apart in life.

 

ETA: I don't skim reading, I skim for future reference, and plodding on some books is part of the deal in large novels, took me forever to get through ADWD, I'm sure I will find the same with DG.

 

:> )

Edited January 22, 2016 by GrailKing

[asp]

:)

 

It does depend on the destination, doesn't it? But yes, I agree, the journey is often as enjoyable, if not more.

 

You're way ahead of me, I've tried ...and failed to read GRRM a couple of times. I seem unable to go beyond the first few chapters of ASOIAF. (But I love the TV series!)

 

Diana Gabaldon was a late find (a few months ago) and I fell in love with the story as soon as I watched the TV series. I had to read all the books (which I did...prompto) because, like you I needed to know the outcome...and I got lost in the telling. :D

 

From a senior to another (we're in the same decade, along with Diana). :)

 

ETA: You will skim (trust me), if even for a few words or lines. Sometimes my mind glazed along with my eyes. That's why I'm doing a re-read...

Edited January 22, 2016 by asp

[GrailKing]

GOT is fairly accurate up to season 3 or 4, totally diverge in 5

Sansa as of WOW and ADWD is still in the eyrie, they had Sophie Turner take on Jeyne Pooles role, and Sansa's rape scene is no where as horrendous as Jeyne's was in book

what an uproar that caused, even US Senators got upset, Sansa's my favorite character, but where was the outrage over Theons rape and castration?

At least Jamie can reproduce, though my wife covered her eyes when his rape scene happened.

I was led to Outlander about a month back, I needed a fix for GOT, and a few people pointed me to OL, watched the first three episodes, bought the first two books the pass two / three weeks, and  I'm about half way through book 1.

[toolazy]

Brianna is a central character from Book 3 onwards and has adventures with Claire, others, and on her own as well.

 

Speculating on how this series will end is not the same as speculating on the Song of Fire & Ice because there is more political machinations, white zombies, who will rule, etc. While there is lots of violence and some fantasy aspects to this series, most of it is a multi-generational family saga crossing two continents and it adheres to established history more or less. The goal for most of these characters is to live happily together; the wars and politics happen to them more than anything. We are waiting for Book 9 and Gabaldon has not really revealed when the books will finish.

 

We'll probably find out the reason of Jamie's ghost in Book one. Claire's powers and the time traveller aspect will be explored further. I do think the series will end on a happy note or that Jamie and/or Claire die in each other's arms, happy they had each other. I do not think any of this is being logged anywhere in the traditional sense.

 

I have read that Diana G has said that she will return to Jamie's ghost at the end of the last book.  I can't think about it without getting weepy.

[Dejana]

Maybe it's because I got into the series five books in and read them all in two months, so I never had the time to wonder about all the things Claire should have done to get back to poor brokenhearted Frank instead of falling for Jamie. It's not that I hate Frank, but he's left behind very early in Book 1, and Book 2 starts off by skipping ahead two decades, when he's been dead a few years, and we're eight books in now. You get glimpses of the sort of person Frank became and his life with Claire and Bree in Boston, but it's clear that Gabaldon doesn't care about making him a central character, otherwise she would have written the story that way.

 

Just reading the book jacket flaps, the inherent premise made it glaringly apparent IMO that Claire's heart would be with the guy in the past, because these are fictional romance-ish novels and the woman-out-of-time element makes for more fertile storytelling ground. Claire and Frank are clearly meant to be that couple who might have had a nice enough life together, but for the stones, but she did go through the stones, so that's that. He's not the villain of the piece, but it's not about him. Maybe there's a great story to be told from the perspective of a guy who lost his wife to a time traveler, the unfairness of it all and how this terribly fickle woman wronged him, but Outlander is not that story. I can understand how people who've just watched S1 have a wildly different impression of Frank and his place in this universe. Maybe non-book people think Frank will find a way to go back to the past, and hope for a more evenhanded love triangle or something, IDK.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Dejana