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

[morgan]

So if I had to guess, season 3 will open with 1968 with the search for Jamie.  Some flashbacks with Frank maybe as she reflects on her life.  And then end with Jamie on the field in Culloden waking up.  Next few episodes I would bet is all Jamie and what he is going thru.  Maybe with some Claire searching sprinkled in, because I can't see her not being in too many episodes.  I will bet they won't reunite till around a 3rd of the way into the season, possibly closer to half?  

They will do Edinburgh, then an ep at lallybroch, then off to the seas for a couple of episodes.  Ron Moore is so excited for the sea voyage I cannot see them giving that short shrift.  Then island stuff.  

Hmmm...so much to contemplate/look forward to.  

[Nidratime]

I wanted to pull this Variety article out of the media thread because there was something in it in relation to Season 3 that interested me.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/outlander-season-3-spoilers-claire-jamie-reunion-voyager-black-jack-randall-1201811811/#respond

Despite the fact that I don't really have a deep interest in Frank, this bit characterized as "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" in Boston really intrigues me because I bet Tobias and Cait would hit it out of the park!

Quote

We’re also likely to see Frank again, to give viewers a sense of the realities of his relationship with Claire. We know from some of Brianna’s comments in the finale that her parents’ marriage wasn’t particularly idyllic in its later years, and Menzies confirms that the tentative plan is for season 3 to explore the couple’s dynamic following the move to Boston, including “the disintegration of their marriage out there… it’s slightly ‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf’ in Boston, which hopefully will be really exciting stuff to dig into.”

[satrunrose]

I think they need at least three episodes to cover Jamie's lost twenty years; one at Lallybroch with Ian's birth and the Dunbonnet, one at Ardsmuir and one at Hellwater. They might cut back and forth with Claire, Bree and Roger researching and/or Claire and Frank in Boston (probably a little bit of both). I'm hoping that they can throw Claire's struggles to become a surgeon and Joe Abernathy in there too. 

In the past season, I can see what the people who complain about the lack of Jamie and Claire are saying, although personally I did feel like the show managed to convey a very close and healthy relationship after Paris, even if it didn't get a ton of screen time. I think part of the problem is that for the first three books, Dianna is still trying to figure out what kind of book she wants to write. Book one is mostly a historical romance so we get a lot of the romance in the book and the show. Book two is much more politically and historically focused and while DG as a writer can still take the time to give us plenty of C&J, the show doesn't really have that luxury (Plus, even the book puts some of the sexy times off-page. For the longest time I was convinced that Bree was conceived in the woods after Prestonpans until I finally did the math). Book 3 (Or the Outlander version of Pirates of the Caribbean) also has a very different tone to the first two, and I think the question is will RM and co. be able to cut a bunch of subplots (murderers, traitors, Capt Alessandro) and focus on Jamie and Claire's reconnection or will they get side-tracked?

[Dust Bunny]

I kind of love those Chris Albrecht articles. It shows Starz isn't dependent on Emmy acknowledgment to support their shows. Seasons 5 and 6 would be outstanding. The vocal group of fandumb just needs to keep from pushing the cast and crew away.

[katville]

Fandumb is a great moniker. The more obsessive Outlander fans are quite terrifying.

I would like to hear his thoughts when he does read books 5 and 6. I wonder if his viewpoint will change on greenlighting those seasons. They aren't as universally loved as the earlier books and I am not sure they will translate well into television.

[Clawdette]

I've been thinking about the book-to-screen translation of the latter books, too.  So much material involves new characters and it would be easy to get simultaneously bogged down and fragmented.  It will be interesting to hear the Starz take on 5-8(9). 

[Wouldofshouldof]

The scene from Fiery Cross that I always thought would make a good series-ending shot:

Spoiler

The "calling" at the gathering where - was it Bree? Roger? - someone says "the Fraser clan is here" (paraphrasing for lack of remembering).  Of course I'd want them to play with the timeline of the stories so that the gathering happened later in the series than it did in the books.  Otherwise we'd miss a LOT.

[WatchrTina]

Quote

So if I had to guess, season 3 will open with 1968 with the search for Jamie.  Some flashbacks with Frank maybe as she reflects on her life.  And then end with Jamie on the field in Culloden waking up.  Next few episodes I would bet is all Jamie and what he is going thru.  Maybe with some Claire searching sprinkled in, because I can't see her not being in too many episodes.  I will bet they won't reunite till around a 3rd of the way into the season, possibly closer to half?  

I have always adored the way book three begins:  "He was dead.  However, his nose throbbed painfully, which he thought odd in the circumstances."  I don't know if that can be made to work cinematically but I would so love it if that was the opening scene and voice-over of the season.   Okay, here is my speculation for how they are going to break down the first few episodes (I'm doing a re-read right now.)  It goes without saying that MAJOR SPOILERS follow.

Episode 1: Open on Jamie lying on Culloden field. Dead body on top of him (Hi Jack!).  Crows. Rescue by other "survivors."  Misery in the hut (including flashbacks to the battle because there are already photos out there of the two armies).  Confirmation that Jamie can't remember how BJR came to be sprawled dead across Jamie's legs.  Methodical executions of the prisoners.  Unexpected and unwanted reprieve for Jamie.  End with him miserable and in pain, being carted away in the hay-wagon. Cut to the 1960s where Claire, Roger and Bianna have begun the search to determine happened after Culloden.  Claire & Brianna have a chat about Jamie vs. Frank that leads to a flash-back to Claire & Frank's life that includes both good times (them as doting parents to Brianna and the fact that Claire did go back to his bed on occasion) and the bad times (his threat to take Brianna away and Claire revealing that she knew him to be a serial philanderer). Work in a bit of Joe Abernathy but tread carefully around Frank's racism.  End the episode with Frank's death.  Thank you, Tobias, for your service in both roles in one episode.  You can go now.  (Note to show-runners -- be sure to film what actually happened between BJR and Jamie on Culloden Field. Diana knows.  Throw the footage in a vault.  Tease us with bits of it during Jamie's nightmares over the next 7 seasons.  Don't let us see all of it until Diana puts it in a book.)

Episode 2: Begin the 1960s where the search continues.  End the prologue with their discovery of the legend of the "Dunbonnet" and "The Leap 'o the Cask" showing that Jamie made it back to Lallybroch.  Cut to Jamie living in the cave, hunting, visiting his family once a month, the birth of Ian and Jamie's near-capture, followed by Fergus losing his hand and the actual leap of the cask. Work in flash-backs within the episode to Jenny's dogged refusal to let him die when he first got back and Ian refusal to the Jenny have his leg amputated.  That's a story that Jamie tells Claire later in the book but it probably needs to be shown in this episode -- maybe at the very beginning.  End with Jamie's decision to turn himself in (or have someone "betray" him) for the reward money.  Skip Mary McNab's consolation sex with Jamie the night before he goes -- Jamie can tell Claire that story when they film book 8 (which is when she finds out about it.)

Episode 3: Back to the search in the 1960s.  End with the discovery of Jamie's name on a list and Claire asking (as she does in the book) "Where the hell is Ardsmuir"?  Cut to the prison, introduce Lord John Grey (I CANNOT WAIT).  Show a bit of Jamie -- leader of men -- running the cellblock.  Show the scene where he's pressed into interpreting Gaelic in return for having his irons removed.  He escapes, he comes back, Lord John "befriends" him to try to figure out what he did while he was on the loose. Jamie's having none of it.  Lord John then blackmails Jamie with threats against his family.  Jamie tells his story (or a bit of it, ye ken), ending with him giving up the sapphire. Time marches on (voice over!)  Jamie & John become comfortable with one another.  Lord John makes a pass at Jamie and you know how THAT goes.  The bit of tartan is found, Jamie claims it is his and Lord John is forced to have Jamie lashed.  End with Jamie at the lashing post giving Lord John a look that says "Dude we are never ever EVER getting together."

Episode 4:  Helwater.  If they only include what's in Voyager they can get though this in one ep but if they also include key parts from the Lord John novels and later Outlander novels (like Lord John finding Jamie prostrating himself on the cold floor of the chapel containing Geneva's casket, or Jamie rescuing William after he gets lost in the fog) there is a lot more to cover.  However, if there is too much they can save it and have it be a flash-back later in the season when Lord John turns up again and he explains to Claire how it is he came to be raising Jamie's son (which is what happens in the book).  Anyway, the Helwater bit should start with Lord John informing Jamie that the other men are being transported to America but that he (Jamie) is being paroled to work as a servant on a nobleman's estate.  Please keep the scene of his arrival when Isobel says "Daddy, there's a HUGE man in the hall!" Voiceover of Jamie revealing how much he resented the situation at first but grudgingly comes to realize what a favor Lord John did for him.  Then introduce the fly in the ointment -- Geneva. Extorted sex. Carriage ride though the rain nine months later.  Gossip in the Earl of Elsmere's kitchen. Rescue and "misadventure" in the drawing room. Jamie holds his son.  The Jamie part of the episode should end with someone spotting how funny it is that wee William rather resembles the groom "MacKenzie" followed by Jamie taking Lady Dunsany up on her previous offer of a pardon. Cut to the 1960s and theMcScoobies finding evidence of Jamie's parole, pardon and then his life as Alexander Malcolm, the Edinburgh printer.  End with Claire's declaration that she is going back. 

Episode 5:  The reunion at the print shop (sigh).  Reconnection sex at the brothel (double-sigh)  The introduction of young Ian (yay!)  The introduction of adult Fergus ("Milady!")  The introduction of Mr. Willoughby/Yi Tien Cho, and the pursuing excisemen, and "The Fiend" (oh gosh, must we?).  

When Claire awakens in the past (chapter 24 "A. Malcolm, Printer") my kindle says the book is 26% done.  4 episodes divided by 13 episodes total is 31% so my summary for the first 4 episodes is not moving quickly enough through the book if they are going to cover everything in there, but I think we all know that some of the stuff that goes on after Claire turns up in the past is going to be cut (and it's going to improve the story.)  

So there you have it -- I think that's how they are going to handle the separation between Jamie and Claire.  I saw that Cait tweeted a good luck message to Sam and the rest of the cast/crew on the first day of shooting so she clearly wasn't there.  I think she probably gets an extra month or more off this year because they will hold all the 1960's shots and shoot them together in one block, even though the footage will be spread across 4 episodes.  That's only fair.  She had the hardest job of all in season 1 while Sam actually was absent from one of the episodes -- "The Search" -- and was barely in another episode -- "The Garrison Commander".  It's only fair that Sam has to do the heavy lifting for most of the first four episodes this year.  Cait will be right there by his side for the rest of the season.  (Erm, except for when Claire gets shanghaied on the high seas and they are separated AGAIN but I just can't bear to think about that right now.)

The #droughtlander -- it is hard.

Edited August 28, 2016 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

2 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Episode 3: Back to the search in the 1960s.  End with the discovery of Jamie's name on a list and Claire asking (as she does in the book) "Where the hell is Ardsmuir"?  Cut to the prison, introduce Lord John Grey (I CANNOT WAIT).  Show a bit of Jamie -- leader of men -- running the cellblock.  Show the scene where he's pressed into interpreting Gaelic in return for having his irons removed.  He escapes, he comes back, Lord John "befriends" him to try to figure out what he did while he was on the loose. Jamie's having none of it.  Lord John then blackmails Jamie with threats against his family.  Jamie tells his story (or a bit of it, ye ken), ending with him giving up the sapphire. Time marches on (voice over!)  Jamie & John become comfortable with one another.  Lord John makes a pass at Jamie and you know how THAT goes.  The bit of tartan is found, Jamie claims it is his and Lord John is forced to have Jamie lashed.  End with Jamie at the lashing post giving Lord John a look that says "Dude we are never ever EVER getting together."

 

I really hope we'll get the "Where the fuck is Ardsmuir -Ardsmuir is the carbuncle on god's bum " transition .

I also hope they make the difference between Jack and John's flogging of Jamie clear. Jamie was the victim of the first but sort of the perpetrator in the second case . While Jack  enjoyed flogging Jamie , Jamie used the law and his back to punish John and destroy whatever strange friendship they had forged. 

[WatchrTina]

Here's bit more speculation.  This is a tweet from the StarFury convention, which a bunch of our "clan" attended in August 2016, right after filming began on season 3.  

https://twitter.com/Courtilini14/status/770011114008698882

They are only a week or so into block 1 at this time.  Grant O'Rourke (Rupert) is, alas, clean-shaven.  That tells me we are not going to see Rupert at the battle of Culloden or in season 3 at all.  But Duncan Lacroix is still sporting Murtagh's big, glorious beard.  So I'm speculating that we will see Murtagh and Jamie fighting side-by-side at the battle of Culloden.  And maybe, just maybe, Murtagh survives?  #SaveMurtagh

Edited September 1, 2016 by WatchrTina

[katville]

I love how Graham McTavish is always wearing a kilt. I picture him wearing it everywhere -- to the grocery store, the movie theater, the dentist for a cleaning ...

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, katville said:

I love how Graham McTavish is always wearing a kilt. I picture him wearing it everywhere -- to the grocery store, the movie theater, the dentist for a cleaning ...

Okay, now I want a reality show following Graham McTavish around town! ;)

[MedievalGirl]

Dwalin Mackenzie. That's a cosplay that needs to happen. (Mash up of Graham McTavish's two characters, Dwalin from The Hobbit, and you know.) If I say this enough online it is bound to happen.

[WatchrTina]

Diana just tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/Writer_DG/status/772564872634650624

To which I say YAY!  She's kept us waiting for 5 big books and I don't know how many years.  One of these days she IS going to tell us what the heck happened between Jamie and BJR on Culloden Field.

[morgan]

At least she thinks so....doesn't sound like its imminent though.  Honestly for me it will be interesting but I will also be ok if we never know.  That evil ass is dead and Jamie isn't (because they are real, lol).  That's all I need!  

[DittyDotDot]

I'm actually okay with the mystery, but have to admit I'm really curious. I kinda love how Diana hasn't revealed all things and allow this to slowly come back to Jamie over the years. 

[dustoffmom]

On 7/5/2016 at 2:32 PM, morgan said:

26 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

 

I'm actually okay with the mystery, but have to admit I'm really curious.

 

 

 

 

 

I, too, am okay with it.  She can reveal it in the last sentence of the very last book and that will be okay as well.  As long as she tells it!!!  That, and the darn ghost from book one.  May I live long enough to find the answer to those two questions!!  :)

[Dust Bunny]

2 hours ago, dustoffmom said:

I, too, am okay with it.  She can reveal it in the last sentence of the very last book and that will be okay as well.  As long as she tells it!!!  That, and the darn ghost from book one.  May I live long enough to find the answer to those two questions!!  :)

The other mystery I'm hoping is revealed is who planted the forget-me-nots by the stones and when. Someone would probably have to leave the colonies and go back to Scotland. I hope we find that out. 

[DittyDotDot]

8 minutes ago, Dust Bunny said:

The other mystery I'm hoping is revealed is who planted the forget-me-nots by the stones and when. Someone would probably have to leave the colonies and go back to Scotland. I hope we find that out. 

Were they forget-me-nots? I thought Claire said they looked like forget-me-nots, but ruled them out as such because of some slight differences?

[lianau]

I don't really care about what happened with Jack . It was a battle  and he died , no mystery there. I also don't care about ghost Jamie . I'm reading a book about time travel so why would I question the appearance of a ghost ?

[nodorothyparker]

I don't care either unless the big reveal is that he singlehandedly took out a battalion and then threw himself over Jamie all while begging for forgiveness in some final act of contrition.  But even then I already know the outcome, I can only care in a general "huh, so that's what happened" kind of way.

[WatchrTina]

Hmmmm.  Maybe I read to much into that scene in DIA when Jack see's our hero at the Duke of Sandringham's house and calls him "Jamie."  This is book Jack I'm talking about -- TVJack played that scene in the garden a bit differently.  TVJack is delighted (in what I took to be an evil kind of way) to have stumbled across Jamie and Claire.  But I always thought that BookJack was shocked to see Jamie and that when he called him by his first name it was not a deliberate attempt to make Jamie uncomfortable -- a reminder of their intimate knowledge of one another -- I thought it was an involuntary glimpse into the heart of the man.  I took it as a manifestation that BookJack had, for lack of a better word, fallen in "love" with Jamie (or the closest approximation of love that his twisted psyche was capable of).  We saw BookJack actually seek out the Frasers (or at least Claire) for assistance when his brother's life was at stake (TVJack does not do that).  We see that BookJack still wants to hear about Jamie, still seems obsessed with him, even after having been maimed by Jamie. So I have always been VERY curious as to how Jack came to be sprawled dead across Jamie's body in Culloden Field at the start of Voyager.  Did Jamie kill him?  The vengeful part of me hopes he did but Jamie's inability to remember what happened suggests to me that Jamie doesn't WANT to remember what happened and I think Jamie would not mind recollecting taking some Highlander-style vengeance on Black Jack Randall.  That leads me to suspect that what really happened was psychologically disturbing to Jamie.  Did Jack Randall actually change sides during the fight?  Did he try to fight side-by-side with Jamie, guarding Jamie's weak side like Ian used to do?  THAT would freak Jamie out.  Did he do that and then Jamie killed him anyway?  THAT would cause some psychic confusion for Jamie.  Did Jack refuse to defend himself -- even declare his love right there on the battlefield -- and then Jamie ran him through?  That might cause enough psychic damage to give Jamie trauma-induced amnesia.  There are many possibilities and I, for one, am eager to find out the "truth."  (And I really hope they film it now and then lock it in a vault so that they can tease us with snippets of it in Jamie's dreams over the years.)

Edited September 5, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Dejana]

1 hour ago, lianau said:

I don't really care about what happened with Jack . It was a battle  and he died , no mystery there. I also don't care about ghost Jamie . I'm reading a book about time travel so why would I question the appearance of a ghost ?

Same. I'll be perfectly content not to hear anything new about Black Jack in the books, ever again. 

I've always supposed the figure in the square was Ghost Jamie separated from Claire during her natural life span, so he went looking for her when she was in her own time. 

[dustoffmom]

20 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

So I have always been VERY curious as to how Jack came to be sprawled dead across Jamie's body in Culloden Field at the start of Voyager.  Did Jamie kill him?

Your entire post describes my thoughts on this!  I discount TV Jack's actions as not true at all to book Jack and the book gave us teases into the mind set of the both of them, but no answers.  How ever did they come to be sprawled with each other at the end of that battle?  I am dying to know that part of the story!!

[morgan]

I've been thinking about this today and and really just think I am not invested/interested in any of the "big bads" in the outlander series.  Not Jack, not Bonnet, not that creep Bree faces in the 1980's whose name escapes me.  I am fascinated by the rest of what the Frasiers have to deal with....the daily life, the political/military stuff to some extent, the challenges they face in general.  But the mustache twirlers tend to...well I won't say bore me, but I rarely re-read their parts and I'm just less interested.  I am not looking for all romance all the time, just not the over the top evil.  The conflicts between English and Scottish in the first couple of books were great.  I love the intrigue and the different viewpoints.  I don't mind the occasional enemy and the drama that comes with it.  But the over the top ones tend to just lose me.  I think that might be why I don't care either way about how Jack died.  Just go away already!  

For the record, I had always assumed Jamie and Jack fought each other at the end.  That his suppressed memories were from the horrendous conflict itself, after having to send Claire back.  All of it together, the losses of life of friends and family, the knowledge that his world was ending, his plan for death.   And of course losing all the blood he did.  All of it was a perfect storm for losing/not retaining the memories.  

[Petunia846]

59 minutes ago, Grashka said:

Yes, but why in 1945, and a mere day before she went through the stones for the first time? DG already revealed that it's supposed to be a form of Jamie at the age of 25, which would mean he went "looking for Claire" when he was close to death from sepsa and fever post-Culloden. Of course it may mean anything or nothing, though.

I just came up with that basic theory recently, that the ghost is Jamie passed out, near death either on the battlefield or later when his wound is festering. We know Jamie has somewhat psychic abilities because he's had some visions of the future and wasn't there something about Jem saw him out the window while they were in at Lallybroch in the 70's?

Oh, no, I remember what it was. I was relistening to a seminar series that analyzed Book 1 recently and there was something in there where Jamie described being ill in the abby in France (the first time after he got knocked on the head with an ax) and having some dream about roots coming out of his head and his head splitting and stuff, and that description reminded me of how Claire described the feeling of time travel. I mean, obviously the first time Claire described it like the car crash, but I figure everyone would compare it to something they were familiar with, and Jamie would think about something having to do with nature. So anyway, I was thinking maybe Jamie sort of time travels in his dreams sometimes. I guess that case wouldn't be the one in the book because he wasn't 25 at the time (if we're to believe Diana), but maybe a similar thing happens around Culloden time. He did say he thought he was dead...maybe he really was for awhile. And he said he would wait in purgatory for 200 years for Claire, so maybe he did. Or something...who knows. ;)

The ghost fascinates me. And the flowers seems obvious though sweet. I agree though that I don't need to ever hear anything else about BJR.

[WatchrTina]

4 hours ago, morgan said:

that creep Bree faces in the 1980's whose name escapes me.

That would be Rob f*cking Cameron and the less said about him the better.

2 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

So anyway, I was thinking maybe Jamie sort of time travels in his dreams sometimes.

I've long had a theory that Jamie has the "astral projection" gene, which he passed on to his daughter and grandchildren.  There is definitely a passage where Jamie describes a "dream" to Claire that he had during their 20 years of separation where he saw things that Claire recognizes as belonging to the 20th century.  So yeah, I think that could be unconsious-and-near-death Jamie or maybe even just sleeping Jamie visiting Claire in the square in episode 1.  I think sleeping Bree reaches out to and communicates with Jamie & Claire via the drugged-up crazy lady in Jamaica because she shares the astral-projection gene with Jamie.  And I think that homing beacon / I-know-where-Jem-is thing that Mandy and Jem have going on in Book 7 & 8 is due to their having both the astral projection gene AND a double-dose of the time-travel gene (from both parents)

But if I had to place a bet, I'd bet that is Jamie's ghost in the square. They walk on that night, ye ken?

Edited September 5, 2016 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Add me to the group that doesn't want any and I mean any sort of explanation or fucking insulting redemtion storyline of that heinous, murdering, raping piece of shit motherfucker. In my mind, Jamie killed that sadistic piece of shit, and the loss of blood and seeing those he loved and fought with, die on the moor gave him the traumatic amnesia. This murdering piece of raping filth has taken more than enough from Jamie.  And I don't give any, one, two, gazillion FUCKS about him. He can stay dead. Also in my head, Jamie sliced him down for GOOD, and that piece of raping, murdering shit, just happened to fall down on Jamie, after Jamie fell.

That said, I like Tobias Menzies, and if Moore feels the need to bring him back, he can be Frank, as they show us how much he loved Bree and prepared her, if you will. In flashbacks less than five minutes, thankyeverramooch.

[j5cochran]

My guess on the unknown events on Culloden Moor is based on the death of Murtagh.  I know that the books say that Jamie remembers finding a dying Murtagh on the battlefield, and that Murtagh says "Dinna be afraid, a bhalaich. It doesna hurt a bit to die."

Maybe Murtagh saves Jamie from a sneak attack by Randall, but is mortally wounded by Randall. Then Jamie goes all Celtic berserker on Randall, killing him and being direly wounded himself.  

Possible?

[Glaze Crazy]

In one of the books there is a convo between Jamie and Claire where he tells her she will go back through the stones at some point. He describes that he's seen (dreamed of) her there, brushing her hair and cursing her tangled curls sitting at a desk, holding something. He assumes it's a future vision. Of course he wouldn't have any reference to what exactly "the future" is in terms of seeing her in a lighted window.  So, there's that.....***

Also, Brianna tells Roger about a dream she has while she's searching for info on Claire in the Carribean. That she saw and spoke to Jamie in a crop field in front of a fire. It's the same scene in DiA where Claire is with Ishmael and the mad girl is channeling the spirits.

***Edit: since I can't stand not citing specifics, I went looking for it. (thank you Kindle and being able to swipe through several books on one device, LOL) It's in A Breath of Snow and Ashes, Chapter 68. Jamie has lit the clock candle and was contemplating the remaining gemstones. It's not specifically Claire brushing her hair, like you would think the ghost in Outlander would have seen. He sees her sitting at a desk with something in her hand, maybe writing, and he makes note of the light not coming from candles or firelight but from (he assumes) electricity. She asks how old she was in his dream, he doesn't know but says he didn't notice if she had grey/white hair, it was just her. I always just took it that this was the ghost in Inverness memory, from Jamie's POV. Since Frank says that what he saw from the street below just before the lights went out in the storm, only Frank mentions she was brushing her tangled hair, which is where I got that description, I guess.

Sometimes I think I should know this story backwards and forwards, for as much as I visit it. It's only served to jumble my trying to connect the dots of all the (presumed) Easter eggs. I guess there's still hope for me as a normal human. ;-)

Edited September 6, 2016 by Glaze Crazy
Obsessive need to be specific.

[Petunia846]

11 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I think sleeping Bree reaches out to and communicates with Jamie & Claire via the drugged-up crazy lady in Jamaica because she shares the astral-projection gene with Jamie. 

 

5 hours ago, Glaze Crazy said:

Also, Brianna tells Roger about a dream she has while she's searching for info on Claire in the Carribean. That she saw and spoke to Jamie in a crop field in front of a fire. It's the same scene in DiA where Claire is with Ishmael and the mad girl is channeling the spirits.

Wow! I totally missed that. I remember the bit with the lady in the field in Jamaica in general (I remember being completely confused...) but I totally missed any connection to Bree.

[DittyDotDot]

7 hours ago, Glaze Crazy said:

In one of the books there is a convo between Jamie and Claire where he tells her she will go back through the stones at some point. He describes that he's seen (dreamed of) her there, brushing her hair and cursing her tangled curls sitting at a desk, holding something. He assumes it's a future vision. Of course he wouldn't have any reference to what exactly "the future" is in terms of seeing her in a lighted window.  So, there's that.....

Isn't there also a scene in Voyager when Jamie is living in the cave where he has a dream (or a vision) of Claire in the future as well? I'm with you that Jamie has some sort of special power that he passed on to Bree and her kids. After Bree and Roger go back through the stones with the bairns, he has a couple dreams of them at Lallybroch. I remember him describing a telephone to Claire. 

1 hour ago, Petunia846 said:

 

Wow! I totally missed that. I remember the bit with the lady in the field in Jamaica in general (I remember being completely confused...) but I totally missed any connection to Bree.

Yeah, Bree appeared to Jamie and Claire through the crazy woman and warned Jamie about some upcoming danger. 

[WatchrTina]

I'm re-reading Voyager (and if you haven't read it STOP READING THIS RIGHT NOW) and last night I got to the scene at Lallybroch when Laoghaire's daughter storms into the room catching Jamie & Claire in a most intimate act and demands "Daddy!  Who is that woman?"  You know the shit-storm that follows.  By the time I stopped reading Jamie had told Claire the whole story of how he came to marry Laoghaire (telling the tale while lying by the fire, full of penicillin, recovering from being shot.) 

I do not envy the writers having to translate this bit for the screen.  

1. When Claire declares she is leaving and Jenny says "I think that's for the best" I just HATE Jenny.  Also when we find out that it was she who sent one of her daughters to alert Laoghaire that Jamie was back and that Claire was with him.  Ooooh I'm hating Jenny right now.  I did not recall that -- I did not recall my hating her.  Maybe there is a reconciliation scene coming that made me get over it but right now, I am entirely TeamClaire and and am just DONE with Jenny.
2. When you are reading a book from the point of view of Claire there is no doubt that during that super-rough fight/foreplay scene (the one Jenny breaks up with a pan of cold water) that Claire is an active participant, giving as soon has she gets, grateful for the excuse to vent her rage with scratching and biting amid in response to Jamie's aggressive kissing and groping.  She notes in the midst of her anger that both she and Jamie are REALLY "roused" (and I assume she meant turned on.)  OMG those poor writers.  How are they going to portray that for 21st century sensibilities?  It's going to look like a sexual assault by Jamie (heck that's what BookJenny actually thinks is happening.)  Good luck to them with THAT scene.  
3. Heroic Jamie -- the guy who comes though all the trials of the first 3-4 episodes (Culloden, life in the cave, Ardsmuir Prison, being a groom/political prisoner at Helwater) -- is now revealed in this episode to be not so perfect after all.  That lie of omission (not telling Claire about Laoghaire) is HUGE.  His tender confession of love to what he thinks is a fever dream of Claire followed by shock, anger, and a certain amount of self-pity (he's given up and is waiting to die, ya ken) when he realizes that she's really comes back -- well that's a side of him we haven't seen before.  I suspect Sam can't wait to play that because being practically perfect in every way is boring.  But I sure hope the writers and Sam are able the walk the fine line of making us sympathize with his situation and not be dismayed by his behavior.  This episode is definitely not Jamie's finest hour. 
4. Claire is also an idiot.  Even though I am totally TeamClaire during this shit-storm I kind of hate her for getting on the horse that Jenny offers her.  Okay later Diana tells us that she rode slow and was half-expecting Jamie to come after her even though she was sure NOTHING he could say would make her change her mind.  Oh for fuck's sake!  The Claire that runs off at that point is NOT a Claire I'm on board with.  I don't recall this being in the book but I'd rather like it if Jamie and Claire have a talk about not having lies of omission between them in future and her not running off when Jamie pisses her off in future (as WILL happen because, you know, they're HUMAN).  Of course William's existence is a huge, glaring, lie of omission so if Jamie actually makes that promise we'll know he's full of shit.  Then again, both William (and Laoghaire) fall into that "secrets, not lies" loophole -- maybe they'll finally have the "secrets, not lies" conversation we missed out on in season 1.  OMG this is going to be so hard to write/shoot.  I expect a huge online kerfuffle will follow, no matter what.
5. So . . . do you think TVClaire will acknowledge that Jamie does not know about Laoghaire's role in Claire's arrest for witchcraft?  Or does TVJamie know and marry her anyway because of the "forgiveness" that he (and Claire?) gave her back in "The Fox's Lair"?  Ugh. I'm really interested to see how they are going to pull this one off.

Edited September 6, 2016 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

6 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

When Claire declares she is leaving and Jenny says "I think that's for the best" I just HATE Jenny.  Also when we find out that it was she who sent one of her daughters to alert Laoghaire that Jamie was back and that Claire was with him.  Ooooh I'm hating Jenny right now.  I did not recall that -- I did not recall my hating her.  Maybe there is a reconciliation scene coming that made me get over it but right now, I am entirely TeamClaire and and am just DONE with Jenny.

There is a scene between Claire and Jenny later where Jenny explains herself. While not proud of Jenny for sticking her nose in where it didn't belong, I understood where she was coming from. From Jenny's perspective, Claire abandoned her brother and her family and now shows up when they seem to finally have picked the pieces back up. Plus, I'm sure Jenny thinks of Claire as a disruptive force in Jamie's life even though I think Jamie is his own destructive force too. 

14 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Claire is also an idiot.  Even though I am totally TeamClaire during this shit-storm I kind of hate her for getting on the horse that Jenny offers her.  Okay later Diana tells us that she rode slow and was half-expecting Jamie to come after her even though she was sure NOTHING he could say would make her change her mind.  Oh for fuck's sake!  The Claire that runs off at that point is NOT a Claire I'm on board with.

I think I was actually more disappointed in Claire than Jenny here. I mean, I get it all of her worst fears have just come true and all that, but it is irksome she can't get control of herself long enough to give Jamie a chance to explain before she rides off in a huff? And Jamie should've known this was going to come back to bite him in the ass and just fessed up to Claire before they got to Lallybroch. TBH, the only person I'm not disappointed in here is wee Ian. 

However, I hope the show keeps the sexual fighting and I think it can be easily translated to screen without looking like Jamie is assaulting Claire. I think it thematically hearkens back to how their wedding and the days after were almost a fantasy until it came crashing violently down on them. Now they can move forward and build lives together more honestly. That doesn't mean they don't still have some secrets, just that they now know where each other stands and can build on that.

29 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

So . . . do you think TVClaire will acknowledge that Jamie does not know about Laoghaire's role in Claire's arrest for witchcraft?  Or does TVJamie know and marry her anyway because of the "forgiveness" that he (and Claire?) gave her back in "The Fox's Lair"?  Ugh. I'm really interested to see how they are going to pull this one off.

I'm not sure it actually changes much for Jamie to know Laoghaire's role in the witch trial since she was very young at the time and I'm sure Jamie thinks back on it as a youthful mistake. Unfortunately, I don't think Loaghaire really thinks back on it as a mistake and would probably do the same thing all over again. But, I'd bet Jamie doesn't realize this until after they're married.

[Summer]

34 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

There is a scene between Claire and Jenny later where Jenny explains herself. While not proud of Jenny for sticking her nose in where it didn't belong, I understood where she was coming from. From Jenny's perspective, Claire abandoned her brother and her family and now shows up when they seem to finally have picked the pieces back up. Plus, I'm sure Jenny thinks of Claire as a disruptive force in Jamie's life even though I think Jamie is his own destructive force too. 

Just read this very chapter last night and also Jenny admits that she is afraid Claire will take Jamie away again, so her motivation was also fear about losing Jamie so I gave her a pass.  And Claire understands and forgives her. 

Two scenes I hope they DO keep in the show is when Ned Gowan comes to the house to help  Jamie end his marriage to Leery (don't have the mental capacity today to spell it correctly) and when Ned and Claire walk into the living room one of the little girls (Jenny and Ian's grandchild)  has braided Jamie's hair complete with bows, how freaking cute would that be to see onscreen?

Also, when they are all on the first ship to rescue Young Ian, Mr. Willougby has performed acupuncture on a very seasick Jamie and he comes walking out on deck with all the needles sticking out of him, ha!  Actually a lot of the exchange between Claire and Jamie while he is severely seasick is pretty humorous, even though an episode of Jamie constantly vomiting would no be verra pleasant, I hope they keep some of that banter in the show...

Edited September 6, 2016 by Summer

[DittyDotDot]

5 minutes ago, Summer said:

Also, when they are all on the first ship to rescue Young Ian, Mr. Willougby has performed acupuncture on a very seasick Jamie and he comes walking out on deck with all the needles sticking out of him, ha!  Actually a lot of the exchange between Claire and Jamie while he is severely seasick is pretty humorous, even though an episode of Jamie constantly vomiting would no be verra pleasant, I hope they keep some of that banter in the show...

I so wonder if Jamie will be seasick like in the books? In the show, so far, they haven't mentioned his seasickness, right?

[nodorothyparker]

There's just so much idiocy in all of those scenes that I find myself kind of just going with it.  I mean, in one of Claire's first scenes back in the past she says something about how if she can't find Jamie in Edinburgh right away she'll just go to Lollybroch and ask.  Seriously.  She has no plan for how she's going to address her 20-year absence beyond that.  And even after they're reunited, she gives no serious consideration to how they're going to explain it to everyone.  Jamie can figure it out.  Yet she's the partner in this who made the choice to go back and had time to put all her affairs in order first.  And after she gets there and sees Jamie again, she never just comes out and asks.  She's looking around for clues and side-eyeing every woman he seems at all familiar with but for supposedly being such a direct person, never just asks "Are there any entanglements from the last 20 years I should maybe know about to avoid any ugly or awkward scenes with the family that's now going to think I maybe abandoned you when things went to shit?"

Jamie of course does handle it all badly, and I can very well imagine the show playing this for comedy the same way they handled the physical stuff for the strapping or trying to explain the bite marks from the French brothel.  I do sort of get it that he was caught completely off guard when Claire showed up and was scrambling to figure out all the details amid the French farce and the smuggling, etc.,  and I do sort of buy his explanation he was trying to get her some distance away so she couldn't so easily take off on him when he told her since that is in fact exactly what she tried to do.  But I think the books tell us it's something like a four-day ride to Lollybroch so he clearly did have time to figure out how to handle it better than letting her walk into what she walked into.

Jenny almost feels like a red herring to me in these chapters because it feels like we're supposed to be distracted by being mad at her meddling (Which yes, the Fraser siblings have definite boundary issues with each other but I kind of get this too because Jenny was the one left to pick up all the pieces after Claire disappeared.) instead of the fact that neither Claire nor Jamie are coming off especially well and that those 20 years apart can't just be glossed over for an immediate happily ever after.

Edited September 6, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[DittyDotDot]

36 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

She's looking around for clues and side-eyeing every woman he seems at all familiar with but for supposedly being such a direct person, never just asks "Are there any entanglements from the last 20 years I should maybe know about to avoid any ugly or awkward scenes with the family that's now going to think I maybe abandoned you when things went to shit?"

I might not be remembering this right, but doesn't Claire out-and-out ask Jamie if he has some entanglements and Jamie says no when they're still in Edinburgh. I was thinking there was a scene in a pub Jamie takes Claire to after the whorehouse incidents?

But yeah, I found most of the drama surrounding these scenes to be rather silly.

[nodorothyparker]

She hedges all around it but never just comes out and asks.  About the closest she ever comes is when they talking in the brothel and he asks her why she came back and she responds with "Are you trying to tell me you don't want me to stay? .... I mean, I know you'll have a life now ... maybe you have ... other ties."  Either Jamie misses what she's getting at or doesn't take the bait because he immediately launches into his speech about burning for her for 20 years and the whole subject is forgotten.  

There's a couple of points where if you know what to look for it's obvious Jamie isn't telling her something or is trying to change the subject but they either completely blow past Claire or she immediately gets distracted.  They spend most of that time in Edinburgh when they're not chasing around convincing each other that whatever happened in that 20-year separation doesn't matter now that they're back together.

[AD55]

2 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I'm re-reading Voyager (and if you haven't read it STOP READING THIS RIGHT NOW) and last night I got to the scene at Lallybroch when Laoghaire's daughter storms into the room catching Jamie & Claire in a most intimate act and demands "Daddy!  Who is that woman?"  You know the shit-storm that follows.  By the time I stopped reading Jamie had told Claire the whole story of how he came to marry Laoghaire (telling the tale while lying by the fire, full of penicillin, recovering from being shot.) 

 

 

 

I hate everything about this episode and have always chalked it up to lazy plotting on Diana's part. Having characters withhold information for stupid reasons is a common trope of  soap operas and romance novels when the writer wants to create drama but is too lazy to be bothered coming up with character-driven conflict. Diana does a fair amount of this. Every single person except Laoghaire (sp?) behaves out of character in that episode It's a shame because I welcome scenes where Jamie is shown to have feet of clay, but his flaws should be believable aspects of who he is.

I hope they don't bother with the seasickness. There's so much going on in that novel (as others have said, there's a lot of chaff that I think the writers will get rid of) that I don't want them to to shortchange important episodes (I'm looking at you, Lord John.) in favor of things that are not central to the story. That's not to say that I don't welcome scenes that are humorous and fun. I just think they'll need to insert humor into scenes that can't be cut. Hopefully, they will. The scene in the print shop could be hilarious as well as moving. I can't wait to see Sam pass out.

[WatchrTina]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

TBH, the only person I'm not disappointed in here is wee Ian. 

Oh yes!  Wee Ian.  I had completely forgotten that he disobeyed both Jamie and his parents to chase after Claire.

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

She's looking around for clues and side-eyeing every woman he seems at all familiar with but for supposedly being such a direct person, never just asks "Are there any entanglements from the last 20 years I should maybe know about to avoid any ugly or awkward scenes with the family that's now going to think I maybe abandoned you when things went to shit?"

I laughed out loud at this.  Thank you.

I've said before that I think this whole shit-storm at Lallybroch was just a way to make it plausible that no one actually got around to asking the question:  "Hey Claire, if you've been in France all this time with family, why didn't you ever contact Jared in Paris?  You know his address because YOU LIVED IN HIS HOUSE."  And no one ever asks the question:  "Hey Jamie, you led us to believe Claire was dead.  If you sent her to her family in France why would you think she was dead?"  Actually Jamie could probably make up a good lie to answer the second question and I guess Claire could say -- "Jamie told me he intended to die at Culloden, and I believed him and after that  I could not bear to reach out to you."  But they never have to work out a plausible response because everyone is running around bursting into bedrooms and throwing crockery and riding off in a huff and getting shot (French farce, round 2.)

How do you say "French Farce at sea" in French?  That's what's coming up next.  Mon dieu!

Edited September 6, 2016 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

Or mention that Claire was supposedly living in France raising Jamie's child.  Because had anyone thought that was the case, Brianna showing up at Lollybroch wouldn't have been the huuuuge dramatic revelation that it was.

[Clawdette]

Claire also references Jamie's seasickness in Episode 1:16 when they are on the ship waiting to cast off.  She says something along the lines of Murtagh has assured me that once we get underway you won't be able to function.  I think they need to bring it up again because it surfaces throughout the books.  The scene with Jamie as a pin cushion would be a treat.

[lianau]

4 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

There is a scene between Claire and Jenny later where Jenny explains herself. While not proud of Jenny for sticking her nose in where it didn't belong, I understood where she was coming from. From Jenny's perspective, Claire abandoned her brother and her family and now shows up when they seem to finally have picked the pieces back up. Plus, I'm sure Jenny thinks of Claire as a disruptive force in Jamie's life even though I think Jamie is his own destructive force too. 

 

Not only did Claire abandoned Jamie but she shows up looking well fed and healthy . So for Jenny it had to look like she just  forgot all about them and Jamie  and "partied" her way through France without ever knocking on Jared's door or sending them a letter to let them know she was alive .

As to their post reunion fuck up . They were both pretty insecure about it . Claire was questioning her looks , afraid Jamie might not choose her if he had to make a choice somewhere . Jamie feared Claire would leave again after finding out that Jamie after Culloden is different from the man she had known .  So they ended up avoiding every sensitive topic all together until they had to talk about it . Call it collective head in sand syndrome .

[WatchrTina]

8 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Or mention that Claire was supposedly living in France raising Jamie's child.  Because had anyone thought that was the case, Brianna showing up at Lollybroch wouldn't have been the huuuuge dramatic revelation that it was.

Weel, I actually think it makes sense that they never mention Brianna because they sincerely believe that they will never see her again and if they admitted to having a daughter living in "France" that opens up a whole other line of questions along the lines of:

• where is she and
• can I write to her and
• let's invite her to visit etc.  

Keeping THAT secret from the family actually makes sense.  Jamie never telling anyone about William also makes sense.  Jamie not getting around to telling Claire about Laoghaire during the four-day ride to Lallybroch -- that made no sense.

Edited September 7, 2016 by WatchrTina

[morgan]

I agree Grashka. It must have felt so surreal to both of them, their reunion. Claire at least had some time to prepare and wrap her mind around it, Jamie was slammed into it.  It must have felt very much like a bubble that you want to hold and not burst.

[Summer]

Almost finished with Voyager and I have to say I'm ok with the whacko story lines, but I get what everyone is saying about SO much, uh, adventure crammed in!

Quick question thats been bugging me about the pronunciation of "Marsali"  In my mind I was pronouncing it  (i'll do my best to type it out phonetically) "Mar-saul-lee"  But at her and Fergus's wedding DG made a point about the priests pronouncing it "Marsuh-lie", or at least that's how I read it.

Thoughts?  

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, Summer said:

Almost finished with Voyager and I have to say I'm ok with the whacko story lines, but I get what everyone is saying about SO much, uh, adventure crammed in!

Quick question thats been bugging me about the pronunciation of "Marsali"  In my mind I was pronouncing it  (i'll do my best to type it out phonetically) "Mar-saul-lee"  But at her and Fergus's wedding DG made a point about the priests pronouncing it "Marsuh-lie", or at least that's how I read it.

Thoughts?  

Well, I always heard it in my head as you did at first. Some quick googling gave me this: https://www.howtopronounce.com/marsali/. However, a lot of these Scottish names rarely are pronounced how I would think, so I'm not sure.

[Summer]

17 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, I always heard it in my head as you did at first. Some quick googling gave me this: https://www.howtopronounce.com/marsali/. However, a lot of these Scottish names rarely are pronounced how I would think, so I'm not sure.

Just did a quick google search and found several different ways to say it but one seemed to be more common which isn't either of the ways I was thinking:  "MAR suh lee"  with emphasis on the MAR.  That's actually a very pretty pronunciation.  Maybe that is how the priest pronounced it, I can't remember.   

Edited September 13, 2016 by Summer

[toolazy]

I started out the the booking thinking it was mar-SAL-ee.  (For whatever reason, I usually default to having the emphasis on the second syllable.)  But I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be MAR-suh-lee.