S02.E13: Dragonfly in Amber

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

It's all timey whimey wibbley wobbley. 

Knowing Claire, I could easily see her being the cause of the French revolution. The thing is, from what we've seen, the past isn't changeable. From a tv pov, I don't see that Claire going back in time and having adventures is going to make compelling tv. The show rocks, so I'm really interested in what is coming next. 

On the other hand, I still think that Claire going to the past changes some things just by being there. But that's more timey whimey.

The Lallybroch men probably wouldn't have gotten away if Jamie didn't have Claire's foreknowledge.  So, she can change small things but I guess there's just too much inertia or something to change the big things. 

[ganesh]

Right. There's been speculation from the start that Jamie would have died had Claire not first appeared in the past. Small changes can lead to larger consequences. I'm interested in that.

In a way, if Jamie was supposed to die at any time, if not then, or at the battle, then he's kind of free in a sense. Scotland would rally around Jamie post-battle than anyone. Claire could go back and they wreak havoc on history.

[kieyra]

19 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Wow, the girl that plays Briana is a TERRIBLE actress. Am I the only one who sees this??

I'm officially worried for next season. This is the first time this show has screwed up on casting someone. She couldn't deliver a single line reading convincingly in this episode. I was shocked at how horrendous she was.

Everyone else they have ever introduced has been awesome in their roles. How could they fuck this up so badly?

Basically only came to the episode thread to make sure I wasn't imagining this. And I had the exact same thought with regards to casting. 

I think part of the problem may lie with her dialogue as written, but she's not doing much to overcome that problem.

And of course the character is being a total jerk (I'm not completely through with the episode, I assume they give her a glimmer of redemption) but that isn't the actress's fault. I get she was playing a bit of an antagonist role, but they didn't have to write her quite so unforgivingly bratty. She seemed rude to Roger in her very first scene, and I remember thinking "there's no way Claire's daughter doesn't have better manners than that".

I haven't read much of the books, and I had no expectations for the character. I'm not even sure I knew the character existed (I only pay about 50% attention to this show). I just watch a lot of television (way too much) and her wooden delivery and uneven accent stole every scene she was in--in a bad way.

So yes, casting failure in my opinion.

(Sorry that I don't have much else intelligent to say about the episode. I'm not a huge fan and I think at this point I just watch for the costumes and scenery.)

Edited July 11, 2016 by kieyra

[psychoticstate]

OMG, this episode.  This show.  

I looooooooved this episode.  I love seeing the difference between Scotland in the 1740s, the 1940s and the 1960s.  I knew that Gellis would be back and it was done very well.  As others have noted, she clearly had no issue killing a husband in either the 1740s or 1960s, wow.  I haven't read the books (yet) but I hope that next season we'll get more backstory on how Gillian/Gellis became aware of the time travel aspect of the stones.

Claire looked beautiful in 1968 but how sad that she was basically existing versus living for 20 years.  I can understand how she wouldn't be as close to Frank any longer -- Jamie being the love of her life and BJR's history -  but being somewhat distant to Brianna is a little strange.  Brianna was Jamie's legacy - - although maybe Claire felt kind of resentful, that if she had not been pregnant Jamie would not have sent her back.  If I had been Claire there would have been no way to keep me from researching Jamie to see if he had indeed died on the battlefield.  And I would have wanted to verify that BJR died on that battlefield too. 

While I liked Roger and Brianna together (I think mainly because I really liked Roger) I felt nothing for Brianna by herself.  I get she's 19 or 20 and it's 1968 but she really was a little twit.  Don't demand that your mother be honest with you from here on out when she's been honest with you over the last day or so and you've called her insane for it.  And I also get that Claire was oh-so-wrong for stating that Frank (RIP) raised her and loved her but didn't MAKE her.  Making her is the least important of all those things so shame on Claire.  I didn't like that Frank was already gone and we didn't see him at all.  I can't imagine that in 1948 it was the norm for husbands to take wives impregnated by other men back so give him some credit.  And he didn't stop looking for her for THREE YEARS.

I don't think the actress playing Brianna was totally horrible but I don't think she was that great either.  I think her abilities stood out so much more because the acting in every other case has been so flawless on this show.  Maybe it's good that Frank wasn't there because Tobias Menzies would have massacred her.  In any event, I hope she takes some classes in the off season or gets formal training or something.  

When does the new season start?  Seriously, the show ended this in a way that makes me so, sooooo impatient (and I didn't feel this way at the end of season 1.)   Also - - I had no real desire to read the books after season 1, despite enjoying the show.  Now I want to start reading immediately.  So well played, Outlander. 

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Outlander Ends Its Season At The Beginning

Which you already guessed, probably. THAT'S HOW TIME TRAVEL SHOWS WORK, YOU GUYS.

[nara]

1 hour ago, psychoticstate said:

Claire looked beautiful in 1968 but how sad that she was basically existing versus living for 20 years.  I can understand how she wouldn't be as close to Frank any longer -- Jamie being the love of her life and BJR's history -  but being somewhat distant to Brianna is a little strange.  Brianna was Jamie's legacy - - although maybe Claire felt kind of resentful, that if she had not been pregnant Jamie would not have sent her back.  If I had been Claire there would have been no way to keep me from researching Jamie to see if he had indeed died on the battlefield.  And I would have wanted to verify that BJR died on that battlefield too. 

While I liked Roger and Brianna together (I think mainly because I really liked Roger) I felt nothing for Brianna by herself.  I get she's 19 or 20 and it's 1968 but she really was a little twit.  Don't demand that your mother be honest with you from here on out when she's been honest with you over the last day or so and you've called her insane for it.  And I also get that Claire was oh-so-wrong for stating that Frank (RIP) raised her and loved her but didn't MAKE her.  Making her is the least important of all those things so shame on Claire.  I didn't like that Frank was already gone and we didn't see him at all.  I can't imagine that in 1948 it was the norm for husbands to take wives impregnated by other men back so give him some credit.  And he didn't stop looking for her for THREE YEARS.  

Re: your post,

1.  I didn't think that Claire's relationship with Brianna was distant because of Jamie.  I thought it was because Brianna adored Frank and notice that Claire was a little distant from him.  Could also be that Claire was a working mother (med school + surgeon) when many of her friends would have had stay-at-home moms.  I guess it's up to interpretation for now.

2.  Regarding research, my assumption was that Jamie intended to die at Culloden, i.e, suicide by Redcoat, so there was no need for research.  Plus, she really did give her word to Frank.  She couldn't give him her love, but she could keep her promise.  Re: Blackjack, she probably didn't care anymore because she stopped caring about anything for a while.  It's interesting that she did tell Frank enough about BJR that he stopped research BJR, saying "he's not the man I thought he was" to Reverend Wakefield. It's a pity he stopped the research; he might have found something to help us get closure.

3.  I rewatched the scene with Claire and Brianna.  "Frank was your father in every way that matters...except one.  He didn't make you." I think she very much acknowledges that Frank is Brianna's father and his role in her life was more important.  (Heck, she's even a historian, like Frank.)  But the fact is that her DNA comes from another man.  I do wish she had said something to Jamie at the gravestone about how Frank had lived up to Jamie's trust in him.

Re: Brianna actress Sophie Skelton.  I actually think her expressions are quite good as she speaks and reacts to others. She does have this thing about not moving her arms -- they stay at her side a lot.-- which is a little unnatural IMO.

[piequinn35]

Really show, you couldn't put Tobias in the finale? Claire's hair was funny (I guess that was the style in the 60s)

And kudos to all English actors who can do American accent (Brianna)

Of course I like this show so see you on season 3. :)

[ulkis]

@terrymct replying here since this is where you meant to post it

Quote

- Claire is more directly responsible for Dougal's murder than Jamie is. Jamie was defending himself and his wife's honor. When the fight got down to the turning point, instead of intervening to save both men, she added her strength to turn the blade and make sure it was driven down into Dougal's chest. Jamie is facing repercussions for the action, but Claire was the one who sealed the act. She's not at all upset over her role in killing a man. Not one bit. Not upset over putting Jamie at risk, either.

Claire looked pretty horrified to me. She had no time to ruminate over what they did. Jamie wasn't crying over it either after that brief moment, as said, they had no time. 

Quote

- Claire was a crap parent because she was moping around for all those years and not engaged with her in-person family. Frank, who I keep hearing is supposed to be terrible in some way, not only took in his wife who disappeared and returned three years later pregnant with another man's child but he raised that child as his own in an apparently a loving, engaged, and attentive way. Frank is an underappreciated sad sack, cuckolded in both senses of the word (adulterous wife, raised off spring not his own) by Claire.

Frank didn't take Claire back 100% out of the goodness of his heart. He couldn't have children, it was his chance to have one. Claire called herself his ex-wife in episode 1. Frank was the one who wanted them to get back together.

Quote

Claire was screwing around on Frank. Yes, she was. OMG, they're separated by centuries! That's essentially the same excuse people back in the sailing era for having a wife at home then a lover in a distant port. Claire and those sailors were still married, no matter how hard they worked to justify their actions.

Kind of, but there are still some differences. Sailors, even though far, can still get back to their partners. Claire had no idea whether she could go back through the stones safely, and past that, whether she would even end up in the right place again. Anyway, I don't think she was really trying to justify anything per se, just explaining how it was.

Quote

- Of course, Claire is not only a doctor but an amazing surgeon. Very Polly Sue romance character development there. On the other hand, she had plenty of time to pursue her degree while poor old Frank was being an actual parent to Bree.

I don't think Brianna meant that Claire didn't do any actual parenting. We saw Claire with Brianna in the middle of the season in a library. I think that probably meant they spent a decent amoutn of time together, but maybe not.

Edited July 12, 2016 by ulkis

[cardigirl]

6 hours ago, ulkis said:

@terrymct replying here since this is where you meant to post it

I don't think Brianna meant that Claire didn't do any actual parenting. We saw Claire with Brianna in the middle of the season in a library. I doubt that was the only time she was with Brianna.

 

Could you tell me which episode this is, please?  I do not remember this scene at all.

 

edited to add:  Oh, I've found it.  Never mind.  But thanks for the reminder.  I need to rewatch the season again. 

Edited July 12, 2016 by cardigirl
Ineptitude with my iPad

[Valmarmar]

On 7/10/2016 at 0:41 AM, ruby24 said:

Wow, the girl that plays Briana is a TERRIBLE actress. Am I the only one who sees this??

I'm officially worried for next season. This is the first time this show has screwed up on casting someone. She couldn't deliver a single line reading convincingly in this episode. I was shocked at how horrendous she was.

Everyone else they have ever introduced has been awesome in their roles. How could they fuck this up so badly?

I agree.   Hard to watch.   

[abbey]

I just watched episode 213 again.  Apparently I am missing something because I have no problem with the actress who plays Brianna.  I didn't care for her  Not because of poor acting but because of her personality.  I know she had every right to be angry at her mother because of the crazy story and the deception, but by the time I met her I had become very fond of Claire and resented Brianna's attitude.  But I had no problem with her acting and look forward to eventually seeing more of her.

Edited July 12, 2016 by abbey
no book talk

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Sigh.  Okay, I guess it's time for me to comment.  I've been waiting, because well...this finale obviously didn't hit me as hard emotionally as it did many other viewers.  I think it's because of my perceived lack of intimacy between Jamie and Claire pretty much all season long already inured me to their eventual separation.  So while this episode brought the emotional closeness and intimate scenes in spades - eh, it was just too little too late, imo.  Still not sure if I'll be back for Season 3.  This is a pretty good spot to leave off and let my imagination take over.  I mean, with the whole (as others noted) Gone With the Wind "Tomorrow is another day!" ending, I can easily pretend Scarlet, er..Claire...and Jamie reconcile, blah, blah, blah..and I really don't care much what else they mess up in the future-past.  Or would that be past-future?  Darn Time Travel.  Beware the Random Thoughts Generator:

• Speaking of Time Travel - nice to see Claire finally giving some consideration to what might/might not happen (specifically to Roger but also in general) if she prevented Gillian/Geilllis from going back in time.  Wonder if she'll have the same kind of thoughts when it comes to herself going back in time?  What am I saying?  Of course not.
• Knew it was Geillis from the voice.  I also remembered the 1968 bit from Season 1.
• Way to show us Geillis/Gillian in 1968 going back in time to try to effect change in the 18th century, when you completely dropped that story line in the 18th century portion of the show.
• I wasn't bothered by the actress who played Brianna.  She was okay for the most part.  There were a couple clunky bits - but I'm not sure whether I could blame that on the actress or the dialog itself.  Her accent was fine, I thought.  Pretty non-descript American.  Probably better to go that way as opposed to trying to do a distinctive Boston accent.  I'm sure there are a myriad variations on Boston/New England accents, and the show would just never make everyone happy.  (As an aside, as someone from SC, I am endlessly annoyed by even American actors who try to do authentic Southern accents and sound horrible.  No, we do not all sound like Mama June and Honey Boo Boo.)
• Two things really did bother me about Brianna though:
  • I was annoyed by Brianna's seeming rudeness, especially when first meeting Roger.  I think someone mentioned it on this thread or another that they couldn't believe Claire wouldn't raise her daughter to have better manners than that.  I'll go you one better: both Claire and Frank had IMPECCABLE manners.  Now, couple that with being from an upper-class Boston home (her dad's a professor and mom's a surgeon?  Yeah, they were part of the Country-Club set, which was WAY more exclusive back in those days) AND she's a student at Radcliff?  No way Brianna would have blurted out Hey!  You Roger Wakefield? (okay, I know that wasn't the exact wording, but that's how it came across.)  Not even an "Excuse me" first?  Pfft.  
  • ^^THAT however, I think was a writer fail, not an actress fail.  I think the writers were trying to show - too much too soon - how "American" Brianna was.  'Cause, like - the audience would never be able to tell from her accent among all those Scottish and English folks.  And unfortunately, the writers also fell back on the old 'loud, brash' American stereotype in order to differentiate.  I've done plenty of both international and domestic travel to honestly say that Americans are NOT the rudest people out there.  So just stop.
  • Her brown eyes.  Both Jamie and Claire have blue eyes.  Come on, show people.  It's basic genetics.  I learned it in grade school.
• I also thought Brianna's reactions to first finding out about 1) her mother's affair and then 2)her mother claim that she fell through some fairy stones and her biological father was an 18th century Scot, believable.  No matter how much I loved my mother, I think at that point, I'd have been ready to call the nice young men in the clean white coats also.
• Maybe I wasn't so bothered about Brianna overall, because most of the time she was on screen and/or they spent on the 1968 portion of the story, I just kept wondering when they were getting back to Jamie.
• The cutting back and forth from Culloden morning to 1968 was jarring and too much.  They really shortchanged the 18th century portions of the story room by doing that.
• Everyone seems to be mooning over Roger.  Eh.  I will say though that neither the hair nor the beard bothered me.  But he also did nothing for me.
• Claire's 1968 hair was nice.  The make up was a little much, but that was probably the style so...  Overall, she looked great.  Way better than she did in 1745.  She's a surgeon now, too.  Wouldn't have had That opportunity back then, would ya, honey?  Nope.  Why does she want to go back again?  Oh yeah, Jamie.  That guy who may or may not be the same man she left.  You know, War and Years tend to change a person.  What if he lost both legs and became a bitter and angry man because of it?  Oh that's right.  Maybe Claire could send him to a whore house and let him get bit on the thighs and that would cure him.  Hey, it worked earlier in the season with his PTSD....

[jcin617]

On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 8:23 PM, ganesh said:

Right. There's been speculation from the start that Jamie would have died had Claire not first appeared in the past. Small changes can lead to larger consequences. I'm interested in that.

In a way, if Jamie was supposed to die at any time, if not then, or at the battle, then he's kind of free in a sense. Scotland would rally around Jamie post-battle than anyone. Claire could go back and they wreak havoc on history.

The way they are presenting things... Jamie and the other men never died because Claire has always saved them.  There was no timeline that existed "before" she intervened.   "What happened, happened."   That's why I've always thought Claire caused the very things she was trying to prevent because she was the cause in the first place.

It's why Roger even exists before Gillian travels into the past because her adventures in the past are already a part of established history.

[terrymct]

21 hours ago, ulkis said:

@terrymct replying here since this is where you meant to post it

Claire looked pretty horrified to me. She had no time to ruminate over what they did. Jamie wasn't crying over it either after that brief moment, as said, they had no time. 

Frank didn't take Claire back 100% out of the goodness of his heart. He couldn't have children, it was his chance to have one. Claire called herself his ex-wife in episode 1. Frank was the one who wanted them to get back together.

Kind of, but there are still some differences. Sailors, even though far, can still get back to their partners. Claire had no idea whether she could go back through the stones safely, and past that, whether she would even end up in the right place again. Anyway, I don't think she was really trying to justify anything per se, just explaining how it was.

I don't think Brianna meant that Claire didn't do any actual parenting. We saw Claire with Brianna in the middle of the season in a library. I think that probably meant they spent a decent amoutn of time together, but maybe not.

Thanks for moving this over.  

Yes, we saw Claire with a young Bree in a library or school last season.  In this episode, however, Bree straight up says that Claire was a bad parent, distant and in her own world.   Poor old cuckolded Frank is the parent with whom Bree was close.  

Claire is gorgeous, determined, and even plucky at times, her daughter called her a bad parent, she had a little bigamy problem that didn't worry her for more than a passing moment, and she's shockingly comfortable with killing despite her ptsd and career as a nurse and later surgeon.  

As I said in my misposted post, the one good thing about Bree thus far is that she seems willing to do some truth telling to her mother.   I hope they change actresses playing Bree or improve her acting skills and accent before the next season.  I'm suspecting that Bree and Roger are supposed to involve into something and there's zero chemistry there despite Roger being played quite well.  

Gellis has the potential of being really interesting next season.  I hope they explain why she went through the stones all gung-ho to advance Scottish independence but ended up marrying a local official for protection and schutupping a war chief who didn't have a major role at Culloden or before.  I'd also like to know what happened to all the material stashed in that cave or caves.   Gellis, if serious about independence, should have tried to get near one of the more significant figures but didn't.  Maybe we'll find out next year that she tried and failed.  It can't have been that hard.  Claire did it with no preparation at all.  

[iMonrey]

Quote

Where we were teased about a Claire/Gellis reunion (or preunion?)  Which never ultimately happened.

I'm actually glad Gellis never saw Claire in 1968 because it would have changed how I viewed the first season. We were never really sure how much Gellis knew but if she'd actually met Claire before traveling through the stone herself I would have expected her reaction upon meeting Claire in the first season to be very different.

Quote

Wow, the girl that plays Briana is a TERRIBLE actress. Am I the only one who sees this??

Personally I thought the actress was just fine. But I think the issue is that she is a jarring contrast to all the other characters who are speaking in Scottish and English accents, and more formally. We're so used to people speaking "old time" dialects and phrasing, and what little we've seen of the 1940s and the 1960s still has people speaking in accents. Brianna is supposed to be American raised and modern in 1968. She sort of stuck out on this show because she was the only one talking that way but it was realistic. So I don't think acting was the problem, I just think the character seemed oddly out of place because of what we're used to on this show.

[ganesh]

Quote

The way they are presenting things... Jamie and the other men never died because Claire has always saved them.  There was no timeline that existed "before" she intervened.   "What happened, happened."   That's why I've always thought Claire caused the very things she was trying to prevent because she was the cause in the first place.

I don't have any issues with any of the time travel. I just really hope they talk more about it. I just don't personally believe in a closed loop because math (ish) but it's been around enough in TV and movies that I can live with it.

I'm not convinced that this is the case here though. I do hope it's discussed. Because I would have expected Claire to encourage Gellis to go back, to save Claire. That didn't happen, so really she didn't do much of anything, and her being there didn't amount to anything. Claire wouldn't have gone to help her if she wasnt there. I'm hoping there is more to it. 

[Athena]

At the end of every season, there seems to be an influx of  book talk posts in the No Book Talk threads from posters who lurk, new posters, and sometimes from posters who forget the rules. This happens in Outlander and Game of Thrones. If you see a book talk post in these episode threads, please report it and we will try to move it as soon as we are able. Thank you to both no book talk and book talk posters who lurk in these threads who have reported the posts to us. Thanks again. Happy posting.

[kylies-lips]

I'm late to the party but just saw the finale. Oh Outlander, you just keep sucking me in. Well, I'm here and I'm eagerly awaiting season 3!

I love this show so much and really love the writing but I have a hard time believing  that Claire being Claire, the spunky, determined, curious, strongwilled woman that she is would have spent 20 years living in her time and not attempted to secretly research Jame's fate. I mean....girl. I mean obviously she couldn't just hop on Google and search him out but at the very least I would think she would attempt to find out what happened to the Fraser clan. Of course Jamie survives the battlefield and escapes execution---its Jamie we are talking about! 

I wish we could have seen scenes of Claire and Frank living in Boston together. I feel we are at least owed a scene or two of them raising Brianna or a montage or something! We got all that damn BJR storyline this season we are owed some scenes with Frank!

I thought Roger was very handsome! I found it interesting that he grew up in Scotland and was a historian but seemed like he had heard the time travel story for the first time while listening to Claire. He obviously more open minded to the idea of time travel than Bri but with Scotland being steeped in folklore as it is, there is no way he hadn't heard of the legends surrounding Craig na Dun.

I was so excited to see Gellis. I had a feeling that she would come back especially when it was revealed she was a time traveler too. I could listen to that actress talk in that melodic accent of hers all day!  In season 1 I always got the feeling that Gellis knew Claire was from a different time. The actress always played that role as if she were just waiting for Claire to open up about being from the future. So I was a bit disappointed that they didn't actually meet. 

All in all, great episode. The final scene with Jamie and Claire had me in tears. Well done on both their parts.

I hope in the next season we get a crash course on the mechanics of how time travel works in this universe. We got our first hint with the buzzing sound. I know Jamie said he didn't hear the buzzing but what if he did and he lied to discourage Claire from trying to take him with her? 

On a shallow note, while Caitroina is stunning no matter what age she plays, I really hope that when she does go back she is somehow able to be her younger self. I hate the idea of her character being significantly older than Jamie. I also hate the idea of her trying to explain where the hell she's been to other people and why she's so much older!

[ElectricBoogaloo]

One of my favorite moment in this episode was when Jamie told Murtagh that he had killed Dougal and Murtagh just raised his eyebrows before he said that he wasn't surprised.

[nara]

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

One of my favorite moment in this episode was when Jamie told Murtagh that he had killed Dougal and Murtagh just raised his eyebrows before he said that he wasn't surprised.

He probably felt it was a long time coming!  In the episode Castle Leoch, Murtagh thought Dougal was up to something when Jamie took Laoghaire's beating.  In The Gathering, Dougal stood ready to kill Jamie if he refused to pledge his fealty to Colum.  Dougal then maneuvered Jamie to marry Claire because that would put him out of the running for Laird.  IIRC, in the Lallybroch  episode it's mentioned that Dougal told Jamie that Jenny had given birth to BJR's child--which we know was not possible.  And yet, I did not expect it!

[Caria]

Quote

By coming into this episode with Frank already dead, I felt they didn't give that side of Claire's married life an honorable enough narrative.

I really agree with this HumblePi. The way they handled it carries on the narrative but it wasn't emotionally satisfying for me. They could have spent an additional 5 minutes on this to give both the stories and Claire/Brianna characters more depth.

I just finished binge watching the second season and have to say that the entire France episodes were a grind to get through, but the final episode was a tragic and wrenching whopper.  As for the new Brianna actress, I'm neutral because I haven't seen enough of her but on the other hand, there's just something about her that makes me think they missed the boat on this - a certain lack of grace maybe, an aura of special-ness that I think a heroine in this type of story needs to have.  But because the main characters for the first season were so perfectly cast and the actors have been so fantastic the bar is really raised for those just coming to the party.

Wow, I was shocked when I realized that Gellis had killed her husband but on further thought, it totally rounds out her character - killing husbands must be her thing.  And count me in on the Murtah bandwagon!

Edited August 15, 2016 by Caria

[cardigirl]

On 7/18/2016 at 0:39 AM, kylies-lips said:

I love this show so much and really love the writing but I have a hard time believing  that Claire being Claire, the spunky, determined, curious, strongwilled woman that she is would have spent 20 years living in her time and not attempted to secretly research Jame's fate. I mean....girl. I mean obviously she couldn't just hop on Google and search him out but at the very least I would think she would attempt to find out what happened to the Fraser clan. Of course Jamie survives the battlefield and escapes execution---its Jamie we are talking about! 

I wish we could have seen scenes of Claire and Frank living in Boston together. I feel we are at least owed a scene or two of them raising Brianna or a montage or something! We got all that damn BJR storyline this season we are owed some scenes with Frank!

I am hoping that their married life in Boston will be a part of next season, as a way to keep the Tobias Menzies in the show.  They could show it in flashbacks or whatever.  I wonder when next season will start?  Hurry up show!

[Caria]

Quote

Ron Moore and Maril Davis stated in several interviews (as I recall, in "Variety" and "Vanity Fair") after season 2 finale, that story of Claire's marriage to Frank in those 20 years will be shown in season 3.

That's good to know, thanks for that info.  I think what I'm looking for is a truly felt acknowledgment by Claire for Frank and an indication of her affection for him even though he is not her true love.  She did show this by stopping Jaime from killing Randall but somehow that whole story was done without much display of Claire's inner feelings and I wasn't sure if she was doing that more from guilt, lingering affection for Frank, fearing of changing the future and therefore her present, or whatever.  She has now lived a good life with him for twenty years and raised a child together,  thus I hope to see evidence that she loved him truly even though it was not the same kind of THE LOVE that she had with Jaime. In that same vein, I hope they show Brianna's depth of feeling for Frank as opposed to just having her mentioning it in passing. Even though I absolutely love Claire and Jaime together I have a lot of sympathy for Frank's suffering and generosity and thus really want to see him get his just due.

[RedFiat]

On 7/10/2016 at 7:27 PM, cattykit said:

Although they did receive degrees from Harvard, women at the time would never have casually told someone they were going to Harvard, they would have said they were going to Radcliffe.

The actress playing Brianna is singularly awful.

I'm not sure if it's the actress solely or the lines she's been given to deliver.  A 20 year old in 1968 being so incredibly crass to her mother, getting right up in her grill and telling her that she fucked another man. I get that she's her mother's daughter who was known to be baudy herself, but that was when barking orders as a nurse or being in fear for her life. That language gave her kinship with those who were dealing with the hell of war,  and she could hang with the worst of horrors by helping the wounded and dying.  Brianna has never experienced any of that, in fact most likely lived a privileged life in Boston, her nose in history but far removed from the reality of war, so for me the irritation is more with how the character is drawn, not so much the actress playing her.   Brianna was from 1968  anti war, free love, campus crusades, but not so much "free" speech around a parent, not that she has to be deferential, but surely Frank and Claire would not have approved of her smugness. Claire never checked her on her colourful language, which even if Claire did it herself, a parent usually corrects such coarseness by reflex, especially almost 50 years ago.   So Brianna seems like a spoiled kid of 2016, not 1968, it feels almost too modern.       

Edited January 25, 2017 by RedFiat

[Chyna]

I wanted to get caught up in Jamie and Claire's farewell scene, but all I kept thinking was: Aren't they being a little hasty? He *might* get killed a Culloden, so suddenly she has to go away (for what they believe is) forever? Why not return to Lallybroch with Fergus? Why not hang out at the stones for a bit and wait to see how the battle turns out? Why not go through the stones, hang at a Scottish B&B for a couple of days, then go back and check things out? The Frasers spent all season creating complex plots and schemes but this time they couldn't come up with anything more than "OK, bye forever!"

Also, as much as I want Claire and Jamie together again, the idea that Claire would leave their 20-year-old daughter (for, again, what might be forver) really bugs me too.

Both of these felt like lazy writing to me -- like DG (and the show writers) needed to separate them so they came up with a half-baked reason to do that. It doesn't hold up for me.

[toolazy]

On 1/25/2017 at 10:10 AM, RedFiat said:

I'm not sure if it's the actress solely or the lines she's been given to deliver.  A 20 year old in 1968 being so incredibly crass to her mother, getting right up in her grill and telling her that she fucked another man. I get that she's her mother's daughter who was known to be baudy herself, but that was when barking orders as a nurse or being in fear for her life. That language gave her kinship with those who were dealing with the hell of war,  and she could hang with the worst of horrors by helping the wounded and dying.  Brianna has never experienced any of that, in fact most likely lived a privileged life in Boston, her nose in history but far removed from the reality of war, so for me the irritation is more with how the character is drawn, not so much the actress playing her.   Brianna was from 1968  anti war, free love, campus crusades, but not so much "free" speech around a parent, not that she has to be deferential, but surely Frank and Claire would not have approved of her smugness. Claire never checked her on her colourful language, which even if Claire did it herself, a parent usually corrects such coarseness by reflex, especially almost 50 years ago.   So Brianna seems like a spoiled kid of 2016, not 1968, it feels almost too modern.       

Were you alive in 1968? Kids weren't any more or less respectful of their parents than they are today and if you think a 19yo girl would take the news that her father isn't her father without getting upset with her mother, then you have never met any 19yo girls.

2 hours ago, Chyna said:

Also, as much as I want Claire and Jamie together again, the idea that Claire would leave their 20-year-old daughter (for, again, what might be forver) really bugs me too.

 

 

2 hours ago, Chyna said:

I wanted to get caught up in Jamie and Claire's farewell scene, but all I kept thinking was: Aren't they being a little hasty? He *might* get killed a Culloden, so suddenly she has to go away (for what they believe is) forever? Why not return to Lallybroch with Fergus? Why not hang out at the stones for a bit and wait to see how the battle turns out? Why not go through the stones, hang at a Scottish B&B for a couple of days, then go back and check things out? The Frasers spent all season creating complex plots and schemes but this time they couldn't come up with anything more than "OK, bye forever!"

Also, as much as I want Claire and Jamie together again, the idea that Claire would leave their 20-year-old daughter (for, again, what might be forver) really bugs me too.

Both of these felt like lazy writing to me -- like DG (and the show writers) needed to separate them so they came up with a half-baked reason to do that. It doesn't hold up for me.

He needed to get back to make sure that his men got away from the battle.  Jamie rarely acts on his own behalf - he takes his role as Laird and, in this case, as a war chief, very seriously.  There's no way he would have just hung out at the stones waiting for the battle to be over and his men to be slaughtered.  

[j5cochran]

4 hours ago, Chyna said:

I wanted to get caught up in Jamie and Claire's farewell scene, but all I kept thinking was: Aren't they being a little hasty? He *might* get killed a Culloden, so suddenly she has to go away (for what they believe is) forever? Why not return to Lallybroch with Fergus? Why not hang out at the stones for a bit and wait to see how the battle turns out? Why not go through the stones, hang at a Scottish B&B for a couple of days, then go back and check things out? The Frasers spent all season creating complex plots and schemes but this time they couldn't come up with anything more than "OK, bye forever!"

Also, as much as I want Claire and Jamie together again, the idea that Claire would leave their 20-year-old daughter (for, again, what might be forver) really bugs me too.

Both of these felt like lazy writing to me -- like DG (and the show writers) needed to separate them so they came up with a half-baked reason to do that. It doesn't hold up for me.

Jamie (and Claire!) had also just killed his uncle, and had been seen doing it.  Even if he survives the battle, he will be hanged for the crime.  Claire has to go back to the twentieth century for the sake of the child that she is carrying, and Jamie plans to face the music, one way or another.

[Chyna]

5 hours ago, toolazy said:

There's no way he would have just hung out at the stones waiting for the battle to be over and his men to be slaughtered.  

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- I meant have Claire hang out for a bit and wait to see if Jamie survives or not.

 

3 hours ago, Grashka said:

Other posters have already explained why Claire couldn't stay in 18th century so I will only add my two cents in: even if Jamie had survived the battle (and from the end of season 2 it's already clear that he did) and managed to avoid the repercussions of Dougal's death, his participation in the Jacobite rebellion was way too significant and widely recognized for him to have any peace and ability to look after Claire and their child. Also, Claire's first pregnancy almost resulted in her death and post-Culloden Highlands were a famine-ridden hell-hole, not a place for a woman who barely survived the previous childbirth.

OK, the childbirth reasoning I can buy. I wish that had actually been brought up in the dialogue though -- as it was, it still seemed like a hasty decision given the extreme consequences.

[RedFiat]

6 hours ago, toolazy said:

Were you alive in 1968? Kids weren't any more or less respectful of their parents than they are today and if you think a 19yo girl would take the news that her father isn't her father without getting upset with her mother, then you have never met any 19yo girls.

Yes I was alive in '68 which is precisely why I referenced the disrespect of the girl. That is not how  people I know acted around their parents, regardless if they were upset or not. A decade or two later, I would buy  the language and her assertion that she felt she was equal enough to her  mother to disrespect her.  But in 68 amancipation from parents was still a radical notion, and if there were disagreements kids would be more subtle in how they dealt with parents dirty laundry.  It just wasn't a thing to air it, especially in front of a stranger. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by RedFiat

[RedFiat]

17 hours ago, Chyna said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- I meant have Claire hang out for a bit and wait to see if Jamie survives or not.

Given what Claire knew and Jamie understood about the battle, and that rebel survivors were hunted, imprisoned or executed it would be no place to raise a family. Left to their own devices, family would starve. The sense of urgency, I thought was pretty brilliant in that the British cannon fire was heard and the drums of war was not going to be denied.    

Edited February 1, 2017 by RedFiat

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 1/31/2017 at 3:28 PM, j5cochran said:

Jamie (and Claire!) had also just killed his uncle, and had been seen doing it.  Even if he survives the battle, he will be hanged for the crime.  Claire has to go back to the twentieth century for the sake of the child that she is carrying, and Jamie plans to face the music, one way or another.

Fine, Jamie plans to 'face the music' for killing Dougal if he survived the war - but did either of them think that would seriously be the MOST important thing if the English won (which Claire knew they would.)  And that still does not explain why Claire "has" to go back to the 20th century instead of returning to Lallybroch.  

On 1/31/2017 at 3:41 PM, Grashka said:

Other posters have already explained why Claire couldn't stay in 18th century so I will only add my two cents in: even if Jamie had survived the battle (and from the end of season 2 it's already clear that he did) and managed to avoid the repercussions of Dougal's death, his participation in the Jacobite rebellion was way too significant and widely recognized for him to have any peace and ability to look after Claire and their child. Also, Claire's first pregnancy almost resulted in her death and post-Culloden Highlands were a famine-ridden hell-hole, not a place for a woman who barely survived the previous childbirth.

I'm not sure either of them knew that the post-Culloden Highlands were a famine-ridden hell-hole at the time the decision was made for Claire to go back through the stones.  Jamie surely didn't.  That's your 20-20 (and 21st century) hindsight talking.  Claire may have known that life was hard for the Scottish, post-rebellion, but I seriously doubt she knew the true extent.  (Personally, I think her British education at the time would have white-washed most of the horrors, as much as American history tends to white-wash some of the atrocities committed against  the native Americans.)  I think she would have also had reason to believe that Jamie's family - wealthy land-owners that they were - would have fared pretty well.  

So, for me, that doesn't explain why Claire couldn't stay with Jenny and Ian.  Also, her first pregnancy did not almost result in her death - it was the miscarriage that did that (or rather, the hemorrhaging afterward, which the medicine of the time didn't know how to stop, no doubt.)  And she probably wouldn't have miscarried if not for the stress and shock of watching Jamie duel BJR.  Oh, and having been poisoned by the Comte.  None of which would have happened anyway with the second pregnancy, regardless of where or when she gestated.  

[Athena]

Quick reminder that this is No Book Talk episode thread. Remember to check the thread tags underneath the reply box. Thanks!

[Nire]

5 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 

I'm not sure either of them knew that the post-Culloden Highlands were a famine-ridden hell-hole at the time the decision was made for Claire to go back through the stones.  Jamie surely didn't.  That's your 20-20 (and 21st century) hindsight talking.  Claire may have known that life was hard for the Scottish, post-rebellion, but I seriously doubt she knew the true extent.  (Personally, I think her British education at the time would have white-washed most of the horrors, as much as American history tends to white-wash some of the atrocities committed against  the native Americans.)  I think she would have also had reason to believe that Jamie's family - wealthy land-owners that they were - would have fared pretty well.  

So, for me, that doesn't explain why Claire couldn't stay with Jenny and Ian.  Also, her first pregnancy did not almost result in her death - it was the miscarriage that did that (or rather, the hemorrhaging afterward, which the medicine of the time didn't know how to stop, no doubt.)  And she probably wouldn't have miscarried if not for the stress and shock of watching Jamie duel BJR.  Oh, and having been poisoned by the Comte.  None of which would have happened anyway with the second pregnancy, regardless of where or when she gestated.  

In the first season Claire warns Jenny that famine is coming.  That's why she recomends that they plant potatoes.  She also repeatedly mentions that after the war it marks the end of Highland culture, which I doubt is something that the Scots would give up easily.  While she doesn't know all the particulars she definitely seems to understand that the coming yeats will be pretty horrible.

In regards and pregnancy also in the first season when Jenny is giving birth and I think at other times as well she gives the pretty frightening picture that many women die in childbirth.  And since we don't have all the information it's possible that Bree's birth would have killed one or both of them if it had happened in the 1740s instead of 1940s.  

Edited February 3, 2017 by Nire

[RulerofallIsurvey]

21 hours ago, Nire said:

While she doesn't know all the particulars she definitely seems to understand that the coming yeats will be pretty horrible.

Claire knew all that when she didn't go back through the stones the first time to stay with Jamie.  And yeah, you can argue that Jamie was gone now, but that was the point: she didn't KNOW that for certain.  And even if she did (which she didn't know that when she left) Claire didn't strike me as the kind of person who would want to raise her husband's child away from his family, regardless of the hardship she might have to suffer.  Guess I was wrong though.

21 hours ago, Nire said:

And since we don't have all the information it's possible that Bree's birth would have killed one or both of them if it had happened in the 1740s instead of 1940s.  

No, we don't have all the information.  And neither did Claire.  As for that, many women died in childbirth well into the 20th century also.  What we DO know is that, obviously, more women survive(d) childbirth than ever died as a result of it.  Otherwise, the species wouldn't have lasted long, huh?  So it's just as possible that Bree's birth would not have killed either of them if it had happened in the 1740's instead of the 1940's.  

19 hours ago, Grashka said:

Ok. So Claire stays with Jenny and Ian in Lallybroch. But what then?

She has her child and helps with the estate and works as a healer.  You know, kind of like what she's been doing in the past.  What did you think?  

19 hours ago, Grashka said:

In the case Jamie perished in battle, she would be a widowed, pregnant woman living out of her time, implicated in both Duke of Sandringham and Dougal McKenzie's demises.

I thought she felt more "at home" in the 18th century than in her own time.  Even in the 20th century, she's basically a widowed, pregnant woman - and one could argue 'living out of her time' - depending on when one feels she belongs.  As for the Duke - well, who were the witnesses?  Mary, Jamie, and Murtaugh.  Since Murtaugh killed the Duke, he ain't saying anything - that's if he survives the war.  And I highly doubt that Mary (who would also be 'implicated') would say anything either.  Pretty much ditto for Dougal's death.  I can't remember who witnessed it, but it's really only a problem if they survive the war.  Which they probably don't - so basically there's no problem here at all.  

19 hours ago, Grashka said:

In the case Jamie survived, she would be a wife of a traitor to the crown, persecuted and hunted down, also guilty of his uncle's death, which would likely make him an outcast among his own people if the word spread around.

Do you think she was the only wife of a 'traitor to the crown' after the failed rebellion?  Of course not.  Wonder what all those other wives did - oh, I'll bet they survived somehow.   Just like Claire could have/would have - had she stayed in the past.  As far as Jamie being an outcast - again that's speculation based on IF word spread around.  IF someone were alive to tell the tale.  IF people had nothing else to worry about - which, I'm thinking staying one step ahead of the English would have been more important to the rest of the Scottish people than persecuting Dougal's alleged killer, who was one of their own.  

That's an awful lot of IFs.  I could play the IF game too - IF Claire had stayed, then ....   But basically the REAL reason is as @Chyna said - DG and/or the showrunners decided to send Claire back for Plot reasons.  And nothing else.  Because nothing else really makes sense.  

[Nire]

4 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

No, we don't have all the information.  And neither did Claire.  As for that, many women died in childbirth well into the 20th century also.  What we DO know is that, obviously, more women survive(d) childbirth than ever died as a result of it.  Otherwise, the species wouldn't have lasted long, huh?  So it's just as possible that Bree's birth would not have killed either of them if it had happened in the 1740's instead of the 1940's.    

While women have always died in childbirth the 1940s had come a long way in terms of sterilization and ability to perform surgery compared to the 1740s.  Between a stillbirth and Jenny's breach birth Claire had seen plenty to cause comcern.  Plus what happens afterwards will the potato crop at Lallybroch provide enough for them to eat?  Jamie felt strongly about having their child grow up in a safer environment and Claire agreed.  Obviously in the end you're right that she went back for plot reasons but I think there are a lot of good reasons for Claire to have felt she needed to return at that point.  

[Chyna]

It's not that there are no potentially valid reasons for Claire to leave -- it's that the writers did not provide them. It felt like "Welp, we didn't stop the Battle at Culloden." "OK, goodbye forever then." The show is otherwise quite good at dealing with sticky plot issues -- that's why this scene stood out to me. I thought they could have done better. If it worked for you, great, but the big farewell didn't affect me the way I expected it to because I didn't feel like they were really out of options.

The goodbye scene with Fergus though? WAAAAAH! Totally cried at that. I expected him to be a Cousin Oliver but that actor and that character were both wonderful.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Chyna

[LadyArcadia]

20 hours ago, Chyna said:

It's not that there are no potentially valid reasons for Claire to leave -- it's that the writers did not provide them. It felt like "Welp, we didn't stop the Battle at Culloden." "OK, goodbye forever then." The show is otherwise quite good at dealing with sticky plot issues -- that's why this scene stood out to me. I thought they could have done better. If it worked for you, great, but the big farewell didn't affect me the way I expected it to because I didn't feel like they were really out of options.

The goodbye scene with Fergus though? WAAAAAH! Totally cried at that. I expected him to be a Cousin Oliver but that actor and that character were both wonderful.

I think it was implied that Jamie was expecting to die and Claire was pregnant. Her only choice was to go back to Frank so her and the baby would be safe.

[ganesh]

I think it was more than implied. They both had an explicit discussion about it iirc. 

[LadyArcadia]

15 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I think it was more than implied. They both had an explicit discussion about it iirc. 

I was trying to be kind. :)  (also, I tend to confuse what was in the book vs. show and don't want to misstate anything)

[Chyna]

5 hours ago, LadyArcadia said:

Her only choice was to go back to Frank so her and the baby would be safe.

I disagree that this was her only choice. That is my point. It's just a matter of opinion. As I said before, if it worked for you, great. I just didn't think that the writers did as clean a job on that goodbye scene as I've come to expect from them.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Chyna

[Atlanta]

On 2/6/2017 at 6:21 PM, Chyna said:

I disagree that this was her only choice. That is my point. It's just a matter of opinion. As I said before, if it worked for you, great. I just didn't think that the writers did as clean a job on that goodbye scene as I've come to expect from them.

Childbirth in that era was dangerous in the best of circumstances. She was married to a Jacobite (as unwilling as he was) and probably would have been killed. She had to go through to save their child which she didn't want to do. She was married to a guy on the losing side. Her life would have been harsh. They both would have died. Visited Culloden last summer and it's haunting.

On a shallow note, Gillian/Geillis's husband is hot. I read somewhere that he auditioned for Roger.

[mrsjoe]

It's one thing to risk famine, disease and persecution for yourself. Totally another to risk it for your child. I didn't feel like Claire and Jamie needed to go over the risks much in the finale, as the whole reason they've been trying so hard to stop the Rising was to prevent these things, so they would have been on their minds all season. Lallybroch might have been a well-off estate pre-Rising, but I think both seasons emphasized that they were also responsible for a huge number of families besides just their immediate family. Limited resources only go so far.

I am in full agreement with all the comments on the actress playing Bree. I just can't seem to decide if it's actually her acting, the writing, or the shallow note that I expected the daughter of Jamie and Claire to be very striking and the actress is just girl next store pretty.

[Emkat]

On 7/10/2016 at 1:41 AM, ruby24 said:

Wow, the girl that plays Briana is a TERRIBLE actress. Am I the only one who sees this??

I'm officially worried for next season. This is the first time this show has screwed up on casting someone. She couldn't deliver a single line reading convincingly in this episode. I was shocked at how horrendous she was.

Everyone else they have ever introduced has been awesome in their roles. How could they fuck this up so badly?

Ok I'm binging the whole series now so I'm way late to this party but I HAD to comment on how much I agree with this. Truly inexcusably bad acting. Is the producer her dad or something? I felt like I was watching a Lifetime movie. UGH.

[BitterApple]

I just got into this series so forgive my lateness, but I think Claire going through the stones at Jamie's request makes complete sense. If you consider the options:

1) Stay in 18th century, possibly die in childbirth, possibly die due to disease, famine or at the hands of the British, chances of things turning out okay maybe 20% at best, probably less if Jaime had in fact died

2) Return to 20th century and a man who is stable, loving and gainfully employed. Give birth with the benefits of modern medicine. Allow your child to grow up safe and secure, with way more opportunities than a girl would've had in the 1700s.

Of all the idiotic and selfish things Claire has done, sacrificing her relationship with Jaime to give Brianna a future was not one of them.

I agree with everyone that the actress playing Bree is horrible. Like Hallmark Christmas Movie levels of horrible. 

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, BitterApple said:

 

I agree with everyone that the actress playing Bree is horrible. Like Hallmark Christmas Movie levels of horrible. 

 It's funny that you say that because Sam Heughan (the actor who plays Jamie) was in a Hallmark Christmas movie.  A Princess for Christmas. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1083448/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_6

[LilJen]

I kind of laughed at the idea that Jamie was paying attention to Claire's menstrual cycles. It's just so. . . Sensitive New Age Guy. (okay, it's a song from the 1980s and mentions Walkmans.)

[Cdh20]

7 minutes ago, LilJen said:

I kind of laughed at the idea that Jamie was paying attention to Claire's menstrual cycles. It's just so. . . Sensitive New Age Guy. (okay, it's a song from the 1980s and mentions Walkmans.)

7 minutes ago, LilJen said:

I kind of laughed at the idea that Jamie was paying attention to Claire's menstrual cycles. It's just so. . . Sensitive New Age Guy. (okay, it's a song from the 1980s and mentions Walkmans.)

At first I laughed at that but then I realized how much Jamie wants a child, & it doesn’t seem so weird!

[toolazy]

On 6/28/2019 at 4:54 PM, Cdh20 said:

At first I laughed at that but then I realized how much Jamie wants a child, & it doesn’t seem so weird!

I just figured he was keeping track of them so he'd know when he could and couldn't have sex with her.  He's a very young man. 

[Cdh20]

Pegasaurus, there is a thread called “Ask the bookreaders” where someone will answer your question. 

[foxfreakinmulder]

Well this episode gave me the feels. And since Netflix only has the first 2 seasons I don't know when or if I'll be able to watch season 3. I know I could rent the dvd but I only have one dvd player and that's in the front room where my granddaughter plays and I won't watch this in front of her.

I really want to know what happens to Jamie and Murtagh during the battle and of course  Fergus. I guess I'll have to spoil myself and read season 3 threads :-(

I'm surprised Claire gave in so easily and agreed to go threw the stone because as mentioned above she could have left with Fergus and stayed and with Jamie's sister until she knew what happened to Jamie. She could always go to the stones to return back to the 1940's but there was no guarantee that Frank would take her back or that he hadn't remarried so why not wait and see?

It was weird that Jamie was tracking Claire's menstrual cycle, I wished he knew because she was having morning sickness or tired all the time, just something other than you've missed your period. And was she going to tell him? He was getting ready to go battle.

I hope Claire's right about Black Jack's date of death, and I hope it's Jamie that ends him.

I wasn't sad to see Dougal go, I didn't care for him and he showed his true colors at the end.

I think Claire and her daughter will both go through the stone but I'd be worried it will take me back to a different time then what I wanted. I hope it's 20 years later in Jamie's time too so he's not still young and she's in her 50's. She did look great at that age though.

I don't know why Brianna didn't have an English accent when both her parents did, even though she was born in America her parents spoke with an English accent.