S03.E04: Of Lost Things

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, cardigirl said:

The ring that Jamie gave Claire for the 'bairn' before she went back through the stones, didn't the stone burn away?  I thought she was looking for it when she woke up after passing through the stones back to the twentieth century. 

Yes, because unbeknownst to them at the time, gemstones are what can protect someone traveling through the stones.

[FnkyChkn34]

24 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

Pass the Kleenex please...

 

This was one of my favorite episodes of the entire series thus far.

I agree, but the look he gave the baby carriage when he said he wanted to stay for awhile rather than return home was 1,000% obvious.  How did Lady Dunsany not figure it out right then?

[NaughtyKitty]

Did they have wallpaper back in 1700's England?  I couldn't fully appreciate the sex scene because I was so distracted by the wallpaper.  Was it hand painted?  I thought that back then it was usually tapestries hung over bare walls.  Even Sam's cute backside couldn't keep my mind from wondering about the walls

 

I was in college in the early 90's also, and for us it was James Taylor (and the 80's new wave music from HS)

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I agree, but the look he gave the baby carriage when he said he wanted to stay for awhile rather than return home was 1,000% obvious.  How did Lady Dunsany not figure it out right then?

Because she's grieving from the loss of her daughter and the barely-averted scandal over Ellesmere's death?

17 minutes ago, NaughtyKitty said:

Did they have wallpaper back in 1700's England?  I couldn't fully appreciate the sex scene because I was so distracted by the wallpaper.  Was it hand painted?  I thought that back then it was usually tapestries hung over bare walls.  Even Sam's cute backside couldn't keep my mind from wondering about the walls

 

I had this same problem during season 1 when we first go to Lallybroch.  To my eye it looked like wallpaper - I didn't really think tapestries hugged the wall so closely. But no, apparently they are tapestries.  Weird, I know. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

I *am* surprised that John's brother, Hal, was shown to be someone who has loose lips when drinking.

I take it Hal plays a more pivotal role in the books, because I couldn't for the life of me figure out who he was just from this show or why everyone here was talking about him. Have we ever seen him before on the show? I didn't get what his relationship was with Jamie.

I'm not really following Roger's "logic" that if Claire goes through the stones again it will be 20 years later simply because 20 years have passed in the present day. They just saw Geillis go through the stones in 1968, and they know it will take her to sometime pre-1745 (she arrived at an earlier period than Claire did; I'm not sure they ever said how long she'd been there before Claire showed up). It stands to reason that if Claire goes through the stones now it will take her back to the same time period it took Geillis, not 20 years later. (And then she might run into herself!). At the very least, that's just as likely as it taking her to 1765 or whenever.

I guess it's lucky Willie didn't have red hair because boy . . . what a giveaway that would have been!

[FnkyChkn34]

18 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Because she's grieving from the loss of her daughter and the barely-averted scandal over Ellesmere's death?

Clearly some time had passed though, because she got the ruling back that Ellesmere had met his own demise by misfortune.  I'm just saying - Jamie was super obvious.  I'm sure it was for the benefit of the viewer and we're supposed to handwave that Lady Dunsany never noticed, but seriously... it was so obvious.

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I take it Hal plays a more pivotal role in the books, because I couldn't for the life of me figure out who he was just from this show or why everyone here was talking about him. Have we ever seen him before on the show? I didn't get what his relationship was with Jamie.

Yes; we saw him in the season premiere--he was the one who saved Jamie from being killed because of the oath that Lord John had made back last season after Jamie let him go--That he swore he would kill him.

[toolazy]

5 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I take it Hal plays a more pivotal role in the books, because I couldn't for the life of me figure out who he was just from this show or why everyone here was talking about him. Have we ever seen him before on the show? I didn't get what his relationship was with Jamie.

I'm not really following Roger's "logic" that if Claire goes through the stones again it will be 20 years later simply because 20 years have passed in the present day. They just saw Geillis go through the stones in 1968, and they know it will take her to sometime pre-1745 (she arrived at an earlier period than Claire did; I'm not sure they ever said how long she'd been there before Claire showed up). It stands to reason that if Claire goes through the stones now it will take her back to the same time period it took Geillis, not 20 years later. (And then she might run into herself!). At the very least, that's just as likely as it taking her to 1765 or whenever.

I guess it's lucky Willie didn't have red hair because boy . . . what a giveaway that would have been!

The amount of time you travel when you go through the stones is a separate issue from how time passes in the different timelines.  Just because Geillis travelled more than 200 years, doesn't mean that time passes at a different rate.  The only data point that they have - Claire's three years away - indicates that time flows at the same rate, so that's what they go with.  Yes, it's a guess, but it's supported by experience.  

Edited October 2, 2017 by toolazy

[FnkyChkn34]

5 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I'm not really following Roger's "logic" that if Claire goes through the stones again it will be 20 years later simply because 20 years have passed in the present day. They just saw Geillis go through the stones in 1968, and they know it will take her to sometime pre-1745 (she arrived at an earlier period than Claire did; I'm not sure they ever said how long she'd been there before Claire showed up). It stands to reason that if Claire goes through the stones now it will take her back to the same time period it took Geillis, not 20 years later. (And then she might run into herself!). At the very least, that's just as likely as it taking her to 1765 or whenever.

Time travel works differently for everyone.  In Claire's world, she's in Jamie's world, and 20 years has passed because time runs parallel.  But for Geillis, she could travel back to whatever time she wanted.  There's a theory, or DG confirmed it, I don't know, that the time traveler goes back to whatever they are thinking about.  For Claire, Frank had just told her the story of BJR, so she was inadvertently thinking about him when she went back the first time.  

It's complicated and there aren't really any good answers, so IMO, you just gotta go with it.

[DittyDotDot]

22 minutes ago, toolazy said:

The amount of time you travel when you go through the stones is a separate issue from how time passes in the different timelines.  Just because Geillis travelled more than 200 years, doesn't mean that time passes at a different rate.  The only data point that they have - Claire's three years away - indicates that time flows at the same rate, so that's what they go with.  Yes, it's a guess, but it's supported by experience.  

Actually, the only data point they have is that Claire jumped 200 years each time and Geillis jumped further.

[HunterHunted]

1 hour ago, NaughtyKitty said:

Did they have wallpaper back in 1700's England?  I couldn't fully appreciate the sex scene because I was so distracted by the wallpaper.  Was it hand painted?  I thought that back then it was usually tapestries hung over bare walls.  Even Sam's cute backside couldn't keep my mind from wondering about the walls

1 hour ago, toolazy said:

I had this same problem during season 1 when we first go to Lallybroch.  To my eye it looked like wallpaper - I didn't really think tapestries hugged the wall so closely. But no, apparently they are tapestries.  Weird, I know. 

 

Yes. Wallpaper has existed since the 1500. After Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church, wallpaper became very popular because most of the tapestry makers were in Catholic countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallpaper?wprov=sfla1

[DittyDotDot]

42 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Time travel works differently for everyone.  In Claire's world, she's in Jamie's world, and 20 years has passed because time runs parallel.  But for Geillis, she could travel back to whatever time she wanted.  There's a theory, or DG confirmed it, I don't know, that the time traveler goes back to whatever they are thinking about.  For Claire, Frank had just told her the story of BJR, so she was inadvertently thinking about him when she went back the first time.  

It's complicated and there aren't really any good answers, so IMO, you just gotta go with it.

Well, it is confirmed in later books that you can control where you land though concentrating and thinking of someone or some place in time you want to land. It doesn't really work differently for anyone here, just that Claire and Co. don't really understand how it works at all yet.

[FnkyChkn34]

6 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Actually, the only data point they have is that Claire jumped 200 years each time and Geillis jumped further.

202 years, if we want to nitpick. ;-)

[iMonrey]

Yeah - I mean, Geillis never came back. We don't really know if she would come back X number of years later to correspond with the amount of time she spent in the past. My main point is that having just seen Geillis go through the stone in 1968 and knowing what year she would travel to would give me pause about making another attempt at a trip through the stones. There's just really no telling where Claire might come out. Hell, she might be transported back to the stone age. 

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

202 years, if we want to nitpick. ;-)

Eh, I've heard it both ways... . ;)

[FnkyChkn34]

20 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Eh, I've heard it both ways... . ;)

Interesting, what do you mean?  I thought she went from 1945 to 1743.  Is there a discrepancy on that?

[SheTV]

16 hours ago, dbell1 said:

Sophie grates still. Flat acting and no physical resemblance to Jamie. Wish they would recast, but I guess that's not going to happen. 

 

Hannah James (Geneva) was apparently in the running to play Brianna.  They dye Sam Heughan's hair; they could have dyed hers, as well.  Oh, what could have been!

Hannah James Interview

[Nidratime]

She wouldn't have looked like Jamie either.

[Eureka]

The scene with the phone call with Joe seemed weird and awkward to me in the sense that it didn't serve a purpose to me, or else I didn't understand it if there was one. They have seriously underutilized him IMO. I was expecting that scene to segue into the story we get in the books about how Claire was involved in basically assisted suicide for one of her patients and was forced out of her department chair position. We didn't see that, which makes me wonder if they've cut that storyline altogther.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Jeebus. All the buik readers ken that Willie didn't have Jamie's red hair. What he got from his Da was the slanted blue eyes. And that as he got older, he looked more and more like Jamie. He inherited his mother's hair. We weren't going to get someone who looked like him. On the other hand, maybe casting should have worked harder to find a child actor who could believably pass as a child of Jamie's.

1 minute ago, Eureka said:

The scene with the phone call with Joe seemed weird and awkward to me in the sense that it didn't serve a purpose to me, or else I didn't understand it if there was one. They have seriously underutilized him IMO. I was expecting that scene to segue into the story we get in the books about how Claire was involved in basically assisted suicide for one of her patients and was forced out of her department chair position. We didn't see that, which makes me wonder if they've cut that storyline altogther.

I think it was to show how long Claire had been gone. I think Joe mentioned she'd been gone a month now?

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Actually, the only data point they have is that Claire jumped 200 years each time and Geillis jumped further.

They know that Claire spent three years in the past and when she came back three years had passed in the 20th century. 

27 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

She wouldn't have looked like Jamie either.

But she grew up in Virginia so the accent would be easier for her.  Still, I've grown kind of fond of Sophie Skelton. 

[FnkyChkn34]

26 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I think it was to show how long Claire had been gone. I think Joe mentioned she'd been gone a month now?

Also to show that she was needed elsewhere, and since their search was turning up dead ends, it helped her decide to go home.  Because in the buiks, doesn't Roger keep looking and he calls Claire to let her know he found Jamie?  Or something like that?  They go back and watch the moon landing... that's about all I remember actually.

[ElsieH]

The script posted online has a scene they had to cut for time where Joe calls again and says the hospital is talking about replacing Claire because her leave was extended twice.

[Atlanta]

Sophie did improve this episode. Keeping fingers crossed.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, ElsieH said:

The script posted online has a scene they had to cut for time where Joe calls again and says the hospital is talking about replacing Claire because her leave was extended twice.

I know what scene I would have cut out so that we could see that phone conversation!

It's been quite some time since I've read Voyager, @FnkyChkn34, but I think so--I seem to recall something like that. And then when Roger says he "found" Jamie, that's when she prepares to leave, with the clothing, etc., and that conversation about whether Jamie will still find her attractive. God, I hope that conversation isn't a voiceover, but the actual conversation with Joe!

[toolazy]

3 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

The script posted online has a scene they had to cut for time where Joe calls again and says the hospital is talking about replacing Claire because her leave was extended twice.

I'm glad they cut that because it's lame.

8 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Also to show that she was needed elsewhere, and since their search was turning up dead ends, it helped her decide to go home.  Because in the buiks, doesn't Roger keep looking and he calls Claire to let her know he found Jamie?  Or something like that?  They go back and watch the moon landing... that's about all I remember actually.

Roger & Bree send Claire a telegram from Inverness.  

The moon landing is in July of 1969 and Roger & Bree watch it at Joe's house.  Claire was long gone. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

They know that Claire spent three years in the past and when she came back three years had passed in the 20th century. 

Yeah, I get that. But it could be like Narnia: just because you spend one year in our time doesn't mean if you go back only a year has passed there.

It just seems like a really big leap for Roger to assume that since 20 years have passed since Claire's return, if she were to go through the stones now, she would land 20 years after the point in time where left (1746) so they rush off to research and find out where Jamie is in 1766 so she can go find him. That simply does not jibe with the fact that Geillis just went through the stones and they know for a fact that she went to 1740 or earlier. They just seem too confident they understand how the Magic Stones work and that shouldn't be the case. There should at least be some discussion about the uncertainty of making another attempt. Instead they're just focused on the comparably mundane task of discovering Jamie's later history than . . . you know, time travel. Like "Oh, that? That's the easy part."

[Ziggy]

On 10/1/2017 at 4:53 AM, Petunia846 said:

I don't understand what they're doing with the "modern" day search for Jamie. Am I crazy or have they jumbled things up? That's not how it goes in the book, right? I can't remember. I thought it was that once they found Jamie, Claire went back to Boston and set things right while Bree stayed in Scotland with Roger? Am I imagining that? It's not "messed up" or a problem, but I just don't see where they're going with that storyline...how it's going to come back around to where it needs to end up. Oh well, we'll find out next week, I guess.

In the book Claire went back to Boston before they found Jamie.  They called her to tell her to come back to Scotland.  Bree stayed in Scotland.  I'm curious as to why Bree goes back to Scotland.  At least I hope she does.

My guess (as to why the change) is that they were trying to end the episode on a sad, hopeless note.  Will Jamie ever see his son again?  Will Claire ever find Jamie?  No idea how this will play out, but so far I haven't been disappointed by the changes.

[FnkyChkn34]

50 minutes ago, toolazy said:

The moon landing is in July of 1969 and Roger & Bree watch it at Joe's house.  Claire was long gone. 

Ah yes, that's right.  Silly me.  Thanks!

[LadyBrochTuarach]

First time poster, long time reader of these threads. 

 

Jamie's scenes with Willie hit me right in the gut. Entire Kleenex box used. Sigh. 

 

I'm with most people on that the inclusion of a modern song into Jamie's time period just didn't work for me. However, I think the song lyrics worked for what they were aiming at, which was eliciting tears and ugly crying from us! 

 

I don't like that they had Geneva speak to Jamie in a public place, but SO HAPPY they kept the "shovelling shit" part. Oh Sam, you're hilarious. And dropping her in the mud was gold. Loved that. I realize they kept the blackmail part in, but I wasn't happy with Geneva's method. What happened to the letter from Jenny? She didn't have any hard evidence to necessarily incriminate him, and I doubt Hal would have confessed that he allowed a Jacobite into the Dunsany home, to save his own skin. Considering Geneva got him drunk to confess in the first place. So Geneva was going off of empty blackmail threats, in a way. And Jamie still fell for it, which to me felt like a flaw in his character. (Which is on the writers part) Hope that makes sense.  

 

Agree that Claire was totally flat in this episode, I preferred her in the first three. I know they've got to squeeze in a placeholder for her, but really? That's all they could do? The search seemed a lot more exciting in the books, and I was really looking forward to seeing it on screen. Something that they changed was Claire finding the Deed to Lallybroch last season, as proof for Bree. But it's in Voyager that Bree finds the Deed of Sassine, and links Jamie's writing to an A.Malcom piece of writing, and they put the pieces together. From that point (she's still in Scotland, Claire is in Boston tying up lose ends, and enlisting Joe to take care of Bree) Bree and Roger telegraph Claire to come back, that they've found him. Claire leaves the pearls in a safe box in their home in a Boston, for Bree. 

 

That brings me me to the pearls. I know they needed to showcase them, but why not do it when they're back in Boston? Very strange that she left them for Mrs. Graham.

 

Agree with mostly everyone on Sophie. Her character is doing nothing for me so far. I didn't like the portrayal in the second season, and it still hasn't improved much. I'm not sure if that's acting or the writing? Fingers crossed it gets better, considering her bigger roles later. 

 

Roger. Thank goodness for Roger. That is all. 

 

Otherwise a solid episode, they did well squeezing in a lot of text in one hour. Sam carried the entire episode for me, I could have done without the Claire bits until next week.

Edited October 2, 2017 by LadyBrochTuarach

[LadyBrochTuarach]

5 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Yes, because unbeknownst to them at the time, gemstones are what can protect someone traveling through the stones.

Funny though that we haven't seen the ring again yet in the show, though. Considering the pearls made a cameo. 

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Interesting, what do you mean?  I thought she went from 1945 to 1743.  Is there a discrepancy on that?

No, no, I was just being silly and making a bad Psych joke...sorry, I forget not everyone else understands my weird references. I believe you are correct in your math and memory.

However, I believe the reason there is a 202-year difference instead of a 200-year difference is there were some changes to the first book when it was published in the UK. So depending on which version of Outlander you read, there is a date discrepancy, but, on the show, I believe you have the dates right.

2 hours ago, toolazy said:

They know that Claire spent three years in the past and when she came back three years had passed in the 20th century. 

Right, but time always moves at the same rate in the past and in the present. Time is measured by the rotation of the earth--that's the same in the past and the present. Even if Claire had spent three years in the past, but returned five years later in the future, that doesn't suggest time was moving slower in the past--as though the days were longer in the past--but instead suggests that one can jump more than 200 years when traveling. Time is a constant, where one travels in time is not. Roger's hypothesis was flawed because it was based on the 200 years being the constant, which we know isn't correct because of Geillis.

However, Roger's area of expertise is not theoretical time travel, so I'm not sure we're supposed to take what he says as fact. They're just making wild guesses at this point. I do believe in the book they had considered Claire may not end up in the right time and/or that she may not be able to get back if she does. It's a huge leap of faith she takes.

38 minutes ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

Funny though that we haven't seen the ring again yet in the show, though. Considering the pearls made a cameo. 

The gemstone was burned out due to travel through the stones so I'd guess Claire got rid of the ring.

Edited October 2, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Haleth]

Claire takes a leap of faith that she will arrive at the right time.  I think it's simple as that.  She was willing to take the risk with no guarantee of the outcome. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

Yeah, I get that. But it could be like Narnia: just because you spend one year in our time doesn't mean if you go back only a year has passed there.

It just seems like a really big leap for Roger to assume that since 20 years have passed since Claire's return, if she were to go through the stones now, she would land 20 years after the point in time where left (1746) so they rush off to research and find out where Jamie is in 1766 so she can go find him. That simply does not jibe with the fact that Geillis just went through the stones and they know for a fact that she went to 1740 or earlier. They just seem too confident they understand how the Magic Stones work and that shouldn't be the case. There should at least be some discussion about the uncertainty of making another attempt. Instead they're just focused on the comparably mundane task of discovering Jamie's later history than . . . you know, time travel. Like "Oh, that? That's the easy part."

 

So what if she went back to 1740 or earlier?  How does that disprove Roger's theory?  And they aren't confident. They drawing conclusions based on what they do know - no one said they were certain of anything.  Claire knows that going back is a very risky prospect. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I just go with how this show and the buiks deals with time travel. There's no right or wrong way it works. Each show, movie, etc., makes up their own rules, because so far as I know, time travel isn't possible. And Ron Moore has already stated that he's staying away from the more fantastical and magickal elements of the series. Except for the ability to travel through time via the Stones, he said he wants this show to be grounded in reality.

[Clawdette]

I always assumed that Diana had Claire land 202 years back in the past to make history line up.  World War II wasn't over until 1945 so if she had landed 200 years in the past, she'd be getting close to the the Battle of Culloden and that wouldn't leave a lot of time to develop her relationship with Jamie.  I'm okay with that.

[nodorothyparker]

Everything about how the stones and the ensuing time travel work is guess work.  They can only go on what they've observed.  It's really not going to get any less complicated or convoluted from here.

The husband who wasn't read the books but is more than a little bit of a sci-fi/time travel aficionado loves to complain about how in the Outlander universe as presented that Gabaldon hasn't really thought time travel through to make it make sense and is making it up as she goes along.  My response has been that since as far as we know nobody's actually time traveling and reporting back how it works, aren't they all making it up as they go along?  I'm just kind of shrugging and going along for the ride.

[lianau]

4 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

 The search seemed a lot more exciting in the books, and I was really looking forward to seeing it on screen. 

 

I think it would have been better to keep the structure of the book for the separation part . Starting the search , getting Hal's diary and flashback to Jamie at Culloden , his survival  , Roger and Claire talking about Frank's reaction and flashback to the 40s , Brianna finding the Dunbonnet tale and flashback to cave Jamie . This way  it wouldn't feel like two separate things .

[WatchrTina]

My imaginary breakdown of the pre-reunion episodes pretty much consisted of the Scoobies (Claire, Brianna and Roger) kicking off each ep by finding some evidence of Jamie's whereabouts in a particular year and then off we'd go with the Jamie story.  I assumed there'd be a few flashbacks to Claire's life with Frank but in MY version the first half of season 3 was going to be the Jamie show.  I don't think I'm actually that far off since, let's face it, the Jamie stuff is SO much more interesting in episodes 1- 4.  And when you consider how Claire-centric the first few episode of season 1 were, I think there would have been nothing wrong with my approach.  

Alas, Ron et al opted for a more balanced approach, which in my opinion leaves them having to pad the 20th century with some dull stuff.  Ah well, we're nearly done with the 20th century.  #PrintShopIsComing

Edited October 3, 2017 by WatchrTina

[FnkyChkn34]

7 hours ago, Atlanta said:

Sophie did improve this episode. Keeping fingers crossed.

And she's decent in the short clip that is the preview for next week. 

[lianau]

2 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

And she's decent in the short clip that is the preview for next week. 

I think she's fighting three "fights" here . The accent , playing a character who isn't warm and fluffy and immediately lovable and her introduction in season 2 settled  her with some really wooden dialogue that Meryl Streep  wouldn't have been able to save .  

[LadyBrochTuarach]

10 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

The gemstone was burned out due to travel through the stones so I'd guess Claire got rid of the ring.

Yes, thats right. I remember this part from the books. 

At the end of the second season, Claire slides it into her suitcase before she leaves Scotland with Frank. If I recall correctly. I think the gemstone stayed intact. For the show, not the book. 

 

 

5 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

My imaginary breakdown of the pre-reunion episodes pretty much consisted of the Scoobies (Claire, Brianna and Roger) kicking off each ep by finding some evidence of Jamie's whereabouts in a particular year and then off we'd go with the Jamie story.  I assumed there'd be a few flashbacks to Claire's life with Frank but in MY version the first half of season 3 was going to be the Jamie show.  I don't think I'm actually that far off since, let's face it, the Jamie stuff is SO much more interesting in episodes 1- 4.  And when you consider how Claire-centric the first few episode of season 1 were, I think there would have been nothing wrong with my approach.  

Alas, Ron et al opted for a more balanced approach, which in my opinion leaves them having to pad the 20th century with some dull stuff.  Ah well, we're nearly done with the 20th century.  #PrintShopIsComing

I would have preferred a version like you describe. I think it would have worked as a more cohesive storyline. I understand they're trying to make Jamie and Claire's tales line up: example, Jamie leaves Helwater for home, Claire leaves Scotland for home. But while Jamie's story turned for the better, Claire's was so flat, and out of character for her love of Jamie, to give up. She would have found a way to find him, whether he was dead or alive.

Agree with 20th century dull stuff! I also am holding out hope for #PrintShopIsComing

[DittyDotDot]

7 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

Yes, thats right. I remember this part from the books. 

At the end of the second season, Claire slides it into her suitcase before she leaves Scotland with Frank. If I recall correctly. I think the gemstone stayed intact. For the show, not the book. 

Actually, when Claire first comes back in S2 she's frantically looking for the stone that's missing. Claire doesn't realize it was burned out through the traveling yet. I don't remember her still having the ring, but if she does, I imagine at some point she'll remember and it will tie to Geillis' research about gemstones and precious metals protecting the traveler.

Jamie doesn't give Claire the ring in the books, they carved the other's initials into the palms of their hands on their parting in Dragonfly in Amber that leaves a scar each can stroke in their 20-year separation to remind themselves of each other..

Edited October 3, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[WatchrTina]

Oooooh there were two really smart comments in the non-book-talk thread that I won't quote for fear of brining them into this thread by mistake.

The first comment was someone who wondered if Geneva chose the red-headed groom specifically because of her horrible future-husband's comment about how he would kill a child who had red hair.  I had originally hated that comment (I mean who would SAY such a thing in front of his future bride) but if that commenter is right, Geneva chose Jamie (of all the available sevants, some of whom were closer to her age and whom she may have known better) because of his red hair -- as icing on the cake of the "fuck you" moment she was planning.  I LIKE that.  Some have said that Jamie being so exceptional -- the one she chooses of all the grooms -- yet another "king of men" moment -- strains credulity.  If she picks him because of his red hair (in addition to being, you know, smoking HOT), that actually helps make the moment more credible.  But if that's true they really should have done a better job with his hair.  It looks SO BAD in this episode.  (I still think it's a wig. If it were not I think he'd have taken his ponytail down when he undressed.)

And now I forgot the other great moment because I didn't quote it.  BRB.

ETA:  I'm back.  The other really good comment was someone speculating that Jamie's kindness and gentleness to Geneva may have stemmed from his remembering his own wedding night and his experience as a virgin groom with an experienced bride.  He had someone kind and thoughtful to guide him his first time.  His own "deflowering" is a precious memory to him.  So it makes sense that he would swallow his anger and try to make Geneva's first time as good as he could manage, as a way of honoring the gift Claire had given him all those years ago.  He paid it forward.  I LIKE that!  (Though, of course, I also cannot forget that if he did ANYTHING to upset her there was the risk of Geneva kicking up a fuss or crying out in fear or anger and if she did that and he was discovered in her room, Jamie's life would be in danger.  That's also a major motivation for him make it good and get away clean.)

Edited October 3, 2017 by WatchrTina

[qtpye]

14 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Everything about how the stones and the ensuing time travel work is guess work.  They can only go on what they've observed.  It's really not going to get any less complicated or convoluted from here.

The husband who wasn't read the books but is more than a little bit of a sci-fi/time travel aficionado loves to complain about how in the Outlander universe as presented that Gabaldon hasn't really thought time travel through to make it make sense and is making it up as she goes along.  My response has been that since as far as we know nobody's actually time traveling and reporting back how it works, aren't they all making it up as they go along?  I'm just kind of shrugging and going along for the ride.

There is actuly a lot of theories in physics about time travel.  For instance you can not time travel to any period before you werre born.

However as you said, nothing can be proven at this time, so who knows?

Isn't Brianna supposed to be a beautiful and powerful looking young woman, like het father?  Why are they casting all these dainty doll like actresses for her part?

[CountryGirl]

23 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I agree, but the look he gave the baby carriage when he said he wanted to stay for awhile rather than return home was 1,000% obvious.  How did Lady Dunsany not figure it out right then?

I think she had already figured it out by then.

[FnkyChkn34]

2 minutes ago, qtpye said:

There is actuly a lot of theories in physics about time travel.  For instance you can not time travel to any period before you werre born.

It all depends on the book/show/movie what theory you want to adhere to.  For instance, in the TV show Timeless that just aired last season, they could not travel to any time when they WERE born.  Meaning, they had to go back to 1800s, 1700s, early 1900s, etc. - which is the opposite of what you are saying.  So every time travel theory is different.

1 minute ago, CountryGirl said:

I think she had already figured it out by then.

I am talking about the Grandmother, not Isobel.  Isobel knew, yes, but I don't think her mother ever figured it out.

[CountryGirl]

2 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

It all depends on the book/show/movie what theory you want to adhere to.  For instance, in the TV show Timeless that just aired last season, they could not travel to any time when they WERE born.  Meaning, they had to go back to 1800s, 1700s, early 1900s, etc. - which is the opposite of what you are saying.  So every time travel theory is different.

I am talking about the Grandmother, not Isobel.  Isobel knew, yes, but I don't think her mother ever figured it out.

That's whom I was referring to as well and while I know she wasn't supposed to know, watching the warm look on her face as she looked at Jamie and the baby (that I read as more than him saving her only grandchild by her late daughter), I think she knew. But that's just my opinion. 

[FnkyChkn34]

3 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

That's whom I was referring to as well and while I know she wasn't supposed to know, watching the warm look on her face as she looked at Jamie and the baby (that I read as more than him saving her only grandchild by her late daughter), I think she knew. But that's just my opinion. 

That's an interesting theory, actually.  But in my opinion, if they all knew, then why would Jamie have to leave?  In the books, not even Isobel knew, so I think the grandmother was not supposed to know.

[Ziggy]

On 10/1/2017 at 11:48 AM, toolazy said:

Also, I was just reading the non-book readers' thread and two people commented on how stupid Geneva was to not have sex with Ellesmere at least once or twice.  Was it made clear in the show that the problem was that Ellesmere wasn't "capable."  I honestly don't remember.

I had that same thought.  I thought he wasn't capable, also.  Did they imply that in the books?  I think they did ... maybe in the scene in the kitchen where everyone is gossiping and Jamie just wants to know whether or not his child is alive.