S02.E01: Through A Glass, Darkly

[Athena]

Note: This is the No Book Talk episode thread for the season premiere. Book Talkers, your thread is here. No book discussion of any kind is allowed in a No Book Talk thread including saying "It was different in the books." Posts and likes from known book walkers are strongly discouraged. Posts may be hidden or moved to other threads without warning. Please be considerate of unspoiled non-book posters. Thank you.

[Athena]

Season two of Outlander begins as Claire and Jamie arrive in France, hell-bent on infiltrating the Jacobite rebellion led by Prince Charles Stuart, and stopping the battle of Culloden. With the help of his cousin Jared, a local wine merchant, Jamie and Claire are thrown into the lavish world of French society, where intrigue and parties are abundant, but political gain proves far less fruitful. Altering the course of history presents challenges that begin to weigh on the very fabric of their relationship. However, armed with the knowledge of what lies ahead, Claire and Jamie must race to prevent a doomed Highland uprising, and the extinction of Scottish life as they know it.

This thread opens on April 7, 2016 because of DirectTV and streaming services. If you do not want to be spoiled by the episode, please do not read below.

[ganesh]

Not that I don't really like the show, but this title and "Memento Mori" need to be retired from television.

 

I'm all for trying to change history though. 

[Glade]

I love this show! That opening was so powerful, I could feel every moment of her shock and grief at arriving back in 1948.  And Frank's entrance, the fear and dread was palpable, perfectly executed.  When she sat down to tell him, it really made me think of...how us survivors of abuse feel, when telling our stories to someone for the first time--will they believe us?  This is all the more so because technically, we didn't hear any indication that she had told him about Black Jack.  Did she leave it out? 

 

I don't see how she could ever really, truly go back to Frank given that resemblance and so much else.  And Frank's demands show just how great Jamie is in comparison.  Jamie would never tell Claire that her grief has to immediately end after two weeks.  No, it seems completely untenable.  Has Claire forgotten, due to her time in the past, that in 1948, she surely doesn't need the protection of a husband, she can move about the world freely, independently...I suppose she would need money eventually, but she is resourceful. 

 

I'm sure that in time, she would/will begin to realize all of that.  For now, she made this decision very quickly.  And being forced to lie to her child...that is cruel, to all parties involved and yes, the child would feel and be affected by it all.  Jamie and Claire's relationship is about growing and healing together, but Frank and Claire definitely aren't, it's all about denial and things hidden below the surface.  Please leave him ASAP, Claire!

 

I kept waiting for the flash-back to come.  It felt a bit late, but then agian I suppose it a) mirrors the pilot episode and b) will have some story significance when it is picked up towards the end of the season.  I also kind of wanted to see some alternate history happened, and that is part of why the opening of this episode was so powerful and dismaying...because apparently they will be unsuccessful.

 

So there was a bit of a damper, on the happiness at seeing Jamie and his beautiful hair as they begin their mission in France.  But their chemistry as a couple is amazing, and I'm definitely all in for this season and beyond!

[riverheightsnancy]

I have Comcast X1 (their new thing) and this episode is available On Demand under the heading Outlander on the main TV shows page. I was hoping maybe it would be there (they have a ton of extras for Outlander on there) and there it is! Off to watch it right now! 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Part of me really feels for Frank. His wife disappeared and then she shows up again with a crazy story about how she time travelled back to two centuries ago and fell in love with another man. That's a lot to take in before finding out that she's pregnant with this other guy's child. But I am so tired of seeing a frustrated man have a temper tantrum by punching walls, beating the crap out of someone's shed, etc.

 

While I understand Frank telling Claire to let go of Jamie so that she doesn't spend the rest of her life combing through books searching for any trace of his name, at the same time it seems selfish for him to expect her to stop wanting to find answers. I think if anything, finding out what happened to him would give her some closure.

 

I don't know how she could be with Frank and see Randall's face every day for the rest of her life. I know that I sure couldn't do that.

[riverheightsnancy]

If Claire wanted to just gut Frank, she would tell him about his ancestor and what he did. It would be interesting to see his response. What Frank cannot understand, is that for Claire, Jamie was just with her a few days ago (I assume). For Claire, the last time she saw Frank was several years ago. She has had a lifetime of experiences since the last time she saw Frank. I am interested in where this all goes and the new characters. I will miss Rupert and his sidekick though (& Mrs. Fitz). I kind of loved those two guys. At least Murtaugh is there. 

[annlaw78]

Here's an idea, Claire: Why don't you start listening to your husband (you know, that guy whose hand is still bandaged from his last run-in with Randall), rather than running off half-cocked into situations with consequences you don't understand and making new enemies. Geez!

[GrailKing]

I love this show! That opening was so powerful, I could feel every moment of her shock and grief at arriving back in 1948.  And Frank's entrance, the fear and dread was palpable, perfectly executed.  When she sat down to tell him, it really made me think of...how us survivors of abuse feel, when telling our stories to someone for the first time--will they believe us?  This is all the more so because technically, we didn't hear any indication that she had told him about Black Jack.  Did she leave it out? 

 

I don't see how she could ever really, truly go back to Frank given that resemblance and so much else.  And Frank's demands show just how great Jamie is in comparison.  Jamie would never tell Claire that her grief has to immediately end after two weeks.  No, it seems completely untenable.  Has Claire forgotten, due to her time in the past, that in 1948, she surely doesn't need the protection of a husband, she can move about the world freely, independently...I suppose she would need money eventually, but she is resourceful. 

 

I'm sure that in time, she would/will begin to realize all of that.  For now, she made this decision very quickly.  And being forced to lie to her child...that is cruel, to all parties involved and yes, the child would feel and be affected by it all.  Jamie and Claire's relationship is about growing and healing together, but Frank and Claire definitely aren't, it's all about denial and things hidden below the surface.  Please leave him ASAP, Claire!

 

I kept waiting for the flash-back to come.  It felt a bit late, but then agian I suppose it a) mirrors the pilot episode and b) will have some story significance when it is picked up towards the end of the season.  I also kind of wanted to see some alternate history happened, and that is part of why the opening of this episode was so powerful and dismaying...because apparently they will be unsuccessful.

 

So there was a bit of a damper, on the happiness at seeing Jamie and his beautiful hair as they begin their mission in France.  But their chemistry as a couple is amazing, and I'm definitely all in for this season and beyond!

She talked all night, she may not have told Frank of BJR brutality but I think she may have told him some of his legacy.

Jamie's not much better or worse then Frank, and despite what many say about Frank's reaction about Claire being pregnant, 50 + % of the woman in this world would do basically the same thing if the man came back with another woman's child, when it comes to emotion and affairs of the heart both genders act the same.

As for Claire, at least half that show was it's about "me" she is shocked yes, but she is thinking just of herself and a ghost, then when they cut back to 1745 it's also about her just look at the pox scene, Jamie gave her good advice and she ignored it and what did it get them. ..a new enemy.

Frank isn't the enemy, he's the victim of circumstances beyond his control due to decisions Claire made 200 years back.

Frank spent two years hoping she come back and your po because he showed his emotions, not even in this day and age men or woman would be so calm.

Jamie is just as jealous and controlling, it's just in a different way he and Frank aren't saints and she's no angel.

[nara]

I'm declaring this episode the shortest hour on television!

 

Given where last season left off, I was surprised to see this episode begin with Claire back in the future. First thing I thought of was the poster in this forum (Ganesh, I think) who didn't believe that Claire chose Jamie, but rather that the stones at Craigh Na Dun didn't work, so she was forced to stay in the past.  Glad to see him proved wrong.

 

MVP for this episode--Frank/Tobias Menzies.  He was brilliant IMO -- joy, frustration, anger--all well portrayed.  My sympathies were entirely with Frank during this episode.  His reaction (at every new revelation) was entirely natural.  My heart broke for him when I saw Claire's coldness to him.  It's understandable, given what we know about her love for Jamie, but still... Damn you, Outlander, for making me cry in the very first episode!  Especially when he thought for a second that Claire was pregnant with his child.  (By the way, why was Claire drinking alcohol when she was pregnant?  Or did they not know better in the 1940's?)  I think Frank's demands are reasonable.  If he's going to raise Claire's child as his own, he would want the child and everyone else to think of him as its father.   Also, it would be agonizing to be married to someone who is living in the past.  It's one thing if there's a chance that Jamie is alive, but it's been 200 years... Claire needs to be present for her child's sake and for Frank's too.

 

I really would have loved to see Frank's reaction to Claire's story--especially if she gave him some details on his precious ancestor, Blackjack.  Also would have loved a mention of the fact that the vicar's housekeeper told him about the power of Craigh na Dun and he believed it enough to go there.

I enjoyed seeing adorable Roger Wakefield, but shouldn't he have aged more since we last saw him?  I liked that he played a role in Frank deciding to father Claire's child.  Reverend Wakefield's comparison to Joseph and his mention of God's eternal plan were also very apt, IMO; as well as Frank's reaction.

 

Was I the only one who cringed when Frank burned Claire's clothes?  I get the symbolism, but I hated seeing the clothes we were told were very valuable be destroyed instead of being sent to a museum.

 

I liked that Claire finally smiled at Frank when she arrived in NYC. New country, new start. (Is it bad that I laughed that she had no carry-on luggage on her trans-Atlantic flight and just a clutch purse?)  The transition to the past worked well too, but shouldn't the past have been 1744, not 1745, given when they left Scotland for France?

 

I think that Claire was in France for less than a day before she made an enemy!  That is so her!  BTW, I was annoyed that she went to a smallpox-ridden place when she's pregnant!  I know she's been vaccinated, but she should be more careful with her unborn child.  And when is she going to learn to trust Jamie's judgement?  First when she gets captured by the English, then when he told her to stay away from Gellis, and now he tells her to trust him that they need to leave, but she still won't shut her mouth and leave!

 

Glad to see Murtagh back--will really miss the others!  But he's going to feel like the 3rd wheel unless they give him a love interest.

 

I should have known they'd find a reason to get Jamie's shirt off.  That made me LOL.  Is it just me or does it look like he has fewer scars this year? 

 

I hope they won't be speaking so much French throughout the season., I understand it, but it's a little distracting.  And did Sam Heughan pronounce "Dame" like the English word and not the French one, or was that my imagination?  I get that he may not be a French speaker and has just learned the lines, but his pronunciation could get old quickly.

 

I wonder if the back and forth in time will be consistent in this season or if they will stick with the past now.  I really like Tobias--he's the best actor of the lot, which makes sense because he has more experience than Caitriona or Sam.

[GrailKing]

I'm declaring this episode the shortest hour on television!

 

Given where last season left off, I was surprised to see this episode begin with Claire back in the future. First thing I thought of was the poster in this forum (Ganesh, I think) who didn't believe that Claire chose Jamie, but rather that the stones at Craigh Na Dun didn't work, so she was forced to stay in the past.  Glad to see him proved wrong.

 

MVP for this episode--Frank/Tobias Menzies.  He was brilliant IMO -- joy, frustration, anger--all well portrayed.  My sympathies were entirely with Frank during this episode.  His reaction (at every new revelation) was entirely natural.  My heart broke for him when I saw Claire's coldness to him.  It's understandable, given what we know about her love for Jamie, but still... Damn you, Outlander, for making me cry in the very first episode!  Especially when he thought for a second that Claire was pregnant with his child.  (By the way, why was Claire drinking alcohol when she was pregnant?  Or did they not know better in the 1940's?)  I think Frank's demands are reasonable.  If he's going to raise Claire's child as his own, he would want the child and everyone else to think of him as its father.   Also, it would be agonizing to be married to someone who is living in the past.  It's one thing if there's a chance that Jamie is alive, but it's been 200 years... Claire needs to be present for her child's sake and for Frank's too.

 

I really would have loved to see Frank's reaction to Claire's story--especially if she gave him some details on his precious ancestor, Blackjack.  Also would have loved a mention of the fact that the vicar's housekeeper told him about the power of Craigh na Dun and he believed it enough to go there.

I enjoyed seeing adorable Roger Wakefield, but shouldn't he have aged more since we last saw him?  I liked that he played a role in Frank deciding to father Claire's child.  Reverend Wakefield's comparison to Joseph and his mention of God's eternal plan were also very apt, IMO; as well as Frank's reaction.

 

Was I the only one who cringed when Frank burned Claire's clothes?  I get the symbolism, but I hated seeing the clothes we were told were very valuable be destroyed instead of being sent to a museum.

 

I liked that Claire finally smiled at Frank when she arrived in NYC. New country, new start. (Is it bad that I laughed that she had no carry-on luggage on her trans-Atlantic flight and just a clutch purse?)  The transition to the past worked well too, but shouldn't the past have been 1744, not 1745, given when they left Scotland for France?

 

I think that Claire was in France for less than a day before she made an enemy!  That is so her!  BTW, I was annoyed that she went to a smallpox-ridden place when she's pregnant!  I know she's been vaccinated, but she should be more careful with her unborn child.  And when is she going to learn to trust Jamie's judgement?  First when she gets captured by the English, then when he told her to stay away from Gellis, and now he tells her to trust him that they need to leave, but she still won't shut her mouth and leave!

 

Glad to see Murtagh back--will really miss the others!  But he's going to feel like the 3rd wheel unless they give him a love interest.

 

I should have known they'd find a reason to get Jamie's shirt off.  That made me LOL.  Is it just me or does it look like he has fewer scars this year? 

 

I hope they won't be speaking so much French throughout the season., I understand it, but it's a little distracting.  And did Sam Heughan pronounce "Dame" like the English word and not the French one, or was that my imagination?  I get that he may not be a French speaker and has just learned the lines, but his pronunciation could get old quickly.

 

I wonder if the back and forth in time will be consistent in this season or if they will stick with the past now.  I really like Tobias--he's the best actor of the lot, which makes sense because he has more experience than Caitriona or Sam.

Mrs. Graham did tell him in season 1 and he did stop there and they hear each other across time (is this what you were asking?)

I mentioned the burning of the clothes too saying why not give them to the museum.

Her valuables the ring and other stuff went in the suitcase she had nothing else really.

Tobias was great and some folks here will get double dose of him and Clive Russell as both are reprising their roles in Game of Thrones.

[ganesh]

But I am so tired of seeing a frustrated man have a temper tantrum by punching walls, beating the crap out of someone's shed, etc.

 

I think the technical term is "manpain". There was a lot of eyerolling for that scene. What I did like, which was bad, was when Frank got violent and clenched his fist at Claire. Black Jack bloodline. I did like that Frank basically came around. He seemed sincere in wanting to start a family, and I agree a clean break to Harvard was the right decision.

 

I think getting closure for Claire in 1948 is fair, and Frank was ok about her wearing the wedding ring. I think he just didn't want her to agree to stay married and then spend all of her time in the library looking up Jamie all the time. To the detriment of parenting. I tend to think Claire isn't parenting material. 

 

 

First thing I thought of was the poster in this forum (Ganesh, I think) who didn't believe that Claire chose Jamie, but rather that the stones at Craigh Na Dun didn't work, so she was forced to stay in the past.  Glad to see him proved wrong.

 

I don't know what "chose" means in this context. Claire didn't choose Jamie or otherwise. They married out of convenience. Nor do I recall talking about "the stones not working". I was very interested in the early season 1 episode, 4 or 5, where there was reference to others experiencing the stones, and there was the other woman from the 1960s. I know I speculated on how the stones might work. And there was the episode where Claire got within touching distance of the stones, but she was captured. 

 

I'm not really that much of a fan of show the end in the first episode and then build to it throughout the season. I'm unspoiled. I didn't even know the show was back until Friday. I mean, I'm all for trying to change the past because there's a lot of "am I going to make it worse by trying to change it?" You can get a lot of drame out of that. 

 

I don't and never did think that they'd be able to avoid/alter Culloden, so I don't think opening the show with *gasp* there was still Culloden! And Claire is so devastated, was this huge dramatic moment. Though I liked seeing Frank again.

 

Given how stubborn Claire is, for the show, I would have just stayed in the past. Is Claire that stubborn that she could change it?

 

Of course, her returning to 1948 could be "in the middle", and she might end up going back. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't leave the baby with Frank and go back into the past.

 

What I like about the show is that that it is clearly a female lead, but we're all like, oh ffs Claire, nearly all the time. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by ganesh

[voiceover]

(By the way, why was Claire drinking alcohol when she was pregnant? Or did they not know better in the 1940's?)

They were still drinking-while-pregnant in the 60s.

[nara]

Mrs. Graham did tell him in season 1 and he did stop there and they hear each other across time (is this what you were asking?)

I meant that I wish Frank had mentioned that incident to Claire as part of his sincerity in believing her.

  

I don't know what "chose" means in this context. Claire didn't choose Jamie or otherwise. They married out of convenience. Nor do I recall talking about "the stones not working". I was very interested in the early season 1 episode, 4 or 5, where there was reference to others experiencing the stones, and there was the other woman from the 1960s. I know I speculated on how the stones might work. And there was the episode where Claire got within touching distance of the stones, but she was captured. 

 

I'm not really that much of a fan of show the end in the first episode and then build to it throughout the season. I'm unspoiled. I didn't even know the show was back until Friday. I mean, I'm all for trying to change the past because there's a lot of "am I going to make it worse by trying to change it?" You can get a lot of drame out of that. 

 

I don't and never did think that they'd be able to avoid/alter Culloden, so I don't think opening the show with *gasp* there was still Culloden! And Claire is so devastated, was this huge dramatic moment. Though I liked seeing Frank again.

 

Of course, her returning to 1948 could be "in the middle", and she might end up going back. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't leave the baby with Frank and go back into the past.

 

I'm probably thinking of another poster. I was referring to the episode when Jamie leaves Claire at Craigh Na Dun after the trial and tells her to go home to the future. Next thing we know, she comes back to Jamie, having chosen him over Frank. Someone commented that maybe she tried to go through the stones and they didn't work, as opposed to actively deciding to stay with Jamie. I'm glad that theory was wrong, because clearly the stones do work.

I do tend to agree with you about not seeing the end first. I hope that it doesn't make the story less interesting to me. Intriguing idea about Claire leaving the baby with Frank. I'm not sure I could continue to like Claire if she does that.

[Thalia]

I may be in a (much maligned) minority here, but I thought Jamie's hair looked just awful in this episode. Like it had too much conditioner. And as they probably sold hair product on every street corner in Paris, even in the 18th century, I fear that this is something I will just have to get used to this season.

[riverheightsnancy]

I may be in a (much maligned) minority here, but I thought Jamie's hair looked just awful in this episode. Like it had too much conditioner. And as they probably sold hair product on every street corner in Paris, even in the 18th century, I fear that this is something I will just have to get used to this season.

Nope, I agree. It had that look of slightly wet hair that has been hairsprayed. It sort of moves as one giant clump. Sticky and stiff. Maybe it was just an isolated issue?

[GrailKing]

I meant that I wish Frank had mentioned that incident to Claire as part of his sincerity in believing her.

  

I'm probably thinking of another poster. I was referring to the episode when Jamie leaves Claire at Craigh Na Dun after the trial and tells her to go home to the future. Next thing we know, she comes back to Jamie, having chosen him over Frank. Someone commented that maybe she tried to go through the stones and they didn't work, as opposed to actively deciding to stay with Jamie. I'm glad that theory was wrong, because clearly the stones do work.

I do tend to agree with you about not seeing the end first. I hope that it doesn't make the story less interesting to me. Intriguing idea about Claire leaving the baby with Frank. I'm not sure I could continue to like Claire if she does that.

She heard him across time through the stones, she's screaming his name and telling him to wait for her in S1.

It's another poster.

[Daisy]

Okay. I had to cry when they burned Claire's costume. You couldn't have sold it? or hid it? SOMETHING? You burned it?

 

I have to say, Claire's horror of being back in her own time was devastating. Just the screaming and the crying, and the realization that what they wanted to do didn't work at all.. I am curious what the symbolization of the old ring without the gem in it is. (I wasn't sure if I should have known what it was - but it broke her heart every time she looked at it..). 

I am curious if Claire thought the baby making issue was her. (Obviously i needed to rewatch, but if there's another Droughtlander to happen i want to save up for it). but knowing Frank was the cause was sad. Claire's fear everytime Frank got angry and she flashed back to Jack Randall was really sad, and I am really curious if that is something she is going to ever get over. this entire thing is so complicated. She barely "knows" Frank (hence the honey moon to re-connect and restablish their connection) - then she loses two years and is preganant with someone she obviously been through and cares about very much. While I think whatever happens, I'll probably be irked with Claire, I do appreciate how this could be seriously difficult for her (or anyone in that situation). 

 

just a wonder. i wonder if this is Claire's second baby? (I have zero idea, here) - it's just that if Claire is pregnant now, and two years has gone.. I wonder what happened to the Claire-Jaime first child (hence the devestation? it's not just Jamie and everyone she tried to save... but the baby #1 too?)

 

with that being said? good to know that Claire learned NOTHING and created a new enemy within days of France. good job Claire. 

 

Jamie's hair - i do agree looked like a mess. 

[ganesh]

I didn't even think this could be baby #2. I was asking my dog (she didn't respond) how much time passed for Claire in the past, since when she returned, she wasn't showing or had any weight gain, and she knew she was pregnant before they got on the boat.

 

I hope the show doesn't go down the miscarriage trope though.

[Daisy]

I didn't even think this could be baby #2. I was asking my dog (she didn't respond) how much time passed for Claire in the past, since when she returned, she wasn't showing or had any weight gain, and she knew she was pregnant before they got on the boat.

 

I hope the show doesn't go down the miscarriage trope though.

 

 

Me either. Like It just hit me when Claire was in France. She had a little tiny Fraser Bump. and it didn't even occur to me that it was 2 years later until someone actually said it, and I'm like... but then where's the baby.. 

 

then Claire's like she's pregnant... and i literally went. "again?!"

[tennisgurl]

I missed hearing that theme song, now with a French remix! 

 

Oh Claire. Making friends and influencing people all over the place. No matter where she goes, she always gets involved in some war/conflict/outbreak/trial. Thats just how she is I guess. Its a sad contrast to how miserable she seemed in the 1940s. I felt awful for both her and Frank. Its a ridiculous situation, there is really no way to really win for anyone. Its looks like they are going to be making the best of it though, with Claire's big smile when she got off the plane. I know she will end up back to Jaimie, but its good to see her and Frank trying to navigate their new lives.

 

Not Claire's clothes! I know its symbolic and all that, but not the clothes!  

[ganesh]

As I was singing the theme song to my dog when she was taking her bath, I also thought about the new, added French elements in the show opening. 

 

I can't imagine Claire isn't going to try to read up on Jamie while in America now either. 

 

I had to laugh when Claire and Jamie were talking about a strategy. Claire: Uh, I really don't know any useful information except when it happened and something about Charlie. Jamie: Can't we just beat them since we know how the battle takes place? Claire: Uhhh.

 

I'm unspoiled for the books, so I don't know if Claire returns to the past, nor if she can control when she goes back. I'm thinking no, but I just watched 11.22.63, where we were all talking about how to time travel. And I know this show isn't really about that.

 

I was trying to figure out when Claire returned to 1948, or, when she actually left the past. Was it still before the battle? I was thinking that Claire becomes an expert and then goes back into the past but before the battle, and uses all her expert information. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by ganesh

[terrymct]

Outlander is visually fantastic.  The costumes for every era are amazing and the scenery and camera work is outstanding.  It's worth watching just for that.  Let's talk about the story, though.  Overall, I was really glad to see that both Claire and Jamie had reactions that reflected what they'd been through.  They SHOULD both be messed up psychologically.

 

1940's

The timing is confusing me.  Claire said she's been with another man for two years.  Is that two years in 1948 time?  She didn't appear to be with the MacKenzies in Scotland for two years.  She couldn't have been in France for two years because she told Jamie she was pregnant when they were leaving for France and she's not even showing back in her own time.  Whatever happens in France has to happen over just a couple of months or so.    The big reveal to Frank was really weak.  The actors did a good job, but the story they had to work with was ridiculous.  Your wife is gone for two years (assuming that was how much time passed in this era) and shows up again looking fit as a fiddle, wearing period clothes, and tells you that she's pregnant by another man.   Sure, you're going to believe that she traveled through time...especially since you're supposed to be a highly "rational" man.  You'd just accept that.  More realistically, Frank should have thought Claire was insane or had been shacking up with some guy and made up a really bad story for her reappearance.   But, of course, Frank believes her because Claire is preternaturally attractive to all men and desired by them to the point that they lose their ability to reason or act in their own best interest.   In a universe where Claire is the ultimate "prize" of all men, of course, Frank is most upset that she's pregnant by another man...not that she's obviously insane.  Having Frank shake her was out of character for him, but I think it's supposed to show that he has the potential to be a bad guy like his ancestor.  Of course, shaking her is a lot less than Jamie has done to her, let alone some of the other men back in the clan days.  I suspect that was put in in the hope to reduce the sympathy people could feel for Frank.  Overall, though, he's one of the most sympathetic characters in this show.  He's done nothing wrong other than that outburst and is dealing with a wife who ran off/disappeared somewhere and returned both telling him an insane story and undeniably unfaithful to him.   

 

France

Claire and Jamie had to make an enemy fairly soon after landing to make the France story line interesting.  It was nice that they went with something like smallpox that would have been a concern at the time.   I wish, however, that there had been a more accidental element to it all rather than once again Claire's super amazing all encompassing skills saved the day.   Given that she'll need to get back to the stones and to the 1940's before her pregnancy shows, they better get moving and meet Bonnie Prince Charlie.   Jamie's cousin seems like he's going to be an interesting character, much in the pattern of this show having MUCH MUCH better secondary characters than the primary ones.  

 

Here's a review of the episode by Tom and Lorenzo that brings up some good points:   http://tomandlorenzo.com/2016/04/outlander-glass-darkly/

Edited April 11, 2016 by terrymct

[Kate47]

Frank doesn't have to take her back, though. I think that's part of the reason Claire was being so bald and hurtful with the fact that she's carrying another man's child, because she may not even want him to take her back, and he needs to know all the facts if they're to proceed in the relationship. He has to decide to himself if it's worth it, and I suppose that he's applying the same mindset he would have if Claire had had an affair during the war: it hurts, but her paramour is long dead, and they have a chance to start a family. I feel like his conditions weren't unreasonable at all. As far as he knows, she is going to raise the child in the present day and he was willing to be the father, and that couldn't happen successfully if Jamie's ghost was hovering all the time. They both have to make concessions to continue this relationship (though Claire's black jack flashbacks are admittedly a lot worse to me) and I felt that it was a mature, adult way to come at a situation that does affect couples out there (minus the time traveling).

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Claire telling Frank about Jamie and pointedly asking him if he understood what that meant reminded me of the end of Phantom by Susan Kay (another version of Phantom of the Opera) when Christine returns from being with the Phantom and asks Raoul if he's quite certain he still wants to marry her.

[taanja]

I loved it! I loved it so much I have watched twice already.

I love that we started with Claire returning to her own time. Whew! I was worried

about my girl. I am completely unspoiled and if I read the book years ago? I have

no memory of what happens so I was pleasantly surprised to see Frank and how

accepting (after a bit of a meltdown but seriously can you blame the dude?)he was

of Claire and her experiences in the past. Oh and the fact that she is pregnant by another man.

Good start to the season. I am now looking forward to see how and why Claire does

indeed return to her own time.

[cam3150]

I'll preface this by saying I have not read the books, nor have I read all of the rest of this thread...

 

Boy,  was I confused during this episode. I felt like I had missed a season or three.   This felt like the 1st episode of the last season.  I am surprised that the show would reveal so early that Claire does go back to the 1940's , while pregnant (is this the same baby or another baby?? No, really, don't answer that) and apparently has given up on going back to Jaime.   For me, a full time crew member on the Claire and Jaime ship, it is a bit disheartening to realize that the possibility exists that she never goes back to Jaime.  I have 1,000 questions, rhetorical at this point.  Why does she leave him? Why does he let her?  Why does she seem so resigned to never going back. Why would she leave while pregnant? 

 

I always figured that she did go back, at the very least to read some history books to try and get more information.  Maybe she does, I have no idea really. But I was just....sad to realize that the couple I love so much may not get a happy ending.  I also understand that the books are not done yet, and there a lot of them.  Is the whole rest of the series going to be basically flashbacks? 

 

Also, the timeline was off for me. She's been in the 1740's for 2 years already???  I thought it had been may 6 months, a year at most.   I still am unsure if this is the same baby or not. But, if it's not, I have a hard time believe Claire would have also left a child in the 1740's. 

 

I do plan to read the books but, man, that is an overwhelming idea, They are all so very long.

 

Anyway, my favorite part was the way the introduced Jaime in this episode with the overlapping hands out to Claire. I thought that was really cool. I need to watch it again to have more substantive thoughts since I spent most of my first viewing trying to figure out what was happening and seriously thinking I had somehow missed a few episodes.  

[ganesh]

Oh, I don't think she's given up yet. I don't get why when she popped up in 1948 she didn't try to just go right back though. I too had thought that maybe she went to the stones to go back and check, but it didn't seem like that as the episode unfolded. 

 

It certainly seems like she didn't leave for the future willingly. 

[cam3150]

It never crossed my mind that she time traveled unwillingly. Hmmmm, interesting. I guess I thought she would have had to initiate it somehow by using the stones.  But remember....she told Frank that Jaime made her promise to move on and forget him right? That's why she agreed to Frank's terms, because Jaime had basically asked her to do the same thing. She even says, "Jaime made me promise" or something like that. Am I remembering that wrong? So that would mean that they both knew she was leaving, that is was planned on some level.. Maybe Jaime didn't want her to die during the battle in the 1740's so he sent her back so that she could be safe, find out what happens, then come back to him later? 

 

I agree with those that say that Jaime's hair is awful at its current length.  For me, the sweet spot is how it was during the latter half of last season.. I do not like it at all barely grazing the shoulder.  It just looks too...feminine maybe? And Jaime is this strong, strapping, beautiful manly man.  He doesn't need feminine hair, lol.

 

 

No matter where she goes, she always gets involved in some war/conflict/outbreak/trial.

 

This is most likely due to her being from the 1940's where women where much more independent.  Her actions seem really odd 200 years prior but she can't seem to reel them in so that she fits in to the time period.  I'm surprise more people haven't called her out for acting so differently than any other woman they know.  

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by cam3150

[ganesh]

When I say "willingly" I don't mean that someone threw her at the stones and forced her. I think circumstances were such that she had to. She was coming off very frustrated to me in the first scene in 1948. 

[La Dee Da]

I thought this was a good start to season 2. I had to laugh when Claire and Jamie, after talking about how to strategically manoeuvre themselves in order to influence the Jacobites, go and paint a large target on themselves by pissing off the local nobility. I'm sure that won't be an issue at all! Bien fait, mes amis!

Shouldn't someone be sceptical about her time travelling, though? Even the French priest to whom she confessed last season was all cool about it.

i wonder if this is Claire's second baby? (I have zero idea, here) - it's just that if Claire is pregnant now, and two years has gone.. I wonder what happened to the Claire-Jaime first child (hence the devestation? it's not just Jamie and everyone she tried to save... but the baby #1 too.

I wondered about that as well. If she's pregnant with a first child, she doesn't seem far enough along to have had the time to return to the stones, presumably after some adventures in France. I guess, though, there could be a second portal in France, and she and child #1 return from there to the 20th century (not at her volition, based on her reaction)? A second child is plausible, though. She appears to be in France long enough to put some of her changing history plan into motion (hence her question about whether The Scots won at Culloden) but has also come back to Scotland (I'm basing this on her clothes at the beginning of the episode). If there is a second child, I think the first is alive in the past - siblings raised 200 years apart would be interesting, but also devastating to both parents.

[Daisy]

As I was singing the theme song to my dog when she was taking her bath, I also thought about the new, added French elements in the show opening. 

 

I had to laugh when Claire and Jamie were talking about a strategy. Claire: Uh, I really don't know any useful information except when it happened and something about Charlie. Jamie: Can't we just beat them since we know how the battle takes place? Claire: Uhhh.

 

 

 

I love the French-ness (I'm surprised we get subtitles for the French - when we didn't for the Gaelic). 

 

I have to laugh there too. like. You KNOW when it happens, and how it takes place. stop it that way! LOL

Edited April 12, 2016 by Daisy

[Andorra]

I love the French-ness (I'm surprised we get subtitles for the French - when we didn't for the Gaelic). 

 

They didn't give us subtitles for the Gaelic, because Claire isn't supposed to understand the language. She feels as an Outsider and RDM wanted the viewer to share her POV in those scenes. Claire speaks French though, as we saw, so the viewer gets subtitles, too. 

[taanja]

Speculation here because I am seriously unspoiled---

 

The way this ep started seemed like the end of something that we will see play out as the season goes along. I kind of like that --- very Tarantino don't ya know?

 

I too had to laugh at Claire making enemies right off the bat in France. Seemed very in character to me. Also.  She seemed very adamant that 2 years had passed since she went through the stones so I am taking her at her word. Therefore my conclusion is that the baby she is pregnant with in the opener is NOT the one she was/is pregnant with at the end of last season. So maybe that is one of the reasons she is so devastated to be back in her own time? maybe they (she and Jamie) stashed the child in a "safe place--- i.e. with Jamie's sister Jenny) intending to go back for it and then shit happens and she ends up going back through the stones?

 

Hell! I don't know? maybe it dies cuz Claire sure wasn't afraid to approach those men with small pox and the baby catches the deadly disease? Or some other  disease that existed back then? But I am pretty sure upon second viewing that they are not the same baby.

[cam3150]

I have an admittedly dumb question - when she said "If it's what I think it is, I can't get it." what did she mean?  I know nothing about small pox or the timeline of the disease / vaccines, etc... I assume she meant she'd had a vaccine for it?  I wonder why no one questioned why she couldn't get it?

 

Also, what was the significance of the bullet she found?  Are we supposed to believe that a bullet is still there, just on top of the grass, from 200 years prior?  

 

The more I think about it, the more I am confused about the pregnancy timeline.   I just don't see how it is possible that she is pregnant in France with the same baby she's pregnant with when she goes back to her time.  She's not showing at all in the 1940's timeline and, in France,  it has to have at least have been several months since she became pregnant. It seems that she goes back to the 1940's right before or during the battle.  As frenzied as she is when she first arrives in the 1940's, it seems to me that she was transported right in the middle of it..  In the TV Line review, they said it was 3 weeks from the time they arrived in France to the time they met with Jaime's cousin.  Add that to the travel time to France and Claire is at least 6-8 weeks pregnant in the 1740's, possibly more because it's not like she took a pregnancy test to find out. She would have had to miss a period before she knew, which means she was at least a month along when she told Jaime.    I am not sure when the battle occurs but it has to be at least a month or two away.   She she'd be at least 3-5 months pregnant at the time of the battle.  Someone that thin would show very quickly so she is not 3-5 months pregnant in the 1940's.   Ugh, the more i think about it, the more confused I get.  

 

I will have to break down and read the (very, very long) books eventually.  I kind of what to read the book thread but I.  Will. Not.  I don't even like to watch previews for the following week because I don't want to know anything that happens.  

Edited April 12, 2016 by cam3150

[ganesh]

Claire has shown her smallpox vaccination to Jamie, at least. In the episode with the woman from the 1960s, she showed off her own vaccination to say she had "the mark of the devil," and was a witch. So Jamie would have known that's what she meant. 

 

As many others have stated here, it seems more and more likely that this is Claire's second pregnancy. 

 

Not for nothing to the French noble, Claire wasn't spinning any machinations. Those guys had smallpox, and it could have wiped out the town. You have to burn everything at that point. 

[Athena]

I will have to break down and read the (very, very long) books eventually.  I kind of what to read the book thread but I.  Will. Not.  I don't even like to watch previews for the following week because I don't want to know anything that happens.  

 

There is no pressure for you to read the books if you do not want to at the moment. I admire you not wanting to spoil yourself.

 

If you or any unspoiled watchers really want to know some specific things about the show or the books, you can post in the Ask the Outlanders thread. Again, be careful what you ask as it may lead to more questions.

 

We have posted a new FAQ about posting in these forums mostly as a guideline on where to post and how to best enjoy your Outlander forum experience. Thank you.

[terrymct]

Also, what was the significance of the bullet she found?  Are we supposed to believe that a bullet is still there, just on top of the grass, from 200 years prior?  

 

If we're talking about the metal thing she picked up just after coming through the stones, I think that's a ring but the stone has fallen out.

 

 

Edited to add:

 

I don't think that time necessarily moves at the same rate in each of the eras.  When she jumps back into the 40's, she doesn't have to jump into a spot that's the same number of days forward that she's spent in the past.  She can probably drop in almost anywhere.

Edited April 12, 2016 by terrymct

[cam3150]

 

Claire has shown her smallpox vaccination to Jamie, at least. In the episode with the woman from the 1960s, she showed off her own vaccination to say she had "the mark of the devil," and was a witch. So Jamie would have known that's what she meant.

 

I totally forgot that part, thanks!    

 

I do want to eventually read the books.  I guess I will do it during the year I take off to clean out my DVR and my Netflix queue :)  

 

 

If we're talking about the metal thing she picked up just after coming through the stones, I think that's a ring but the stone has fallen out.

 

Ohhhh, it looked like a bullet to me.  So, what was the significance of the ring?

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by cam3150

[WInterfalls]

 

Not for nothing to the French noble, Claire wasn't spinning any machinations. Those guys had smallpox, and it could have wiped out the town. You have to burn everything at that point. 

Right? I find it funny that everyone is like just ignore it don't get involved but if she hadn't it could have lead to an outbreak that could kill hundreds of people.  Le Comte St. Germain doesn't care because he is rich and would be far away from the outbreak but she is right to not let that happen.  I think that's why Jamie is is like ok go ahead when she rushes in.  

[ganesh]

I'm sure burning the ship and cargo was a hard financial loss, but I doubt it bankrupted him, and no one was accusing him of deliberately spreading smallpox. It's more that who is this strange *woman* giving orders? Of course, being snooty and rich, he doesn't care, and he's going to be a pain to Claire and Jamie now. So, this wasn't exactly the typical Claire noses in and gets in trouble. 

[Daisy]

They didn't give us subtitles for the Gaelic, because Claire isn't supposed to understand the language. She feels as an Outsider and RDM wanted the viewer to share her POV in those scenes. Claire speaks French though, as we saw, so the viewer gets subtitles, too. 

 

 

Thanks! :)  so we know what Claire knows. makes sense to me. 

[taanja]

I totally forgot that part, thanks!    

 

I do want to eventually read the books.  I guess I will do it during the year I take off to clean out my DVR and my Netflix queue :)  

 

 

Ohhhh, it looked like a bullet to me.  So, what was the significance of the ring?

 

Thanks! I couldn't tell what it was either. So how did she know the ring was just laying there? I suppose I will just have to watch to find out!

 

I was thinking about the time travel thing. I don't think it's Doctor Who-ish -- all timey whimey. I think if two years went by in the 1740's then two years went by in the 1940's as well. More linear if you will.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I finally watched the episode last night.  I didn't read through the threads beforehand because I wanted to form my own opinion.  :)  (I've learned that lesson on a couple other show threads I follow.)  I had, however, read spoiler articles, so I had some idea of what was to come.  That being said, a few thoughts:

• The 1948 parts were BORING.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, it set the stage, provided some exposition, blah, blah blah.  I was just incredibly bored during most of it.
• REALLY felt sorry for Frank, like many other posters have said.  Wow.  The actor really brought it.  And even when he clenched his fist at Claire (I could tell at first, he was thinking somehow it was his child - like he was just going to pretend the last couple years didn't happen...) I couldn't blame him for it.  Sure,  I get that flash of uncontrolled rage was supposed to make us think of BJ and probably lessen our sympathy for Frank somewhat, but it didn't work, IMO.  Like terrymct mentioned upthread:

• Of course, shaking her is a lot less than Jamie has done to her, let alone some of the other men back in the clan days.

  Right?  At least Frank didn't beat her with his belt for coming back pregnant with another man's child like Jamie probably would have done.  (No.  Still not over that.)

• Wait - only 2 years have passed?  I thought her and Frank went on their second honeymoon in Fall 1945?  If it's 1948 now, that's 3 years have passed.  Unless my math skills are that rusty or we're talking new math here.  Okay, it could be early 1948, which would be more like 2 1/2 years, but still....

• I liked that Claire obviously told Mrs. Graham what happened and she believed her.  Nice she had someone with whom she could talk freely.

• I also really like the Reverend Wakefield.  Good advice old chap.

• I know some people are crazy about little Roger, but the kid just annoys me.  

• Interesting that the infertility problem was verified to be Frank's fault.  I think Claire did think it was all her fault during the last season.  Also interesting that he didn't bother to go for these checks until after Claire disappeared...

• I also cringed at the burning of the clothes, especially since, isn't Frank an historian?  He KNEW they were authentic, even if his rational mind didn't want to quite believe it.  Donating them to a museum would have been nice, but maybe he thought having them on display would remind Claire too much of the past?  Still, why not lock them in a trunk and ask the nice Reverend to keep it in his attic until a future date?

• Well, Claire is just about useless as an Oracle, isn't she?  She knew there'd be a battle, and the Scots would lose - but Hey!  Let's make a plan to completely change history!  With no plan at all!  That'd be rather like me getting sent back to the early 1900's and deciding to stop WWI.  Cause, that's about how much I know about that conflict.  (That it was and who lost).  Good plan, Claire.  Bless.  I almost got the feeling at times it was just a ploy to get Jamie's mind off other things.  

• Sam did a good job acting PTSD Jamie.

• I don't even have anything to say about the stupid small pox Healer!Claire bit.  Except that it was stupid.

• But Yay!  The scenery and costumes were magnificent!  

• The French portion of the episode was way too short.

[terrymct]

Well, Claire is just about useless as an Oracle, isn't she?  She knew there'd be a battle, and the Scots would lose - but Hey!  Let's make a plan to completely change history!  With no plan at all!  That'd be rather like me getting sent back to the early 1900's and deciding to stop WWI.  Cause, that's about how much I know about that conflict.  (That it was and who lost).  Good plan, Claire.  Bless.  I almost got the feeling at times it was just a ploy to get Jamie's mind off other things.  

 

 

She should at least remember the part where the British Army had artillery and bombed the heck out of the Jacobites.  Or that standing in the middle of a boggy moor facing a better armed and trained opponent was a bad idea.   I suspect, though, that the author/writers don't really want Claire to change history overall just smaller human stories within the larger tapestry of events.   If you wanted to help the Scotsmen, you'd perhaps suggest that they avoid Culloden moor and rampu up their guerrilla campaign against the British.

[TVAddict]

I'm new to the Outlander series and basically binge-watched the first season to be ready for season 2.  It was a lot to take in in a short time and I was dumbstruck by the last episode of S1.  So, in the wake of that, I seem to have forgotten who the little kid with the airplane is and what's his significance in the story.  Would someone mind filling in that gap, please?

[taanja]

I'm new to the Outlander series and basically binge-watched the first season to be ready for season 2.  It was a lot to take in in a short time and I was dumbstruck by the last episode of S1.  So, in the wake of that, I seem to have forgotten who the little kid with the airplane is and what's his significance in the story.  Would someone mind filling in that gap, please?

 

Was that kid even shown last season? He must be important in some way because they keep showing him. But I can't even remember his name.

[Kate47]

That's Roger, the Reverend Wakefield's adopted son. They talked a little about him in this episode and showed him asleep in a chair in the first season (first episode of the first season?).

[ganesh]

I think the little boy was largely to show you can be a father to someone who isn't your biological son. That's what they were talking about at the time. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

She should at least remember the part where the British Army had artillery and bombed the heck out of the Jacobites.  Or that standing in the middle of a boggy moor facing a better armed and trained opponent was a bad idea.   I suspect, though, that the author/writers don't really want Claire to change history overall just smaller human stories within the larger tapestry of events.   If you wanted to help the Scotsmen, you'd perhaps suggest that they avoid Culloden moor and rampu up their guerrilla campaign against the British.

Seriously.  I thought all her "I don't knows" were  rather odd especially since she seemed to remember so much of what Frank said last season - like how to tell a convincing cover story, and how to blend in with 18th century scots, etc.  Wasn't he there specifically researching Cullloden and his ancestor on their second honeymoon?  I would think, under the circumstances, she'd try to remember any little helpful tidbit a little harder.