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

[LadyBrochTuarach]

Hosebeast... Lego Hair... HA! Both are perfect in every way! 

 

Yeah, she's the same old crazy chick as she was when she was younger. I see no change in her, even the books! How much can we throw in for spoilers in this thread? I'll put it in a box just in case. 

 

Spoiler

Basically horse face and Jamie have it out and a huge argument when Claire and Jamie return to Scotland X years later(can't recall which book..), and she finally admits that Jamie never needed her, but her current man does. I forget his name. 

I think she also just hates the fact that Claire married Jamie, and she knows Jamie loves Claire still, regardless of being married to Laoghaire. I think she married him as a "hah! I win! You're mine now" to Claire (even though she isn't there) and also because he was her first "love." You could say. 

She isn't redeemed for me in the show either. Especially when she spews her last few lines in "The Fox's Lair." Grrrr. I wanted to throttle her. Leave JAMMF alooooone!! 

[Athena]

18 minutes ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

How much can we throw in for spoilers in this thread?

This is the ultimate book talk thread so any published book information does not need spoiler tags. In general if it's tagged Book Talk, you can freely talk about the books.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

3 hours ago, Athena said:

This is the ultimate book talk thread so any published book information does not need spoiler tags. In general if it's tagged Book Talk, you can freely talk about the books.

Woohoo! Thanks! I'm new to the forum, so this is good to know. 

[WatchrTina]

Well, since we do not get a new episode this weekend (and can someone explain WHY that is?) I've decided to weigh in, not with speculation or snark, but by stating my expectation.  We are fast approaching one of my favorite passages in all the books.  I mean this one:

Quote

He splayed a hand out over the photographs, trembling fingers not quite touching the shiny surfaces, and then he turned and leaned toward me, slowly, with the improbable grace of a tall tree falling.  He buried his face in my shoulder and went very quietly and thoroughly to pieces.

I have such a strong mental picture of that moment.  Dear show-runners: DO NOT FUCK IT UP.  I am certain there are going to be a ton of amazing Jamie/Claire moments in the next episode but I have always loved my mental image of Jamie, still reeling from the shock of Claire's return, being presented with photographs for the first time ever -- first in black and white and then in COLOR -- and having to subdue his wonderment at these magical windows into another time in order to deal with the shock of seeing, of actually SEEING, his child grow up before his very eyes.

They better get it right.

Edited October 14, 2017 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

From the Freedom and Whiskey thread...

10 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Weel, they did have an obligation to walk-back how awful Laoghaiare is in the show because they made her WORSE than in the books -- at least with regard to Claire's nearly being burned as witch.  Book!Hosebeast delivers the letter than gets Claire to Gellis' place in time to be arrested but TV!Hosebeast actually testified against her.  You can fan-wank that somehow Book!Claire never told Jamie about Laoghaire's role (in delivering the letter) but TV!Jamie saw her at the trial (or at least walking with the crowd as Gellis is carried from the courtroom) so it is damn near impossible for me to believe that he doesn't know exactly what role she played. Having created that situation, the show-writers actually had to walk that situation back a bit with that "I"m supposed to thank ye though I dinna ken what for" scene between Laoghaire and Jamie.

TBH, I don't think they did need to walk it back. Laoghaire is a young, jealous and foolish girl back when the witch trial happens. She really thinks Claire has betwitched Jamie and she's saving her one true love. I think it's reasonable that Jamie would think Laoghaire wouldn't be the same girl 20-plus years later; he's certainly not exactly the same man. And, the reason Jamie marries Laoghaire is because he himself doesn't feel like he fits anymore and sees that Laoghaire is struggling too. He thinks they can be a help to each other. The problem is, Laoghaire hasn't changed much--As Murtagh said, she'll be a girl until she's 50--she's still a jealous and foolish woman and can't let Jamie live with his ghost. So, I don't think it matters that Jamie knows Laoghaire's role in the witch trial. 

Personally, I think they should've just left well enough alone. You can't fix a mistake with another mistake, IMO. They'd already overdone it with the witch trial and then just made it worse by the nonsense in The Fox's Lair. 

[morgan]

I agree, DittyDotDot!

[WatchrTina]

4 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

TBH, I don't think they did need to walk it back . . .  I don't think it matters that Jamie knows Laoghaire's role in the witch trial. 

I think it's interesting that a reader has that perspective.  I will be VERY interested to see the reaction of the non-readers when Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire is revealed. Will they all be as horrified as Claire (and me)?  Will they find it implausible that Jamie could EVER find it in his heart to forgive Laoghaire for nearly causing the death of his one true love?  That of ALL the women in the world he could have married, he married HER? I can't wait to see how that plays out.

Here's a thought.  Jamie-the-character is sometimes criticized as being too perfect.  Handsome, brave, loyal, fearless, faithful Jamie is (some argue) almost too good to be true -- right up until this moment in the novel.  His failure to tell Claire about marrying Laoghaire is a huge mistake but it is completely believable to me.  He just keeps putting off a moment that he knows will spoil the bliss of their reunion, until (alas) it blows up in his face.  That I get. It is so incredibly, imperfectly, HUMAN of him to have done that.  I kind of love that he fucks up so badly. He's not perfect after all.

What I don't get -- what I have NEVER gotten -- is how he could marry Laoghaire if he knew about her role in the witch trial.  I don't care how much time has passed.  I don't care how much Laoghaire has changed (or pretends to have changed.)  I just can't see Book!Jamie choosing to share his life with someone who tried to have his one-true-love murdered.  So in my head-canon, Book!Jamie doesn't know.  Alas, the show-runners do not appear to have gotten my memo.  So . . . they wrote themselves into this mess: they'll have to write themselves out of it.  I think that they tried to begin the process in The Fox's Lair.  I can't wait to see if they pull it off.

For the record, in Diana's graphic novelization there are four frames of a weeping Laoghaire saying "I dinna mean it!  I swear I dinna mean to . . ." which suggests that, maybe, she didn't intend for Claire to be arrested.  Maybe she was just the messenger.  Maybe someone else wrote the note.  When I read the graphic novel the first time I actually suspected that COLUM wrote the note.  He becomes ill in the graphic novel and demands that Ned attend him, thus depriving Claire of her defense attorney on the 2nd day of the trial.  I thought that was VERY suspicious. So it may well be that in Diana's head Laoghaire is even LESS guilty than she appears to be in the big book.  But that's not the case in the TV show -- that ship sailed when she told TV!Claire "I will dance upon your ashes." Bitch.  

Edited October 14, 2017 by WatchrTina
Because "dinna" is the not the same as "dinner". Apparently the auto-correct 'bot does not have a Scottish accent.

[nodorothyparker]

I understood when I read some interview somewhere about how enamored with the witch trial Ron Moore was how all that happened.  He took the rather small book detail of Laoghaire hand delivering a note and blew it up into the ridiculous spectacle of her shrieking that she would dance on Claire's ashes in the same way that he took what we got from book Claire's perspective as an unfortunate crush barely worth her notice and blew it up into her going around slapping a teenage girl like something out of Dynasty and Laoghaire into one bunny short of a bunny-boiling obsessive half-naked seducer down by the river.  I get that sometimes less has to become more to be able to adequately portray a book idea on TV, but the end result is it completely removes any degree of plausible deniability that book Jamie has that he didn't know Laoghaire's role in the whole mess because he saw her right there shrieking with the rest of the howling mob.  And while it may have been mildly amusing to have Laoghaire show up in The Fox's Lair to "help" out by offering to let young Simon Fraser look down her dress, it doesn't fix it any more than having Jamie gamely thank her for ... whatever when he clearly doesn't have any idea why.  He still knows that she's the kind of person who was once perfectly willing to let a woman she knew was innocent be burned at the stake if it got her what she wanted.  He knows that and marries her anyway.

To be honest, the book marriage never really bothers me that much.  I'm not one of the fandom screaming hosebeast!!! every time the character appears on the page because with everything presented there I can kind of see how it all came about.   They're both two very lonely people who have suffered a lot of loss with at least a bit of a common past and when you throw in a longtime unrequited crush on one end and a complete sense of displacement in a familiar place that left him needing ... something, as Jamie says, what you get isn't really that much of a surprise.   I'm also not one to put Jamie on a pedestal, so it doesn't particularly bother me that Jamie really doesn't come off looking well in any of it, and I'm not just talking about the fact that he dragged Claire all the way back to Lollybroch and still didn't get around to mentioning it.   In their chapter in Echo, he doesn't even remember that he took Laoghaire's punishment for her at Leoch that she pinned so much of her Jamie fantasy on and we find out that he never even cared enough to ask whether there was any truth to the complaint that brought it about.  He never thought much about her at all.  But he also never bothered to make it clear to her that she was in fact barking up the wrong tree, something the show carried over in that scene by the river in season one when he's babbling about having made vows instead of just leveling with her that he doesn't want her.  Yet he'll still claim in an upcoming scene that he tried oh so very hard to make things work with her when all evidence points to the contrary.  It's actually a pretty interesting portrayal of a marriage that was doomed to fail from the start.

The real problem is that show has made its version of the character so much worse than her book counterpart and Jamie knows it.  

[DittyDotDot]

21 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Here's a thought.  Jamie-the-character is sometimes criticized as being too perfect.  Handsome, brave, loyal, fearless, faithful Jamie is (some argue) almost too good to be true -- right up until this moment in the novel.  His failure to tell Claire about marrying Laoghaire is a huge mistake but it is completely believable to me.  He just keeps putting off a moment that he knows will spoil the bliss of their reunion, until (alas) it blows up in his face.  That I get. It is so incredibly, imperfectly, HUMAN of him to have done that.  I kind of love that he fucks up so badly. He's not perfect after all.

What I don't get -- what I have NEVER gotten -- is how he could marry Laoghaire if he knew about her role in the witch trial.  I don't care how much time has passed.  I don't care how much Laoghaire has changed (or pretends to have changed.)  I just can't see Book!Jamie choosing to share his life with someone who tried to have his one-true-love murdered.  So in my head-canon, Book!Jamie doesn't know.  Alas, the show-runners do not appear to have gotten my memo.  So . . . they wrote themselves into this mess they'll have to write themselves out of it.  I think that they tried to begin the process in The Fox's Lair.  I can't wait to see if they pull it off.

Oh, I understand not only how Jamie ends up married to Laoghaire--not that I wasn't totally surprised by it when reading though--but I also understand why he puts off telling Claire. Even though it was monumentally stupid that he believed he could keep that secret, I agree, it's entirely human and understandable. 

I guess I just look at it as: after surviving a war that wiped out your culture and most your kinsmen, losing your wife and unborn child, living in a cage for seven years then a prisoner for another seven and leaving another child to be raised by the enemy only to return home to find everything changed and you no longer belong there either, the actions of a silly love sick girl 10-plus years earlier probably just doesn't seem like that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. 

Even though I'm not sure that it matters, for the record, I don't think book Jamie does know about Laoghaire's involvement in Claire getting arrested until long after Claire returns. I seem to recall a conversation where Jamie is surprised to learn that Laoghaire was the one who delivered that message--for some reason I was thinking it was when Laoghaire had sent that message to the Ridge about wanting to remarry, but maybe it was earlier, I really don't remember.

21 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

For the record, in Diana's graphic novelization there are four frames of a weeping Laoghaire saying "I dinna mean it!  I swear i dinner mean too . . ." which suggests that, maybe, she didn't intend for Claire to be arrested.

Or maybe she didn't intend for Claire to be killed, just removed from their lives? She was 16 and had been in love with Jamie since she was 12. I think she just acted impetuously as many silly 16-year-olds do. The thing I find interesting about Laoghaire is that with a slightly different twist of the story, she could be the heroine saving her one true love from the evil witch. I think to Laoghaire, it's a fairytale that turns into a horror story.

Edited October 15, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[GHScorpiosRule]

9 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Well, since we do not get a new episode this weekend (and can someone explain WHY that is?) I've decided to weigh in, not with speculation or snark, but by stating my expectation.  We are fast approaching one of my favorite passages in all the books.  I mean this one:

I have such a strong mental picture of that moment.  Dear show-runners: DO NOT FUCK IT UP.  I am certain there are going to be a ton of amazing Jamie/Claire moments in the next episode but I have always loved my mental image of Jamie, still reeling from the shock of Claire's return, being presented with photographs for the first time ever -- first in black and white and then in COLOR -- and having to subdue his wonderment at these magical windows into another time in order to deal with the shock of seeing, of actually SEEING, his child grow up before his very eyes.

They better get it right.

On this, we TOTALLY AGREE with no EXCEPTIONS! The problem that the writers have is that they think if they put in that ONE scene straight from the buik that resonates and is so emotional, than their job is done.?? And this one has SO MANY. But aye, they better not FUCK IT UP!

One thing I will say-I am not keen on or fond of the contemporary song STARZ is playing when promoting the reunion episode next week. Like they couldn’t find a Scottish tune? ?????

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

From the Freedom and Whiskey thread...

TBH, I don't think they did need to walk it back. Laoghaire is a young, jealous and foolish girl back when the witch trial happens. She really thinks Claire has betwitched Jamie and she's saving her one true love. I think it's reasonable that Jamie would think Laoghaire wouldn't be the same girl 20-plus years later; he's certainly not exactly the same man. And, the reason Jamie marries Laoghaire is because he himself doesn't feel like he fits anymore and sees that Laoghaire is struggling too. He thinks they can be a help to each other. The problem is, Laoghaire hasn't changed much--As Murtagh said, she'll be a girl until she's 50--she's still a jealous and foolish woman and can't let Jamie live with his ghost. So, I don't think it matters that Jamie knows Laoghaire's role in the witch trial. 

Personally, I think they should've just left well enough alone. You can't fix a mistake with another mistake, IMO. They'd already overdone it with the witch trial and then just made it worse by the nonsense in The Fox's Lair. 

EXACTLY. It was Ron’s idea to make it so she was at the trial, and taunted that she would “dance” on Claire’s ashes, being fully aware that in 10 years time or so, they’d be getting married. This is on them, and I don’t care for the fact they felt she “had” to be redeemed. It wasn’t a love match, after all. Plus, I think it was Jenny’s idea, the reason she gave was how he shouldn’t be alone, as well as the reasons you stated above. And she proved Murtagh right, about being a girl. They better not whitewash what a shrewish harridan she turned out tae be, either! I haven’t seen Nell as working on this season when I checked her IMDb bio. Did the show mention if they were going to use someone else?

[GHScorpiosRule]

As for Jamie being “Perfect,” @WatchrTina and @nodorothyparker, (tagging you both as I’m typing from me phone and can’t selectively copy and paste yer quotes) I thought his not being so was proved when Jamie spanked Claire. I’ve never seen him as perfect-his very human flaws are what made him perfect to me, just as with Roarke* 

Yeah Ron and his wanting to draw out and put his own stamp on the witch trial did him, Laoghaire, or the show any favors.???

*HERO of the In Death series by JD Robb.

Edited October 14, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I haven’t seen Nell as working on this season when I checked her IMDb bio. Did the show mention if they were going to use someone else?

I believe there was a tweet by Nell of a script--or something--that had Laoghaire Fraser on it. So, I believe it will be Nell playing the role again. I think IMDb isn't usually updated until after the episodes have aired.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

I believe there was a tweet by Nell of a script--or something--that had Laoghaire Fraser on it. So, I believe it will be Nell playing the role again. I think IMDb isn't usually updated until after the episodes have aired.

Ah, okay. Thanks @DittyDotDot!

[nodorothyparker]

It's not so much that Jamie is "perfect" as it often seems like he's incredibly idealized to the point that some of the fandom seems to want to do a cut and paste to Mary Sue themselves right into Claire's place as his partner in the story.  It's made for some ... interesting discussions in my house.

[WatchrTina]

6 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

As for Jamie being “Perfect . . . I thought his not being so was proved when Jamie spanked Claire.

I don't know what you mean @GHScorpiosRule.  Jamie's actions were completely justified and appropriate on that occasion.

:)

<<running and hiding>>

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I don't know what you mean @GHScorpiosRule.  Jamie's actions were completely justified and appropriate on that occasion.

:)

<<running and hiding>>

No need tae run and hide, lassie! I feel the same! I remember the...lively debate o’er it when it happened.

[koboldin]

So in the wait - the interminable wait - my brain is spinning through the later books. 

Is it ridiculous that I look at the settlement location in NC and am heartbroken that their descendants in the nineteenth century would likely repudiate the more egalitarian ideals of Claire et al, fighting for their supposed right to subjugate and keep enslaved vast swaths of humanity? If one thing lingers like a bad taste to me, it's the notion that the great-grandchildren of these Frasers and Mackenzies would be confederate supporters. Considering how much foreknowledge is possessed by Claire, it seems bizarre she would be so content to settle somewhere she knows will create such suffering.

Edited October 15, 2017 by koboldin
Poor grammar!

[WatchrTina]

3 hours ago, koboldin said:

their descendants in the nineteenth century would likely repudiate the more egalitarian ideals of Claire et al, fighting for their supposed right to subjugate and keep enslaved vast swaths of humanity

Well, I don't think you can make that assumption.  Remember that before Jamie & Claire settle on the Ridge, Jocasta tries very hard to get Jamie to live with her and become her heir, meaning that he would inherit her plantation.  One of the reasons that Jamie and Claire decide NOT to do that is that they cannot reconcile themselves to the idea of being slave-owners.  In fact, if my memory is correct (and if they don't cut it from the show) Clare is going to end up the accidental owner of a slave later this season (to her horror) and one of the minefields they have to navigate is figuring out how to give him his freedom without putting him in a position where he may be kidnapped back into slavery.  I'd like to think that those same beliefs will be instilled in their descendants.

Edited October 15, 2017 by WatchrTina

[koboldin]

5 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Well, I don't think you can make that assumption.  Remember that before Jamie & Claire settle on the Ridge, Jocasta tries very hard to get Jamie to live with her and become her heir, meaning that he would inherit her plantation.  One of the reasons that Jamie and Claire decide NOT to do that is that they cannot reconcile themselves to the idea of being slave-owners.  In fact, if my memory is correct (and if they don't cut it from the show) Clare is going to end up the accidental owner of a slave later this season (to her horror) and one of the minefields that have to navigate is figuring out how to give him his freedom without putting him in a position where he may be kidnapped back into slavery.  I'd like to think that those same beliefs will be instilled in their descendants.

Yes - that's exactly what I was referring to! She knows and personally stands up for her more modern morality. Jamie seemed less driven by abolitionist leanings so much as not wanting to be under the thumb of Jocasta. He wanted to be in charge of his own life. I know the way they are written means that slavery wouldn't be a part of their immediate lives, but in 80-90 years when their descendants are in control, it bothers me to think that if they still live there, they would almost of necessity be confederates, if not slave owners. And it's with that eye to the future that has me surprised Claire would want to build a life for herself and her family in a place she knows - absolutely knows - will in less than one hundred years be on the wrong side of history. And that even in the 1960's, when she was last in the United States, would be roiled with a level of racial animosity that is hard to set aside. 

[theschnauzers]

On 10/14/2017 at 9:19 PM, koboldin said:

So in the wait - the interminable wait - my brain is spinning through the later books. 

Is it ridiculous that I look at the settlement location in NC and am heartbroken that their descendants in the nineteenth century would likely repudiate the more egalitarian ideals of Claire et al, fighting for their supposed right to subjugate and keep enslaved vast swaths of humanity? If one thing lingers like a bad taste to me, it's the notion that the great-grandchildren of these Frasers and Mackenzies would be confederate supporters. Considering how much foreknowledge is possessed by Claire, it seems bizarre she would be so content to settle somewhere she knows will create such suffering.

Actually, not all Southerners supported slavery, and not all northerners came to support abolition of slavery prior to the Civil War. So the founding of Fraser’s Ridge was out of Jamie’s taking of an offer from a royalist Governor, and a desire to repatriate fellow Scots after their indentured servitude came to an end. This fits in with the historical record that Great Britain abolished slavery before the Civil War, and one of the compromises of the Constitutional Convention was to end the importation of slaves in 1808.  Between them, Claire and Brianna would know these things. So I don’t think they’ve would have felt compelled to tolerate or defend slavery, as many Southerners did not own any slaves, and were too poor to have any. There’s a lot involved in such questions, and Diana hasn’t gotten into that too much in the books, as best as I can recall.

Edited October 16, 2017 by theschnauzers

[koboldin]

I know the Fraser and Mackenzie families personally wouldn't tolerate slavery in the time we read, but North Carolina was deep behind the confederate lines and down from the mountain home of the Ridge to Cross Creek - what became Fayetteville after the American Revolution - was the military Arsenal that Sherman burned to the ground. I don't know how you'd argue a prominent family from the area of North Carolina that was responsible for the selection of their first senators and the ratification of the Constitution would then sit out the secessionist events of the nineteenth century, unless the family moved out of the area. One of the reasons I'm actually hoping the family does leave the area post-Revolution. 

 

It isn't that the area wouldn't have a range of views, and maybe the Ridge's families would stay out of the civil war, but considering Claire was at the progressive end of civil rights in the 1960's and would be at least aware of the general swing of history in the United States, it always strikes me as strange she would be comfortable settling in the South. But it's far into the wee hours for me, and I will confess I'm more than a little frustrated I can't binge episode 6 through the night. Thus, random contemplating...

[morgan]

I will admit I thought the same thing when they settled at Fraser’s ridge, although at the time they didn’t have a lot of choices and since Bree was safely in the 20th century and there was no thought she would come to the ridge and raise a family, I honestly don’t think Claire was all that concerned about life beyond her lifetime.  They were also busy trying to walk that tightrope that was the Revolution.  I think they really were looking for a safe haven away from as much as possible, to create their own utopia.  Claire does refer to not knowing a lot of American history and at one point kicks herself for not paying more attention when Bree was studying.  She assumed she would never need it, what with Jamie’s seasickness.  I have no doubt with her return through the stones she figured on living out her days in Scotland.

As for why Diana chose North Carolina, that makes sense because so many Scot’s did settle there.  

[thesparkinside]

Yes, North Carolina certainly was a Confederate state, and slavery was very much a part of life and culture there. To be fair, though, the upland regions of NC (and other states) were more likely to be pro-Union or have pro-Union pockets. A place like Fraser's Ridge might have been such a pocket. But the Civil War is a bit of a white elephant in the room whenever slavery is mentioned. It's not clear if anyone ever explains to Jamie--or, say, Ian--how/when slavery came to an end.

Edited October 15, 2017 by thesparkinside

[DittyDotDot]

11 hours ago, koboldin said:

So in the wait - the interminable wait - my brain is spinning through the later books. 

Is it ridiculous that I look at the settlement location in NC and am heartbroken that their descendants in the nineteenth century would likely repudiate the more egalitarian ideals of Claire et al, fighting for their supposed right to subjugate and keep enslaved vast swaths of humanity? If one thing lingers like a bad taste to me, it's the notion that the great-grandchildren of these Frasers and Mackenzies would be confederate supporters. Considering how much foreknowledge is possessed by Claire, it seems bizarre she would be so content to settle somewhere she knows will create such suffering.

Although, you could look at it as, with Claire and Jamie settling there, maybe they could be an "inside" voice against that suffering. What I mean is, the suffering is going to happen whether or not Claire and Jamie settle in the North or the South, but by settling in the South and creating a community of people who see slavery as wrong, they have a better chance of making a difference. If there is no one in the South who stands up and opposes slavery the Underground Railroad and other efforts could not have been successful. History is going to need wealthy and influential families who oppose slavery on both sides of the Mason-Dixon if there is going to be an end to slavery in the US.

40 minutes ago, thesparkinside said:

Yes, North Carolina certainly was a Confederate state, and slavery was very much a part of life and culture there. To be fair, though, the upland regions of NC (and other states) were more likely to be pro-Union or have pro-Union pockets. A place like Fraser's Ridge might have been such a pocket. But the Civil War is a bit of a white elephant in the room whenever slavery is mentioned. It's not clear if anyone ever explains to Jamie--or, say, Ian--how/when slavery came to an end.

Generally, they focus on what's going to happen in their lifetime, but I seem to recall Claire bringing this up either during that late night boat ride with Jamie when he's considering his options or when they first find the Ridge and decide to make it their new home. I'm not sure Claire knows or understands all the details of that time period, but it seems like she mentioned that after the Revolutionary War, there will be another war fought between the North and South and the South would not be the victors in that war.

Edited October 15, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Atlanta]

Would the Ridge be far enough off the beaten path where the descendants could avoid getting sucked up into that vortex? I know Jamie wasn't lucky enough with the Revolutionary War but now have retired to a quiet Ridge life. Or do Bree, Roger & fam go back to modern Lallybroch when Jamie and Claire eventually pass?

[toolazy]

No one has mentioned the KKK.   We know that the KKK was composed of the descendants of Scottish (among other things) immigrants and that the old Scottish tradition of the fiery cross (ahem) was adapted into cross-burning as a tool of terror by the KKK.   This is acknowledged in a conversation between Roger and either Claire or Bree, I don't remember.  

As for the implications of this for our characters, I'm not sure.  All they can do is their best - they have no control over future generations but they can teach their own kids right from wrong. 

[DittyDotDot]

22 minutes ago, toolazy said:

No one has mentioned the KKK.   We know that the KKK was composed of the descendants of Scottish (among other things) immigrants and that the old Scottish tradition of the fiery cross (ahem) was adapted into cross-burning as a tool of terror by the KKK.   This is acknowledged in a conversation between Roger and either Claire or Bree, I don't remember.  

Yes. Bree's horror at seeing that cross when she walked out her door after coming from a time where they were used for something completely different was one of the few times I really felt Bree. I'd forgotten about that.

[koboldin]

1 hour ago, toolazy said:

No one has mentioned the KKK.   We know that the KKK was composed of the descendants of Scottish (among other things) immigrants and that the old Scottish tradition of the fiery cross (ahem) was adapted into cross-burning as a tool of terror by the KKK.   This is acknowledged in a conversation between Roger and either Claire or Bree, I don't remember.  

As for the implications of this for our characters, I'm not sure.  All they can do is their best - they have no control over future generations but they can teach their own kids right from wrong. 

Scotland and the Klan

 

It is a matter of significance for that area, though I would expect the Protestant settlers on the Ridge to be most vulnerable to that infection - the self-righteousness of the Christie-style mentality and the rigid moral judgments that we saw in the entire Malva condemnation are the seeds that led, decades later, to lashing out and killing. In the Klan origins, however, Catholics were among the undesirables. 

[Petunia846]

16 hours ago, koboldin said:

So in the wait - the interminable wait - my brain is spinning through the later books. 

Is it ridiculous that I look at the settlement location in NC and am heartbroken that their descendants in the nineteenth century would likely repudiate the more egalitarian ideals of Claire et al, fighting for their supposed right to subjugate and keep enslaved vast swaths of humanity? If one thing lingers like a bad taste to me, it's the notion that the great-grandchildren of these Frasers and Mackenzies would be confederate supporters. Considering how much foreknowledge is possessed by Claire, it seems bizarre she would be so content to settle somewhere she knows will create such suffering.

 

5 hours ago, thesparkinside said:

Yes, North Carolina certainly was a Confederate state, and slavery was very much a part of life and culture there. To be fair, though, the upland regions of NC (and other states) were more likely to be pro-Union or have pro-Union pockets. A place like Fraser's Ridge might have been such a pocket. But the Civil War is a bit of a white elephant in the room whenever slavery is mentioned. It's not clear if anyone ever explains to Jamie--or, say, Ian--how/when slavery came to an end.

I can't say I know much about the Fraser's Ridge area of NC, up in the mountains, but across the border in East TN people were actually anti-secession and pro-Union. They actually tried to secede from the rest of TN.

[Thalia]

The first time I read VOY I threw the book across the room when I realized that Jamie had married Laoghaire.  Luckily no small animals or sheetrock were harmed.  But the thing that caused me the most sadness about the episode was Jenny's role in bringing the Second Mrs. Fraser to Lallybroch in an effort to chase Claire away.  I liked the friendship between the two women in the earlier books, and my heart broke when that ended.  

[Nidratime]

Perhaps they'll handle it differently on the show, especially since they've handled Laoghaire differently in previous episodes. Or, they could just better explain why Jenny would be so angry with Claire that she'd want her out of her brother's life.

[morgan]

I don’t blame Jenny at all.  She doesn’t know Loaghaire well if at all, and doesn’t know about her role in the witch trial or really anything.  She sees a woman who is alone with small children, she sees Jamie alone and hurting.  What Jenny does is to try to heal her brother, and to help out a widow.  

[FnkyChkn34]

Is there a chance, even the smallest, slightest chance, that the show will change it so Jamie didn't marry Leg-hair?  I only say this because the timing doesn't exactly add up to me.  Roger found the article that Jamie wrote from a year before Claire went back.  Therefore, he's already been in Edinburgh for at least a year, if not longer.  And in the book, I don't recall that he'd been established in Edinburgh for that long.  I could easily be wrong, but just a thought I had.

[GHScorpiosRule]

21 minutes ago, morgan said:

I don’t blame Jenny at all.  She doesn’t know Loaghaire well if at all, and doesn’t know about her role in the witch trial or really anything.  She sees a woman who is alone with small children, she sees Jamie alone and hurting.  What Jenny does is to try to heal her brother, and to help out a widow.  

I don't recall if that was Jenny's thinking. What I do recall is her anger at Claire "leaving" Jamie. She didn't know about her being from the past; I don't rightly recall if she knew that Claire was pregnant when they left Lallybroch. So I could very well understand Jenny's anger toward Claire.

10 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Is there a chance, even the smallest, slightest chance, that the show will change it so Jamie didn't marry Leg-hair?  I only say this because the timing doesn't exactly add up to me.  Roger found the article that Jamie wrote from a year before Claire went back.  Therefore, he's already been in Edinburgh for at least a year, if not longer.  And in the book, I don't recall that he'd been established in Edinburgh for that long.  I could easily be wrong, but just a thought I had.

Regarding the bolded? No. Toni Graphia herself said the reason why they brought that hosebeast back in "The Fox's Lair" was to redeem her because down the road, she and Jamie would be married. And shortly after being married, and feeling like he was raping that twat whenever he would try to have sex with her, they lived very separate lives.

Edited October 16, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[DittyDotDot]

31 minutes ago, morgan said:

I don’t blame Jenny at all.  She doesn’t know Loaghaire well if at all, and doesn’t know about her role in the witch trial or really anything.  She sees a woman who is alone with small children, she sees Jamie alone and hurting.  What Jenny does is to try to heal her brother, and to help out a widow.  

I don't blame Jenny either for these reasons and I can understand her being bitter at Claire at first. She believes Claire went off to France and they never heard another word from her until the worst was over. They were supposedly her family and, to Jenny, Claire abandoned them when they needed her most. Not to mention one thing Jenny had been trying to avoid--Jamie leaving Scotland again--looks like a real possibility now that Claire has returned. I may not have sent the message to Laoghaire like that, but I can understand her fear and anger at Claire.

20 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Is there a chance, even the smallest, slightest chance, that the show will change it so Jamie didn't marry Leg-hair?  I only say this because the timing doesn't exactly add up to me.  Roger found the article that Jamie wrote from a year before Claire went back.  Therefore, he's already been in Edinburgh for at least a year, if not longer.  And in the book, I don't recall that he'd been established in Edinburgh for that long.  I could easily be wrong, but just a thought I had.

As I recall, Jamie married Laoghaire not too long after he returned from Hellwater. They lived together for a short while, but it was a disaster, so Jamie took off to Edinburgh. So, he had been in Edinburgh for a couple years before Claire returns.

Edited October 16, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[FnkyChkn34]

11 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

As I recall, Jamie married Laoghaire not too long after he returned from Hellwater. They lived together for a short while, but it was a disaster, so Jamie took off to Edinburgh. So, he had been in Edinburgh for a couple years before Claire returns.

OK, thanks for the reminder!  I wasn't sure.

22 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Regarding the bolded? No. Toni Graphia herself said the reason why they brought that hosebeast back in "The Fox's Lair" was to redeem her because down the road, she and Jamie would be married. And shortly after being married, and feeling like he was raping that twat whenever he would try to have sex with her, they lived very separate lives.

Ugh, I didn't know Toni actually said that.  I recall someone just saying that they wanted to redeem Leg-hair a bit, but not the reason why.

[nodorothyparker]

I've said it before that Jenny feels like a red herring for the audience to direct their anger at rather than Jamie, who doesn't seem in any big hurry to come clean or sort the situation out, or Claire, who despite being the partner who had time to plan and prepare herself for her return never bothered to consider what they would tell people or how her sudden return might affect the people left behind and then when she does find out immediately runs off in a snit. 

Jenny is only working off the information she knows and what she knows is that she's the one who had to clean up the mess after Jamie came back from Culloden deathly wounded and alone.  She's the one who's had to keep the family together these last two decades.   Yes, the Laoghaire marriage is a bad idea all around but her brother is haunting the place like a ghost and she's latching on to anything to try to anchor him to something.  Now after that marriage has failed and all the upheaval that likely accompanied that has settled, here's Jamie prancing back to the home where her children live still married to Laoghaire but sleeping with Claire, who he's also still married to but hasn't bothered to clue her in to any of it, with nothing more than a weak story about how she galavanted off to France when things went to shit.  Maybe sending for Laoghaire wasn't the best idea, but I can understand her just being fed up enough to decide to force the issue and let the chips fall where they may.

That's one reason why I liked the Lollybroch scene in the first season where a clearly exasperated Jenny tells both Claire and Jamie that life at the estate didn't just start the minute they showed up.  It felt like a nice bit of foreshadowing for this.

[toolazy]

Yesterday I discovered that I was able to watch my Amazon Prime Starz subscription on my television, which hasn't always been the case.  So, since no one else was home for a few hours, I re-watched season 3 (except, weirdly for the Helwater episode that I didn't want to watch again. I always surprise myself by which eps I'm willing to re-watch and which I'd rather not.  Anyhoo...)

So the Dunbonnet.  I missed this the first time but nowhere in the show, at least in the 18th century portions of the show, was it mentioned that he wore it to hide his hair.  So, it truly doesn't matter that it completely failed to do so, since that wasn't a thing it was meant to do.  Now I feel a lot better about that.  

I'm nervous about next week due to the new wife and, as someone else pointed out, Mr. Willoughby.  Man, did I ever hate the way that character is portrayed in the books.  You would think that someone who was appalled at finding herself a slaveowner wouldn't use the phrase "Jamie's pet Chinaman" would you?  But it happened.  Different times, different mores - I get that.  But I don't have to like it.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

20 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

I've said it before that Jenny feels like a red herring for the audience to direct their anger at rather than Jamie, who doesn't seem in any big hurry to come clean or sort the situation out, or Claire, who despite being the partner who had time to plan and prepare herself for her return never bothered to consider what they would tell people or how her sudden return might affect the people left behind and then when she does find out immediately runs off in a snit. 

Jenny is only working off the information she knows and what she knows is that she's the one who had to clean up the mess after Jamie came back from Culloden deathly wounded and alone.  She's the one who's had to keep the family together these last two decades.   Yes, the Laoghaire marriage is a bad idea all around but her brother is haunting the place like a ghost and she's latching on to anything to try to anchor him to something.  Now after that marriage has failed and all the upheaval that likely accompanied that has settled, here's Jamie prancing back to the home where her children live still married to Laoghaire but sleeping with Claire, who he's also still married to but hasn't bothered to clue her in to any of it, with nothing more than a weak story about how she galavanted off to France when things went to shit.  Maybe sending for Laoghaire wasn't the best idea, but I can understand her just being fed up enough to decide to force the issue and let the chips fall where they may.

That's one reason why I liked the Lollybroch scene in the first season where a clearly exasperated Jenny tells both Claire and Jamie that life at the estate didn't just start the minute they showed up.  It felt like a nice bit of foreshadowing for this.

Don't get me wrong--even in the buik, I was side-eyeing Jamie for not coming clean as soon as the emotions had calmed down after he realized Claire wasn't a ghost, but real. Seriously, you had the line of people, Ian, Fergus, Wee Ian, starting to say "what aboot--" only to be cut off or stop in mid-sentence after a look from Jamie. I'm not all in any way defending Jamie. I can see why Jenny was angry with Claire; why she got him married--though maybe she might have chosen someone else had she the knowledge hosebeast was responsible for the witch trial; but again, maybe not, since to her, Claire left and didn't give word again, so why should she be angry with Laoghaire, since Claire didn't remain true and faithful? These are my speculations of what Jenny might have thought, based on her character, her fierce love for Jamie and anger at Claire just disappearing.

And I hope I don't jinx it, but I want the actress who plays Jenny to never ever leave the show. She's bloody fantastic; I think the chemistry between her and Sam is helped by the fact that they were friends in real life before they were cast for this series.

[FnkyChkn34]

26 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Yesterday I discovered that I was able to watch my Amazon Prime Starz subscription on my television, which hasn't always been the case.  ...

Oooh, any tips or secrets on how you did that?  I have to use my Fire Stick. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Oooh, any tips or secrets on how you did that?  I have to use my Fire Stick. 

If you have a bluray player, that allows you to do so. Just turn it on, scroll down until you see Amazon and click on it. You'll have to register the internet information on your teevee. I'd suggest doing it via your 'puter on Amazon's site, because the format is so not user friendly on the teevee.

[FnkyChkn34]

6 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

If you have a bluray player, that allows you to do so. Just turn it on, scroll down until you see Amazon and click on it. You'll have to register the internet information on your teevee. I'd suggest doing it via your 'puter on Amazon's site, because the format is so not user friendly on the teevee.

OK, thanks!  Seems like the Fire Stick is actually easier though. :-)  

[Nidratime]

What has me a little confused, even though I've read Voyager, is that -- for all intents and purposes -- Claire is Jamie's wife and Laoghaire is not, no matter what ceremony was performed. Jamie is basically a bigamist. He never divorced Claire and that means he was never legally married to Laoghaire ... unless this is not how Scottish law works. So, getting in touch with Laoghaire and bringing her to confront Jamie and Claire is rather counter productive. It's not going to change Laoghaire's status, unless Jenny's intention is to make Claire so angry, *she* demands a divorce and then presumably Jamie would be free to marry Laoghaire -- which you know he would never do *again.* So, what is the point of dragging Laoghaire into this?

[DittyDotDot]

8 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

What has me a little confused, even though I've read Voyager, is that -- for all intents and purposes -- Claire is Jamie's wife and Laoghaire is not, no matter what ceremony was performed. Jamie is basically a bigamist. He never divorced Claire and that means he was never legally married to Laoghaire ... unless this is not how Scottish law works. So, getting in touch with Laoghaire and bringing her to confront Jamie and Claire is rather counter productive. It's not going to change Laoghaire's status, unless Jenny's intention is to make Claire so angry, *she* demands a divorce and then presumably Jamie would be free to marry Laoghaire -- which you know he would never do *again.* So, what is the point of dragging Laoghaire into this?

I don't think Jenny cared about Laoghaire as much as just wanted Claire to go back where she came from and leave Jamie behind. I'd say she wasn't thinking any more rationally than Jamie was in not telling Claire before they arrived at Lallybroch.

[GHScorpiosRule]

22 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

What has me a little confused, even though I've read Voyager, is that -- for all intents and purposes -- Claire is Jamie's wife and Laoghaire is not, no matter what ceremony was performed. Jamie is basically a bigamist. He never divorced Claire and that means he was never legally married to Laoghaire ... unless this is not how Scottish law works. So, getting in touch with Laoghaire and bringing her to confront Jamie and Claire is rather counter productive. It's not going to change Laoghaire's status, unless Jenny's intention is to make Claire so angry, *she* demands a divorce and then presumably Jamie would be free to marry Laoghaire -- which you know he would never do *again.* So, what is the point of dragging Laoghaire into this?

The same could be said of Claire--that she was a bigamist. Show!Claire even said it. She was married to Frank in the future when she married Jamie; as for Jamie's marriage to hosebeast, well, it had been over seven years since Claire...left/was gone/dead. I'm not sure what the laws were regarding how long a spouse had to be gone before being declared legally dead. I don't recall what Ned Gowan found when he looked up the law and drafted the divorce settlement. All I know is Jamie had to fork over some monetary settlement, even though hosebeast found someone she loved and wanted to be with. That should have ended any monies Jamie was giving her.

[Eureka]

28 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

What has me a little confused, even though I've read Voyager, is that -- for all intents and purposes -- Claire is Jamie's wife and Laoghaire is not, no matter what ceremony was performed. Jamie is basically a bigamist. He never divorced Claire and that means he was never legally married to Laoghaire ... unless this is not how Scottish law works. So, getting in touch with Laoghaire and bringing her to confront Jamie and Claire is rather counter productive. It's not going to change Laoghaire's status, unless Jenny's intention is to make Claire so angry, *she* demands a divorce and then presumably Jamie would be free to marry Laoghaire -- which you know he would never do *again.* So, what is the point of dragging Laoghaire into this?

Last night I reread the reunion chapters in the book. I don't have it in front of me so no quotes, but Claire said something to Jamie about if something happened, then he'd be a bigamist and the narrative said he jerked his head up or looked startled (or something like that- the phrase "he looked startled" appeared a lot in these chapters, lol). I want to say there was a time when he was about to explain it but then you know, chaos ensued because they can never have a quiet moment in their lives ;).

[Nidratime]

No, I think there's a difference there. I never saw Claire as a bigamist because, no matter what time she was in, her other husband did not exist and could never exist in that time period. It's true that Claire also "did not exist" when Jamie married Laoghaire, but *she could've existed* and now does. For all Jamie knew, Claire could've come back at any time during his marriage to Laoghaire.

I too, have no idea how long a person had to be missing before they were considered legally dead or what would happen if someone returned who had been declared so. Does Claire have to go to the courts and have herself declared alive!? We know she doesn't do that, and they merrily just resume their married life, so....

[Eureka]

On 10/14/2017 at 1:51 AM, WatchrTina said:

Well, since we do not get a new episode this weekend (and can someone explain WHY that is?) I've decided to weigh in, not with speculation or snark, but by stating my expectation.  We are fast approaching one of my favorite passages in all the books.  I mean this one:

I have such a strong mental picture of that moment.  Dear show-runners: DO NOT FUCK IT UP.  I am certain there are going to be a ton of amazing Jamie/Claire moments in the next episode but I have always loved my mental image of Jamie, still reeling from the shock of Claire's return, being presented with photographs for the first time ever -- first in black and white and then in COLOR -- and having to subdue his wonderment at these magical windows into another time in order to deal with the shock of seeing, of actually SEEING, his child grow up before his very eyes.

They better get it right.

I agree. They don't need all the chaos with the brothel and the exciseman and Mr. Willoughby (I am also nervous about how they will portray him), but they need to do this right. (I have to say I was disappointed that we didn't get to see her eat her pb&js, because that always struck me as so funny.)

I love, love, love when they are looking at the photos and you can tell he is so overwhelmed with all this info in such a short time and can't even hold onto to them and then "went to pieces quietly." I am in the camp that DG is a great storyteller but not always a great writer, but boy, that section chokes me up every time.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Eureka

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm too lazy to scroll through the Casting News thread; but did they say they cast the part for Willoughby?

[Nidratime]

Yes, the announcement was in January:

http://deadline.com/2017/01/outlander-cast-mr-willoughby-captain-thomas-leonard-gary-young-charlie-hiett-1201897440/