S02.E05: Untimely Resurrection

[Athena]

Quote

Reunited, Jamie and Claire attempt to extinguish the fires their dinner party ignited; however, Claire is set off on an unexpected change of course.

This is the No Book Talk Thread. Book discussion of any kind is not allowed including "It was different in the books," No hinting or liking by book posters is allowed. If you are spoiled, please see this thread.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Man, I am with both Claire and Jamie. I have such a visceral reaction every time I see Black Jack Randall on my screen. I'm not sure if that's due to Diana Gabaldon creating such a loathsome character or the acting of Tobias Menzies. Either way, I recoiled when I saw him this week. It's been such a relief not to have him torturing Jamie and Claire this season, but I guess that respite is over.

Poor Mary. The one good thing to come out of being raped was that it cleared the path for her to marry Alex since her old rich fiance couldn't besmirch his name and honor by marrying someone so tarnished and Claire took that away. It was terrible to watch Claire talk Alex out of marrying her, knowing that it would break both of their hearts. It's even worse when you consider that Mary was only attacked because she was with Claire. It did make me wonder how things played out originally in order for Mary to be engaged to the old rich guy and then end up married to Black Jack Randall.

I couldn't believe that Claire even considered burning Mary's letter and letting Alex rot in the Bastille for something he didn't do. Wasn't it just last week that Jamie said that they were doing bad things for good reasons and she questioned him, saying, "Isn't that what all bad people say?" Yet she was willing to consider the possibility of letting an innocent man be imprisoned for not only something he didn't do but to someone he loved.

St. Germain's sliminess made me feel like his wine scheme was intended to bilk Charles and then blame Jamie.

Last week I was willing to give Annalise the benefit of the doubt but after this episode, she needs to GTFO. How dare Claire turn Jamie from a boy into a man? I'd rather see a man act like a man than see someone with a Peter Pan complex.

So what excuse is Jamie going to give Randall for canceling the duel?

On a shallow note, I loved all the garden scenes. I am not even a garden kind of person (my mom is the one with the green thumb) but even I was oohing and aahing over the beautiful scenery.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Thoughts (probably disjointed, cause that's how I roll...)

• Damn, I would NOT want to be Claire's friend.  First she throws Louise under the bus, then Mary, and Alex, and finally Jamie.  Her own husband.  Wow.  Is this woman supposed to be someone I cheer for?  Empathize with?  Care about as a character at all?  Cause after this episode, I'm not feeling it.
• Love the gardens at Versailles.  Was it even filmed at the real Versailles?  I don't know.  I don't think so.  Well, I want my yard to look like that.  Only, I don't want to do the work to get it there.  Or pay anyone.  So if the magical garden fairies want to come and transform my yard, they have my permission.
• Loved, loved LOVED the king making BJR kneel before him.  I laughed so hard.  That scene was worth the whole series so far.  Also loved that he obviously holds Jamie and Claire in high esteem.  I'm liking the king.  Unfortunately, that will probably change in an episode or two, but for now, I really like the king.
• WTF is Claire thinking asking Jamie to spare BJR's life?  She's worried about Frank's existence?  Obviously, the chick hasn't thought through the whole "let's stop Culloden from happening" and all the possible ramifications of that.  What about all the people who were supposed to die but wouldn't, (if they managed to succeed)?  That's a whole lot of history to change, but she's worried only about Frank.  What about the people who should be born - because you know, maybe someone's widow from Culloden married someone else and had children with them only now it won't happen because the person who was supposed to die didn't.  And maybe among those never-borns was someone really important, like, I don't know - Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher?  (Okay, Thatcher after Claire's time, but not Churchill).  But let's worry about Frank, cause he's so much more important.  Damn girl, you just got your hubby back to 'normal' as such and you pull that crap?  Way to go, Claire.
• Don't trust Annalise. (sp?)
• Let me help you Claire.  Here's the correct response when Annalise said, "But when I knew him he was a boy.  You have turned him into a man" (or something like that.). Your line: "Yes, I much prefer men over boys."  
• And by the way, when BJR first walked up to you and Annalise in the garden, YOU OWED HIM NOTHING.  Not even common courtesy.  It would have been perfectly acceptable to say to Annalise, "this man is no friend of mine or my husband's.  Excuse me."  And walk away.    
• That ending though.  DAMN.

6 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

St. Germain's sliminess made me feel like his wine scheme was intended to bilk Charles and then blame Jamie.

Ooh, I did not even consider this!  I just thought he didn't trust Jamie because of what happened with Claire and his ship and the whole small pox thing.  And since they are planning to fake something similar to ruin his investment, I'd say he was spot on.  But now you've got me scratching my chin thinking hm....

ETA: more thoughts just occurred to me:

• Can't believe they are actually showing Claire (obviously pregnant) drinking so much.  A glass of wine maybe one thing, but she seems to be putting away the whisky too.  Maybe it didn't help that I rewatched the last ep right before this one, so got a double whammy of her imbibing.
• Speaking of the last ep: nice that they explained La Dame Blanche (and the part of me that took four years of French cringed every time someone pronounced Dame as Dam).  But Claire was absolutely right to call Jamie out for using that as an excuse not to have relations with trollops after she was nearly burned as a witch not so long ago.  Not cool Jamie.
• Hey!  We finally saw Jamie do actual work at his cousin's wine business.  I was wondering the last couple episodes when he ever had the time between whoring all night with BPC and chess with Duverney all day and thinking poor Jared will come back with his business in shambles and really be Poor Jared.

Edited May 7, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey
more, more, more

[Wouldofshouldof]

Now that was an episode!  My impatience with this season has definitely evaporated.  It also helps that I've been reading the in the book talk thread and have seen some mild spoilers - not enough to ruin anything for me, just enough to make me look forward to the rest of the season.

[lvbalgurl]

What I don't understand is how Claire can be okay with Mary marrying BJR, given the psychotic, raping bastard she knows him to be.  Mary, who was just assaulted and raped; whom she knows to be in love with his brother.  All was gravy when they thought BJR was dead; why have things changed b/c she remembered he married Mary?  She ALWAYS knew he was Frank's ancestor; why was BJR's death okay before but not now?  Is she thinking that as soon as someone runs a blade through BJR's heart, Frank will collapse and die on the streets of 1945?

I feel awful for Alex and Mary.  They are sweet and in love, and don't deserve this bullshit.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

12 minutes ago, Wouldofshouldof said:

Now that was an episode!  My impatience with this season has definitely evaporated.  It also helps that I've been reading the in the book talk thread and have seen some mild spoilers - not enough to ruin anything for me, just enough to make me look forward to the rest of the season.

Eh.  I made the mistake of reading the first book during the hiatus last year.  Ruined the second half of the season for me.  I'll peek at some spoilers for the show (do it for other shows I watch too), but would rather not know too much of how it went down in the books.  

[Primetimer]

Even separated by two centuries, Claire has trouble balancing the needs of her two husbands.

View the full article

[LoveLeigh]

I don't understand this. If Jack has to "not die" in order for Frank to be born so therefore the duel has to not happen.... if Jack had actually died at Wentworth as they thought, and Claire knew of the family tree, wouldn't Claire have believed what happened at Wentworth prevented Frank from being born anyway? 

Edited May 8, 2016 by DakotaLavender

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Love the gardens at Versailles.  Was it even filmed at the real Versailles?  I don't know.  I don't think so.  Well, I want my yard to look like that.  Only, I don't want to do the work to get it there.  Or pay anyone.  So if the magical garden fairies want to come and transform my yard, they have my permission

Ha whenever I see a beautiful fancy garden, I think of Steve Martin telling Michael Caine in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, "You want me to spend money on wine I can't drink and a garden that frankly looks like a mowing headache. Now that's a statue of a naked woman. I can appreciate that."

[nara]

I loved the way they did the return of Blackjack, with the Frasers forced to be civil. Loving King Louis XV's treatment of BJR.  Finally some comeuppance, even slight. I hope that Louis continues to snub him. 

When Claire looked like she was going to burn Mary's letter, I actually yelled "Bitch" at my television. Since I don't normally swear, I guess I must feel pretty strongly about her actions. I hate that she is interfering with Alex and Mary. I get that she feels guilty about betraying Frank,but why should they suffer? (BTW, I assume she didn't have time to worry about the future when rescuing Jamie,  which is why she had no problem with BJR dying then.) I hope they ignore her and marry.  BTW, why would BJR marry a "soiled woman"? He's not a viscount, but he is a gentleman --right? Claire may have just condemned Mary to a single life. Also, they have mentioned Alex being ill a couple of times.  I hope they are not setting something up there. 

Shouldn't Jamie have slapped BJR with a glove when challenging him to a duel? Or is that a fictional thing?

I thought Murtagh's guilt was appropriate  (though unfounded ). I hope he's the one who gets the bad guys. Though it appears that since they were after the prize of a maidenhead,  perhaps Claire was not the target.

It's sad that "I love my wife" is insufficient reason for not sleeping with a prostitute and he had to claim she is a witch. That's not going to come back and bite them!

I wonder if Jamie and Claire are going to adopt Fergus?

[HumblePi]

2 hours ago, DakotaLavender said:

I don't understand this. If Jack has to "not die" in order for Frank to be born so therefore the duel has to not happen.... if Jack had actually died at Wentworth as they thought, and Claire knew of the family tree, wouldn't Claire have believed what happened at Wentworth prevented Frank from being born anyway? 

That's a great point you've made. Even after finding out that Jack Randall was still alive and Jamie wanted to kill him in a duel, why not let it happen if she really loves Jamie?  Let Jack Randall die and allow Frank never to be born. She loves Jamie so she could then just relax and spend the rest of her life living with a hot red-headed Scot forever. Of course that could have backfired and Jamie could have been shot by Black Jack Randall and died there. Then she would have been stuck in ancient times with only Murtagh to keep her company. (ew)

And another thing. I just don't get the symbolism of the 12 'spoons of the Apostles'. What's with that? Was the Last Supper in Scotland? Did they break bread and wine at the Last Supper or did they have lentil soup that required humongous silver spoons to eat it? Yeah right, like I'm going to believe all that.

Edited May 8, 2016 by HumblePi

[nara]

6 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

That's a great point you've made. Even after finding out that Jack Randall was still alive and Jamie wanted to kill him in a duel, why not let it happen if she really loves Jamie?  Let Jack Randall die and allow Frank never to be born. She loves Jamie so she could then just relax and spend the rest of her life living with a hot red-headed Scot forever. Of course that could have backfired and Jamie could have been shot by Black Jack Randall and died there. Then she would have been stuck in ancient times with only Murtagh to keep her company. (ew)

If Frank wasn't born, Claire  wouldn't have come to Scotland and gone through the stones...

[Daisy]

2 hours ago, DakotaLavender said:

I don't understand this. If Jack has to "not die" in order for Frank to be born so therefore the duel has to not happen.... if Jack had actually died at Wentworth as they thought, and Claire knew of the family tree, wouldn't Claire have believed what happened at Wentworth prevented Frank from being born anyway? 

Because Claire is stupid. I think that's the crux of it. that woman. is stupid. 

Like why couldn't it be  that Mary marries Alex, and then Alex dies from his consumption (I'm assuming that's what he's got) - and then Randal marries her because he feels like he needs to help Mary (or she's pregnant with the baby). Why is Claire so driven to "save Frank". when it's so obvious (esp. with the reaction of the first episode) - she is, and forever is basically. "Team Jamie". 

Claire needs to start 'splaining herself. I really don't like her at all this season. 

I think though.. they are "changing history". I don't think if they change everything (ie: Frank, and the Clan Elimination Battle, sorry I forgot that name), that Claire just "Pops" from existence one Monday morning, you ken? History is rewritten. Whose to say if the CEB happens.. that Mary + BJR and the Baby (born/unborn) won't be killed for being part of the British Military? Whose to say that BJR wouldn't die in battle, and Mary so distraught has a miscarriage. (heck like we just pointed out - what if Jack died at Wentworth?) this is very "piss or get off the effing pot," Claire, you can't have both lives. not at this late stage. 

WWMD: What would Murtudgh do. Kill St Germain. (that man is ice cold). 

[HumblePi]

8 minutes ago, nara said:

If Frank wasn't born, Claire  wouldn't have come to Scotland and gone through the stones...

so... If Black Jack Randall was actually stampeded by a bunch of sheep or cows back at Wentworth, or if Jamie killed him in a duel, would Claire wake up in her brown Army nurse uniform back in 1942 England?  (Aye, dinnae nay sense Sassenach)

[RulerofallIsurvey]

24 minutes ago, nara said:

BTW, why would BJR marry a "soiled woman"? He's not a viscount, but he is a gentleman --right? Claire may have just condemned Mary to a single life. Also, they have mentioned Alex being ill a couple of times.  I hope they are not setting something up there. 

Not sure BJR is technically a "gentleman" in English aristocracy of the time.  However, completely expected to see blood on Alex's hankerchief when he was coughing in the garden.  I think Daisy called it: consumption (which is tuberculosis, right?)

24 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

And another thing. I just don't get the symbolism of the 12 'spoons of the Apostles'. What's with that? Was the Last Supper in Scotland? Did they break bread and wine at the Last Supper or did they have lentil soup that required humongous silver spoons to eat it? Yeah right, like I'm going to believe all that.

I didn't get the twelve apostle spoons either.   That's got to mean something more than a christening gift, right?  Kind of weird christening gift, even for a family heirloom.  Like Humblepi said, they were humongous.  Not like a baby could use them.  

22 minutes ago, nara said:

If Frank wasn't born, Claire  wouldn't have come to Scotland and gone through the stones...

If only Claire had used THAT reason to get Jamie to call off the duel.  Not the stupid, callous, 'you owe me a life' BS.  Say what?  And hasn't he saved her life just as many times?

11 minutes ago, Daisy said:

WWMD: What would Murtudgh do. Kill St Germain. (that man is ice cold). 

Damn.  I forgot the WWMD.  Thank you for the gentle reminder.  WWMD?  Kill BJR.  'Nuff said.

[ganesh]

16 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

So what excuse is Jamie going to give Randall for canceling the duel?

I think since it's illegal, and because Jamie is a rising political figure, he should be able to make some excuses. I agree with Jamie. No way BJR is choosing pistols. 

I really am so glad I'm unspoiled. I had no idea that BJR was showing up at all. That was such a great scene with the king!

10 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

St. Germain's sliminess made me feel like his wine scheme was intended to bilk Charles and then blame Jamie.

What I really liked about that scene was that it seemed like the actor was looking past Jamie the whole time. So I think he's plotting something. 

3 hours ago, lvbalgurl said:

Is she thinking that as soon as someone runs a blade through BJR's heart, Frank will collapse and die on the streets of 1945?

I know this isn't a show about time travel per se, but if there's no Frank, then Claire may never go to Scotland and get to the stones to be here, so there's a reasonable paradox to consider. I didn't find her train of thought to be outlandish. I really appreciate that she's able to recall Frank's lineage even though she couldn't quite get the that one huge thing about how the Scots are wiped out. But I know she's traveled a lot, and there's so much history to remember that it probably slipped through the cracks. 

14 minutes ago, Daisy said:

Because Claire is stupid. I think that's the crux of it.

That's basically it. My entire argument from the start of the season is just torpedoed. I wouldn't say she's stupid, but she isn't quite grasping the big picture. BJR is "dead," but Claire is still there. Maybe if there's no Frank, she still makes her way to the stones. Now she sees him and "remembers" he is Frank's ancestor. I agree with her argument here at the end of the episode. What would have worked at the end of last season would have been "I just have a nagging feeling BJR isn't dead." I never thought he actually died in the first place, so I don't know why they all did.

By Claire being there, she has changed history already. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

28 minutes ago, ganesh said:

By Claire being there, she has changed history already. 

Or she was always supposed to be there....

[nara]

7 hours ago, HumblePi said:

so... If Black Jack Randall was actually stampeded by a bunch of sheep or cows back at Wentworth, or if Jamie killed him in a duel, would Claire wake up in her brown Army nurse uniform back in 1942 England?  (Aye, dinnae nay sense Sassenach)

We don't know where she would wake up, but it might be wherever she was before she met Frank. Time travel is tricky that way!

7 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Not sure BJR is technically a "gentleman" in English aristocracy of the time.  However, completely expected to see blood on Alex's hankerchief when he was coughing in the garden.  I think Daisy called it: consumption (which is tuberculosis, right?)

In Castle Leoch, Colum refers to BJR as a gentleman when expressing some disbelief about why he would attack Claire. I assume that he (and Alex) are younger brothers in the family.  The protection that BJR has from facing justice for his actions suggests that, in addition to Sandringham's sponsorship, he has important family connections. It was fairly normal for younger brothers to go into the army or clergy, and I believe that officers usually were gentlemen, not people who rose through the ranks.

 

Unlike some other posters, I don't think that Claire is stupid,  but I do think she is a short-term thinker. She addresses one problem at a time.  Jamie is a chess player, so I bet he thinks in a more iterative way- if A, then B, if X, then Y. Given her role as a healer, her way of thinking could be and advantage.  They make a good combination.

[NorthstarATL]

Claire is a nurse. She must have some concept of heredity. That BJR and Frank are played by the same man does not mean that they are exact ancestors. Alex and Mary could just as likely produce a Frank as BJR and Mary, because all sorts of other genes come into play. She might actually have caused Frank's non-existence by her meddling. (I'm sure not, but SHE doesn't know that.)

[GenieinTX]

I heard Catroina do an interview on EW Radio recently and she said that this season was going to be hard to watch.  Boy, she was not kidding.  Their separation was painful, then they got together, and now I'm sure Jamie feels betrayed by her to his core.  And Claire is being so unlikable right now.  I liked that we got some voiceovers saying she at least felt bad, but girl this is a major blow to the man you love.  I'm very put off by Claire right now.

[ganesh]

I thought Frank told Claire that BJR was his ancestor? That's what triggered her memory when she saw the name Hawkins. 

[HumblePi]

This is just something funny that I thought would blow everyone's mind in this story. I know, it's not happening and I haven't read the book or read comments on the book talk. But if I was a writer, I'd change the ending and produce the revelation that Claire Fraser actually began and ended her life Scotland in the times of the 18th century and not in England. It could have been shown that Claire was one of the women participating in the solstice celebration at the stones and was the last to leave. Claire was a firm believer in the power of the stones and so put her hands on the largest stone and with great surprise woke in 20th century England, circa 1942.

The story in reverse would possibly have been as interesting, if not more. She could have been immersed more deeply in WW2 and have been involved in many war tribulations. She might even have been captured by Germans and put in a concentration camp and eventually freed by Frank and his battalion of British liberators. She would fall in love with Frank but also wanted to return to 1743 Scotland and her first husband Jamie.

See how my mind wanders when I get tired of a series like Outlander and some of the silliness of it all?

[Daisy]

59 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I thought Frank told Claire that BJR was his ancestor? That's what triggered her memory when she saw the name Hawkins. 

Yup! I am loathe to do a google lest i be spoiled (either by show or by book). but the family tree reads

Jonathan Wolverton Randal -------Mary Hawkins. 

But the thing is though which is what i was trying to allude to - is that the assumption is - that the Baby is BJR. it easily could have been Alex's (but then BJR gave Mary his name because Alex died or something). and I know I watch(ed) WAY too many soaps. but there's a myriad of reasons. 

[ganesh]

I can't fault Claire for going on the assumption that BJR has to have a baby with Hawkins in order for Frank to exist though. If this were a time travel show, I would suggest that "time" would guarantee Frank would always be born and marry Claire because he is directly instrumental with her traveling to the past. It could be that BJR can't die until he fathers the child. Time is self-correcting for Claire, since we know the battle isn't going to be avoided. 

Jamie did kind of have a point in that Claire is there to change the future, and now she's saying the opposite.

You'd think the Doctor would show up sometime. The TARDIS *must* know that Claire is mucking about in time. 

[nara]

Every time BPC says, "Mark my words," it sounds like "Mock my words," to me--which I am inclined to do.

[Geillis]

The Doctor would give Claire and Jamie the lecture about Timey Wimey things and how certain things are "Fixed Points in Time.

Then give them a ride in the Tardis.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Geillis

[RulerofallIsurvey]

5 minutes ago, Geillis said:

The Doctor would give Claire and Jamie the lecture about Timey Wimey things and how certain things are "Fixed Points in Time.

Then give them a ride in the Tardis.

They certainly need that lecture.  

I like discussions of Timey Wimey things, but I guess that's the engineer in me.  I think Jamie would also appreciate the lecture/discussion.  Claire would probably get bored and wander off looking for futuristic herbs.

Not sure Jamie would go for the ride if offered though - even though I think he would probably enjoy the theoretical discussion.  

[ElectricBoogaloo]

9 hours ago, nara said:

Every time BPC says, "Mark my words," it sounds like "Mock my words," to me--which I am inclined to do.

Even better, he simply says, "Mark me," which sounds like "Mock me," which is so very easy to do!

[psychoticstate]

Wow, Claire has become so unlikable and selfish.  I'm grateful that she didn't throw Mary's letter into the fire but to even consider it?  Shame on her.  And as others have pointed out, she has messed with Frank's future from the moment she traveled. As well as everyone else's.  Maybe Jamie was supposed to die in the beginning from his battle wound?  Regardless, she seems to have no issue with messing around with everyone else's destiny so long as it keeps Frank safe.  Seeing as to how gentle and kind Alex was, it made me wonder if BJR was not Frank's immediate ancestor but rather Alex.   By doing what she's done, it would be horrible (and very ironic) if present day (i.e., 1948) Frank is now a mean brute, more like BJR.

Is it just me or does Claire look obviously pregnant but when we saw her in the first episode in 1948, you couldn't tell? 

[ganesh]

Claire hasn't seriously considered the consequences of her actions, but, far be it from me to hold her to a higher standard, it isn't really a show about time travel. Jamie may very well have died if not for Claire, but in 1948, he is most certainly dead. Seeing Frank's direct ancestors is a little different since she as far as she knows Frank is alive and well.

I would like it if there was a discussion like that. Jamie brought it up. I don't know what they think is going to happen if they avoid the battle. They're still going to be under the thumb of the Brits. 

[toolazy]

On 5/7/2016 at 0:54 PM, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 

• Can't believe they are actually showing Claire (obviously pregnant) drinking so much.  A glass of wine maybe one thing, but she seems to be putting away the whisky too.  Maybe it didn't help that I rewatched the last ep right before this one, so got a double whammy of her imbibing.

Claire is from the 1940's before people realized how bad it is for pregnant women to drink.  It was the 60's or 70's before pregnant women stopped drinking.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

14 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Claire is from the 1940's before people realized how bad it is for pregnant women to drink.  It was the 60's or 70's before pregnant women stopped drinking.  

For me, it was the fact that the show was *showing* her drinking so much.  Not that people did back then.  Now we know it's not good.  And while, yes, people did, to show it on screen in the 21st century is a little surprising, imo.  And if it's just historical accuracy they are after, why aren't they showing people smoking as well?  Tobacco was pretty popular in the 18th century, was it not?

[Lion]

A need for hydration isn't really comparable to something like consuming tobacco.  Even though many or all of the beverages Claire is consuming has a fermented component, it's still providing hydration, which all humans need to survive.  Not to mention, Jamie and Claire are operating a liquor business.  

As far as tobacco, I would have thought snuff was the popular tobacco product of the time, especially in France.  I wouldn't expect to see a lot of smoking in those settings.  We do get some smoking in backgrounds and comments about tobacco smells, but still, snuff should be the go-to product.  

[iMonrey]

Quote

 It did make me wonder how things played out originally in order for Mary to be engaged to the old rich guy and then end up married to Black Jack Randall.

Unless Claire was always part of the original timeline, as a time traveler.

I'm glad to see the discussions about the possible paradoxes here, because I had the same thought - if Frank is never born, he never marries Claire, and Claire never goes to Inverness and never travels back in time. That's why she can't screw up Frank's history - if she does, will she suddenly disappear from the 18th century and find herself back in the 1940s living a completely different life? Confusing! I'm not sure Jamie even thought this through either.

On the other hand, trying to prevent the battle of Culloden could have the same ramifications because we have no idea what kind of butterfly affect that would have on history in general and Claire doesn't seem especially alarmed about it. I'm not even sure  why she cares so much now that she and Jamie are safely out of Scotland. I can see why Jamie cares - he wants to save the way of life he knows. But Claire should have the same concerns about changing the future that she has about Frank - namely, they might screw something up that would cause her to disappear and return to her own time.

I also wondered whether Alex and not Jack might have been Frank's ancestor all along. (And kudos to the casting department, because the actor playing Alex looks so much like Tobias Menzies I made a point of checking the closing credits to see if they're actually brothers. They are not.)

You can play a drinking game on this show by taking a swig every time Prince Charles says "Mark me." 

[ganesh]

I'm not a subscriber to the "always part of the timeline" time travel theory. Fixed points in time is always a better fit for me because it has some mathematical basis and allows for self-correction. 

Of course, the correct answer is "timey whimey."

This idea is way out there, but: When the season opened we saw Claire in 1948 at the stones. Did she ever say she went through the stones? Is it possible that "time" kicked her out because she screwed something up?

I wish we got to know more about the woman from the 1960s. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, Lion said:

A need for hydration isn't really comparable to something like consuming tobacco.  Even though many or all of the beverages Claire is consuming has a fermented component, it's still providing hydration, which all humans need to survive.  

Lol!  I didn't get the impression, in any instance where Claire was drinking whisky it was for hydration purposes.  And anyway, alcohol, especially in excess, dehydrates.  It interferes with the body's ability to reabsorb water by decreasing the body's production of anti-diuretic hormone .  Even if they were not aware of the effects of alcohol on the fetus back then, as a nurse in WWII, I still would expect her to know this much.  If it's really hydration she was after, she'd be better off drinking a lower alcohol, higher water content beverage such as ale.  

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

You can play a drinking game on this show by taking a swig every time Prince Charles says "Mark me." 

Damn, I'm going to have to try this!  

Oh shoot!  Maybe that's what Claire is really doing..playing the Mark Me drinking game.

Edited May 9, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[TaurusRose]

Claire was very annoying in this episode.  I couldn't believe she used the "I saved your life twice" argument to get her way.  As someone pointed out, Jamie has done his fair share of saving her life as well.  I loved the last scene and the way Jamie spat, "Don't touch me."  All I could say was "you brought that on yourself, Claire."  Count me as one who didn't like her messing up Alex and Mary either.  I did like seeing the foppish French king put BJR down.  He deserves so much worse than that.  Better episode than last, but Claire is starting to make me wonder why Jamie loves her so much.  And why are men touching Jamie's face so much?  Yes, the dude is handsome, but seriously? Claire's alcohol consumption doesn't bother me in the least.  I don't watch Outlander through my 21st century lens.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

11 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Claire was very annoying in this episode.  I couldn't believe she used the "I saved your life twice" argument to get her way.  As someone pointed out, Jamie has done his fair share of saving her life as well.  I loved the last scene and the way Jamie spat, "Don't touch me."  All I could say was "you brought that on yourself, Claire."  Count me as one who didn't like her messing up Alex and Mary either.  I did like seeing the foppish French king put BJR down.  He deserves so much worse than that.  Better episode than last, but Claire is starting to make me wonder why Jamie loves her so much.  And why are men touching Jamie's face so much?  Yes, the dude is handsome, but seriously?

Agreed, agreed, agreed!

Quote

Claire's alcohol consumption doesn't bother me in the least.  I don't watch Outlander through my 21st century lens.

I don't know how to turn mine off.  :shrug: it's part of who I am.  And then I remember that this is a show produced in the 21st century for a 21st century audience by 21st century people...so I think that if something bothers me as a 21st century person, that's reasonable.  On the other hand, I also completely understand when things don't bother others "because 18th century" or whatever.  I don't believe either way of viewing is necessarily amiss.

[TaurusRose]

6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I don't know how to turn mine off.  :shrug: it's part of who I am.  And then I remember that this is a show produced in the 21st century for a 21st century audience by 21st century people...so I think that if something bothers me as a 21st century person, that's reasonable.  On the other hand, I also completely understand when things don't bother others "because 18th century" or whatever.  I don't believe either way of viewing is necessarily amiss.

I get what you're saying, but I can't entertain that position because the human race is constantly evolving.  As a person very interested in historical events, I can't expect (nor do I want) history (or historical fiction) sanitized for the societal norms of the 21st century because (IMO) that would completely distort what a given period of time was like.  Also, how can we appreciate the tremendous strides we've made socially, scientifically and technically if we don't know what life was like for our ancestors?  Anyway, that's how my little mind works. :smile:  As a side note:  I was born in 1954 (and I can't believe all the events I've witnessed in my lifetime!); women smoke and drank while pregnant. The amount of smoking and drinking, I'm sure depended on the individual woman involved, but a whole generation of babies managed to be born without physical abnormalities.  :shrug: I'm just saying...

Edited May 10, 2016 by taurusrose
Minor changes

[jcin617]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 4:21 PM, ganesh said:

I'm not a subscriber to the "always part of the timeline" time travel theory. Fixed points in time is always a better fit for me because it has some mathematical basis and allows for self-correction. 

I was just coming to post "When is Claire going to realize she's causing the very things she's trying to prevent and/or was the reason the things occurred in the first place." because a lot of these events seem to be due to Claire's involvement.  Not to mention she's been pretty much a bull-in-a-china shop with history since she arrived in the past even when she isn't trying to change it, which would already have had repercussions on the future.

[ganesh]

That's why I go with 'fixed points.' With the hypothesis that the battle can't be avoided, anything Claire does is going to 'die out' by then possibly. The extent of what she can affect is rather limited then. I don't know what that means for the pregnancy, since it seems everyone is in agreement that 1948 returned Claire is on pregnancy #2. 

There didn't seem to be any effects of the 1960s woman, and she was there for a while before Claire showed up and got her killed.

Did we did see Jamie's gravestone in the first episode?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

5 hours ago, taurusrose said:

I get what you're saying, but I can't entertain that position because the human race is constantly evolving.  As a person very interested in historical events, I can't expect (nor do I want) history (or historical fiction) sanitized for the societal norms of the 21st century because (IMO) that would completely distort what a given period of time was like.  Also, how can we appreciate the tremendous strides we've made socially, scientifically and technically if we don't know what life was like for our ancestors?  Anyway, that's how my little mind works. :smile:  As a side note:  I was born in 1954 (and I can't believe all the events I've witnessed in my lifetime!); women smoke and drank while pregnant. The amount of smoking and drinking, I'm sure depended on the individual woman involved, but a whole generation of babies managed to be born without physical abnormalities.  :shrug: I'm just saying...

Oh, I completely get what you are saying too!  :)  I see both sides, equally well,  Really.  (It's why I can be so indecisive at times, or seem to be contradictory.  Heh)  I absolutely don't think history should be sanitized to protect modern sensibilities or for political correctness reasons.  (But isn't it and hasn't it been all the time anyway?)  ETA: And yet, we've still so far to go.  (Reading about women's right in rural Indian villages today.) 

Then again, this is fiction, after all.  This ain't a history book or class.  More than likely, there is already a lot in the show distorted for story reasons, whether it's filming concerns or actors' comfort etc. which are not historically accurate, so when talking about a fictional romance/science fiction/drama (not even based on actual events) I can't quite buy into the "that's how it was" excuse for everything necessarily shown.  

5 hours ago, taurusrose said:

but a whole generation of babies managed to be born without physical abnormalities.  :shrug: I'm just saying...

Well, babies managed to be born since the dawn of time!  Without anesthetics and doctors and hospitals that we have now.  The survival rate used to a whole lot lower though.  Was that due to alcohol consumption by the mother?  Probably partly.  But there are also a whole lot of other factors involved (better health care in general) so pinning down to one factor, imo, would be impossible.  

Edited May 11, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey
still got a way to go

[RulerofallIsurvey]

5 hours ago, ganesh said:

Did we did see Jamie's gravestone in the first episode?

I don't remember seeing a gravestone.

[ganesh]

I have a recollection of Frank explaining the broad strokes about the battle on the actual battlefield iirc (of which Claire could not recall any details later on), and there were definitely gravestones they were looking at. 

I don't want to do a search because I don't want to trip over book spoilers. I figured I'd ask first before checking the episode.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

55 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I have a recollection of Frank explaining the broad strokes about the battle on the actual battlefield iirc (of which Claire could not recall any details later on), and there were definitely gravestones they were looking at. 

I don't want to do a search because I don't want to trip over book spoilers. I figured I'd ask first before checking the episode.

Oh!  Sorry.  I thought you meant the first episode of Season 2... my bad.  :)  In the Ep 101,  I think iirc there were stone markers for the different clans, but not individual names on them.  Fraser, in particular just had the clan name.  The large monument may have had individual names on  it, but I think it was likely a larger clan, Ross maybe?  Or MacKenzie?

Edited May 11, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey
clarification

[Andorra]

We saw Fraser and Mackenzie. I don't remember if we saw other stones than those two. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Re: all the timey wimey stuff - A thought occurred to me this morning.  (Eek!) I wonder if the stones can be used to travel to the future?  I don't mean just back to whence the person came, like Claire ending up in 1948.  I wonder if she could go from 1948 to 2148, for example?  (If she knew how they worked, which I don't think she really does.)  Just thinking...

[ganesh]

No, I don't think so. In the early 1st season at the big party, a guy sang a song about someone who went through the stones and went back in time and then returned. And the 1960s woman. That doesn't mean one can't go through to the future, but in all instances, we've only seen past travel. I don't think the show would pull that without laying down some framework first. 

I knew there were gravestones, but now I forgot what my point was. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

Did she ever say she went through the stones? Is it possible that "time" kicked her out because she screwed something up?

Possibly, but she indicated to Frank that she had promised Jamie she would forget all about him on move on with her life. That seems to demonstrate that she and Jamie made the deliberate decision that she should go back to her own time, for whatever reason.

[TaurusRose]

18 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

This ain't a history book or class.  More than likely, there is already a lot in the show distorted for story reasons, whether it's filming concerns or actors' comfort etc. which are not historically accurate, so when talking about a fictional romance/science fiction/drama (not even based on actual events) I can't quite buy into the "that's how it was" excuse for everything necessarily shown.  

True that and I agree with you to a point.  The argument would work for me if Outlander was about a 21st century woman, or even a woman born later in the 20th century, who went back in time.  Yes, actors have choices when signing onto projects, so if one doesn't want to work on a period piece for whatever reason, TPTB can certainly find someone who will to maintain integrity of the project.  I agree with you that there are instances of "artistic license" at work in Outlander, but again, you're talking about certain behaviors (in this case, drinking while pregnant) during a time period when nobody was concerned about it because they didn't have reason to be.  So...if I'm going to accept the premise of time travel, then I'm going to accept the norms of that time.  YMMV, of course.