S03.E01: The Battle Joined

[nodorothyparker]

Someone who's read more about it may be able to answer more comprehensively, but as far as I understand twilight birth was pretty much standard policy among many Western Europeans and Americans by this point.  It was ostensibly pitched as being a more civilized pain-free option for women at a time when modern medicine was really taking off.  Claire has been presented in both book and show as a trained battlefield nurse with an inordinate interest in more natural "folk remedies."  There's really been nothing to suggest she would have had any training in OB-Gyn and I believe the show even made the point of telling us when Claire helped Jenny give birth that she'd never done it before.

I didn't get that the show was trying to say that 18-century men were more progressive as much as illustrating that we often have this idea that everything was better as we move toward the more recent past.  Obviously, some things are like the end of slavery and the enactment of child labor laws.  But there was still a lot of rampant sexism and ignorance and general ugliness in Claire's own time too.  She didn't return to some glorious utopia of modernity and convenience that was only lacking Jamie.  The show, for example, in having Frank give Claire the "choice" to stay married is completely glossing over a point that Gabaldon herself once made in a discussion that divorce was not an easy thing to obtain at this time and especially not for a wife.  Had Frank truly wanted to be a dick about it, he could have held up Brianna with the obvious red hair and different blood type as proof of Claire's adultery and would have had complete control over what terms Claire was able to get at all.  Being a divorced woman, let alone a divorced mother, would have been every bit as scandalous if not more so than being one of those uppity women going to medical school and thinking herself an equal to a male doctor.

[DAnne61]

I thought it was a solid debut.  The battle was well done but not so gory I couldn't stand it.  Jamie set his mind to die on the battlefield and is disappointed he didn't; which is very true to the book.

I liked the relationship of Claire and Frank; they are trying but there are just so many barriers between.  I thought her wanting to become an American citizen made sense.  She doesn't want her child to be English as they are the ones who murdered her husband and his way of life.  And I think Frank realizes that as long as she  still thinks of the baby as Scottish instead of English, it will never really be his no matter what she says.

Oh, the misogyny was laid on thick, but it's probably not far from the truth.  Almost expected the doctor to be smoking a cigarette in her room as he basically tells Claire to lay back and shut up. UGH.

Looking forward to more.  Wondering how long before the reunion!

Edited September 11, 2017 by DAnne61

[LadyArcadia]

6 minutes ago, DAnne61 said:

I thought it was a solid debut.  The battle was well done but not so gory I couldn't stand it.  Jamie set his mind to die on the battlefield and is disappointed he didn't; which is very true to the book.

I liked the relationship of Claire and Frank; they are trying but there are just so many barriers between.  I thought her wanting to become an American citizen made sense.  She doesn't want her child to be English as they are the ones who murdered her husband and his way of life.  And I think Frank realizes that as long as she  still thinks of the baby as Scottish instead of English, it will never really be his no matter what she says.

Oh, the misogyny was laid on thick, but it's probably not far from the truth.  Almost expected the doctor to be smoking a cigarette in her room as he basically tells Claire to lay back and shut up. UGH.

Looking forward to more.  Wondering how long before the reunion!

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I don't want the reunion to be quick.  It was torture reading the book and the realization that it was 20 long years!  I think if they do a quick reunion it will lessen the impact of how long it really was.  I want the reunion to have the emotional gut wrenching impact it did in the book, not a quick 1-2 episode separation.

[AheadofStraight]

14 minutes ago, DAnne61 said:

Looking forward to more.  Wondering how long before the reunion!

If you really want to know....

Spoiler

It's episode 6, and there is a 2 week hiatus between episode 5 and 6. It will air on 10/22.

[FnkyChkn34]

15 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

What was the point of Claire’s moment with the bird?

I think I now know.  I didn't remember this on my own, but saw it posted on another forum.

An observant viewer said that it was a goldfinch, and Colum used to have birds (probably goldfinches) in his study at Castle Leoch.  I remember them now in the second episode, when Claire is summoned to meet with him for the first time.  The bird must have reminded her of better times. ;-)

Edited September 11, 2017 by FnkyChkn34

[BigBlueMastiff]

22 hours ago, lianau said:

But they have a special connection , it's just a very very negative one for Jamie . Jack wanted Jamie to surrender and submit to him , Jamie specifically , not  a random prisoner simply for sexual gratification . And this was hardest part for Jamie to get through, that Jack wanted him and that for Jack it was an act of love . And Jamie is still thinking about that after Brianna's rape , when he theorizes that Brianna would have an easier time recovering from it if she was just some random body for Bonnet ,which obviously pissed Claire off.

I agree with the OP, the depiction of Jack looking longingly at Jamie was repulsive. Rape is never an act of love, I don't care about the rapist's "feelings," Jack used force to take power over and from Jamie, that is not love.

[IntrovertGal]

22 hours ago, lianau said:

But they have a special connection , it's just a very very negative one for Jamie . Jack wanted Jamie to surrender and submit to him , Jamie specifically , not  a random prisoner simply for sexual gratification . And this was hardest part for Jamie to get through, that Jack wanted him and that for Jack it was an act of love . And Jamie is still thinking about that after Brianna's rape , when he theorizes that Brianna would have an easier time recovering from it if she was just some random body for Bonnet ,which obviously pissed Claire off.

I completely agree. Just because we don't like their connection doesn't mean there wasn't one. Jack in in his twisted mind really desired and loved Jamie. So to me it felt perfectly in character for BJR to want to touch Jamie one last time before his death. Also, BJR lying on top of Jamie and thus putting pressure on his wound ended up saving Jamie's life so I had no problem with that scene. Now if the show creators go against the books and somehow have BJR survive, then I'll be pissed off, but I didn't mind their scenes as depicted in this episode.

I really enjoyed this season premiere a lot, much more than the season 2 premiere. Sam Heughan did a great job throughout the episode, conveying so many things non-verbally.

Last year I visited the Culloden memorial site, which was a very powerful and rather distressing experience. Seeing parts of the battle on screen now and seeing the Scots so mercilessly butchered was very upsetting, The shot of a bloodied and tattered Scottish flag at the end of the credits was also painful.

I admit, at times I felt bad for Frank while watching Claire being cold and distant towards him (and I have never been a big Frank fan). While I completely understand where she is coming from, you could tell how much Frank was hurting.

Whoever said above that they wanted to slap every man in Boston, I wholeheartedly agree. Seeing Claire having to endure all those sexist jerks was quite hard to watch. I cannot wait for her to become a doctor and show those jerks that she is not some little housewife they can keep down.

Yay for Hal showing up and saving Jamie's life! I thought the actor did a good job with the role. I cannot wait for the adult John Grey to show up and to see Jamie's interactions with him.

So happy and pleased that Droughtlander is finally over and the show is back! Voyager is one of my favourite books so I'm very curious to see it on screen.

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, qtpye said:

 

This might be a stupid question on my part, but as a well trained nurse would she not have known that this was the standard procedure of the time?  

She was trained as a combat nurse.  In the books it's mentioned that she had a very little bit of instruction in childbirth - maybe they observed a birth?  Anyway, most of her experience by this point in the story was probably her work as a healer in the 118th century. 

 

1 hour ago, Atlanta said:

You don't get a whole lot of Claire's modern life in the books, but just snippets here and there. I like seeing her adjust to it and then we'll get to see her as a mom of wee Bree. 

I wanted to slap the dean and the doctor. Grr! And the nosey neighbor.

 

I've seen people complaining here and there that we don't need all of the background about her life with Frank.  That may be true but we have to consider that we might need this background to better understand Brianna.  After all, this is her childhood we're going to witness.  So maybe it is only a small part of Claire's character, it is huge for Bree and unfortunately, she is a much more major character in future seaons/books than she is right now. 

Another reason to show it is that they can't have half of the season that is virtually bereft of Claire, so they have to give her something to do that is more substantive than perusing historical materials and drinking with Roger, though that's a show I would totally watch.  So, they show us more of her life with Frank, which I have to say I'm loving - she'll be back with Jamie in just a few episodes.   I hope future episodes are structured more like the books so that the discoveries they make in the 20th century are then portrayed in the 18th century.  

[iMonrey]

I thought it was kind of strange the way the show back-tracked after the Season 2 finale where they jumped forward 20 years in time. I was under the impression we'd pick up where we left off, with Claire in her 40s, returning to the 18th century. And now it looks like they are going to spend several episodes on Claire after her return to the 20th century juxtaposed with scenes of Jamie right after the battle of Culloden? Seems like an odd choice. Since we're in the book thread, is that how it played out in the books? I supposed it's worthwhile to learn what's happened with Claire and Jamie in the 20 years they spent apart, although I got a fairly good sense of that in the Season 2 finale so I'm not sure I really need more details about Claire's life post-Jamie. 

[LadyArcadia]

9 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I thought it was kind of strange the way the show back-tracked after the Season 2 finale where they jumped forward 20 years in time. I was under the impression we'd pick up where we left off, with Claire in her 40s, returning to the 18th century. And now it looks like they are going to spend several episodes on Claire after her return to the 20th century juxtaposed with scenes of Jamie right after the battle of Culloden? Seems like an odd choice. Since we're in the book thread, is that how it played out in the books? I supposed it's worthwhile to learn what's happened with Claire and Jamie in the 20 years they spent apart, although I got a fairly good sense of that in the Season 2 finale so I'm not sure I really need more details about Claire's life post-Jamie. 

I'm not sure if I'll answer all of your questions, but I recall reading the book and being worried that I'd skipped a book.  It instantly jumps 20 years ahead to Bree, Roger and Claire with a lot of back and forth throughout.  The history with Frank and raising Bree is woven within - similar to what is happening with the show - but very brief snippets.  

With the show, we're seeing a lot more background with Frank.  More importantly, it's with a neutral view.  In the books, we get the background only from Claire's perspective.  At the risk of spoiling you, let's just say that Frank is not an entirely sympathetic character.  Here, showing them together gives Frank much more of a personality, is actually damaging to Claire, and it explains a lot. 

The other show/book difference is we don't see Culloden.  Jamie doesn't even remember it.  We know it happened, but we never get details.

As far as importance, the post-Jamie life is important to build Brianna's character and to signify just how long the separation really was.

Edited to add - there's another really big reason to show the 20 years in between and what happened to them, but that's too much of a spoiler. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by LadyArcadia

[Nidratime]

Quote

As far as importance, the post-Jamie life is important to build Brianna's character and to signify just how long the separation really was.

Plus, beyond Brianna, the things that happen to Jamie in the 20 years apart are also quite impactful, introducing characters who will be very important to their future.

[GHScorpiosRule]

15 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Anyway, most of her experience by this point in the story was probably her work as a healer in the 118th century. 

I think you mean 18th century?

[lianau]

2 hours ago, qtpye said:

I was wondering the same thing.  As horrible as it seems to us today, it was seen as the safest way to handle birth at that time.

That said, as a woman, I felt horrible for Claire in that scene.  I hated that doctor more then the heavy handed Dean.

"Randall, you let your wife read newspapers...next thing you know she will want to go to Harvard Law School."

If they had made that character a touch more nuanced, it would have been more effective...it feels like the 18th century Scottish men were more pogressive.

I think we were supposed to hate the modern men . 

7 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I thought it was kind of strange the way the show back-tracked after the Season 2 finale where they jumped forward 20 years in time. I was under the impression we'd pick up where we left off, with Claire in her 40s, returning to the 18th century. And now it looks like they are going to spend several episodes on Claire after her return to the 20th century juxtaposed with scenes of Jamie right after the battle of Culloden? Seems like an odd choice. Since we're in the book thread, is that how it played out in the books? I supposed it's worthwhile to learn what's happened with Claire and Jamie in the 20 years they spent apart, although I got a fairly good sense of that in the Season 2 finale so I'm not sure I really need more details about Claire's life post-Jamie. 

Book two starts with Claire and Brianna visiting Scotland , she is never shown  in the 1940s in that book . Book three is the search for Jamie in history and starts immediately after Roger tells them that Jamie survived the battle . So one part is late 1960s Claire Brianna and Roger , one part is Jamie's 20 years  in the 18th century and another narrative is Claire , Frank and child Brianna . Eventually the 60s research catches up with Jamie in his corresponding time frame (time moves at the same speed in the 18th century and 20th century ) I hope that wasn't to spoilery .

[Bad Example]

2 hours ago, qtpye said:

 

This might be a stupid question on my part, but as a well trained nurse would she not have known that this was the standard procedure of the time?  

I thought I heard something along the lines of "where's doctor xxx?" from Clare, which was ignored, of course.  I got the idea that part of her surprise/confusion came from the fact that she'd already been over this with her regular doctor, who may have been more open-minded** and the drugs were something she had already rejected.  

**or had already cleared it with Frank, more realistic given the tone of this episode.  

[toolazy]

9 minutes ago, Bad Example said:

I thought I heard something along the lines of "where's doctor xxx?" from Clare, which was ignored, of course.  I got the idea that part of her surprise/confusion came from the fact that she'd already been over this with her regular doctor, who may have been more open-minded** and the drugs were something she had already rejected.  

**or had already cleared it with Frank, more realistic given the tone of this episode.  

I actually think it was Frank who asked that, as Claire was somewhat preoccupied with her contraction in that moment.  But yes, it's possible that she'd made other arrangements with her regular doctor.  

[cardigirl]

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I think I now know.  I didn't remember this on my own, but saw it posted on another forum.

An observant viewer said that it was a goldfinch, and Colum used to have birds (probably goldfinches) in his study at Castle Leoch.  I remember them now in the second episode, when Claire is summoned to meet with him for the first time.  The bird must have reminded her of better times. ;-)

Not sure if it was a goldfinch, I'll have to rewatch, but I thought that perhaps the bird was free, while Claire was chafing under the restrictions her new life was presenting her.  Yes, she has food and clothing and a nice house but she's not free.  Maybe I'm reading too much into that moment.

[MartyQui]

"The rest of the episode was excellent, although I did want to punch every man in Boston. Geez. Did they really knock women out for births like that? I'd never heard of that. I thought women had to be awake to push."

I was actually born in Boston, in 1960.  My mother always said that they knocked her out at 8p, and at 10a she woke up and they told her she had a little girl.  They had to use forceps to deliver me.  She didn't have an "awake" birth until 1967, with my sister (her fourth baby).

One thing that annoyed me was the location they chose to stand in for Harvard.  It looked nothing like anywhere in Harvard, Cambridge or Boston, and it just took me out of the show for a little bit.  Otherwise, I thought it was a great episode!

[unlfan03]

43 minutes ago, lianau said:

I think we were supposed to hate the modern men . 

Book two starts with Claire and Brianna visiting Scotland , she is never shown  in the 1940s in that book . Book three is the search for Jamie in history and starts immediately after Roger tells them that Jamie survived the battle . So one part is late 1960s Claire Brianna and Roger , one part is Jamie's 20 years  in the 18th century and another narrative is Claire , Frank and child Brianna . Eventually the 60s research catches up wJamie in his corresponding time frame (time moves at the same speed in the 18th century and 20th century ) I hope that wasn't to spoilery .

Without being too spoilery I did read Voyager this last time through figuring out where natural breaks for episodes would be and what struck me about the book was that DG did a fairly good job of linking Claire's experience in the 1950's and 60's to Jamie's experiences in the 18th century. So much so that the only differences with the TV show is that it appears it is going to be a linear story rather than Claire's flashback or story telling, though I can think of a couple of "Flash fowards" with researching the past that I would like to see. I think it will help with making Frank more sympathetic. In the book you get Claire discussing his actions at the end of their marriage, after his death. By watching the time unfold more naturally there could be a "well that reaction makes sense due to this person's actions."

Spoiler

One of my favorite research bits was the linking of Jamie to the Dun Bonnet and Leap O' the cask. As Claire says later in the book that is when Brianna saw her birth father as a hero. I also think that the flash forwards because it gives some context for the 4th book/season. If you do not have Brianna and Roger performing research then you don't have Brianna accepting her birth father is in the past and when a certain document is found why would they even be looking for more research?

[Athena]

Discussion of all the books is allowed in these threads and spoiler tags are not necessary. If you are not a book poster and want to know more details, you will be spoiled in these threads. Otherwise, please use Ask the Outlanders thread. Thank you.

[FnkyChkn34]

29 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

Not sure if it was a goldfinch, I'll have to rewatch, but I thought that perhaps the bird was free, while Claire was chafing under the restrictions her new life was presenting her.  Yes, she has food and clothing and a nice house but she's not free.  Maybe I'm reading too much into that moment.

I don't know birds, so I can't say.  But even if it wasn't the same type of bird, I think it is a good theory about why Claire stopped to watch it.

Your theory is also a good one, but Claire could be "free" if she wanted to be I guess.  Frank told her to go or stay, he wouldn't stop her either way.  (I think this is a change from the books though, because I don't remember her, as the narrator, ever being under the impression that she could go.)

Here's one thing that really does bother me about Frank though, and I think it happens in both the books and show - he makes her promise not to live in the past and if they are going to continue to be together then she must let it all go and move on.  Yet, he's allowed to do all that research on the past and ask the Reverend for help to find out the truth?  What a hypocrite!!  I'm still on book 5, but I guess it's a given that Frank knew Jamie survived, what he did, how long he lived, etc. - and he never told Claire.  What an @$$.  I don't care if he's doing it so he can prep Brianna, he still hid a secret for decades, after making Claire promise not to do exactly what he did.  Ugh. 

[Lady Iris]

Just occurred to me, if Frank is such a history buff, how has he not been all over Claire for stories of what's happened to her or who she might've interacted with while she was in the past? Does he not believe the time jump happened?

[morgan]

Honestly if my husband had gone back in time a la Claire and came back I would have done the same as Frank.  I would have researched and wouldn't have shared my findings.  I would be crushed.  And yes selfish.  I think that his response is very human.  I know I wouldn't have jumped up and said "hey honey, I found that chick from the past who sucked all the love you had for me away."  Maybe ideally love should be better/stronger/more honorable, but I bet I'm not the only spouse (besides Frank) who would do the same.  And yes I would research because I couldn't not research.  I'd want to prove to myself it couldn't be really true.  And then finding out it was....ugh.

[Scarlett45]

@FnkyChkn34 I didn't see frank writing the Rev as so much being a hypocrite (at least not yet), but realizing after months of witnessing Claire's depression that maybe she needs answers to mend her broken heart. And in a paternalistic way wanting to have something concrete to give her rather than bits of information that would be emotionally draining. Paternalistic but not hypocritical. 

 

We we shall see how that plays out though. 

[cardigirl]

17 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I don't know birds, so I can't say.  But even if it wasn't the same type of bird, I think it is a good theory about why Claire stopped to watch it.

Your theory is also a good one, but Claire could be "free" if she wanted to be I guess.  Frank told her to go or stay, he wouldn't stop her either way.  (I think this is a change from the books though, because I don't remember her, as the narrator, ever being under the impression that she could go.)

Here's one thing that really does bother me about Frank though, and I think it happens in both the books and show - he makes her promise not to live in the past and if they are going to continue to be together then she must let it all go and move on.  Yet, he's allowed to do all that research on the past and ask the Reverend for help to find out the truth?  What a hypocrite!!  I'm still on book 5, but I guess it's a given that Frank knew Jamie survived, what he did, how long he lived, etc. - and he never told Claire.  What an @$$.  I don't care if he's doing it so he can prep Brianna, he still hid a secret for decades, after making Claire promise not to do exactly what he did.  Ugh. 

I think he only did it to see if Claire was crazy or not, and also he started it after he realized that he and Claire were not going to be okay. 

[FnkyChkn34]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

@FnkyChkn34 I didn't see frank writing the Rev as so much being a hypocrite (at least not yet), but realizing after months of witnessing Claire's depression that maybe she needs answers to mend her broken heart. And in a paternalistic way wanting to have something concrete to give her rather than bits of information that would be emotionally draining. Paternalistic but not hypocritical. 

 

We we shall see how that plays out though. 

Well, as a book reader, I know how it plays out, so... yeah. :-) 

1 minute ago, cardigirl said:

I think he only did it to see if Claire was crazy or not, and also he started it after he realized that he and Claire were not going to be okay. 

He still never tells her though.  He finds out and knows everything, but keeps it all a secret from her.  Hypocrite and a liar by omission. ;-)

[FnkyChkn34]

32 minutes ago, morgan said:

Honestly if my husband had gone back in time a la Claire and came back I would have done the same as Frank.  I would have researched and wouldn't have shared my findings.  I would be crushed.  And yes selfish.  I think that his response is very human.  I know I wouldn't have jumped up and said "hey honey, I found that chick from the past who sucked all the love you had for me away."  Maybe ideally love should be better/stronger/more honorable, but I bet I'm not the only spouse (besides Frank) who would do the same.  And yes I would research because I couldn't not research.  I'd want to prove to myself it couldn't be really true.  And then finding out it was....ugh.

But would you have made him promise not to do the same thing?  I'm not okay with someone saying "you must promise me not to do x, but I am allowed to do it all I want."  

I'm not married, but if I were Frank or a spouse in his situation, I think I'd just have to move on with my life and get a divorce.  It's too... weird.

[nodorothyparker]

Frank didn't make any promises and he is a professional historian, so ....

I've always read all of this as some part of him never quite fully believing the bill of goods Claire was selling in the beginning and needing to see for himself that the people she was talking about did in fact exist.  Or maybe that's what he told himself.   Sure, we can argue that it's selfish that he didn't tell her what he found, but people are sometimes like that and he is the guy who just spent the better part of three years not knowing what happened to the wife he had loved when she went out one day.  He's going to feel how he feels about that.  Throw in that Claire still at this point of the story really doesn't know how the stones work but perceives it as a hazardous sort of thing and there is now a new baby that he doesn't want her either having to make the choice to leave behind or try to take back through that danger with her, I can see how he may have reasoned out that it was best to just sit on that information and hope things would get better as they grew as a family.  He had no way of knowing that Claire's grief wouldn't fade with time and that she'd spend the next 20 years pining for a ghost.

[DittyDotDot]

55 minutes ago, Lady Iris said:

Just occurred to me, if Frank is such a history buff, how has he not been all over Claire for stories of what's happened to her or who she might've interacted with while she was in the past? Does he not believe the time jump happened?

No, he thinks Claire suffered some sort of trauma and her mind has made up this grand story in lieu of some horrible truth. That's why he writes to Rev. Wakefield and starts doing his own research: to prove to Claire--and himself--it didn't happen. It's his attempt to help Claire move on. Even after he learns Jamie did exist, he's still not entirely convinced Claire traveled through time instead of there being a more rational explanation.

Edited September 11, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[morgan]

7 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

But would you have made him promise not to do the same thing?  I'm not okay with someone saying "you must promise me not to do x, but I am allowed to do it all I want."  

I'm not married, but if I were Frank or a spouse in his situation, I think I'd just have to move on with my life and get a divorce.  It's too... weird.

You have to remember how frowned upon divorce was then.  I remember it still being a stigma when I was a kid in the 70's, although  it was changing.  

I don't think Frank saw what he was doing, talking about the past, as the same as Claire.  He was talking about a past they shared, not a past that ripped their marriage apart.  

I think at this point, early on, he still thinks Claire, the woman he loves and who loved him at one time, would find her way emotionally back to him.  He still has that hope and belief.  

As for what I would do.  Well, I am approaching my husband and my 20th anniversary this year.  We have been through a lot...just like the vows said, good times and bad.  The good has often been amazing, the bad has sometimes gone to places I never expected when we said our vows.  It's cliche to say but marriage is work.  Not saying that in a bad way, just stating a fact.  Maybe some have daily moonbeam and roses for marriages but I have yet to witness one.  And it is worth working through those hard parts.  

[cardigirl]

14 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

But would you have made him promise not to do the same thing?  I'm not okay with someone saying "you must promise me not to do x, but I am allowed to do it all I want."  

I'm not married, but if I were Frank or a spouse in his situation, I think I'd just have to move on with my life and get a divorce.  It's too... weird.

 

Well, Frank moving on and finding true love elsewhere would not have given us the wonderfully angsty story we've got. That Claire loved Frank at one time and felt some loyalty to him makes this a delicious story, and that Frank found purpose in caring for Bree and wanting to take care of her is a wonderful twist.  

[FnkyChkn34]

7 minutes ago, morgan said:

I don't think Frank saw what he was doing, talking about the past, as the same as Claire.  He was talking about a past they shared, not a past that ripped their marriage apart.  

That's not the part I'm talking about.  Frank makes Claire promise to never think about her years away, not their time together.  Sure, they can both talk about time spent together, that's fine.  But then Frank goes and researches to learn everything he can about that time that he's forbidden her to even think about.  That's just still wrong to me.  He's not researching Jamie and the 18th century because that's the past he and Claire shared.

As for marriage itself - of course it's work.  I never meant to imply that it isn't.  But I also don't live in the 40s or even the 60s, so I'm only hypothesizing on what I might do today, in the 2010s.  

But yes, we must have this unrealistic situation with this complete hypocrite of a man (just my opinion) to make for a juicy story.

[morgan]

But for Claire to look backward is for her to stay in the past, to keep her heart in the past and the connection to the man in the past alive and that would be an obstacle to her moving forward/reconnecting with Frank.  I would guess he sees it that way, I know I would.  Whereas Frank researching, assuming it doesn't become all consuming, doesn't hinder their marriage necessarily.  And honestly there is so much that comes out in later books that gives his research yet another dimension.

[Scarlett45]

@morgan we do have to consider how taboo divorce was back then. Yes people did it (especially after years a part during the war) but if Frank was interested in divorcing Claire he could've had her declared dead 2yrs ago (after she had been missing for so long), or gotten a divorce in absentia due her abandonment (which is what everyone was suggesting happened- that she ran off with someone else). But that's not what he did, he was still hoping she would return (not saying he was a monk who never enjoyed female company but he had no wife or serious relationship while Claire was away that would've made them starting over impractical.) Of course Claire is in a hard place as well- she's pregnant, mourning Jaime, has traveled through time and had been gone 3yrs. Despite sharing Black Jack's face I'm not getting the impression that claire ever thought Frank would be cruel/unkind to her or Jaime's child. For practical reasons staying with him was safe- emotionally and physically. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Scarlett45

[WatchrTina]

6 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

 

6 hours ago, qtpye said:

This might be a stupid question on my part, but as a well trained nurse would she not have known that this was the standard procedure of the time?  

That's a good question, but maybe as a combat nurse in Europe during a war, she wasn't trained in OB/GYN?  Also, I don't know if maybe it was only an American thing and the UK did it differently?

There is a wonderful show on PBS called "Call the Midwife" which follows the lives of women who served as midwives in the East End of London.  Season 1 is set shortly after the end of World War II.  Based on that show it seems clear that the poor definitely resorted to midwife-assisted home births and that for them, the "standard procedure" was what we now call natural childbirth.  But since the show is set among the poor it probably does not answer the question of who would attend the birth of an Oxford professor's wife in that time frame, nor what the standard procedure would be in that case.

The midwives in the show are eventually given gas that they can take with them and administer to the East End women to ease the pain of labor.  Prior to that it's all drug-free natural childbirth (unless there are complications that required the summoning of an ambulance.)  So the middle-class UK ladies of the period probably DID make use of gas during labor, but I have no idea if they were routinely knocked unconscious.

I also recall that Queen Victoria was introduced to gas as a pain-killer during the birth of one of her later children and she lamented that it had not been available for her earlier births.

I offer all this up by way of explanation that childbirth could be a very different experience in the UK in the 1940s depending on your social status.  So Claire, as a nurse trained specifically for service in war (and with little or no training in childbirth) may have been aware of drug-free, mid-wife assisted birth as a common thing in 1940's UK and my have been shocked by the mechanized/male-dominated delivery room she was brought into.  And of course it is telling that the delivery doctor was not her regular doctor so he may simply have been at one end of the spectrum for delivery procedures -- preferring unconscious mothers-to-be -- and Claire's prior doctor may have been at the other end of the spectrum and been open to a drug-free (or intermittent gas to numb the pain only) approach to childbirth.

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

I didn't see Frank writing the Rev as so much being a hypocrite (at least not yet), but realizing after months of witnessing Claire's depression that maybe she needs answers to mend her broken heart. And in a paternalistic way wanting to have something concrete to give her rather than bits of information that would be emotionally draining. Paternalistic but not hypocritical. 

I love this comment.  This is not all ALL what I thought was motivating Book!Frank but now I'm trying to Imagine what might have happened if he could find conclusive evidence of Jamie's death at Culloden.  If he could have shown that to Claire would it have helped her move on?  If THAT's what he was after -- and instead he found evidence that not only was Jamie real but that he DIDN'T die at Culloden -- wow what a moral deliminna that would be.   But that's not (if I recall correctly) how I interpreted the situation in my first reading.  I thought Book!Frank simply did not believe her story and he went digging, not to help Claire move on but to prove (to himself, if not to Claire) that what she said never really happened. I always assumed Book!Frank was horrified when he realized she had told the truth.  (And of course by then he would not tell her what he found because he loved Brianna and he wanted to keep their family together.)

Edited September 11, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Scarlett45]

Thanks for liking my comment @WatchrTina! I feel special. 

Of course anyone listening to Claire's story would think she had lost a few marbles, but Frank had been married to Claire and I assume loved/trusted her before that. She disappears without a trace for THREE YEARS, pops back up in garments that appear to be authentic 18th century wear for a Scottish woman. The Rev's housekeeper had told him stories of people disappearing through the stones. She is pregnant, depressed, distant. It's obvious she's been through something traumatic. She tells Frank she loved this man who's child she's carrying that she was forced to leave him. If this man certainly did die at Culloden then Claire can grieve but move on (the way many people do who've lost a spouse, some marry again and love deeply, raise families etc). Also, don't forget Frank thought Claire could've been dead for three years- if he can spare her that type of torture would he? If someone could've shown him Claire's body when she first went missing or proof one way or another about what happened to her would he have appreciated it??

 

its very layered. 

[Jodithgrace]

I remember a joke in the early sixties by, I think, Joan Rivers, where she said that when she gave birth, she wanted to be knocked out at the first contraction and not wake up until the hairdresser arrived. Now I know you are all thinking..hairdresser? Those were different times. When I was born in 1950, mothers had to be in the hospital for 2 weeks. Can you imagine? I grew up thinking that gas, or the more new fangled twilight sleep was the way to go, until I was introduced to this crazy notion of "lamaze" in 1975, when my daughter was born. I was the first person I knew to try it, and was also a revolutionary by breastfeeding!  by the time my second daughter was born in 1978, everything had changed. Natural childbirth and breastfeeding were all the rage. Men really did dominate the obstetrics/gynocology scene for quite some time after WW II. 

Claire really does treat Frank poorly, though she does finally realize it when Bree is born. Of course, their "new start" never really does take hold and there is always a shadow in their marriage. The nurse's thoughtless comment showed that up rather nicely. Thus Frank's infidelity. Of course, in the books it was hinted that Frank was unfaithful to Claire even during their five year wartime separation, at least Claire suspects it. They had better not make TV Frank too much of a saint or Claire will be put in a very bad light, like she was in this episode. I am waiting for her to come into her own. 

I didn't get to see the episode until this afternoon, but enjoyed seeing Clair and Jamie's parallel lives. Their reunion will be so sweet. 

[Scarlett45]

Breastfeeding after the advent of formula was very much tied to socio-economic status, and it still is.

Initally poor women nursed their babies because they could not afford formula. My Mom is the same as Brianna and was breast fed for two reasons, among black women it was less taboo and her Mom thought it was stupid to purchase formula even though my Grandfather could've afforded it. He pushed back a bit on that (male pride, he could provide for his family) but left it up to her figuring she knew what was best regarding baby care. 

Making it about the show- I wonder if Frank will defer to Claire regarding decisions regarding Brianna or they will have a push/pull type relationship due to Frank's desire to over compensate by not being Brianna's bio-dad and maybe jealously that Brianna looks like Jaime (I'm sure he figures that out, not as if Brianna is the spit of Claire).

In 2017 having the luxury to take time off from work to stay with your baby and nurse, as well as having time to pump is a luxury many women don't have in an age where most dual parent households require two incomes. 

[ElsieH]

I gotta say, the last line made me laugh, because I have heard it myself so many times. I am the brown-eyed, brunette mother of a blond, blue-eyed baby girl. And my husband is just as brunette as I am, although I did NOT have an affair in the past with a strange man. Sometimes, it just works out that way. I guess the only difference is, my daughter came out with a full head of dark brown hair so the nurses didn't say anything. But then it all fell out and came back in blond, and her blue eyes never went away :)

[GHScorpiosRule]

11 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Making it about the show- I wonder if Frank will defer to Claire regarding decisions regarding Brianna or they will have a push/pull type relationship due to Frank's desire to over compensate by not being Brianna's bio-dad and maybe jealously that Brianna looks like Jaime (I'm sure he figures that out, not as if Brianna is the spit of Claire).

If they stick to the buik, then there won't be any resentment or jealousy on Frank's part--it was shown that he loved her as if she were his own biological daughter; and Brianna's memories of him from last season prove that to be the case.

And on a purely shallow note, I'm sae verra glad tae be hearing Sam speakin' with the Scots Brogue, ye ken?????

Edited September 11, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[nodorothyparker]

14 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

I gotta say, the last line made me laugh, because I have heard it myself so many times. I am the brown-eyed, brunette mother of a blond, blue-eyed baby girl. And my husband is just as brunette as I am, although I did NOT have an affair in the past with a strange man. Sometimes, it just works out that way. I guess the only difference is, my daughter came out with a full head of dark brown hair so the nurses didn't say anything. But then it all fell out and came back in blond, and her blue eyes never went away :)

It gave me a snicker too.  I'm a white girl so dark I occasionally get asked if I'm biracial.  My oldest is so blonde and blue-eyed he could be the poster boy for Aryan childhood.  He looks like a grandparent on each side who does have those attributes.  Genetics are funny things even when you don't have a red-headed birth father from another century.

[Atlanta]

14 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

It gave me a snicker too.  I'm a white girl so dark I occasionally get asked if I'm biracial.  My oldest is so blonde and blue-eyed he could be the poster boy for Aryan childhood.  He looks like a grandparent on each side who does have those attributes.  Genetics are funny things even when you don't have a red-headed birth father from another century.

My husband and his brother are both redheads and they're the only ones in their family (BIL is more strawberry & DH's more Jamie's color). It's a recessive gene (I'm sure someone with a background in genetics can explain better). For all the nurse knew, Frank and/or Claire had it somewhere in their ancestry. Red hair runs in my mom's side of the family, but none of us have it. Our daughter did have some strawberry blonde at first, but went regular blonde after a year. My sis have no red, but our cousins all have it.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Atlanta

[WatchrTina]

OutlanderCast's minute-by-minute recap of S3E01 is very funny.  Here's the link and the best line:

http://www.outlandercast.net/2017/09/outlander-season-3-episode-1.html

Quote

[8:29 pm] What am I missing? Quick! Someone explain to me why this bird gets its own Bear McCreary score and some solitary tears from Claire? Is Jamie a bird? Is their love a bird? Or is Claire going all “Dear God, make me a bird. So I can fly far. Far, far away from here” Jenny from Forrest Gump on us?

[Scarlett45]

53 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

It gave me a snicker too.  I'm a white girl so dark I occasionally get asked if I'm biracial.  My oldest is so blonde and blue-eyed he could be the poster boy for Aryan childhood.  He looks like a grandparent on each side who does have those attributes.  Genetics are funny things even when you don't have a red-headed birth father from another century.

Yeah, I'm a black girl who's constantly asked if I'm bi-racial (I'm not). My Mom delivered a pair of twins once, they arrived with freckles and mountains of red hair. Their dark brown skinned parents were like "huh?", the Mom's great aunt was in the waiting room and commented "they look like me!" (She was a red head in her youth).

How someone looks isn't an indication of their paternity (or maternity but that's questioned less frequently). I think it was just an innocent question. 

 

My Mom is watching a long with me, she's the same age as Brianna so I know she's going to have lots to say about growing up durin that period. When she went med school there was only 1 female professor in the entire school.

[morgan]

I thought the nurse's comment was innocent, she probably expected to hear a grandparent had it or something.  Still not wise of her though.  

 

My maternal grandparents were both brunet with brown eyes and had 3 brown haired and 3 red headed children.  Go figure!  My own daughter was born with dark hair (I'm blonde, husband is dark blond/ash) although that fell out fairly quickly.  She does have these gorgeous long dark lashes.  Not a single member of either family has lashes like these.  My own short blonde lashed self is deeply envious.  Lol.  

[Eureka]

1 hour ago, ElsieH said:

I gotta say, the last line made me laugh, because I have heard it myself so many times. I am the brown-eyed, brunette mother of a blond, blue-eyed baby girl. And my husband is just as brunette as I am, although I did NOT have an affair in the past with a strange man. Sometimes, it just works out that way. I guess the only difference is, my daughter came out with a full head of dark brown hair so the nurses didn't say anything. But then it all fell out and came back in blond, and her blue eyes never went away :)

Me too. Both my parents have brown hair and eyes and I was born with a head full of red hair (from my grandma) and have light eyes. My hair has settled into a dark blond but in the summer the red highlights come out. My oldest is a redhead too even though it's not really apparent that I was/am genetically, and my husband isn't either (though it's in his extended family too). So of course, it would be possible for Frank and Claire to produce a redhead, but you know, drama. Lol.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Eureka

[Atlanta]

Genetics fascinate me. Our daughter is a combo of us, but I look like no one in my family. I used to tease I was switched at birth, but I was preemie so we know it's not the case. I took the nurse's comment as innocent. 

PS: I'm O+. One of my parents is A and the other is B and my sis is AB+. It means both of my parents carry the O+ antigen.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Atlanta

[morgan]

Rewatching and just have to say I love that they subbed in Rupert and gave him a final scene.  But oh how I will miss his voice!  Grant has the most amazing voice, his wife is a lucky lady!  I think he has kids too, and think they are so spoiled if he tells them bed time stories. I swear I would love a recording of him telling that water horse story from back in season one.  

[Biggie B]

Here is a goldfinch. The bird Claire saw was just a plain brown sparrow, although female goldfinches are a bit duller yellow than the male.

I guess I'm in the minority in that I've always known that women were "knocked out" or at least quite doped up for childbirth back in the day. I assumed that Claire would be, and knew as soon as it was established that the doctor was her usual doctor, that there'd be a problem. Very predictable, given the heavy-handed scene with Frank's boorish boss. I thought that scene was horribly written. Frank's boss was a caricature and while yes, it was all to make a point that women of the time had little to no independence, rights, etc., it was so completely un-subtle as to almost be comical. And really, what did Claire expect? Yes, she is an incredibly intelligent, opinionated, self-sufficient person, but she was born in the 1920's...then spent time in the 18th century, where she was spanked by her husband, practically raped a number of times, disrespected and/or ignored, etc. What is her frame of reference as to women's equality? She's not yet ever really experienced women holding political positions, running global corporations, playing professional sports, fighting fires, flying planes, enlisting in the military, enforcing the law, and so on. Not that we are exactly a nirvana of equality in the 21st century, but how much of that has Claire really experienced? Certainly during WWII, women had the chance to do everything (almost) that men were doing, short of fighting in combat (I think!).  Claire as a combat nurse certainly had many opportunities to be a strong and forceful person. And yes, men were a bit loathe to let them continue in those roles once the war ended. So why is Claire so horrified by Frank's awful boss? Of course she knows how awful the things he's saying are, but why is she so surprised by it? Alternatively, I thought a Harvard professor might not be so ridiculously close-minded and condescendingly paternalistic, but I blame on that poor writing (same with the neighbor who helped Claire bring in the firewood - please! A total stranger is talking to Claire as if they're BFF's? Ugh!). Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to convey is that if Claire was a 21st century woman transported back to 1948, I'd buy her outrage at the professor's and neighbor's remarks much more easily. And by no means do I think she should agree with that jerk, of course not. But get a grip - equality and enlightenment are a looooong way off from 1948 (and we're not there yet!), so I felt the writing should've reflected that. Claire is not quite yet a "modern" women by our standards at that point. Despite her extreme intelligence and strength and all of her other incredible attributes and experiences, she hasn't yet lived in a time where no one thinks twice about a woman reading the paper and commenting on it.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Biggie B

[lianau]

29 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

Genetics fascinate me. Our daughter is a combo of us, but I look like no one in my family. I used to tease I was switched at birth, but I was preemie so we know it's not the case. I took the nurse's comment as innocent. 

PS: I'm O+. One of my parents is A and the other is B and my sis is AB+. It means both of my parents carry the O+ antigen.

My niece looks like her great grandmother , so much that as a 3 year old she identified herself on a picture showing a kindergarten class from 1934 .

[Atlanta]

Netflixing "Easy Virtue" with Colin Firth, Jessica Biel, Ben Barnes and Kristen Scott Thomas. The actress who plays Millie the annoying neighbor plays one of Firth's daughters. LOL

LOLz! @lianau, I was always told I looked like great grandpa so and so from eons ago. Not comforting to a tween girl. LOL

Edited September 12, 2017 by Atlanta