Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Athena

S02.E01: Through A Glass, Darkly

Recommended Posts

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.  

The problem is, Claire wasn't truly interested in Frank's hobby so she just remembers bits and pieces, that's why they show her voraciously researching now.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Also I've learned from a lecture about Scottish history on an Outlander convention a month ago, that there're still open questions in history about what happened. For example Bonni Prince Charles and his army were very close to London, when they suddenly turned around. No one knows why they did that. There're several theories, but no real answer, so it is not surprising that Claire wouldn't know about the military operations back then. 

Share this post


Link to post

Also I've learned from a lecture about Scottish history on an Outlander convention a month ago, that there're still open questions in history about what happened. For example Bonni Prince Charles and his army were very close to London, when they suddenly turned around. No one knows why they did that. There're several theories, but no real answer, so it is not surprising that Claire wouldn't know about the military operations back then. 

 

Right! I wouldn't know details about such things. I don't expect Claire to know.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but the fact that the Brits had a massive materiel advantage probably would be taught as part of UK history in school, no? 

 

Jamie saying, "you know what happened, let's just beat them," should have been met with, "no, but I know they have tons of mortars, so even if I did know what happened, you can't overcome that, so we need to avoid this altogether." I mean, she looked totally ignorant at that point even if you aren't sure what the actual maneuvers were.

 

Then again, how long did it take for Claire to realize that Cullodeon was a couple years away. In the first episode when her v/o so boldly announced the year to us, while showing a piece of paper with the year hugely printed out, I was like, "uh oh, Cullodeon is right around the corner." Like, 4, 5 episodes later, when she was traveling with the guys and Jamie first did his "show" in front of her and all the people in the tavern, she was like, "oh, hey Cullodeon! oh NOEZ!" Yeah, no kidding, Claire.

 

Details, no. But broad strokes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I like Frank a lot and really sympathise with him, but my favourite reaction of his during the episode was the barely contained eye roll when Claire told him not to use the word 'flog' around her. There is a man just barely clinging on to the ruins of his previously perfectly sane life. Get him a drink.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but the fact that the Brits had a massive materiel advantage probably would be taught as part of UK history in school, no? 

 

Jamie saying, "you know what happened, let's just beat them," should have been met with, "no, but I know they have tons of mortars, so even if I did know what happened, you can't overcome that, so we need to avoid this altogether." I mean, she looked totally ignorant at that point even if you aren't sure what the actual maneuvers were.

 

Then again, how long did it take for Claire to realize that Cullodeon was a couple years away. In the first episode when her v/o so boldly announced the year to us, while showing a piece of paper with the year hugely printed out, I was like, "uh oh, Cullodeon is right around the corner." Like, 4, 5 episodes later, when she was traveling with the guys and Jamie first did his "show" in front of her and all the people in the tavern, she was like, "oh, hey Cullodeon! oh NOEZ!" Yeah, no kidding, Claire.

 

Details, no. But broad strokes.

Claire tells us she wouldn't go to school so she was field taught through her uncle, primarily Egypt, Mediterranean.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so she didn't go to school at all. Yet she speaks French well enough. She still is largely ignorant of her own country's history. The one she fought for in a world war. Either way, she's not coming off well here to me.

 

That's almost like someone who didn't go to school here not knowing who we beat in the revolution. 

 

My prior conclusion:

Details, no. But broad strokes.

 

is still valid. 

Edited by ganesh

Share this post


Link to post

Just my two cents.

Claire had an irregular education due to her nomadic life with her uncle. And despite the fact that he was an archeologist, the thing she learned best/mostly was how to survive outdoors. Maybe, after spending so much time in archeological sites she didn't feel so keen on history after all. I think she listened, but she didn't listen carefully enough to her husband's tales. While she is ignorant in history, she might well be talented in languages, and that's why she speaks such a good french. She also got to spend a lot of time in France during the war, so she must have practiced it a lot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I'll concede how she knows French. I still think not knowing much about the battle makes her kind of ignorant. I'm not calling BS on the character. I'm calling out Claire herself. *Even* if she didn't know much about the history of her country, some of Frank's interest should have sunk in. 

 

I'm not saying she's got to be re created battle plans, etc., but she wasn't even able to say, "no, they have way more superiority. it's not an even fight, you can't win." Maybe I'm asking too much of Claire. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not saying she's got to be re created battle plans, etc., but she wasn't even able to say, "no, they have way more superiority. it's not an even fight, you can't win." Maybe I'm asking too much of Claire. 

This.  This is what I'm talking about.  

 

About Claire's education - IMO, she would have had some traditional schooling back in merry old England in between accompanying her uncle to various digs.  Archaeologists don't spend every minute of their lives in the field.  There's a lot of research that has to be done first.  Even then, she would probably have had a tutor.  

 

Then there's college/nursing school she would have had to attend (she was a nurse in the War, remember?)  She would have had some formal history class then.  

 

But back to stopping Culloden - seemed she knew when, or at least approximately when the BPC sailed from France to Scotland, so why not concentrate on taking him out of the equation?  No Bonnie Prince to rally the clans, no war.  Just saying...

Just my two cents.

Claire had an irregular education due to her nomadic life with her uncle. And despite the fact that he was an archeologist, the thing she learned best/mostly was how to survive outdoors. 

Except that she didn't really.  I mean, if first Jennie, then later Murtaugh hadn't been along on the search for Jamie in season 1, I don't think Claire would have survived.  

Edited by RulerofallIsurvey

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for your responses.  I understood that he was the Rev's adopted son and the Rev was using him as an example to Frank about how you can love and bond with a non-bio child.  Based on some other posts, probably from the "Bookies", I thought there was some backstory on him I had missed.  Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding Claire's education on Culloden: the issue isn't that she doesn't know what happens in that battle. Actually she does because she discusses it with Frank.  Culloden is not the whole war just the final and most devastating battle.  Truthfully the war was lost already at that point they just had to play it out at the end.  Her thing is she doesn't know enough about the battles and military movements that led them to the point so as to change them to win the war.  That is why she is saying the Scots can't win so we need to try to prevent them from trying.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I'll concede how she knows French. I still think not knowing much about the battle makes her kind of ignorant. I'm not calling BS on the character. I'm calling out Claire herself. *Even* if she didn't know much about the history of her country, some of Frank's interest should have sunk in. 

 

I'm not saying she's got to be re created battle plans, etc., but she wasn't even able to say, "no, they have way more superiority. it's not an even fight, you can't win." Maybe I'm asking too much of Claire. 

But thing about your own history (let's assume you are american). If you traveled back and in time 200 years, how much do you think you could recall about a specific event that you learned about in school? Reading this discussion, I tried to think about the American Revolution and what I might be able to say about it...to be honest, not much! And I know I learned about it in school and I personally find history interesting and yet I still would be useless were I in Claire's shoes.

 

Regarding Claire not absorbing much of Frank's interests...my soon to be ex husband has a rabid interest in a specific era of music history and would incessantly drone about it. I could tell you very little about it myself though, despite his best efforts to 'educate' me. It has always been his passion, but I've never really found it as fascinating. So in some ways, I think I can relate to Claire in that regard. Every now and then I might be able to pull a little bit of knowledge out of my ass (like Claire did many times in the first season) but for the most part--I'm clueless and it seems like so is she. It's hard to retain stuff you find boring and it seems like she found Frank's interest in history to be quite boring.

 

 

Then there's college/nursing school she would have had to attend (she was a nurse in the War, remember?)  She would have had some formal history class then.

 

I think back then, it would have been unlikely. I don't think that's how they trained nurses. They probably just learned nursing.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I'd probably be able to recall a decent amount. Again, the point is, I don't expect her to know battle plans, but the broad strokes. The Brits beat the Scots because of overwhelming military materiel. Is that really overly much?

 

The question was from Jamie: Why don't we just beat them if you know how the battle goes. Claire said, I don't know, all I know is you lose. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think back then, it would have been unlikely. I don't think that's how they trained nurses. They probably just learned nursing.

To be a British nurse in the 1930s and 1940s, she would have done 3 years of training in a hospital plus 1 year of hospital work. I can't find what the requirements were for being accepted by a hospital to do training, though it wouldn't surprise me if applicants had to meet some form of educational requirement. (I got really obsessed with early 20th century British nursing after watching Call the Midwife and did a bunch of research on it several months ago.)

 

That's something I found incredibly confusing about Claire's background (both book and show).

 

It always seemed like she became a nurse specifically because of the war, but she still would had needed her 4 years of training before she could even think about joining up because the British military, from what I can tell, recruited already trained nurses for their medical corps. (So, if Britain's entry into WWII in September 1939 prompted her decision, she'd be signing up for the military at the very earliest in autumn 1943). There was also frequently an age requirement (they wanted mature women, not girls). For WWI, it was 23. I don't know whether or not it was changed for WWII. 

 

She could have been a VAD--which didn't require previous nursing training--but she would not have been considered a real nurse. 

 

I agree with Rulerofallsurvey that she also likely had more traditional schooling than her backstory seems to suggest. Even if she were accompanying her uncle on digs, it's unlikely he would have been doing that year-round. She may not have been enrolled in a school, but she'd still have been at whatever his home base was in England for several months out of the year. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I'll concede how she knows French. I still think not knowing much about the battle makes her kind of ignorant. I'm not calling BS on the character. I'm calling out Claire herself. *Even* if she didn't know much about the history of her country, some of Frank's interest should have sunk in. 

 

I'm not saying she's got to be re created battle plans, etc., but she wasn't even able to say, "no, they have way more superiority. it's not an even fight, you can't win." Maybe I'm asking too much of Claire. 

She said you can't win, she point blank told him that the clans of Scotland were wiped out and even in her time of 1945 they DON"T exist.

I know we won the revolutionary war, but don't ask me how many canons we had, or how many soldiers the British had, or ships, I may know the significant battles but don't ask me how the plans were setup or put in motion.

We may know more than Claire because we like history, it's clear that Claire didn't, until her heart was ripped apart, then it's all that matters.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
I know we won the revolutionary war, but don't ask me how many canons we had, or how many soldiers the British had, or ships, I may know the significant battles but don't ask me how the plans were setup or put in motion.

 

I won't ask you that, and I won't ask anyone that, and I won't ask myself that. Because that's got nothing to do with my point. I have repeatedly said BROAD STROKES several times. We all know Washington snuck across the Delaware at night to pwn the Hessians. The key to defeating Hessians, the most organized military/mercenaries (arguably) at the time, was the use of the fog and stealth by crossing the Delaware at night. I have no idea what happened in the specific battle, but I know that the stealth factor was unprecedented and critical to the victory.

 

Washington: How can we beat them?

Time traveling me: I have no idea, but I do know that if you go at night through the fog, you'll catch them unprepared, and that's you're only chance.

 

She said you can't win, she point blank told him that the clans of Scotland were wiped out and even in her time of 1945 they DON"T exist.

 

 

 

Yes, that's exactly what happened. Then, Jamie asked why, and she didn't have ANY answer.

 

 

Again, the point is, I don't expect her to know battle plans, but the broad strokes. The Brits beat the Scots because of overwhelming military materiel. Is that really overly much?

 

She couldn't remember that ONE thing? Was my point. 

AGAIN, Jamie: You know what happened Claire, can't we just anticipate what they're going to do and beat them?

Claire: Um, no. You lose. That's all I know.

 

Corollary: Jamie, thinks, well, we know when the battle is, we might try to get the jump on them and have a chance, and a million other things about how they might be able to fight and win because pride. 

 

OR

As plenty of others have pointed out, speculating reasonably on her background.

 

Claire: They have overwhelming firepower. It wasn't even much of a fight. You were slaughtered. We have to prevent that battle.

 

I don't think that's too much to expect from Claire, and I don't think that it's overly much to rip on her for it. I do think her involvement is probably going to make things worse (maybe), and more people might die. I'm looking forward to them trying though.

 

 

 

Edited by ganesh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I won't ask you that, and I won't ask anyone that, and I won't ask myself that. Because that's got nothing to do with my point. I have repeatedly said BROAD STROKES several times. We all know Washington snuck across the Delaware at night to pwn the Hessians. The key to defeating Hessians, the most organized military/mercenaries (arguably) at the time, was the use of the fog and stealth by crossing the Delaware at night. I have no idea what happened in the specific battle, but I know that the stealth factor was unprecedented and critical to the victory.

 

No, 'we all' don't know that.  Many of us might, but certainly not everyone.  This is like demanding that Jamie and all those other Scots be experts in the botany of their own country, at least enough to know that Lily of the Valley is from 'Prussia' and is poisonous.  

 

It's already been well established in the show that the British have more military might.  Claire brings it up in "Rent" and Ned Gowan responds with something along the lines of "duh, tell us something even babies don't know."  

Edited by Lion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Forget it. I don't think anyone is hearing what I'm saying, and clogging the board over one line of dialogue isn't fair to everyone else.

 

Suffice it to say I feel that Claire's lack of general knowledge of a major historical event is going to be the tragic flaw that vaults her back into 1948 before she could effect any changes. 

Edited by ganesh

Share this post


Link to post

If Claire were Scottish, I would expect her to know more of the Jacobite rebellion, but she is not. It's a significant part of Scottish history but a footnote to British history; she also has to retain broad strokes of knowledge about the Napoleonic wars, the opium wars, the Seven years war, the American war of lndependence, Ireland - and those are just top of my head examples that took place within a century or so of Culloden. Schools tend to consider 1066 the start of English history so there are entire centuries that don't get taught in a great deal more detail than who was the monarch.

Even if she had known more detail however, would she have been able to make use of it? They would be two voices in armies of thousands and probably not allowed near the strategy meetings. In France there are fewer people to influence so their small changes have a greater chance of a large domino effect.

Edited by MochaJay
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Claire: They have overwhelming firepower. It wasn't even much of a fight. You were slaughtered. We have to prevent that battle.

 

I don't think that's too much to expect from Claire, and I don't think that it's overly much to rip on her for it. I do think her involvement is probably going to make things worse (maybe), and more people might die. I'm looking forward to them trying though.

 

Exactly. I don't think that was too much to ask either.  But some people are going to defend Claire no matter what.  Just like some people will defend Jamie no matter what.  I can criticize a character's actions while still liking the overall character.  I call it as I see it.  

 

And I am NOT looking forward to them trying.  We know they fail.  This season is going to frustrating as...(fill in your choice of expletive) for me.  I don't even know if I'll be able to watch the whole thing.

 

Forget it. I don't think anyone is hearing what I'm saying, and clogging the board over one line of dialogue isn't fair to everyone else.

 

Suffice it to say I feel that Claire's lack of general knowledge of a major historical event is going to be the tragic flaw that vaults her back into 1948 before she could effect any changes. 

 

I hear you.  You have repeatedly iterated "Broad Strokes".  And I agree.  Others aren't reading carefully or are misinterpreting what you say.  That's okay.  It is what it is.

 

If Claire were Scottish, I would expect her to know more of the Jacobite rebellion, but she is not. It's a significant part of Scottish history but a footnote to British history; she also has to retain broad strokes of knowledge about the Napoleonic wars, the opium wars, the Seven years war, the American war of lndependence, Ireland - and those are just top of my head examples that took place within a century or so of Culloden. Schools tend to consider 1066 the start of English history so there are entire centuries that don't get taught in a great deal more detail than who was the monarch.

Even if she had known more detail however, would she have been able to make use of it? They would be two voices in armies of thousands and probably not allowed near the strategy meetings. In France there are fewer people to influence so their small changes have a greater chance of a large domino effect.

 

As for the first paragraph, you are so right.  The American Revolution is barely a footnote in British history classes (though VERY significant on the US side of the 'pond' - and for the world as a whole as it also influenced the French Revolution).  But maybe that's because the English were the losers...  :)  Of course they aren't going to spend too much time dwelling on a very real setback to their Imperialist world dominance of the time.  

 

The second paragraph - it wasn't necessarily a lot of detail that was needed.  Ganesh has repeated talked about Broad Strokes.  Just saying that the British had way more firepower than the Scots and there is no way in Hell you'll ever win would have been better than "I don't know."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Maril Davis the exec producer tweeted there was a date stamp error in the episode which will be corrected in reruns and the DVDs:

 

Claire goes through the stones November 1743.

They arrive in France April/May 1744.

 

Source: https://twitter.com/TallShipProds/status/721005283204444160?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Yes, I was going to say that in one of Claire's voice overs, I think in the season finale, she mentioned that her adventure in the past had covered 8 months.  That almost definitely means the baby she's pregnant with in 1948 is a second (third?) child, unless her time traveling didn't match up the past and present chronologically (i.e., when she returned she jumped forward a bit.).

 

About the ring with the missing stone; when she came to back in the present, she patted her bosom, clearly looking for it, and then searched the ground when it wasn't there.  That means she brought it with her, rather than having just found it lying there.

 

I'm new to the series, having binge-watched S1 this past week, so I didn't follow the episode threads here as they aired.  What did everyone make of the fact that the stranger watching Claire through the window in S1 ep1 turned out to be Jamie, as was revealed in the episode where Frank was at the police station and Jamie's Have-you-seen-this-man picture was posted there?  That means he time traveled at some point too, but he arrived in the 1940's too early, since Claire wouldn't have known about him yet.  It gives me hope, anyway, that he can travel too.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it possible that part of the reason Claire doesn't know a lot of details about the battle is that her memory of her former life is starting to fade? She said something about that in the wedding episode and she's been through a lot more since then. I'm not sure I mind that much that she is fuzzy on Culloden details, but she really seemed more knowledgeable when she first came back in time...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is it possible that part of the reason Claire doesn't know a lot of details about the battle is that her memory of her former life is starting to fade? She said something about that in the wedding episode and she's been through a lot more since then. I'm not sure I mind that much that she is fuzzy on Culloden details, but she really seemed more knowledgeable when she first came back in time...

That could be it. and honestly - let's think about everything she's been through the last few months. I wouldn't expect her at this point to be clear on a lot of things. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe her faulty memory is a result last season's heavy alcohol intake.  ;-)

Edited by Thalia
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think she just means after a time you just put your past ( in her case future) life behind as the one your living now takes priority.

She wasn't truly interested in the history and just grabbed fragments from listening to Frank.

My opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
She wasn't truly interested in the history and just grabbed fragments from listening to Frank.

Heh, I can relate to that. One of my boyfriends was totally into sailing so I went with him often but I never got into it. I had no interest in learning how to sail, but I still learned some random things just from being on the boat and seeing/watching the process. Similarly, Mr. EB loves scotch, whisk(e)y, and bourbon and I do not, but I have picked up some things over the years due to hearing some of the things he has said about them to me or to other people when I'm around. But if I were put in a situation where I had to use my sailing or bourbon knowledge to save lives, everyone would be in peril.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The topic of what Claire does or doesn't know about history has been discussed enough at this point. Please move along. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, warning: Lunacy ahead.

My overwhelming reaction to this episode was surprise at how conflicting my reactions were to Claire. I felt enormous sympathy for her situation and (evident) unexpected return to 1948. Catriona Balfe is as always wonderful in the role.

But I found Claire's reactions once returned, especially to Frank, to be unnecessarily cruel and off-putting. Yes, I get that she loved Jamie. But she also once loved poor Frank. I think what got me was that we saw him visibly suffering in her absence all last season (to the point that he himself sought out the stones and called to her), and in the face of the world's mockery and complete lack of empathy -- and then she comes back, to his understandable relief but instead is just, like, "Get away from me, you remind me of someone heinous, and oh by the way, I fell deeply in love with another man and am bearing his child, kkthx bye."

I mean, I understand Claire's situation intellectually. But watching her be so absolutely cold to Frank -- when she had been palpably warm and loving to him when she left -- really left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I would rather she simply left Frank at this point than keep subjecting the poor guy to the reality that he cannot and will never measure up to the young man she fell for.

I am not a reader of the series and further admit that when Frank lost his temper at her expecting the child (with, I felt, an unnecessarily over-the-top reaction), I cringed, going, "Oh, great, here's where we see her gentle, accepting, long-suffering husband will finally show us how much Black Jack is really in him, justifying her coldness." AGHGHGH." I really HATE the idea that poor Frank is nothing more than a watered-down version of his ancestor, especially as I have found his reactions overall (aside from this week's regrettable tantrum) to be genuinely accepting and lovable. It doesn't help that I think Tobias Menzies is the best actor in the cast, either -- so, yeah, I felt really bad for Frank.

Especially since she had no trouble realizing within SECONDS last season that Jack was a different man from Frank in a reverse situation (upon meeting Jack, she says "You're not Frank," within literal seconds of their meeting). So I understand her reaction to Frank from a physical/emotional standpoint, but even when she cringes away from him at the resemblance, she doesn't bounce back. She shows little inclination to apologize or explain. She spent two years in various hardships, absolutely, but she has the advantage of Frank -- she spent them forging a romantic relationship. Frank spent them alone and ostracized by the world around him. While he worked to find and save his wife, the world laughed in his face and assumed she'd left him for another man.

Then she comes back and is markedly cold to him (as if his resemblance is his fault), refers to him as her ex-husband, and then of course we have Frank crumbling under revelation & pressure to show us that there is in fact a monster in there. I hated that. I still hate it. I thought his character was better than that. And that Claire was too.

I just wish the show didn't inflict Claire or Frank on one another at this point, to this extent. If the marriage is over, I'd rather it be over. It's kind of weirdly sad to watch the aftermath and especially to watch the imbalance as this man who deeply loved his wife and was overjoyed to recover her is faced with the knowledge that what they had is so lost. He told Claire in the pilot that nothing she did could change his feelings for her. He backed that up here yet again. Yet his few seconds of anger (in which by the way he did not actually shake Claire, as some have noted -- he loomed over her, then went off and broke a bunch of crockery, sigh) to me is as good as a death sentence -- as a suitor, it seems obvious to me that Frank is doomed. So I just wish he'd go find another woman to be ultra-faithful to. Watching this train-wreck is just so sad.

And the funny thing is, see, for me, I just don't get the Claire & Jamie thing as an actual marriage. I don't see a rich and deep union of two people there -- they're too different in virtually every way to me. They don't feel like a union of equals. I get that Jamie is hot and that he's of course the show's OTP for Claire, but to me, I thought there was more real love and companionship in the S1E1 episode of Frank and Claire exploring the ruins together, than anything I've seen with Jamie thus far. 

I know, bring on the pitchforks. But Jamie just doesn't do anything for me at all. I like and respect his character a ton and was so moved last season by what he suffered for Claire. But I still squint at the idea of him with Claire long-term. To me they don't work at all. (And it's worth noting that of the two, of Frank and Jamie, Jamie is the only one of the two to literally lay hands upon Claire.)

Meanwhile, I love the new credits for the way they refocus our attention on the adventures to come in France, and the integration of the French lyrics are wonderful. Although I miss the momentum of the original sequence -- the new shots of boobs and whispers aren't as dynamic to me. I especially miss the sense of urgency when we get to "all that was me, is gone" -- the new visuals aren't as good.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I think the hospital or local authorities took it upon themselves to notify Frank of Claire's return. They certainly were aware of her disappearance & Franks search efforts as Inverness was a small town. Claire did not request Franks' presence at the hospital. I believe she thought she would manage by herself in 1948. She didn't think it fair to ask Frank for support, let alone expect him to raise another mans child. She knew how all this would hurt him & how unlikely it would be that he would believe her fantastical story. That is the reason behind her " coldness" toward him, she fully expected they had no future.She had also just the day before left Jamie, so her grief was raw. She was holding herself tightly together ( as she had when she first spoke with the warden at Wentworth Prison) so that she wouldn't completely collapse.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/16/2016 at 5:39 PM, Wouldofshouldof said:

I'm new to the series, having binge-watched S1 this past week, so I didn't follow the episode threads here as they aired.  What did everyone make of the fact that the stranger watching Claire through the window in S1 ep1 turned out to be Jamie, as was revealed in the episode where Frank was at the police station and Jamie's Have-you-seen-this-man picture was posted there?  That means he time traveled at some point too, but he arrived in the 1940's too early, since Claire wouldn't have known about him yet.  It gives me hope, anyway, that he can travel too.

Spoiler

Yes...I wondered the same thing, and it is in both the book and the show. We're most of the way through Season 2, and I've finished Book 1.

Edited by Athena · Reason: added spoiler tag

Share this post


Link to post

It took me 2 days to cleanse my head of Black Jack from the last episode of season 1. I never want to see that vile creature on my screen again. I came thisclose to quitting this show because of him. So, I was not expecting to see Frank this episode but I understand that the actor is one of the leads and if Black Jack is dead (please be dead) or we don't need to see him now Jamie and Claire are in France we will see Frank. I don't know why but I feel by Claire's reaction when she woke up at the stones she didn't go through on her own free will or maybe Jamie tried to go with her and it didn't work? I am surprised Frank didn't move on after 2 years and he was ready and willing to hop back in to a relationship with Claire and try to pick up where they left off. And I'm surprised Claire didn't tell him she couldn't be with him at this time because she was in love with someone else. But I guess if that happened their wouldn't be a show. So I guess from now on every time we see Jamie and Claire it's a flashback?

Not happy with how Claire was in France especially with the 2 smallpox shipmates. When Jamie saw her on the dock and called her name she looked at him and ran. Why didn't she wait for Jamie tell him what was happening and then go look at the boys. Then when Jamie told her to let the dockmaster? handle it she didn't take his advice and made an enemy, plus she may be immune but no one else is and she was touching them. I hope we get to see Jamie battle PTSD and not have sex with Claire for a while. I noticed when Jamie was resting on the bed Claire reached in to kiss him and he took her hand and kissed it instead. No way he's going to heal anytime soon from the rape and since they went there with the rape they need to show Jamie's struggle getting past it before being intimate again. Claire does not have a magic vagina so I hope the show doesn't have Jamie cured as soon as he has sex with Claire. I will not buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, foxfreakinmulder said:

It took me 2 days to cleanse my head of Black Jack from the last episode of season 1. I never want to see that vile creature on my screen again. I came thisclose to quitting this show because of him. So, I was not expecting to see Frank this episode but I understand that the actor is one of the leads and if Black Jack is dead (please be dead) or we don't need to see him now Jamie and Claire are in France we will see Frank. I don't know why but I feel by Claire's reaction when she woke up at the stones she didn't go through on her own free will or maybe Jamie tried to go with her and it didn't work? I am surprised Frank didn't move on after 2 years and he was ready and willing to hop back in to a relationship with Claire and try to pick up where they left off. And I'm surprised Claire didn't tell him she couldn't be with him at this time because she was in love with someone else. But I guess if that happened their wouldn't be a show. So I guess from now on every time we see Jamie and Claire it's a flashback?

Not happy with how Claire was in France especially with the 2 smallpox shipmates. When Jamie saw her on the dock and called her name she looked at him and ran. Why didn't she wait for Jamie tell him what was happening and then go look at the boys. Then when Jamie told her to let the dockmaster? handle it she didn't take his advice and made an enemy, plus she may be immune but no one else is and she was touching them. I hope we get to see Jamie battle PTSD and not have sex with Claire for a while. I noticed when Jamie was resting on the bed Claire reached in to kiss him and he took her hand and kissed it instead. No way he's going to heal anytime soon from the rape and since they went there with the rape they need to show Jamie's struggle getting past it before being intimate again. Claire does not have a magic vagina so I hope the show doesn't have Jamie cured as soon as he has sex with Claire. I will not buy it.

Wasn’t that a shock & such a season spoiler that Claire had to go back?  

I love reading your predictions!

Share this post


Link to post

It's funny to think what the Scottish motorist who encountered a disheveled Claire on the road must have thought of her.

A woman with a posh English accent, demanding that he proclaim the winner of Culloden Moor? It probably seemed like she was taunting him - like an American tourist showing up in London and yelling, "Who kicked your asses at Yorktown?"

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Blakeston said:

It's funny to think what the Scottish motorist who encountered a disheveled Claire on the road must have thought of her.

A woman with a posh English accent, demanding that he proclaim the winner of Culloden Moor? It probably seemed like she was taunting him - like an American tourist showing up in London and yelling, "Who kicked your asses at Yorktown?"

Dear god, but I hated that scene. 

Share this post


Link to post

I was surprised to be taken back to "modern day" at the beginning of the episode.  Really didn't expect that at all, and I was wondering how they were going to go "back" to where they left off in Season 1.  I liked how all that was done.

Timeline & Claire's pregnancy - I don't think this is the same pregnancy in both timelines.  As someone noted above, Claire has to be at least 2-3 months along by the time they hit France.  Even if she turned around immediately, went back to Scotland and raced to Craigh na dun, she'd be showing by the time she arrived back to 1948.  So I think the 1948 pregnancy is different than the 1744 pregnancy. 

But, I don't think things are necessarily purely linear with the stones.  Gaelis (spelling?) was from the 1960's, and arrived prior to Claire's arrival in 1743.  So it's not like the stones automatically transport everyone 202 years each time and each way.  So while we know 2 years have passed for Frank, it may not be the exact same time has passed for Claire when she jumps back to the 1940's.  (She jumped back 202 years initially, but maybe makes a 203 year jump forward, so she's been in the 1700's 1 year less than she's been missing in the 1940's.) 

Smallpox - ugh, Claire's back at being Claire.  What I was really hoping for in that scene was her convincing the Lord that no, you don't have to burn the ship - just send it back out to sea for 30 days to ensure nothing on board is contagious.  Claire should know that smallpox isn't transmitted through things - it was airborne transmission from someone infected.  (Maybe germs would be on clothing or bedding, but not boxed up cargo.)  So, quarantine the crew, keep the ship moored out a bit, and everything would be ok. 

Share this post


Link to post

I watched Season 1 several years ago, but the violence sort of put me off the show, and I'm just watching Season 2 now.  

I was surprised Claire was back in the present, though I was disappointed in the payoff.  I felt really badly for Frank last season, and as others said, I didn't enjoy watching Claire act so coldly towards him, though I understand that she was grieving over probably not seeing Jaime ever again.   Then, they did a few things that made Frank rather unlikeable, to the point where I'd prefer if they just decided to go their separate ways.  

Add me to the crowd who was appalled that the 18th century clothing was burned in a fire.

The flashback to France was interesting with their talk of changing the "past".  The whole smallpox incident felt so contrived, though.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/27/2021 at 10:27 PM, Camera One said:

The whole smallpox incident felt so contrived, though.  

Sometimes I just can't believe the things that Claire will say/do.  She should have known better than to announce that it was smallpox.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Okaaaay....My first reaction to the opening scene was, 'Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!' because that's how much I don't want Claire to leave Jamie, like, ever. It was so clear that Claire understands and accepts how deeply she loves Jamie and how little she loves Frank in comparison. Perhaps not started out that way but now, after experiencing a soul mate type of love she knows how superficial her marriage with Frank was. Then she says she's pregnant with Jamie's child and I'm left feeling like, "Am I watching the end of the series at the beginning of Season 2, is that what I'm seeing right now?"

But no, then we cut to Les Havres and Claire is still pregnant, so now I am doubly confused (is it the same pregnancy?)! Apparently Jamie told her to leave him and forget about him, that is what she tells Frank. So something drastic happens and I don't know if her life is in danger or his is or both, but he sends her back to Frank with child, telling her to forget about him, as in he is going to die or something and she cannot come back to him. Then she's pregnant with him and I'm stymied. Can she be in two places at once, is that what I'm seeing? That seems odd, and given what Jamie told her it seems unlikely. And yet she is pregnant, for the first time(?), in both places. She's showing about the same in both places too so...What the fuck?!?

I'm glad Jamie at least cursorily mentions being haunted by his torture because it would be weird to suddenly be A-OK after living through such hell. Also, and not for nothing, I think Claire is somewhat repulsed by Frank because of his likeness to BJR, the dude has zero chance at this point. Anyway, Jamie's saying his hand is crippled, and I hope he recovers, but damn, even with a crippled hand these two almost get into a fight on the docks as soon as they arrive. Jesus, Rupert and Angus were right, guarding these two is a full time job. I loved Murtagh being their faithful servant, but I felt like they ought to let him know WTF is going on vis a vis Claire and the Stones. I mean, I think if anyone in Jamie's circle could handle it, it's Murtagh. That said, the whole idea seems stupid and highly unlikely to be successful so why wouldn't they just get on with life in France and just not look back. Heal, move somewhere in the countryside, and be at peace. I know, I know, then there would never be a set of books and the show. But still...

What else, I loved the interaction between Mrs. Graham and Claire, and I assume she was trying to find out how Jamie died, and that's why she was pouring through the books on Culloden, but I'm guessing since we know there are 5 seasons already done, he doesn't die at Culloden, that is my guess, and maybe that's why he sends Claire back? I'm sure we'll learn about this by the end of the season, at least I hope so.

When 1940's Claire tried to remove Jamie's ring, my heart was breaking and I literally said aloud, 'Noooo!' Thankfully she didn't have to take it off at that point. I'm not clear why she is even agreeing to go home with Frank at this point, I mean, why? She could probably ask the Reverend to stay there and he'd likely say yes. She clearly seems miserable at the thought of being with Frank again and she doesn't even act like Claire that we now know, she reverts to quiet, accommodating Claire, the Claire that doesn't show who she truly is, who dims her light in front of her husband because he cannot take being not as amazing as she is. And now it is so painfully clear that Jamie and she are meant to be, so I find myself trying to make sense out of Jamie being seen looking up at Claire in S01E01. Some have referred to his presence in the street as a ghost but since we know what is possible with the Stones, why couldn't Jamie come through the Stones to 1943, to initiate Claire's journey back to him because it is preordained or something like that? I can't make perfect sense of this right now, but I'm trying to form this scenario where Jamie knows Claire is the one, and he knows where to find her in 1943, so she can come back to him in 1743, if that makes sense, and I know it doesn't really! The question is, does he know, from another past life or something like that, that he has to go get her somehow and that's how this story we're seeing begins?

I have a lot of questions...more than comments...

One thing puzzling me, what was the ring Claire was looking for and found when she woke up at the Stones? We've never seen that ring before have we? I thought she was looking for the pearls but then it was a ring with the center missing. I know a fair bit about antique jewelry and a cursory search confirmed that Jacobite rings, worn covertly, sometimes held a portrait of BPC, which would have fit into that setting Claire picks up. Also, bonafide Jacobite couriers wore an emerald cabochon ring to signify that they were legitimate couriers of the movement. Again, that could have also fit in there. I was hoping it was a signet ring with the Fraser crest and motto, which also could have been carved into hardstone and mounted in that setting. I'm curious what the missing piece is and I hope we see it at some point.

ETA: Last season felt neater somehow, with Claire showing up in two time periods it's feeling very 'messy' to me.

Edited by gingerella
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Well. That was an interesting way to start! Jump forward to Claire's world and AFTER the battle of Culloden so that we are all—characters and viewers alike—flailing around without a clue. OK. We just have to ride that wave. 

I was pleased that the show gave Frank a chance to be different from BJR as a person. I felt a great deal of compassion for his struggle. He's a man of dry logic. Not a naturally empathetic being. But I believe that he loves Claire with all his heart—and in his own way.

I appreciated that the show allowed Claire to recoil from Frank's attempt to touch her because she sees BJR's face. 

But Frank has drawn HIS line in the sand. He will not share his wife with another man! Given that Mrs. Graham saw parallel marriage lines in Claire's palm I think this has to come up again. How will Frank handle it then? (just musing, not asking)

Frank knows Claire's baby cannot be his, but he admits to a brief feeling of joy that it might be—before the facts fell like bricks. I think he is both willing to believe Claire and skeptical at the same time. It's a lot for him to take in all at once. 

Then—Oh Dear! Frank asked Claire to promise him that she would let Jamie go. But Claire agreed because she promised Jamie that she would let him go. Not the capitualation Frank was looking for. After that—matching tears roll down their cheeks while in embrace. But Frank's were because she was back and Claire's were for letting Jamie go. And Damn. Frank tells her to keep Jamie's ring “until you're ready”. That was Frank—perhaps at his giving-est. 

After Frank has heard Claire's story. And told her that he believes her, she asks him to deal with her clothes from that time. Reverend Wakefield has told him that they have been confirmed as authentic from the 18th century and are very valuable. But to Frank they are a painful reminder that he has been cuckolded. He tries to think of himself as someone who can rise above that. He's said it both last season and this season. But he want no reminder around him—no matter how valuable they are to others. I'm thinking that was Claire's way returning his gesture regarding Jamie's ring. He can destroy everything else from that time. 

But I'm missing something. Have we seen that other ring Claire had with her before? The one that was missing a stone? If it was last season it is OK to let me know what episode. I'll look it up. Then I might get a hint at it means. If not? I guess the show will let us know at some point.

 

Lovely segue to the plane trip and that final step... into a new world. Of course my mind—along with Claire's— flew to Jamie's curiosity about flying when she told him about it. At least—in the second half of this episode— we get to go back to where we left off last Season. And once I saw Mutagh's there? All became right in my world. 

We have our first half/ second half parallel early. We see Jamie recoil when Claire reaches to touch him and he sees BJR's face. But he can tell Claire why where she could not tell Frank why.

Claire's insistance on stopping the Battle of Culloden. It's like she's taken on Geillis' cause in a warped way. Geillis wanted the Scotts to win. Claire just want the battle not to happen—most likely leaving the status quo which she sees as being better than what did happen. Not that Geillis would agree with her, but at least Claire now has a “cause”. The Geillis effect. 

I'm worried that Claire is leading Jamie away from his true nature with this plan of deception. He even mentions that it is not a very honourable path she's laying out for them. But it looks like he will do anything for her. I don't like the sound of that. And Murtagh, the mighty Murtagh. He knows there's a lot more to this crazy deception than they are telling him.

And we end with the appearance of smallpox again and a new powerful enemy for a new land and a new season. Tally Ho.

 

Edited by Anothermi · Reason: spelling
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I appreciated that the show allowed Claire to recoil from Frank's attempt to touch her because she sees BJR's face. 

We have our first half/ second half parallel early. We see Jamie recoil when Claire reaches to touch him and he sees BJR's face. But he can tell Claire why where she could not tell Frank why.

Yes! Yet another parallel scene but this the same episode. Nice touch, pun intended! Also, another parallel scene was Claire helping undress Jamie so they could show his scars to his cousin, harkening back to Dougal showing Jamie’s scars to raise money for the same Jacobite cause. I like spotting these parallel scenes, it’s like Where’s Waldo!

13 hours ago, Anothermi said:

Frank asked Claire to promise him that she would let Jamie go. But Claire agreed because she promised Jamie the she would let him go. Not the capitualation Frank was looking for. After that—matching tears roll down their cheeks while in embrace. But Frank's were because she was back and Claire's were for letting Jamie go. And Damn. Frank tells her to keep Jamie's ring “until you're ready”. That was Frank—perhaps at his giving-est. 

And yes again! This was such a powerful scene, and as the viewer it was gut wrenching to watch, seeing Claire front of Frank, essentially telling him, ‘Jamie made me come back, he made me promise to forget him’ - the subtext is clear, at least to me, ‘I would’ve never come back if Jamie hadn’t made me.’ Ouch. 

13 hours ago, Anothermi said:

Claire's insistance on stopping the Battle of Culloden. It's like she's taken on Geillis' cause in a warped way. Geillis wanted the Scotts to win. Claire just want the battle not to happen—most likely leaving the status quo which she sees as being better than what did happen. Not that Geillis would agree with her, but at least Claire now has a “cause”. The Geillis effect. 

I'm worried that Claire is leading Jamie away from his true nature with this plan of deception. He even mentions that it is not a very honourable path she's laying out for them. But it looks like he will do anything for her. I don't like the sound of that.

Yup, she’s definitely taken no Geillis’ cause, but for very different reasons. Although we didn’t hear details, Geillis seemed to want the Scots to win, but Claire wants to stop the battle in an attempt to stop all the death that she knows will result, so Geillis and Claire are coming at this from opposite purposes. But yeah, it was interesting that Jamie said it wasn’t an honest plan or however he phrased it. 

ETA: Murtagh was looking very well groomed in France, was he not?!?

Edited by gingerella
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, gingerella said:

ETA: Murtagh was looking very well groomed in France, was he not?!?

Yes! Not just his hair. His face is less red and rough. There must be better bathing facilities in France. Not that I think Murtagh would take to them like a duck. ;-)

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, gingerella said:

One thing puzzling me, what was the ring Claire was looking for and found when she woke up at the Stones? We've never seen that ring before have we? I thought she was looking for the pearls but then it was a ring with the center missing. I know a fair bit about antique jewelry and a cursory search confirmed that Jacobite rings, worn covertly, sometimes held a portrait of BPC, which would have fit into that setting Claire picks up. Also, bonafide Jacobite couriers wore an emerald cabochon ring to signify that they were legitimate couriers of the movement. Again, that could have also fit in there. I was hoping it was a signet ring with the Fraser crest and motto, which also could have been carved into hardstone and mounted in that setting. I'm curious what the missing piece is and I hope we see it at some point.

This. I was wondering about this as well. Thanks for the info on it's possible relation to the Jacobite rebellion and BPC. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I just had a quick scan at the start of E01 and noticed that is where the ring first appears in this episode. Claire is in Voice Over mode and looks first at Frank's ring (sly bit of visual deception, there, given the words in the voice over at that moment) and then at Jamie's. Then she starts to look a bit panicked and pat that piece of her dress that slides behind the front lacings. Apparently nothing  is there. So she start searching the grass around her and finds the empty ring. Her eyes scan the grass some more but she sees nothing. Then she seems to give up, screams to the heavens and walks away from the stones looking despondent and empty. Maybe we haven't seen that ring before and I just forgot between this scene and the next time it appears. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I loved having the new season get off to such a strong start with its story-telling. Imagine if it had begun with the landing at Le Havre, which would have been followed by the scene at the inn, meeting with Jamie's cousin (oh look, here comes their new Castle Leoch, this time complete with a healthy revenue stream: selling wine in Paris), and then the peril back dockside (oh look, there goes their new mortal enemy, incurred because he wants to sell plague). Setting that up with Claire's completely unexpected landing in "year-of-our-Lord-nineteen-hundred-and-forty-eight" made it all feel welcome and less formulaic.  

It also established that (at least for now!), the outcome at Culloden wasn't going to diverge from our reality, and we can assume that the outcome for the Highlands was no better. I love that as a deliberate sacrifice of one kind of suspense ("Will/can Claire and Jamie stop a doomed uprising, or change its result?") for another, more poignant. What did this fateful uprising look like from the inside, and how will it play out among the characters that we've come to care about, too. It also parted Claire and Jamie by centuries, after 2-3 years. This makes their every scene together now more precious, and raised the stakes in a way that we can more easily empathize with. Few of us have halted an insurgency. Everyone has lost someone, and lived past a dream.

11 hours ago, gingerella said:

Jesus, Rupert and Angus were right, guarding these two is a full time job.

Hee! So true. 

11 hours ago, gingerella said:

I'm not clear why she is even agreeing to go home with Frank at this point, I mean, why?

The child, I think. Jamie's child. Frank knows and loves her deeply, with devotion; she knows and loves him well; he's a good man; he can support a family; he wants to be a husband to her and a father to her child. Then and now, that's a lot. Family life can be a passion too. It might not prove to be Claire's but it makes sense to me that Claire would try and see, with a willing partner. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, gingerella said:

Okaaaay....My first reaction to the opening scene was, 'Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!'

I have been waiting for this reaction from you for DAYS!!!  It was so challenging to watch your emotions run the gamut from Season 1 knowing that this was coming up for the three of you.  But here you all are, and I'm so excited about it!

 

14 hours ago, gingerella said:

She clearly seems miserable at the thought of being with Frank again and she doesn't even act like Claire that we now know, she reverts to quiet, accommodating Claire, the Claire that doesn't show who she truly is, who dims her light in front of her husband because he cannot take being not as amazing as she is. And now it is so painfully clear that Jamie and she are meant to be

Cait's range in this episode is nothing short of incredible.  It's like we are watching two Claires.  I love how half way through, we see her come to life again as she walks down the gangplank and Jamie reaches to her.  The embrace when she gets to him...oh, my heart.  

 

13 hours ago, Anothermi said:

Of course my mind—along with Claire's— flew to Jamie's curiosity about flying when she told him about it.

Oooh, what a great catch!

 

12 hours ago, gingerella said:

‘Jamie made me come back, he made me promise to forget him’ - the subtext is clear, at least to me, ‘I would’ve never come back if Jamie hadn’t made me.’ Ouch.

Loved it!

 

2 hours ago, Pallas said:

This makes their every scene together now more precious, and raised the stakes in a way that we can more easily empathize with. Few of us have halted an insurgency. Everyone has lost someone, and lived past a dream.

This so true and so perfectly stated.  Perhaps that why I love the gangplank scene and the first embrace in Le Havre with Jamie.  My immediate thought was relief and "Oh, thank goodness!"  But, every interaction of theirs now seems to be polarized, and I'm hanging on every word and action.  

 

15 hours ago, gingerella said:

I have a lot of questions...

🤐

 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:
15 hours ago, gingerella said:

Okaaaay....My first reaction to the opening scene was, 'Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!'

I have been waiting for this reaction from you for DAYS!!!  It was so challenging to watch your emotions run the gamut from Season 1 knowing that this was coming up for the three of you.  But here you all are, and I'm so excited about it!

Honestly @SassAndSnacks, the ONLY thing keeping me going with this right now is my rational mind. I have no idea what will happen but I DO know this show is going to be at least 7 seasons now (yes I ken that much!) and Jamie and Claire are the two main characters, and the Battle of Culloden is nearly upon us in 1744 or whatever year it is now there, so there is no way - in my rational mind - that the next soon to be 5 seasons take place back and forth between a year that's left before the death and carnage of Culloden, so I have to believe that there is much more to this saga than just one year stretched out of many seasons, and there must be other ways that Jaime and Claire get back together again, so I'm not fretting too much because again, my 2021 mind knows that a series this popular could not sustain itself over so many years without having some amazing storytelling with twists and turns coming. That is what I am telling myself so I dont panic about Claire going to Boston with Frank.

And not for nothing, but I cannot bear to look at Frank because I just see BJR, I don't know how on earth Claire can stomach looking at him now.

Ohh! I almost forgot, I had another thought last night about Jamie coming to get Claire in S01E01 when he was watching her from the street...If he came forward through time, technically he would be dead yes? So maaaaybe when one goes forward beyond their lifetime, they are ghost-like, yet not really dead because they are still alive in their own time so to speak. Though that said, if Claire went backwards in time to before she was alive and she was very much alive in the 1740s, then my premise does not hold water, even if said water comes from a burn, ruffling through it like Jamie's Mo Nighean Donn.... *sigh* I miss the innocence of that scene...

Edited by gingerella
  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, gingerella said:

Honestly @SassAndSnacks, the ONLY thing keeping me going with this right now is my rational mind. I have no idea what will happen but I DO know this show is going to be at least 7 seasons now (yes I ken that much!) and Jamie and Claire are the two main characters, and the Battle of Culloden is nearly upon us in 1744 or whatever year it is now there, so there is no way - in my rational mind - that the next soon to be 5 seasons take place back and forth between a year that's left before the death and carnage of Culloden, so I have to believe that there is much more to this saga than just one year stretched out of many seasons, and there must be other ways that Jaime and Claire get back together again, so I'm not fretting too much because again, my 2021 mind knows that a series this popular could not sustain itself over so many years without having some amazing storytelling with twists and turns coming. That is what I am telling myself so I dont panic about Claire going to Boston with Frank.

Same!  That's exactly what kept going thru my head too when I first watched it, because I just came to the fandom late last summer.

 

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

And not for nothing, but I cannot bear to look at Frank because I just see BJR, I don't know how on earth Claire can stomach looking at him now.

YES!!!  Agreed!!!🤮

  • Like 1

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