Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Athena

S02.E01: Through a Glass, Darkly

Recommended Posts

I don't know the official answer for that, but I have always assumed miscarriage is when the baby wouldn't be viable, and still birth is of an age where a baby could have been had it not died in utero. I am just guessing though because thankfully I don't have experience in either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know the official answer for that, but I have always assumed miscarriage is when the baby wouldn't be viable, and still birth is of an age where a baby could have been had it not died in utero. I am just guessing though because thankfully I don't have experience in either.

 

 

Thanks morgan. I didn't ask to be morbid, but I can see where some might think it's the same and call foul. And I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post

I was sympathetic to Frank until he became angry and we saw a glimpse of the underlying violent streak.  Thus starts the deconstruction of Frank and the martyrdom of Claire.  Tobias did knock it out of the park with his performance.  (However, burning the clothes?  Not cool!  I can understand why, but it was still hard to watch.)  I'm not sure we needed 40 mins of Frank's perspective, but it was important to see his point of view rather than only hearing Claire's thoughts about her return as in the book.

 

Again, maybe an UO, but I totally got Frank's deal in the first half of the episode, and I thought Menzies' performance (and Balfe's) was brilliant.  They got across so much in those scenes.  I don't think Claire is a martyr. I always note that she is an unreliable narrator in DiA; she has to be because she is grieving and Frank can't understand it.  She's the object of our sympathy because we know she's telling the truth. Frank doesn't. 

 

From Frank's perspective, which Claire cannot give in DiA, his wife disappeared without note or warning. He's spent 2 years defending her, convinced that she went against her will and hoping that she's not dead.  She comes back with a patently unbelievable story -- one that can't be proved, because the only extrinsic evidence is the clothing on her back.  He knows it cannot be true, but that would mean that Claire is crazy or is capable of lying to his face and thinking he is stupid.  I don't think he believes her, really, but has decided to remain agnostic because either explanation is untenable.  But she's mourning someone who, from her perspective, she just saw yesterday, and from his perspective (if she's telling the truth -- which she can't be) has been dead for centuries.  There's no way for him to gauge her reaction to trauma, because in his mind, that trauma really probably doesn't exist.  He's actually spent two year imagining a trauma, her being kidnapped and held against her will, that turns out not even to be the case. The fact that he burns her clothing, to me, is testament to his frame of mind, as he is an historian and his love for Claire and desire to put all this behind them is stronger than his intellectual and academic curiosity.  I don't personally assign any more nefarious reason for burning them than that.  I'd trash a room for much less, myself, and then I would say in no uncertain terms to my husband: if this marriage is going to recover, you have to wipe the slate clean of this other person:  no googling, no following on Facebook or Twitter, lose her cell number. I would also wipe/erase all text messages, photos, and emails and empty the recycle bin, burn any letters, maybe even replace the phone and number completely.  Scorched earth.   

 

All that complexity of character is in keeping with the last two episodes of Season 1.  One commentary by RDM said that they were interested in showing what happens when a person reaches his or her limit (like Jamie in WP). To me, this was Frank reaching his limit, and his response was to stuff it all into a box, start fresh, and resolve never to think about it again.  I love that his response makes me feel so conflicted about him as a character.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you, Archery. I have so loved being part of this Otlander sisterhood, but lately I was feeling very much out of the mainstream. I loved this episode. To me the structure was perfect for two reasons: it included time travel and it got back to Frank. I don't really get the Reason so many fans don't like Frank. I think of him as a necessary catalyst to the entire Claire-Jamie story. Claire had no reason to be in Scotland if not for being with Frank for his genealogy search. It was Frank who encouraged her study of botany; he understood her independent nature, even supporting her when she went to the front line field hospital ; later he enabled her to continue her medical studies and took over the day care of young Bree; and many other examples. I've only read A couple of the books, but they are filed with Claire's loving references to Frank. So much so, that Jamie sends her and his unborn child to The safety and care of Frank. The biggest Jamie-Claire fight was her fear that Jamie's actions might have bad repercussions on Frank. Why can't we fans be as appreciative as Jamie is that there was and is a Frank in Claires life?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

 I don't really get the Reason so many fans don't like Frank. 

He's not Jamie , that's enough for a lot of them . I like Frank , I don't think he's evil or bad at all . He's a man who really got the short stick here . His wife vanished without a trace , did she run off with some guy , was she raped and murdered , maybe her husband has killed her ? He had to live with all that speculation for 3 years . And then she comes back and tells him outright that she married somebody else and is having that stranger's baby . And for whatever reason both of them decide to give their marriage another try . Some readers get really angry about Frank's cheating but he's trying to be married to somebody who's cheating on him emotionally 24/7. They accuse him of being racist but he was born in 1906 and is probably as much a casual racist as a lot of middle aged white men  in the middle of the 20th century . All the while Jamie is adopting a tiny pet Chinese . But Jamie is Jamie and can't do anything wrong .

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you, Archery. I have so loved being part of this Otlander sisterhood, but lately I was feeling very much out of the mainstream. I loved this episode. To me the structure was perfect for two reasons: it included time travel and it got back to Frank. I don't really get the Reason so many fans don't like Frank. I think of him as a necessary catalyst to the entire Claire-Jamie story. Claire had no reason to be in Scotland if not for being with Frank for his genealogy search. It was Frank who encouraged her study of botany; he understood her independent nature, even supporting her when she went to the front line field hospital ; later he enabled her to continue her medical studies and took over the day care of young Bree; and many other examples. I've only read A couple of the books, but they are filed with Claire's loving references to Frank. So much so, that Jamie sends her and his unborn child to The safety and care of Frank. The biggest Jamie-Claire fight was her fear that Jamie's actions might have bad repercussions on Frank. Why can't we fans be as appreciative as Jamie is that there was and is a Frank in Claires life?

 

I've already stated why I don't like Frank (in the other threads). And I stand by it. But I don't think anyone here at least (since I don't read any other boards/sties) is saying "you" the general you, isn't allowed to appreciate Frank.

 

And since Claire was already an independent woman (the way she was raised wasn't traditional by any means during that period), I doubt that she would have deferred to Frank if he didn't want her to seek out her medical doctor's degree.  The Frank being portrayed in this show, to me, was not as enlightened or encouraging as Buik!Frank was.

 

I don't believe it's an either/or atmosphere here.  We like who we like and we don't like who we don't like.

Share this post


Link to post

. All the while Jamie is adopting a tiny pet Chinese . But Jamie is Jamie and can't do anything wrong .

 

He is also a man of his time but I really hate that story line.  I sincerely hope that if the show gets that far, that they just pretend he doesn't exist.  There's got to be a less annoying way for Claire to learn about the acupuncture cure for seasickness.  

Edited by toolazy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I don't dislike Frank actually.  I liked him in the books.  I don't like the way he is written in the show, and I don't like changes to the story that are made to accommodate him (i.e., episode 1x08).  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't have to a be a Team Frank vs. Team Jamie kind of thing (which sounds really damn juvenile anyway) and I don't think it's fair to paint it in those terms.

 

I'm actually pretty sympathetic to Frank as a character throughout the entire series because as I've said on countless threads before, there really just weren't any good choices for him that didn't involve a fair bit of stiff upper lipping.  But when you spend 40 something minutes on him and his manpain in the season premier and try to frame nearly all of Claire's trauma and loss through that in a show that's been lauded so heavily for its uniquely female perspective and viewpoint, I'm not required to think it's a great choice or great TV.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that it doesn't have to be either/or.  But it is a bit dismissive to refer to Frank's "manpain" or treat him like a throwaway character that shouldn't be seen or explored.  That's one of the great things about the series:  it isn't told in the first person like the books.  And, in my opinion, including Frank as a fully formed character who reacts to Claire and whose actions more clearly inform Claire's later on in her story doesn't take away from the female gaze, perspective, or viewpoint that Outlander is rightly lauded for. 

 

Mr. Willoughby gives me the same sad, hollow feeling in my soul that Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's did. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

My thoughts on Frank...I didn't care for Frank in the books, but it's really because I didn't care for much of the 20th century stuff in general.  I got super sucked into the fantasy aspect of the story, and 18th century plot just seemed way more fantasy than boring old 20th century.  I'm pretty much bored with every charcter that exists in the the mid 1900's.  Brianna, Roger...super yawn fest.  Then suddenly they went through the rocks and OMG THEY ROCK!  I probably would have felt that way about Frank as well.  

 

I like what the show has done with Frank.  He's a more rounded, three dimensional character.  He adds something significant to the story.  But I still felt a bit of yawn when the story is in the 1940s.

Share this post


Link to post

I did not mind the focus on Frank in the beginning. I enjoy TV Frank partly because I like what Tobias Menzies has done for the role. I've been sympathetic to book Frank too because he's been dealt a strange hand in life. It does not mean he's a perfect character either. I like how complicated he is on the show even more than he is in the book.

 

I think the focus on him really shows how crazy and extreme the storyline is and Claire is the catalyst for all these things. While the show and book are from Claire's perspective, she is asking both the men in her life a lot of things of them. Her situation really pushes them in the edge. She has asked Jamie to alter history in this one episode and he's like "I love you so OK." He does not understand it, but he loves and trusts her. So does Frank. I do not think the focus on Frank means we will get less of Jamie at all.

 

This is one of my favourite books in the series mostly because I love French history. Loved all the new bits to the opening theme and the French added in. Cait's accent is very good and you can definitely tell she knows it more than Sam.

 

It's a book adaptation series so some things will work for each of us and some won't. I don't think it's an either/or situation as long as it's entertaining in some ways.

 

I will not speak of Mr Willoughby until we have too. It's one of the reasons I was annoyed with Voyager, but let's hope it does not happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

He is also a man of his time but I really hate that story line.  I sincerely hope that if the show gets that far, that they just pretend he doesn't exist.  There's got to be a less annoying way for Claire to learn about the acupuncture cure for seasickness.  

 

 

 

I will not speak of Mr Willoughby until we have too. It's one of the reasons I was annoyed with Voyager, but let's hope it does not happen.

 

The shot of the little gold hammer and acupuncture needle in the opening credits this season gives me just a smidgen of hope that Claire will learn that skill in France and let the show completely excise the Mr. Willoughby story in Season 3. Fingers crossed!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I was wondering about that about the accupincture needle in the opening, too

As an aside, I couldn't help myself so had to check out what non book readers are saying. It's very obvious that the horror that is going thru the stones hasn't been portrayed strongly enough in the show. While I love how they showed her original trip, I think her verbally telling Jamie or voicing her fears when she ran for them back last season or something might have helped. They seem to think she can/would pop back and forth without too much trouble.

Edited by morgan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The shot of the little gold hammer and acupuncture needle in the opening credits this season gives me just a smidgen of hope that Claire will learn that skill in France and let the show completely excise the Mr. Willoughby story in Season 3. Fingers crossed!

 

I think that it was Mr Forez the hangman and sometimes surgeon who was doing that.  It was a surgery on a patient at the hospital - the pin was supposed to numb the leg for a time.  You don't hammer acupuncture needles.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I saw DG say on compuserve that the Jamie/Claire dialog wasn't very Jamie/Claire-like, but that it had to accomplish a lot of exposition. 

She's still on compuserve LOL.

 

As for the non-book readers like myself. I can never understand the desire to stay uninformed about this kind of thing. I've actually read synopses of both the Outlander and Game of Throne's books to help me understand why the show does what it does when it deviates from the source material. I guess my obsessive need to research stuff outweighs my desire to be surprised when it comes to TV shows.

 

I hope that all the things the book readers want to see in this season happen and I hear that one of them already happened in this episode. Help me out with that. What was it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I hope that all the things the book readers want to see in this season happen and I hear that one of them already happened in this episode. Help me out with that. What was it?

Hmm, I can think of a couple.  But maybe the gem?  The ring Claire frantically searches for and then later hides away is missing the gem.  Eventually the series will start exploring how the stones work and gems will be relevant.  I was excited to see that introduced already, even if it's sort of a head scratcher right now for those who haven't read the books.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I forgot all about Forez. Creepy guy!!

 

Did Claire's hand have Jamie's initial on it? There was no explicit shot but I don't know if there was a glimpse either.

Share this post


Link to post

I forgot all about Forez. Creepy guy!!

 

Did Claire's hand have Jamie's initial on it? There was no explicit shot but I don't know if there was a glimpse either.

 

I don't think so. Others who have watched it like, more than five times, have stated there was nothing to show that Claire had 'J' at the base of her thumb, nor did we see it. But I'm thinking...didn't Mrs. Graham notice it in the pilot?

 

FYI Claire is transported back to 1948 not 1946 which is what the recap says.

 

 

And it was heiland cows, not rams that Jamie's compatriots used to help him escape. Really, cows and rams dinna luik the same. At all!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I read somewhere, cannot remember exactly where, that they are forgoing the carved initials for the tv series. Which is why I think the theory about Jamie giving his dad's ring last minute could cover that part a bit at their parting, along with start the gem stone thing and having a ring that might have a makers mark or similar if they use that later with her conversation with Roger.

Edited by morgan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think that it was Mr Forez the hangman and sometimes surgeon who was doing that.  It was a surgery on a patient at the hospital - the pin was supposed to numb the leg for a time.  You don't hammer acupuncture needles.

 

Really? I had no idea! So... my theory is shot to hell. LOL Damn.

 

... Never mind... (tm Gilda Radner).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I read somewhere, cannot remember exactly where, that they are forgoing the carved initials for the tv series. Which is why I think the theory about Jamie giving his dad's ring last minute could cover that part a bit at their parting, along with start the gem stone thing and having a ring that might have a makers mark or similar if they use that later with her conversation with Roger.

I'd seen some references to that as well but could never find the actual source. I like the idea of the ring as a token, but at the same time I liked how visceral the physical mark was. But at least the groundwork is being laid for the gems.

Share this post


Link to post

I forgot all about carved initials.  That was one of my favorite parts of DiA.  Favorite, as in "OMG, OMG!!! They are so much in LUV!! that I think I'll just die!!!"  Oh well.  

Share this post


Link to post

I'd seen some references to that as well but could never find the actual source. I like the idea of the ring as a token, but at the same time I liked how visceral the physical mark was. But at least the groundwork is being laid for the gems.

 

The intials would make an already difficult production process just that much more difficult with additional makeup for them.  Poor Sam spends enough time getting latex glued to his back as it is.  

 

Like I've posted before, I think the ring thing is a brilliant, multi-purpose adaptation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm more concerned about the missing pearls. The carved initials doesn't have much plot significance, tbh.  It happens, it's mentioned several times after, but it really only serves as reminders for one another and the ring(s) can serve that function just as easily.  The pearls had plot significance, iirc, as they aided Bree in her arrival at Lallybroch.  My mind is blanking on specifics right now, but I know they also pop up elsewhere throughout the book.  I guess the gem-less ring can work just as well, though I'm going to miss the pearls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sort of reminds be about old Scottish/Gaelic legends about seals turned women (it's called selkie in English, I think) or swans turned women, who got captured by men and agreed to marry them. Then their partners were supposed to burn the feathering or the sealskin they shed, in order to prevent their wives from abandoning them and returning to their natural homeland/enviroment.

Male selkie myth is presented in "Outlander" via Brian Fraser character.

Ooooh, that is a fascinating connection! Wow, wow, wow. How much of a genius would the writers have to be to have done that on purpose?

 

I'm actually pretty sympathetic to Frank as a character throughout the entire series because as I've said on countless threads before, there really just weren't any good choices for him that didn't involve a fair bit of stiff upper lipping.  But when you spend 40 something minutes on him and his manpain in the season premier and try to frame nearly all of Claire's trauma and loss through that in a show that's been lauded so heavily for its uniquely female perspective and viewpoint, I'm not required to think it's a great choice or great TV.

This is how I feel exactly. I don't hate Frank because he's not the point of the books, so what's the point in hating him? What I hate is the way they're trying to shoehorn him into Claire and Jamie's story. Not that I hated the first part of the episode (I loved the whole thing) but I would have really appreciated it actually being from Claire's POV and not Frank's. It was good to see those events and conversations, but but what happened to this being the great female gaze show? I didn't feel that this time around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I fully expect to see the pearls again. I think Claire had them put aside, not with the clothes that got burned. That is my head cannon anyway.

I am thinking that the initials thing might have been part of Ron's podcast. Not 100% but they did talk a lot about Jamie's scars and how they deal with them and it seems like it came up then?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm more concerned about the missing pearls. The carved initials doesn't have much plot significance, tbh.  It happens, it's mentioned several times after, but it really only serves as reminders for one another and the ring(s) can serve that function just as easily.  The pearls had plot significance, iirc, as they aided Bree in her arrival at Lallybroch.  My mind is blanking on specifics right now, but I know they also pop up elsewhere throughout the book.  I guess the gem-less ring can work just as well, though I'm going to miss the pearls.

 

We don't know that she doesn't have the pearls. We just haven't seen them yet.

Share this post


Link to post

We don't know that she doesn't have the pearls. We just haven't seen them yet.

What would be the point in hiding the pearls?  At least, on her body and the things she brought with her?  She put aside the ring, why wouldn't they have also included the pearls among the things she set aside/hid from Frank?  It would have been quite easy to show her with some sort of small handbag that was hidden in the dresses that she pulls out when she's undressed at the hospital, but they chose not to.

 

Maybe they will introduce the idea of communicating through time via bank safety deposit boxes or hidden caches and the pearls will magically appear in that location and somehow still in perfect condition after 200+ years.  It's almost illogical, but I'd have an easier time accepting 200 year old pearls in good condition over Claire somehow having the pearls all along even though they went out of their way to show and tell what she did keep with her.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to belabor the initials thing too much, but in the books Claire says the scar faded considerably over 20 years and that it's barely noticeable unless you know to look for it. So in my head it's something that could be ditched after this season and be believable? And more to the point, why is this marking beyond the realm of production feasibility but Randall's brand isn't? Neither is explicitly significant to plot after the episode. One shows Randall's depth of depravity in breaking Jamie, the other shows Claire's desperation to carry Jamie's physical presence with her. They're both powerful moments for different reasons, so I find myself wondering why the relationship-y one is less necessary.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Randall's brand and now the scar from it's removal (as well as the scars from the flogging) will be covered most of the time by a shirt.  This isn't true of the hands.  You have to have make up and/or cgi on top of a tiny little spot on the hand at all times.  Too much output for something that isn't hugely important and can be transferred to another object as a visual memory they have of one another.  They'll have enough to deal with with the scars already on Jamie's broken hand.  

Edited by Lion
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

They imbued the brand with a lot of significance in the TV show -- more than in the book.  In the book, it's just one of many horrible things that Jack did to Jamie.  In the show, Jamie is ashamed at his having branded himself (though he did veer off and not put the brand over his heart so as far as I'm concerned he was still fighting at that point) and the cutting out of the brand is symbolic of his taking back his power (or at least beginning that journey.)

 

The cuts on the hands were a nice point in the book but totally unnecessary in the show.  We didn't need another symbol of their love and mutual devotion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

.

Yet I love his character and don't feel much for Frank other that some respect and compassion...but I can't follow the train of thinking that he was merely a racist, misogynistic asshole while Jamie walks on water, which is something I often come across in other corners of web.

St Jamie vs the Devil . And St Jamie is very much a given if the reader/viewer is only interested in Jamie and Claire having sex and Jamie becomes their personal wank fantasy .

 

 

 

The cuts on the hands were a nice point in the book but totally unnecessary in the show.  We didn't need another symbol of their love and mutual devotion.

I also thought it might have something to do with having to give Catriona that scar make up for it all the time . It's one thing to do  the scar make up for Sam's back whenever he has a shirtless scene but all the time and on a body part that's moving so often like hands ? 

Share this post


Link to post

Oooooh, here's a timely goody.  Diana just tweeted a link to a website where someone re-posted something Diana had written on CompuServe long ago in response to a raging debate over Frank.  I thoroughly enjoyed this.  It is very timely given the debate breaking out here in response to ep 201.

 

https://timeslipsblog.wordpress.com/diana-gabaldons-defense-of-frank-randall/

Edited by WatchrTina
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know the official answer for that, but I have always assumed miscarriage is when the baby wouldn't be viable, and still birth is of an age where a baby could have been had it not died in utero. I am just guessing though because thankfully I don't have experience in either.

If I remember correctly, any time a mother loses a child after week 28, it is classified as a stillborn. I learned this when my brother and his wife lost their second child at 29 weeks. Still no matter when a child is lost, it sucks. I wouldnt wish that kind of pain and suffering on anyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, maybe an UO, but I totally got Frank's deal in the first half of the episode, and I thought Menzies' performance (and Balfe's) was brilliant.  They got across so much in those scenes.  I don't think Claire is a martyr. I always note that she is an unreliable narrator in DiA; she has to be because she is grieving and Frank can't understand it.  She's the object of our sympathy because we know she's telling the truth. Frank doesn't. 

 

From Frank's perspective, which Claire cannot give in DiA, his wife disappeared without note or warning. He's spent 2 years defending her, convinced that she went against her will and hoping that she's not dead.  She comes back with a patently unbelievable story -- one that can't be proved, because the only extrinsic evidence is the clothing on her back.  He knows it cannot be true, but that would mean that Claire is crazy or is capable of lying to his face and thinking he is stupid.  I don't think he believes her, really, but has decided to remain agnostic because either explanation is untenable.  But she's mourning someone who, from her perspective, she just saw yesterday, and from his perspective (if she's telling the truth -- which she can't be) has been dead for centuries.  There's no way for him to gauge her reaction to trauma, because in his mind, that trauma really probably doesn't exist.  He's actually spent two year imagining a trauma, her being kidnapped and held against her will, that turns out not even to be the case. The fact that he burns her clothing, to me, is testament to his frame of mind, as he is an historian and his love for Claire and desire to put all this behind them is stronger than his intellectual and academic curiosity.  I don't personally assign any more nefarious reason for burning them than that.  I'd trash a room for much less, myself, and then I would say in no uncertain terms to my husband: if this marriage is going to recover, you have to wipe the slate clean of this other person:  no googling, no following on Facebook or Twitter, lose her cell number. I would also wipe/erase all text messages, photos, and emails and empty the recycle bin, burn any letters, maybe even replace the phone and number completely.  Scorched earth.   

 

All that complexity of character is in keeping with the last two episodes of Season 1.  One commentary by RDM said that they were interested in showing what happens when a person reaches his or her limit (like Jamie in WP). To me, this was Frank reaching his limit, and his response was to stuff it all into a box, start fresh, and resolve never to think about it again.  I love that his response makes me feel so conflicted about him as a character.

I've read all the books though it's been awhile. I don't think Frank believed her, at least not for awhile, until he dug into her claims and may have found evidence of Bree in the 1700s which would be during his Harvard time. When C comes back (in the book) she's malnourished, dehydrated, hysterical and in weird clothes. He probably thought she'd been abducted by a cult a la Kimmy Schmidt and brainwashed thus giving her a pass on being pregnant and claiming devotion to this other man. He also mentioned he didn't want to be the last stop on his family tree (devastating to a man so obsessed with history and his own lineage) which is another reason to raise Bree, and then she was born and he fell in love with her for her own sake. Though I'll always prefer Jamie with Claire, Frank is not a total villain and Claire is not perfect. 

Share this post


Link to post

My problem with Frank is not at all about the character. I think he is a good man, just as Claire is a good woman. They're both full of good intentions in theory, but their marriage is just doomed to fail,  because sometimes good intentions are not enough. Claire can't love Frank back and Frank can't love her unconditionally. It will tear him apart to know that she still loves another man, no matter how much clothes he burns and how much he tells her not to search for him in history. I think the episode showed it pretty well actually. Frank's conditions were selfish and just about him and we know they won't manage what he's trying to achieve. Claire will never be able to forget Jamie and she will never love him.

 

That's the tragic story of a failed marriage where there is no real "guilty" part. Claire can't help her feeling, Frank can't help his feelings either. IMO they should have seperated, but they're people of their time. In 1948 people didn't seperate easily. Women didn't bring up children out of wedlock on their own if they could help it and Frank is noble in trying to give Claire and Bree a secure background, even though it also for the selfish reason, that he still loves Claire and that he wants to have a child. 

 

What I don't like about the Frank story is, when Ron tries to make Frank's and Claire's relationship just as good as Jamie's and Claire's, because it isn't. He sometimes tries to make a "love triangle" out of the story and it isn't a love triangle, because in the book there is no question who is in love and who isn't. Claire only loves Jamie and he is her soulmate. This should be made clear, but it often seems as if Ron is not interested in Jamie and Claire. He is more interested in making Frank nicer and in pronouncing Frank's tragic fate, which IMO isn't what is in the book. I wish he would once give Jamie's character as much depth as he tries to give Frank. For Ron Jamie is just the "hunk" and that has to be enough. Why not flesh out Jamie instead of Frank?

 

That's why I didn't like how Ron changed Frank's reaction from the book. In the book Frank got angry at Claire. He didn't believe her, he even sent her to a psychiatrist, because he thought she was mad. He demanded answers in the book and wasn't all that understanding. In the series Ron lets Frank react just like Jamie does in the book and that is again an attempt to make Frank appear in a better light. In doing so, Ron weakens Jamie and he takes away from what makes the relationship between Jamie and Claire so special. For Ron IMO it is just the better sex that bonds Claire to Jamie and that's not true to the book at all. 

Edited by Andorra
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I do wish they had included more of the conversation that Jamie and Claire had on their wedding night, about how he understood that Frank was still alive in her heart and he didn't want her to forget him or replace him. I know they covered the "secrets but no lies" later but I felt like that created some depth to Jamie in the book that he is sort of missing in the show.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I know they can't include everything, but i really missed that conversation in the wedding episode, too.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a few thoughts on S2 EP1.  I really enjoyed it and was VERY grateful that it began with the 1948 time frame vs 1968.  I really didn't like that aspect of DIA in the book, it really bothered me.  I can only imagine how jarring it must have been for those of you who read Outlander 20+ years ago, fell in love with Jamie and Claire and their happy ending of the pregnancy, wait another 3 years for the next book only to read the first chapter and realize that not only are Jamie and Claire not together but they've been separated for 20 years.  Ugh.   So, yeah, glad they reworked that a bit.  

 

Just loved the hand transition from Frank to Jamie, thought it was very clever.  Reminded me of the opening shot of Both Sides Now where they show the old map of Scotland along a modern one.  

 

Other than that, nothing really wowed me, but I did like it very much.  I kind of feel a little like be careful what you wish for because for sooooo long during Droughlander we had zero previews, hints, tidbits, etc and then the closer we got to the premier we were unindated (at least on social media) of clips, scenes, previews etc and I felt like I had already seen so much of what was in the premier, which I know isn't true, but it just all felt very familiar, ya ken?  

Edited by Summer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if we, the viewers, would feel more unequivocal support for Frank and his situation if he had not been played by the same actor who plays Season 1's biggest, baddest villain.  We'll never know but I can't help wondering if Frank had been played by a handsome, likable actor who was not Tobias Menzies, would the viewers sympathize with him more?  I actually sympathized with Frank a LOT in this episode despite my unabashed support for Jamie/Claire as the show's OTP but it's clear that many people did not.

 

However, despite my sympathy, I maintain that Frank does NOT believe Claire about the time-travel the way Jamie did.  Frank is going along with it for the greater good -- so that they can make a fresh start and be a family.  But he does not believe her.  Not yet anyway.  And Jamie did believe her.  

Edited by WatchrTina
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if we, the viewers, would feel more unequivocal support for Frank and his situation if he had not been played by the same actor who plays Season 1's biggest, baddest villain.  We'll never know but I can't help wondering if Frank had been played by a handsome, likable actor who was not Tobias Menzies, would the viewers sympathize with him more?  I actually sympathized with Frank a LOT in this episode despite my unabashed support for Jamie/Claire as the show's OTP but it's clear that many people did not.

 

  

 

 

Speaking only for myself, the answer is no.  It wouldn't matter who was playing Frank. I really like Tobias Menzies, but I remembered not caring for Frank when I first read the buik 20 some years ago.  And when I started reading the complete series this time, nothing changed my mind. And Tobias playing Black Jack doesn't affect how I feel--because he's so good at making me believe they are two different characters.

 

I don't Hate Frank. I just don't like him. And it's not a Frank v. Jamie thing, either.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Oooooh, here's a timely goody.  Diana just tweeted a link to a website where someone re-posted something Diana had written on CompuServe long ago in response to a raging debate over Frank.  I thoroughly enjoyed this.  It is very timely given the debate breaking out here in response to ep 201.

 

Some debates never change. For me, Frank has as much - if not more - to do with Bree than with Claire. One of my favorite parts of the books is Jamie's relationships and interactions with the children in his family (nieces, nephews, great-nieces, great-nephews, his children (I include Fergus and Marsali here and maybe Fanny, depending on book 9), foster children (Lizzie), grandchildren...) - when they're young and grown up. That's why I'm really looking forward to the introduction to Fergus in a couple episodes.  

 

Frank genuinely loved Bree - unconditionally. I think the show planted that seed beautifully with the whole "a child without a father and a man without a child have been given a chance to find one another". Part of the reason Jamie sent Claire back through the stones was that he was entrusting the lives and well-being of his wife and child to a man of whom Jamie was really jealous. Yes, it speaks really well of Jamie. But it also speaks really well of Frank. He accepted Claire (I won't dive into the whole did-he-love-her/potential affairs stuff), and he embraced Bree. A lot can happen in three years. We don't really know what Frank did in that time. But he certainly dropped everything to bring them into his life and start a new chapter. There's a lot of selfless in there.

 

I type all that as a major Jamie aficionado. I just think Frank is a good guy, devoted and loving father, and also a human being in a messy situation. 

Edited by Dust Bunny
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Some debates never change. For me, Frank has as much - if not more - to do with Bree than with Claire. One of my favorite parts of the books is Jamie's relationships and interactions with the children in his family (nieces, nephews, great-nieces, great-nephews, his children (I include Fergus and Marsali here and maybe Fannie, depending on book 9), foster children (Lizzy), grandchildren...) - when they're young and grown up. That's why I'm really looking forward to the introduction to Fergus in a couple episodes. 

 

Yes, and one of the themes of this series and something I really like is the focus on family but family which evolves through unusual circumstances. Many of the major characters in this book are orphans and/or were adopted by loving parents. Claire was herself raised by her uncle. Roger, Bree, Fergus, Marsali, and William were all adopted in some way. The various families are connected and interact. Bree remembers Frank fondly. In many ways, she is the luckiest main character, she has a strong mother and two fathers who have loved her fiercely and she can experience it as well as pass it on to her own children.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

For those interested, You can find the script for Episode 2.01 here (the other scripts will be available, too after they've aired).

 

http://www.outlandercommunity.com/

 

The most interesting thing for me was, that the moment between Jamie and Claire, when they leaned in to kiss on the bed and then Jamie froze and kissed her hand instead, was not in the script. So it obviously came from Cait and Sam or the director. Since that was one of the most touching scenes for me in the whole episode, I'm glad they put it in!

 

Another interesting thing: In the "decision scene" it was clearer, that Claire made the decision mainly because Jamie asked her to. 

 

 

 

CLAIRE
I promised him I would. (off his look)
You see, he sent me back to you.
Sent me back, because everything was lost and he knew, that I was ready to die, but he wouldn't let me.
(touches her belly)
Wouldn't let us die.
He made me promise that I would go back to you... that I would let him go...
(beat)
and so I will. I accept your conditions.

 

Other than that not much was cut. Not much that seems necessary anyway IMO. 

 

Ron made an interesting remark though: He wrote, that he wanted to show Frank "worthy of Claire and worthy of raising Brianna". 

Edited by Andorra
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if we, the viewers, would feel more unequivocal support for Frank and his situation if he had not been played by the same actor who plays Season 1's biggest, baddest villain. We'll never know but I can't help wondering if Frank had been played by a handsome, likable actor who was not Tobias Menzies, would the viewers sympathize with him more? I actually sympathized with Frank a LOT in this episode despite my unabashed support for Jamie/Claire as the show's OTP but it's clear that many people did not.

It really has very little to do with Tobias Menzies or the dual role, other than those first 40 minutes being a reminder of how his scenes were allowed to eat so much of the show last season and contribute to its overall pacing problems and a general sense that Jamie was not as well developed going into a lot of his big moments as he should have been.

The thing about that I don't feel like Ron Moore is getting is that while yes, Frank is Claire's first husband and the father who raised Bree, he's not a main character. It's not a triangle. At least not in the books. He exists mostly as a plot device who we catch only the most minor glimpses of outside of Claire and Bree's POVs. And even there at times you have to call into question the whole unreliable narrator thing. A perfect example of this is the never-ending debate of whether Frank cheated on Claire, even before she disappeared. I've seen pages and pages of discussion devoted to this on multiple boards over the years and the end result is always the same. Everyone has their own opinion but it's impossible to know for certain because he never has a POV. It's not important enough in the larger story for the author to even clarify because she's already made the point that while Frank may otherwise be a lovely and honorable man, he and Claire are not really suited for each other. He's a part of the story and an important one, but it's not Frank and Claire's story.

Interestingly, I didn't really mind the initial efforts last season to flesh Frank out a bit because he is so thinly drawn in the books. I mean, in her big moment of deciding whether to stay or go back through the stones, Frank seems to rate below hot baths in her pro-con list making. In this book, she wants him to continue to exist but not in any kind of I have to get back to you because I want you so badly kind of way.

Edited by nodorothyparker
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I hope we get to see Frank as father to Bree since this speaks so much to his character.  He might not have been the best husband (he tried, at least initially), but you can't argue that he was a great dad.  Shoot, he even prepared his daughter to live in the 18th c if she so chose.

 

One of my favourite parts of "Fiery Cross" is that chapter when Claire and Jamie encounter the horribly messed up family of creepy wife and her abusive husband, who suffered a stroke and was left to literally rot - granted, those are NOT the aspects of this chapter I find enjoyable LOL - then the woman gives a birth to a mulatto girl and abandons her in snow. Claire and Jamie are left to care for the child and he asks her if she wants them to adopt the girl. I loved everything about this scene. I love the concept of their extended family on the Ridge. In many ways Claire and Jamie were robbed of conventional family dynamics, their first child was stillborn, they were separated for 20 years and Jamie never had a chance to raise any of his biological children. But on some way they got recompensed, surrounded later in their lives by many people who needed and loved them. In the end they got more children and grandchildren they could probably imagine. It was almost biblical in a sense, that kind of "reward". Kudos for DG for creating those unusual family dynamics.

Yet I've seen people disappointed that C&J didn't have more of their "own" children and wishing for Claire to birth several bairns. Of course don't begrudge those people wanting another story but...IMO it would be like 10000 stories already told.

Claire knew additional pregnancies would be like playing Russian roulette, which is why she was terrified for Bree and Marsali whenever they got pregnant.  Can't say I blame her!  But I too love their very complicated and extended family that would drive a genealogist to drink.  With most characters coming from non traditional 2 parent families, it seems like one theme is how love supercedes blood when it comes to family.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

My niece and I shared a love for Season One; I've read the books but she has not.  During droughlander she made the comment that Jamie seemed almost like a minor character.  I was startled by her thoughts but realized that I was watching through my lens of knowing how complex and fully-fashioned Jamie is in the books.  I hope Season Two reflects his commanding presence and doesn't relegate him to being a character who just buttresses Claire in her escapades.

 

I wonder if Frank has been expanded BECAUSE he's played by Tobias Menzies.  He is a well-respected actor with some big-name projects on his resume.  I can see Ron wanting to take advantage of his talent and utilizing him more than perhaps the story warrants.  Diana would be the one to guard against over-inflation, I would think.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if Frank has been expanded BECAUSE he's played by Tobias Menzies.  He is a well-respected actor with some big-name projects on his resume.  I can see Ron wanting to take advantage of his talent and utilizing him more than perhaps the story warrants.  Diana would be the one to guard against over-inflation, I would think.

 

I completely believe that is the reason.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size