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

[WatchrTina]

As much as I love the young actor they cast as Willie, he presents a bit of a problem.  Book Willie is MUCH younger.  He's only 4 or 5 (I think) when Jamie leaves.  His baby fat is just starting to fade and his father's features are just becoming apparent. As a result, when teenaged William "meets" James Fraser in a later book, he does not recognize him as MacKenzie-the-groom.  I was contemplating how nice it would be if they were able to use the same actor from episode 304 as young-adult William when John brings him to visit Jamie in book 4 (it is book 4, right?)  My recollection is that William is 13 or 14 when that episode happens.  The young actor who played Willie was 11 when those scenes were filmed.  So he'd be a bit young but it could still work.  But now I think it would be implausible for adolescent William to fail to recognize "Mac" the groom he loved as a child if William is played by the same actor as young Willie in ep 304.  They're going to need to re-cast so that we get a sense of the passage of time and can accept William not making the connection.

Am I the only one who thought Willie looked a lot younger than 11?  

[Petunia846]

That kid was 11?! I was guessing 6ish. I don't think most people are going to know that the actor was 11 though, so I don't think there will be a believability problem with remembering Jamie. It's not about how old someone is, it's how much time and "life" has passed in between. There are people I knew even as a teen that I wouldn't recognize now, but my brother swears he remembers things clearly from when he was even a toddler. Who knows. Plus Jamie will also have aged and look a bit different. Plus context helps a lot in remembering people. If William ran across Jamie years later in the stables at Helwater, that might click, but some random guy that John is visiting in the wilds of NC...I can see how that might not click with him as the same person he knew as a little kid.

Ultimately I would think it will depend on that kid's development. If he suddenly goes through puberty and starts to shoot up, they could maybe stick with him. But if he's a late bloomer, probably not. I think they'll try to find someone who can play teen William and young adult William later on. When does William show up again after the visit to the ridge?

[nodorothyparker]

Book William was 6 when Jamie left.  Hence, his later comment that he "had the making of him until he was 6."  Meeting an adult half a lifetime later on an entirely different continent with an entirely different name, it's not going to register with a kid that they they knew him before without a fair bit of prompting.  My kids have failed to recognize former teachers even a year or two afterward when we ran into them in the community without me reminding them who they were.  That's why Jamie chided himself during that visit in DOA for slipping and talking about going fishing in England.  He had taken Willie fishing around Helwater.

I'm having a hard time buying that that kid actor is 11.  If they say so, sure, whatever.  But I have an 11-year-old boy and I know how kids his age look and act and that kid doesn't look anything like it.

After the Ridge, William next shows up at the end of Snow and Ashes when he and Lord John run into Brianna and Roger.  From there, it's random encounters with first Ian and then Jamie on opposite sides of the revolution.

[WatchrTina]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

I have an 11-year-old boy and I know how kids his age look and act and that kid doesn't look anything like it.

That's what I thought too but since I don't have kids I presumed I was just a bad judge.  I can't recall where I heard he was 11.  Maybe I mis-heard.

4 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

When does William show up again after the visit to the ridge?

If my memory is correct we don't see William again until the scene just before Brianna & Roger go back through the stones.  She runs into John and William at the docks and knows immediately that William is Jamie's "get" because the resemblance is so strong.  She later insists on having an opportunity to speak with him (presumably the last time she'll ever speak to her only sibling) and when that happens, John and Jamie are in a hotel room above, watching the meeting through a window.  Jamie doesn't dare face the now-adult William because he fears William (like Brianna) will know the truth the moment he looks Jamie in the face.  Jamie and William pass like ships in the night during the Revolutionary war.  Jamie shoots William's hat off at one point and then is sick with horror at the realization that he nearly killed his own son.  Jamie is later given custody of the body of a distant kinsman -- a man William knows and respects and grieves for.  William is kneeling beside the body when Jamie comes in the room but William never looks up and so does not see  Jamie (though a casual observer in that room notices the resemblance between the two men.)  Grown-up William doesn't get a clear look at Jamie until that wonderful scene on the stair landing in John's house (Claire reeling from the news that Jamie is alive, Jamie holding John "hostage" in order to make his escape) when William sees him, figures things out and asks "Who am I?" and Jamie reprises the "stinking papist" line.  <sigh>  Good times.  I hope we get there.

Edited October 4, 2017 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

I think it was one of the Entertainment Weekly articles someone posted where they mentioned the kid being 11.  I can't find anything else on the young actor to verify or not because to me he looked maybe 7 or 8 at best.

[AD55]

Like Petunia846 and nodorothyparker, I assumed the kid playing Willie was no older than 6. I was struck at how effective he was, as ordinarily I cringe in dread when kids appear on screen. I don't think people will have any problem believing that he doesn't recognize Jamie, whom he knew under a different name in a different country, the next time he sees him.

[toolazy]

I Googled it - it is EW that says the actor is 11.  That's incredibly hard to believe.  

[thesparkinside]

AD55, you make very good points. I have found Claire's side of the story to not be very compelling, and I wasn't able to put my finger on why. I think you hit the nail on the head, so to speak. It's because Claire has no new conflict. It's all about Jamie being gone, and how that interferes with her 20th-century marriage, and that's the same conflict as was introduced in the last episode of season 2, and it's still ongoing. Compare that to Jamie, who's hiding in a cave and surviving in prison and getting blackmailed. All kinds of highjinks. The material is there in the book for them to give Claire more to do, but they've focused on her and Frank. To address the underlying implication, it is sexist, but it's also just boring storytelling. It's executed pretty well, and I don't think it's God-awful, but it isn't all that interesting.

I'm wondering about next episode. On Claire's end, she'll go back to Boston and then will be brought back to Scotland when more info is uncovered. But on Jamie's side, what will we see? We're almost up to the "present" in his storyline. Will we see the events with Loughaire (spp?) in "real-time" (in the book we learn about it at the same time as Claire)? Will we see the print shop before Claire arrives there? Will older Fergus be introduced, or will they save that for when Claire is reintroduced to him? I'm curious to see what'll happen. I'm assuming here that she'll travel through the stones at the very end of the episode

[FnkyChkn34]

Count me in with the group that doesn't buy that the actor is 11.  Did EW mishear, and he's actually 7?

[melody16]

As much as I am enjoying Jamie this season, I kind of hope he isn't featured in 3x5 at all.  It will make Claire finding him more exciting.  

[theschnauzers]

17 minutes ago, melody16 said:

As much as I am enjoying Jamie this season, I kind of hope he isn't featured in 3x5 at all.  It will make Claire finding him more exciting.  

Except that we have to get Jamie to Edinburgh also with Fergus to open the print shop. Ron has said we’re getting the reunion from both points of view.

[AD55]

32 minutes ago, thesparkinside said:

I'm wondering about next episode. On Claire's end, she'll go back to Boston and then will be brought back to Scotland when more info is uncovered. But on Jamie's side, what will we see? We're almost up to the "present" in his storyline. Will we see the events with Loughaire (spp?) in "real-time" (in the book we learn about it at the same time as Claire)? Will we see the print shop before Claire arrives there? Will older Fergus be introduced, or will they save that for when Claire is reintroduced to him? I'm curious to see what'll happen. I'm assuming here that she'll travel through the stones at the very end of the episode

I really hope they follow the book and return to Claire's point of view. It's so shocking when "I can't spell her name" shows up. If the showrunners mess with that, it will continue to be the Jamie show. It will also be a missed opportunity to shock the heck out of folks who haven't read the book.

I want to see scenes with Claire and Joe/Claire and Bree, maybe even including the search for a Gunny Sacks dress, which would inject a bit of humor (I don't think that's going to happen based on the advance photo of Claire standing in front of the print shop). I agree with you that the episode will end with Claire going through the stones, with the last frame being her standing in front of the print shop.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well I, for one, do not mind at all, that this season thus far has been Jamie heavy, if ye wull. Because Voyager is mainly his story and what has happened to him since Culloden, and expands his characterization, so we get tae see how he becomes this "King of All Men" who will be the leader that all those Scots who immigrated to the Colonies look up to. Sam is doing a FANFUCKINGTASTIC Job of playing Jamie and showing the audience his losses, pain, grief, and growth. And if Claire has to "suffer" for a bit until they are reunited, I am FINE with it.

[AD55]

3 minutes ago, theschnauzers said:

Except that we have to get Jamie to Edinburgh also with Fergus to open the print shop. Ron has said we’re getting the reunion from both points of view.

My memory of the books is hazy, but I didn't think that was in the book. My recollection, which is probably wrong, is that the Scoobies locate Jamie in Edinburgh and that the first we see of the print shop is when Claire arrives.

But if Ron says we're seeing it from both points of view, that puts my theory to rest.

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 minutes ago, Grashka said:

Apparently, in "Outlander" fandom leaving two words on a blank page is enough to create a shitstorm LOL

@Grashka, if I were able to make gifs work on this site, I'd repost the one you posted last week, from Lion King, I believe with the caption: "Ohhh the DRAMAAAAA!!!"

???????????????

Edited October 4, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[melody16]

1 hour ago, theschnauzers said:

Except that we have to get Jamie to Edinburgh also with Fergus to open the print shop. Ron has said we’re getting the reunion from both points of view.

It's possible that could feature in 3x06 though.  For example, 3x05 ends with Claire opening the door to the Printshop and then 3x06 starts with a flashback of Jamie getting established as a printer.  I feel like shows do that a lot with cliffhanger episodes (very annoying).  

[melody16]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well I, for one, do not mind at all, that this season thus far has been Jamie heavy, if ye wull. Because Voyager is mainly his story and what has happened to him since Culloden, and expands his characterization, so we get tae see how he becomes this "King of All Men" who will be the leader that all those Scots who immigrated to the Colonies look up to. Sam is doing a FANFUCKINGTASTIC Job of playing Jamie and showing the audience his losses, pain, grief, and growth. And if Claire has to "suffer" for a bit until they are reunited, I am FINE with it.

Oh I completely agree. I am of the opinion that Jamie's characterization was shafted in the first two seasons (but that's a whole different can of worms).  It was great to see Jamie (and Sam) shine this season.  But at this point I am missing Claire and in the books, this part of the Voyager story is really her story.   

[morgan]

21 minutes ago, melody16 said:

It's possible that could feature in 3x06 though.  For example, 3x05 ends with Claire opening the door to the Printshop and then 3x06 starts with a flashback of Jamie getting established as a printer.  I feel like shows do that a lot with cliffhanger episodes (very annoying).  

Oh man I think you are right.  I hadn't even thought of this but now that you said it, I expect this to happen.

Although at the same time, they only have so many episodes and we know Ron will milk the boat stuff for all it is worth so time is a ticking with all that is left to do in Scotland

[GHScorpiosRule]

One of the things I'm especially looking forward to, okay, two, is one: Wee Ian thinking Claire is a "hoor" and then learning who she is and immediately referring to her as "Auntie Clairrre!" and Claire shooting Jamie, acting like a teenager, expecting him to chase her, which he would have, if his wound hadn't been so grievous, which led to Claire healing him. NOT looking forward to any scenes with the hosebeast.

[melody16]

At least dealing with L'heery means that we meet Marsali!  Glass half full????

[Petunia846]

3 hours ago, thesparkinside said:

AD55, you make very good points. I have found Claire's side of the story to not be very compelling, and I wasn't able to put my finger on why. I think you hit the nail on the head, so to speak. It's because Claire has no new conflict. It's all about Jamie being gone, and how that interferes with her 20th-century marriage, and that's the same conflict as was introduced in the last episode of season 2, and it's still ongoing. Compare that to Jamie, who's hiding in a cave and surviving in prison and getting blackmailed. All kinds of highjinks. The material is there in the book for them to give Claire more to do, but they've focused on her and Frank. To address the underlying implication, it is sexist, but it's also just boring storytelling. It's executed pretty well, and I don't think it's God-awful, but it isn't all that interesting.

Yeah, it's so silly, because Claire has all kinds of challenges and growth that she went through, but they're not showing it because it didn't involve Frank. Instead of focusing on that we could have seen more of her studying in med school, her coming to grips with not being around much for Bree, her dealing with sexism at work, and her falling in love with the job and working with patients. *sigh*

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well I, for one, do not mind at all, that this season thus far has been Jamie heavy, if ye wull. Because Voyager is mainly his story and what has happened to him since Culloden, and expands his characterization, so we get tae see how he becomes this "King of All Men" who will be the leader that all those Scots who immigrated to the Colonies look up to. Sam is doing a FANFUCKINGTASTIC Job of playing Jamie and showing the audience his losses, pain, grief, and growth. And if Claire has to "suffer" for a bit until they are reunited, I am FINE with it.

It's not the amount of Jamie that's the problem, it's the fact that the time we spent with Claire didn't develop her character the way Jamie's times did. It's a quality, not quantity, issue. I wouldn't want to lose a second of Sam's storylines either. They've been great.

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

One of the things I'm especially looking forward to, okay, two, is one: Wee Ian thinking Claire is a "hoor" and then learning who she is and immediately referring to her as "Auntie Clairrre!" and Claire shooting Jamie, acting like a teenager, expecting him to chase her, which he would have, if his wound hadn't been so grievous, which led to Claire healing him. NOT looking forward to any scenes with the hosebeast.

Wait... Claire shot him?  I thought Leoghaire shot him?  Because hadn't Claire already run away, and it's Ian who has to go track her down to bring her back?

Also, I don't think that we need to see Jamie and Fergus establish themselves in Edinburgh.  I don't recall any of that setup from the books.  Did I miss it?

[GHScorpiosRule]

12 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Wait... Claire shot him?  I thought Leoghaire shot him?

Oh yeah! But I think Claire also shot him...later? I've only read the buiks once and in a marathon, so sometimes I get the details mixed up!

[FnkyChkn34]

30 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Oh yeah! But I think Claire also shot him...later? I've only read the buiks once and in a marathon, so sometimes I get the details mixed up!

I've only read them once myself, and it was after season 1, so I could be mistaken as well.  (And I stopped on book 5.)  But... I didn't think Claire shot him. ;-)  

[thesparkinside]

50 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Wait... Claire shot him?  I thought Leoghaire shot him?  Because hadn't Claire already run away, and it's Ian who has to go track her down to bring her back?

Also, I don't think that we need to see Jamie and Fergus establish themselves in Edinburgh.  I don't recall any of that setup from the books.  Did I miss it?

 

I'm pretty sure it's L who shoots Jamie in a fit of anger when she learns Claire is back.

I don't need to see Jamie and Fergus getting established in Edinburgh, but I'm wondering what they'll do with Jamie. It looks like Claire will go through the stones at the very end of the next episode. Will we stay with her the whole episode? I'm assuming not. Which leaves us two options, really: Jenny convincing Jamie to marry L (I cannot spell her name to save my life) or Jamie and Fergus getting started in Edinburgh, Or both? In the book, we don't see those things in "real time"; Claire learns about them when she reunited with Jamie.

[lianau]

1 hour ago, melody16 said:

At least dealing with L'heery means that we meet Marsali!  Glass half full????

I've been thinking about Marsali and her age again and I really wished they hadn't aged her up to 18 . I know 15 is young to be married to  30 year old Fergus and would probably get some bad reactions but Marsali sees Jamie as her father figure and Laoghaire and Jamie weren't married that long . A 16 /17 year old wouldn't go from mom's new husband to papa the way a 13 year old would .

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, thesparkinside said:

Jenny convincing Jamie to marry L (I cannot spell her name to save my life)

Laoghaire; think of it as "spelled like Log with an a, and hair ending in e!" But she and always wull be hosebeast for me.

[Petunia846]

I hope they don't show the set up in Edinburgh before hand, because I want to be as surprised and shocked and amazed when she first meets adult Fergus!

[nodorothyparker]

Instead of having various characters tell us about it after the fact, they could very easily throw in a scene or two of Jamie's homecoming where Fergus and the rest of the kids are grown and don't know him anymore to demonstrate just how out of place and not "home" home is for him now.  It's something I always thought would have gone a long way in establishing just how very much at loose ends Jamie was that that marriage even could have taken place or that he would have packed up again and moved on to Edinburgh so soon after finally being free to come home.

The whole Laoghaire mess really needs to be done as is to get the full effect. 

[morgan]

I actually wonder if the next episode will exclude Jamie altogether and just show the search for him.  Or maybe I hope that is what it will be. I'd like to see more of Roger and Joe  and Bree before we say goodbye to them for the season.  Although I suppose flashbacks could still happen.  

I'd like to see/discover what Jamie has been  up to post Helwater  along with Claire, so some of it is a "surprise."

[theschnauzers]

I expect Joe to be around for a bit after Claire reunites with Jamie, as Bree will still be in the 20th century.

[FnkyChkn34]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Laoghaire; think of it as "spelled like Log with an a, and hair ending in e!" But she and always wull be hosebeast for me.

Since a lot of people call her Leg Hair, I always confuse the first few vowels.

[toolazy]

11 hours ago, Grashka said:

 Apparently, in "Outlander" fandom leaving two words on a blank page is enough to create a shitstorm LOL

 

A certain segment of Outlander fandom is loony. 

[DittyDotDot]

16 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

Yeah, it's so silly, because Claire has all kinds of challenges and growth that she went through, but they're not showing it because it didn't involve Frank. Instead of focusing on that we could have seen more of her studying in med school, her coming to grips with not being around much for Bree, her dealing with sexism at work, and her falling in love with the job and working with patients. *sigh*

It's not the amount of Jamie that's the problem, it's the fact that the time we spent with Claire didn't develop her character the way Jamie's times did. It's a quality, not quantity, issue. I wouldn't want to lose a second of Sam's storylines either. They've been great.

Actually, I think this is true to the book. I don't recall Claire's story being fleshed out very much at the beginning of Voyager, it's mostly her hunt for Jamie through time and then cutting to Jamie in the past. It seems to me, Claire's side got fleshed out more after she returned to Boston to put her affairs in order and in flashbacks after she returns to the past. So, we may yet see more quality in Claire's story as we go forward.

16 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Also, I don't think that we need to see Jamie and Fergus establish themselves in Edinburgh.  I don't recall any of that setup from the books.  Did I miss it?

No, we learn about it as Claire learns about it while running all over Edinburgh in the space of two days.

15 hours ago, thesparkinside said:

I don't need to see Jamie and Fergus getting established in Edinburgh, but I'm wondering what they'll do with Jamie. It looks like Claire will go through the stones at the very end of the next episode. Will we stay with her the whole episode? I'm assuming not. Which leaves us two options, really: Jenny convincing Jamie to marry L (I cannot spell her name to save my life) or Jamie and Fergus getting started in Edinburgh, Or both? In the book, we don't see those things in "real time"; Claire learns about them when she reunited with Jamie.

This would be the smart way to do it. They don't have to set up the smuggling as much as establish a good reason why Jamie isn't at Lallybroch without giving away the Lagohaire reason. They also could use this episode to flesh out Jamie's time in Ardsmuir and Hellwater by using the book narrative of how they would find Jamie in the past and then jump into the past. 

18 hours ago, Grashka said:

I believe we won't see Jamie in episode 5. He is not featured in promo, sneak peeks or on any stills.

It very well could be Jamie isn't featured in the promos and such because they're trying to build suspense and not spoil how they're doing this reunion. I would be very surprised if we don't see Jamie at all for a whole episode, myself.

14 hours ago, morgan said:

I actually wonder if the next episode will exclude Jamie altogether and just show the search for him.  Or maybe I hope that is what it will be. I'd like to see more of Roger and Joe  and Bree before we say goodbye to them for the season.  Although I suppose flashbacks could still happen.  

I'd like to see/discover what Jamie has been  up to post Helwater  along with Claire, so some of it is a "surprise."

While I don't expect to see much of them, I don't think we're going to totally say goodbye to Bree, Roger or Joe for this season; they won't want us to totally forget about them until next season. We'll probably see Bree changing majors and trying to discover who she really is now that she knows the family secrets and I expect Joe and Roger to be helping her. I also wouldn't be surprised if we don't see Bree's "vacation" trip to Jamaica looking for Claire and Jamie in the past. They could cut back and forth from past to present and use Bree to tell us some of the ship "adventures" they don't have time to fully show. 

[morgan]

Oooh I would love that, if the show continued to flash to the "present" even after Claire leaves.  For some reason I hadn't considered the show doing that at all until next season.

[Nidratime]

Quote

I also wouldn't be surprised if we don't see Bree's "vacation" trip to Jamaica looking for Claire and Jamie in the past.

I honestly can't remember that happening. Was it only one line of text or a paragraph?

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I honestly can't remember that happening. Was it only one line of text or a paragraph?

It was in Drums of Autumn. Roger and Brianna have plans to meet during one of her breaks, but Brianna changes them at the last minute and tells Roger she has to study or something like that. I can't remember exactly when right now--either Brianna tells him when he finds her in the past or it could be the letter Brianna leaves for Roger--but Roger later learns Brianna had found some information about Claire and Jamie being in Jamaica and decides to look into their history more, so she spends her break in Jamaica instead. I can't remember if this was after she found the notice about their deaths or if this lead to her finding that information, but I do remember her finding out that Claire owned a slave and was shocked almost as much as Claire about it, 

Edited October 5, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[toolazy]

That must have been discussed in one of the many parts of Drums that I skip over when I'm re-reading the series.  Actually, that book is a relatively quick read because there is so much of it I skip over. 

[Nidratime]

Oh! I thought you meant, in Voyager! I haven't read Drums of Autumn in years. I was going to listen to it on CD after Voyager is over on TV.

[DittyDotDot]

16 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Oh! I thought you meant, in Voyager! I haven't read Drums of Autumn in years. I was going to listen to it on CD after Voyager is over on TV.

No, I believe we don't see Roger or Brianna again until Drums of Autumn. I just figure the show won't want us to totally forget about them, so they might seed in some of what was given in Drums of Autumn to keep them present in our minds.

[FnkyChkn34]

I wouldn't mind seeing Bree and Roger watch the moon landing, and have Roger meet Joe.  I also wouldn't mind seeing Roger and Bree go to that Highlander festival where Roger sings.  But that would be about it - from here on, in this season and in my opinion, the scenes need to focus on the 1700s.

[lianau]

What I really don't want in episode 5 is a Jamie Laoghaire wedding . Their marriage comes before he moves to Edinburgh  but it I think this needs to be hidden so the discovery of the marriage has the appropriate impact once they all go back to Lallybroch .

[toolazy]

9 hours ago, lianau said:

What I really don't want in episode 5 is a Jamie Laoghaire wedding . Their marriage comes before he moves to Edinburgh  but it I think this needs to be hidden so the discovery of the marriage has the appropriate impact once they all go back to Lallybroch .

I'll be incredibly annoyed if that reveal isn't as shocking to non-book readers as it is to Claire. 

[LadyBrochTuarach]

On 2017-10-05 at 9:24 PM, toolazy said:

I'll be incredibly annoyed if that reveal isn't as shocking to non-book readers as it is to Claire. 

I agree. It would be ridiculous to show it before hand. That whole scenario is a crucial part of the story line, and I feel it's important to feel as angry and hurt as Claire does in those moments. If you don't, what's the bloody point. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I expect Claire to be FURIOUS. As unlike in the buik, where Jamie didn't know about hosebeast having a hand in Claire's witch trial, in the show, he does! And still he marrit that twat. And in the special features on the season two dvd, I can't recall who said it, I think it was Graphia, and Moore, who wanted to redeem that little tart so it would "make sense" for Jamie to marry her. I was all like HELL NAW!!! I saw NO REASON to redeem her. I'm just going to hand wave it away for the show that Jamie didn't give any shits, was still mired in depression and mourning not only Claire (still), but the loss of Willie.

Edited October 11, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[WatchrTina]

10 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

unlike in the buik, where Jamie didn't know about hosebeast having a hand in Claire's witch trial, in the show, he does!

Yeah, but in the show Claire has Jamie go and say "Thank you" to Laoghaire in "The Old Fox" episode (even though he's not 100% sure what he's thanking her for.)  I foresee that exchange being used (by Laoghaire) as evidence that Claire had forgiven her for her part in the witch trial.  And Laoghaire can also point to her youth and tender feelings (which Jamie spurned when she offered herself up in naught but her corset and shift) as contributory factors to her terrible, terrible mis-deed (for which she is truly sorry, ye ken <insert sarcasm emoji>). Plus the years following Culloden were not kind to Laoghaire.  She had two husbands who, we are led to believe, both treated her badly.  The woman Jamie marries is not the same, selfish little trollop who lusted after a married man at Leoch. (Or IS she?)  I feel certain Jamie is going to point some of those things out to Claire when she flips out.  It will not be well received.

[GHScorpiosRule]

LALALALALALALALALALAAAAA??????????????????

I canna heeerrre ye, @WatchrTina!!!

[chocolatetruffle]

I cannot tell y'all how much I'm looking forward to seeing these scenes play out!! Perhaps even more than the reunion. It's after this whole Leery mess that Claire and Jamie are finally united and on the same page and I expect the fighting to be verra hawt! Also, the chance to see Ned roll in and bring some hilarious perspective to the situation as he works to legally resolve the whole thing is ev.er.y.thing!! Gosh, I hope we get to see him in the show. 

Crap! TWO WEEKS!!!

[Eureka]

On 10/4/2017 at 5:35 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Laoghaire; think of it as "spelled like Log with an a, and hair ending in e!" But she and always wull be hosebeast for me.

My coworker calls her Lego Hair. First time he said it, it took me a second to catch on. Now it cracks me up.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, Eureka said:

My coworker calls her Lego Hair. First time he said it, it took me a second to catch on. Now it cracks me up.

????????