[QuickTidal]

I Got Crabs, on 20 October 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

Super agged. They gave me a silver/chrome cover bk 6 when it's supposed to be white. I want the white one! That's the only one I see at stores so why did I get this horrible eye soar of it?

Oh man, that sucks. Yeah, I'll be buying mine in store so I can make sure to get the white cover. The silver cover would just look weird next to the other solid colours in the series. As far as I could tell the silver was only used on the trade paperback versions in Canada, and the MMPB is white. Which reminds me, I'll need to grab books 5 and 6 soon.

Andorion, on 21 October 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

Outlander 2, chapters 18-23.

Not as much progress as I would have liked, but I am hopeful about the weekend.

Things are getting dark and messy.

Spoiler

First the rape - I am still trying to figure out why it happened. Except complicating things a bit for Jamie and Claire I don't think it was necessary. It was used to introduce the White Lady idea, but that could have been done differently.

Poor Mary Hawkins. An absolute innocent - I wonder about the long term consequences

Jonathan Randall is alive and Jamie nearly challenged him to a duel.... not good, not good at all. How exactly does he end up marrying Mary though?

Dougal is here. Sigh. I had not missed the scumbag one bit.

Jamie's idea of sabotaging the ships - its crazy, I hope Murtagh comes through ok. I have a bad feeling about this.

But my main anxiety at the moment is about Claire's pregnancy. She bled! If this ends up as a miscarriage, it will be heartbreaking, and I worry how Jamie may react.

Sidenote: That hangman fellow is seriously creepy.

Spoiler

The rape scene has another connotation you're not aware of yet.

I recall the "Randall is alive and Jamie confrontations" in the book being super tense...but if I'm honest (and one of the many reasons you should one day watch the TV show Ando) the TV version is even better since Tobias Menzies embodies Randall PERFECTLY and the scenes are so insanely tense as a result. You'll find out about Mary marrying Randall soon enough, and it won't be what you think.

Also, Ando, I know you're not watching the show (yet)...but when you are DONE book 2...check out the trailer for Season 2 (covers book 2) which I love due to the music and the cinematography (it's very much like a GoT trailer in tone and style). Don't watch it till you're done though as it might have spoilers in it of stuff you've not yet read.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 21 October 2016 - 01:21 PM

[Andorion]

Outlander 2, chapters 24-35

I suspect this may not be a popular update.

Spoiler

The duel and its aftermath: I have a huge problem here. My reading of how Gabaldon ultimately settles the issue is that both Claire and Jamie were at fault in certain things and there were mitigating circumstances for both.

I disagree.

Given Fergus' story and his past history I fully understand that Jamie had immediate as well as deeply seated reasons to challenge Randall to a duel. However none of these issues or reasons change a single thing about the consequences of his actions - that he would either be in jail indefinitely or be executed. His pregnant wife who is not even from this damn century, would be left alone, dependent on whatever charity she could scrounge up from relatives and friends, and this was at a time when she was cut off from Scotland and Jenny+Ian. Not to mention that her pregancy was already in crisis with the bleeding. Not to mention that she had already pleaded with him not to exactly what he did. In fact I am discounting this last point. To Jamie Frank is an abstraction. But he still had very concrete reasons not to duel. And he did it anyway.

Now Jamie may have been seeing red, and had not processed all of this before the duel, but he definitely had time to think of this when he was in prison. When he thought Claire was dead, and he had killed his wife and child.

So when he gets out, solely through Claire's efforts, when she makes one of the greatest sacrifices a person can make, he has the gall to actually question her actions? This is the second time she has gotten him out of prison at great personal risk and harm. He was in prison because he valued his own honour above the very real reasons not to duel He broke his word to her. She has every right to resent him. She lost her child and nearly her life because of him.
How dare he question a single action she committed, or a single thought she had in this period??

And I don't think Claire is doing herself any favours by submitting to him in this issue. He is unquestioningly in the wrong. She has nothing to apologize for.

I can't support the author decisions that went into this section.


Phew.

Having gotten that out of the way, Raymond actually does have magical powers doesn't he?

And Charles the twerp just casually forges Jamie's signature. Because of course he did. Where the hell did he get the money?

I don't know what they are going to do, but if I was in Claire's place I would try to get Jamie to agree to take Ian and Jenny and the kids and run for the time travelling rocks.

[Andorion]

I Got Crabs, on 22 October 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

Glad you finally brought up Raymond! BLUEEEEE! He is the one I was talking about earlier. Very interesting. The show drops many more sly hints about him then the bk. The ep dealing with this seg is the one that almost undid me. It aired the same week as Hold the Door GoT ep and I found this much more emo then that one.

Yeah, but where do you stand regarding the points I made?

[Andorion]

I Got Crabs, on 22 October 2016 - 05:21 AM, said:

You state pretty spot on. It's the most aggregating so far bit that I've read of the series and hoping it stays that way! Sorry there's not more but you know I'm not wordy lol! I'm sure QT will have fresh fingers in the morn.

My thoughts on R....

Spoiler

He is either an original "Stone Druid"? Not sure what else to describe other then Druidic or from the far future where man has tapped into magic. Idk. I'm hoping it gets explained but I don't want to know till I'm reading the words.

I Got Crabs, on 22 October 2016 - 05:23 AM, said:

Charles is a douche nozzle in both bk/show.

Don't get me wrong BK, I am extremely interested in Raymond, but everything else had me extremely pissed. If I wasn't fascinated by a lot of things, I might have actually dropped the series. As it is, I am going to read future relationship dynamics with a much more critical eye.

Spoiler

As for Raymond, there are three possibilities

1. He is from the far future, and has future medtech
2. He is from the 18th C but has actual magic
3. He is from the past, and has powerful unknown magic

[Gabriele]

Andorion, on 22 October 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

Outlander 2, chapters 24-35

I suspect this may not be a popular update.

Spoiler

The duel and its aftermath: I have a huge problem here. My reading of how Gabaldon ultimately settles the issue is that both Claire and Jamie were at fault in certain things and there were mitigating circumstances for both.

I disagree.

Given Fergus' story and his past history I fully understand that Jamie had immediate as well as deeply seated reasons to challenge Randall to a duel. However none of these issues or reasons change a single thing about the consequences of his actions - that he would either be in jail indefinitely or be executed. His pregnant wife who is not even from this damn century, would be left alone, dependent on whatever charity she could scrounge up from relatives and friends, and this was at a time when she was cut off from Scotland and Jenny+Ian. Not to mention that her pregancy was already in crisis with the bleeding. Not to mention that she had already pleaded with him not to exactly what he did. In fact I am discounting this last point. To Jamie Frank is an abstraction. But he still had very concrete reasons not to duel. And he did it anyway.

Now Jamie may have been seeing red, and had not processed all of this before the duel, but he definitely had time to think of this when he was in prison. When he thought Claire was dead, and he had killed his wife and child.

So when he gets out, solely through Claire's efforts, when she makes one of the greatest sacrifices a person can make, he has the gall to actually question her actions? This is the second time she has gotten him out of prison at great personal risk and harm. He was in prison because he valued his own honour above the very real reasons not to duel He broke his word to her. She has every right to resent him. She lost her child and nearly her life because of him.
How dare he question a single action she committed, or a single thought she had in this period??

And I don't think Claire is doing herself any favours by submitting to him in this issue. He is unquestioningly in the wrong. She has nothing to apologize for.

I can't support the author decisions that went into this section.


Phew.

Having gotten that out of the way, Raymond actually does have magical powers doesn't he?

And Charles the twerp just casually forges Jamie's signature. Because of course he did. Where the hell did he get the money?

I don't know what they are going to do, but if I was in Claire's place I would try to get Jamie to agree to take Ian and Jenny and the kids and run for the time travelling rocks.

Spoiler

But Jamie would not get through the stones and nor would Jenny. Not sure about Ian, we know too little about his family. That gate isn't open to everyone.

Jamie is very much an alpha male - and they're pretty popular in Romance as fas as I know. Sure, he does love Claire and because of that love, he is able to accept her views and change his behaviour on several occasions (like when he agrees to never again beat her). But the basis is still alpha male. He doesn't like Claire getting involved in the flirtations at court or show her decolleté, he only allows her to visit the hospital when it turns out that her hanging out with Louise is worse than dressing wounds .... And your wife has to be sexually pure.

Frank may be less prone to violence, but he, too, expects of Claire to be the proper wife of a don. A bit of botany is ok, but he would not want her to continue working as a nurse. And Claire tries to adapt - in both times - because that's how she has been brought up as well.

Also, Jamie's motto Je suis prest sometimes means he's not thinking things through. Remember how he flings at Jenny because he thinks wee Jamie is Randall's son. Only she puts him on the potty.

Spoilers for books 3 and 4:

Spoiler

The Stones: Those connected by blood with Claire or Geillis Duncan can go through, no matter the gender.

Frank as husband: There's bit brouhaha about Claire studying medicine. He eventually agrees because he sees how much it matters to her, but it takes some time for him to really accept it, and accept that she can't run a perfect household and raise a kid besides and that he needs to help.

Jamie the alpha male: He got some issues as husband, and he'll get some more of that sort as father (esp. concerning sexual purity). But he got a daughter with all the Fraser temper and stubbornness and an upbringing that is more modern than her mother's.

This post has been edited by Gabriele: 22 October 2016 - 12:35 PM

[Gabriele]

I Got Crabs, on 22 October 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

Damn it hit you that hard? That sucks. I can say there's been nothing quite that frustrating again in what I've gotten to. I'm sure Gab can say a yes or no response on it.

I ll also say that it more or less all has a pt to it in the end.

Spoiler book 4

Spoiler

Well, he makes some rash decisions in book 4 as well, about how his daughter lost her virginity. But he's up against a Fraser this time.

[Gabriele]

Dang, I keep spelling the name Jaime instead of Jamie. Thank you, GRRM.

[Andorion]

Regarding Jamie being an alpha male, I think the applicable term is "alphahole" Ilona Andrews wrote a rather interesting essay on it.

Spoiler

You see my problem is not with Jamie's characterisation. He can be an alphahole. My problem is how the matter was concluded and how Claire was written. It was basically treated as another one of those "both people are at fault and said and did stupid things, but they love each other, so kiss and make up."

But that is not how this one works. Claire was in the right. After what Jamie did, after what she went through, after what she had to do for him, she had every right to resent him, and yes even act in a way that would hurt him. And he would have no counterargument.

But she not only submits, she urges Jamie to punish her. Punish her for what?

Its the way it was written was a dealbreaker for me. Because this is something where you fundamentally disagree with the author.

[Andorion]

I Got Crabs, on 22 October 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

Damn it hit you that hard? That sucks. I can say there's been nothing quite that frustrating again in what I've gotten to. I'm sure Gab can say a yes or no response on it.

I ll also say that it more or less all has a pt to it in the end.

BK see my new comment on why I got so mad

[QuickTidal]

Andorion, on 22 October 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

Outlander 2, chapters 24-35

I suspect this may not be a popular update.

Spoiler

The duel and its aftermath: I have a huge problem here. My reading of how Gabaldon ultimately settles the issue is that both Claire and Jamie were at fault in certain things and there were mitigating circumstances for both.

I disagree.

Given Fergus' story and his past history I fully understand that Jamie had immediate as well as deeply seated reasons to challenge Randall to a duel. However none of these issues or reasons change a single thing about the consequences of his actions - that he would either be in jail indefinitely or be executed. His pregnant wife who is not even from this damn century, would be left alone, dependent on whatever charity she could scrounge up from relatives and friends, and this was at a time when she was cut off from Scotland and Jenny+Ian. Not to mention that her pregancy was already in crisis with the bleeding. Not to mention that she had already pleaded with him not to exactly what he did. In fact I am discounting this last point. To Jamie Frank is an abstraction. But he still had very concrete reasons not to duel. And he did it anyway.

Now Jamie may have been seeing red, and had not processed all of this before the duel, but he definitely had time to think of this when he was in prison. When he thought Claire was dead, and he had killed his wife and child.

So when he gets out, solely through Claire's efforts, when she makes one of the greatest sacrifices a person can make, he has the gall to actually question her actions? This is the second time she has gotten him out of prison at great personal risk and harm. He was in prison because he valued his own honour above the very real reasons not to duel He broke his word to her. She has every right to resent him. She lost her child and nearly her life because of him.
How dare he question a single action she committed, or a single thought she had in this period??

And I don't think Claire is doing herself any favours by submitting to him in this issue. He is unquestioningly in the wrong. She has nothing to apologize for.

I can't support the author decisions that went into this section.


Phew.

Having gotten that out of the way, Raymond actually does have magical powers doesn't he?

And Charles the twerp just casually forges Jamie's signature. Because of course he did. Where the hell did he get the money?

I don't know what they are going to do, but if I was in Claire's place I would try to get Jamie to agree to take Ian and Jenny and the kids and run for the time travelling rocks.

Okay, let's see if I can parse this down a bit.

Spoiler

So here's the thing. Jamie (as Gabrielle said) is an alpha male, from a time period and a place where being an alpha male was how you survived. Time and time again he has put his neck on the line AND gone against his own alpha male instincts to appease Claire's more 20th century outlook.

Yes, this is the second time she's gotten him out of prison at great personal risk...but remember that in book 1 he got her away from Randall when he first captured her...and she KNEW going to see Randall in that instance was a mistake that Jamie dind't want her to do...and she went and did it anyway and got captured and almost raped till Jamie rolled in and rescued her...right? Then remember that when she came to rescue him at the end from prison...becuase he freely offered to take her place after Randall had captured her AGAIN. So there are two instances where Claire's CLEAR idiocy resulted in her putting Jamie at risk. I feel like DRAGONFLY is Jamie's book to screw up in, in the same way.

As someone who has gone through a miscarriage with my wife, she didn't lose the baby because of him and the duel and the stress of that...a miscarriage almost always just means that something wasn't right with the pregnancy to begin with (usually how it attached to the uterus, or how it's progressing ect.) and the body knows somehting is wrong and expells the baby. That it happened at the same time as the duel is merely coincidence (or by narrative design on Gabaldon's part), but I don't think you can hold Jamie acocuntable for that as a result.

Now, returning to Jamie's decision to duel even though he knows the consequences...he's literally let everything that he's fought in himself (even since they arrived in Paris; let aone back in Scotland) pile up...and the Fergus thing just basically makes him blow his stack, not thinking at all. And the blame for that CANNOT just fall on Jamie. Remember that Claire's antagonism of Randall and getting caught by him twice in book 1 are the very reason Jamie is suffering from PTSD from Randall's torture...that's not somehting to easily shift aside when seeing red. Here is the guy who tortured you served up on a silver platter for you to kill..and he's even given you more new reasons that he DESERVES to die.

With regards to Jamie's scolding of Claire when he finds out what she did to get him out...it's two-fold in that Jamie is WELL aware that he should not be overly mad at Claire for what she did she did for him...but as a male this literlaly wars inside him with the notion of what she did to get him out. If that makes sense. It's a duality of notion. It's not somehting Jamie will likely every forgive himself for, but it's also something that Claire had a hand in from the mahcinations of what led to it. Is it Jamie's fault for dueling even though he knew the consequences? Yes. Is it also Claire's fault for being party to what led to that going all the way back to being stupidly caught by Randall twice in book 1? Yes. Jamie is an 18th century guy who kept more than a few of his natural, innate era-based male traits at bay at her request...and they all came flooding out at the most inopporutune moment.

Now, think about this...knowing what Black Jack Randall DID to Jamie (and obviously others in his time on the planet) does Claire have ANY right to ask him to NOT kill the man or at least challenge him? I don't Claire's assumption that if Black Jack dies Frank won't exist is worth the ask to be honest.

Claire's apologies and infractions aren't actually much to do with the events France, but stem much farther back into book 1, where almost all of them roots from...thus I don't feel that Jamie is unquestioningly in the wrong...I feel that Claire is at least partially repsonsible for how these events all came to be. Remember also that she does a BUNCH of things that keep Jamie from Randall even BEFORE she asks him not to kill the guy...she's an old hand at keeping things from Jamie that she feels she knows how he'll react to them.

But most of all, the main thrust here is that Jamie's PTSD from Randall (which is mainly what cuases him to go over the egde into duel territory)...is completely and utterly Claire's fault. She's the reason Jamie was so vehemently hunted by the British, which is reason his bounty eas high enough that a Lallybroch worker betrayed him to the British, and how he ends up in Wentworth, and then gets captured because she stupidly decides to be a part of the resuce at Wentworth, gets captured, and then Jamie sacrifices his own self back to Randall to get her out....resulting in his maiming and torture.

In the end, book 1 is Claire's place to make horrible mistakes that Jamie forgives...and Book 2 is Jamie's turn to make them...and Claire forgives.

Gabaldon makes her characters fallible, and to me that's important to make them feel more real. I buy that they make these mistakes becuase these are the kind of (misguided though they may be) things that regular people do wrong every single day.

Hopefully that makes sense Ando. Hopefully this won't make you give up the series, as it's still awesome and the second hald of book 2 is fantastic.

[Andorion]

QuickTidal, on 22 October 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

Andorion, on 22 October 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

Outlander 2, chapters 24-35

I suspect this may not be a popular update.

Spoiler

The duel and its aftermath: I have a huge problem here. My reading of how Gabaldon ultimately settles the issue is that both Claire and Jamie were at fault in certain things and there were mitigating circumstances for both.

I disagree.

Given Fergus' story and his past history I fully understand that Jamie had immediate as well as deeply seated reasons to challenge Randall to a duel. However none of these issues or reasons change a single thing about the consequences of his actions - that he would either be in jail indefinitely or be executed. His pregnant wife who is not even from this damn century, would be left alone, dependent on whatever charity she could scrounge up from relatives and friends, and this was at a time when she was cut off from Scotland and Jenny+Ian. Not to mention that her pregancy was already in crisis with the bleeding. Not to mention that she had already pleaded with him not to exactly what he did. In fact I am discounting this last point. To Jamie Frank is an abstraction. But he still had very concrete reasons not to duel. And he did it anyway.

Now Jamie may have been seeing red, and had not processed all of this before the duel, but he definitely had time to think of this when he was in prison. When he thought Claire was dead, and he had killed his wife and child.

So when he gets out, solely through Claire's efforts, when she makes one of the greatest sacrifices a person can make, he has the gall to actually question her actions? This is the second time she has gotten him out of prison at great personal risk and harm. He was in prison because he valued his own honour above the very real reasons not to duel He broke his word to her. She has every right to resent him. She lost her child and nearly her life because of him.
How dare he question a single action she committed, or a single thought she had in this period??

And I don't think Claire is doing herself any favours by submitting to him in this issue. He is unquestioningly in the wrong. She has nothing to apologize for.

I can't support the author decisions that went into this section.


Phew.

Having gotten that out of the way, Raymond actually does have magical powers doesn't he?

And Charles the twerp just casually forges Jamie's signature. Because of course he did. Where the hell did he get the money?

I don't know what they are going to do, but if I was in Claire's place I would try to get Jamie to agree to take Ian and Jenny and the kids and run for the time travelling rocks.

Okay, let's see if I can parse this down a bit.

Spoiler

So here's the thing. Jamie (as Gabrielle said) is an alpha male, from a time period and a place where being an alpha male was how you survived. Time and time again he has put his neck on the line AND gone against his own alpha male instincts to appease Claire's more 20th century outlook.

Yes, this is the second time she's gotten him out of prison at great personal risk...but remember that in book 1 he got her away from Randall when he first captured her...and she KNEW going to see Randall in that instance was a mistake that Jamie dind't want her to do...and she went and did it anyway and got captured and almost raped till Jamie rolled in and rescued her...right? Then remember that when she came to rescue him at the end from prison...becuase he freely offered to take her place after Randall had captured her AGAIN. So there are two instances where Claire's CLEAR idiocy resulted in her putting Jamie at risk. I feel like DRAGONFLY is Jamie's book to screw up in, in the same way.

As someone who has gone through a miscarriage with my wife, she didn't lose the baby because of him and the duel and the stress of that...a miscarriage almost always just means that something wasn't right with the pregnancy to begin with (usually how it attached to the uterus, or how it's progressing ect.) and the body knows somehting is wrong and expells the baby. That it happened at the same time as the duel is merely coincidence (or by narrative design on Gabaldon's part), but I don't think you can hold Jamie acocuntable for that as a result.

Now, returning to Jamie's decision to duel even though he knows the consequences...he's literally let everything that he's fought in himself (even since they arrived in Paris; let aone back in Scotland) pile up...and the Fergus thing just basically makes him blow his stack, not thinking at all. And the blame for that CANNOT just fall on Jamie. Remember that Claire's antagonism of Randall and getting caught by him twice in book 1 are the very reason Jamie is suffering from PTSD from Randall's torture...that's not somehting to easily shift aside when seeing red. Here is the guy who tortured you served up on a silver platter for you to kill..and he's even given you more new reasons that he DESERVES to die.

With regards to Jamie's scolding of Claire when he finds out what she did to get him out...it's two-fold in that Jamie is WELL aware that he should not be overly mad at Claire for what she did she did for him...but as a male this literlaly wars inside him with the notion of what she did to get him out. If that makes sense. It's a duality of notion. It's not somehting Jamie will likely every forgive himself for, but it's also something that Claire had a hand in from the mahcinations of what led to it. Is it Jamie's fault for dueling even though he knew the consequences? Yes. Is it also Claire's fault for being party to what led to that going all the way back to being stupidly caught by Randall twice in book 1? Yes. Jamie is an 18th century guy who kept more than a few of his natural, innate era-based male traits at bay at her request...and they all came flooding out at the most inopporutune moment.

Now, think about this...knowing what Black Jack Randall DID to Jamie (and obviously others in his time on the planet) does Claire have ANY right to ask him to NOT kill the man or at least challenge him? I don't Claire's assumption that if Black Jack dies Frank won't exist is worth the ask to be honest.

Claire's apologies and infractions aren't actually much to do with the events France, but stem much farther back into book 1, where almost all of them roots from...thus I don't feel that Jamie is unquestioningly in the wrong...I feel that Claire is at least partially repsonsible for how these events all came to be. Remember also that she does a BUNCH of things that keep Jamie from Randall even BEFORE she asks him not to kill the guy...she's an old hand at keeping things from Jamie that she feels she knows how he'll react to them.

But most of all, the main thrust here is that Jamie's PTSD from Randall (which is mainly what cuases him to go over the egde into duel territory)...is completely and utterly Claire's fault. She's the reason Jamie was so vehemently hunted by the British, which is reason his bounty eas high enough that a Lallybroch worker betrayed him to the British, and how he ends up in Wentworth, and then gets captured because she stupidly decides to be a part of the resuce at Wentworth, gets captured, and then Jamie sacrifices his own self back to Randall to get her out....resulting in his maiming and torture.

In the end, book 1 is Claire's place to make horrible mistakes that Jamie forgives...and Book 2 is Jamie's turn to make them...and Claire forgives.

Gabaldon makes her characters fallible, and to me that's important to make them feel more real. I buy that they make these mistakes becuase these are the kind of (misguided though they may be) things that regular people do wrong every single day.

Hopefully that makes sense Ando. Hopefully this won't make you give up the series, as it's still awesome and the second hald of book 2 is fantastic.

Good reply QT. If I ever screw up, I want you in my corner, arguing for me.

Now for my replies:

Spoiler

Regarding miscarriage and its actual causes vs perceived causes, I as the omniscient 21st Century reader know this. But 1945 nurse-knowledge Claire and 18th Century Jamie? They don't. To both of them the duel did cause the miscarriage. So to both of them Jamie is culpable.

Regarding Jamie and the reasons he fought the duel, I agree that given the circumstances, he had every right to lose his temper and jump into it. And you will notice I discount Frank Randall from the story entirely. Claire's prohibition would hold very little water here.

What I did expect, was that Jamie's other male instincts would be important - the protect-your-woman-and-child instinct. Even if it was not strong enough to prevent the duel, it should have made him utterly remorseful in its aftermath. In fact I wonder whether Jamie ever truly understood the impact of the miscarriage and what it did to Claire?

Now regarding the past, there are several factors.

1. Firstly Jamie was already in severe trouble with Randall before Claire ever showed up.

2. There is no way Claire can be blamed for Randall's initial antagonism towards her. It was totally out of her control

3. Her first capture by Randall was an utter facepalm moment. I agree.

4. I do not see her attempted rescue of Jamie as foolhardy. She could hardly let him hang, if the roles were reversed there would be no doubt that Jamie would be doing his best. Claire gave it an extremely good shot with what limited resources she had

5. I disagree that she made things worse for Jamie. Randall was going to torture, rape and kill Jamie anyway.

6. She brought Jamie out of a very deep PTSD funk. Frankly it was a miracle and I think it offset a lot of her previous debt to Jamie. Its not tangible like saving a life, but in someways its more valuable. I don't think Jamie fully appreciates this either.

7. As for what she did to secure Jamie's release this time, once again she was stuck in a very difficult situation and she used her limited resources at great personal cost. I don't really see how anyone can fault her for it.

And then there is the final point, Jamie's male instincts can make him hate what Claire did, But that does not mean Claire has to agree and accept it.

I am not dropping the series yet though.

[Gabriele]

Andorion, on 22 October 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 22 October 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

Andorion, on 22 October 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

Outlander 2, chapters 24-35

I suspect this may not be a popular update.

Spoiler

The duel and its aftermath: I have a huge problem here. My reading of how Gabaldon ultimately settles the issue is that both Claire and Jamie were at fault in certain things and there were mitigating circumstances for both.

I disagree.

Given Fergus' story and his past history I fully understand that Jamie had immediate as well as deeply seated reasons to challenge Randall to a duel. However none of these issues or reasons change a single thing about the consequences of his actions - that he would either be in jail indefinitely or be executed. His pregnant wife who is not even from this damn century, would be left alone, dependent on whatever charity she could scrounge up from relatives and friends, and this was at a time when she was cut off from Scotland and Jenny+Ian. Not to mention that her pregancy was already in crisis with the bleeding. Not to mention that she had already pleaded with him not to exactly what he did. In fact I am discounting this last point. To Jamie Frank is an abstraction. But he still had very concrete reasons not to duel. And he did it anyway.

Now Jamie may have been seeing red, and had not processed all of this before the duel, but he definitely had time to think of this when he was in prison. When he thought Claire was dead, and he had killed his wife and child.

So when he gets out, solely through Claire's efforts, when she makes one of the greatest sacrifices a person can make, he has the gall to actually question her actions? This is the second time she has gotten him out of prison at great personal risk and harm. He was in prison because he valued his own honour above the very real reasons not to duel He broke his word to her. She has every right to resent him. She lost her child and nearly her life because of him.
How dare he question a single action she committed, or a single thought she had in this period??

And I don't think Claire is doing herself any favours by submitting to him in this issue. He is unquestioningly in the wrong. She has nothing to apologize for.

I can't support the author decisions that went into this section.


Phew.

Having gotten that out of the way, Raymond actually does have magical powers doesn't he?

And Charles the twerp just casually forges Jamie's signature. Because of course he did. Where the hell did he get the money?

I don't know what they are going to do, but if I was in Claire's place I would try to get Jamie to agree to take Ian and Jenny and the kids and run for the time travelling rocks.

Okay, let's see if I can parse this down a bit.

Spoiler

So here's the thing. Jamie (as Gabrielle said) is an alpha male, from a time period and a place where being an alpha male was how you survived. Time and time again he has put his neck on the line AND gone against his own alpha male instincts to appease Claire's more 20th century outlook.

Yes, this is the second time she's gotten him out of prison at great personal risk...but remember that in book 1 he got her away from Randall when he first captured her...and she KNEW going to see Randall in that instance was a mistake that Jamie dind't want her to do...and she went and did it anyway and got captured and almost raped till Jamie rolled in and rescued her...right? Then remember that when she came to rescue him at the end from prison...becuase he freely offered to take her place after Randall had captured her AGAIN. So there are two instances where Claire's CLEAR idiocy resulted in her putting Jamie at risk. I feel like DRAGONFLY is Jamie's book to screw up in, in the same way.

As someone who has gone through a miscarriage with my wife, she didn't lose the baby because of him and the duel and the stress of that...a miscarriage almost always just means that something wasn't right with the pregnancy to begin with (usually how it attached to the uterus, or how it's progressing ect.) and the body knows somehting is wrong and expells the baby. That it happened at the same time as the duel is merely coincidence (or by narrative design on Gabaldon's part), but I don't think you can hold Jamie acocuntable for that as a result.

Now, returning to Jamie's decision to duel even though he knows the consequences...he's literally let everything that he's fought in himself (even since they arrived in Paris; let aone back in Scotland) pile up...and the Fergus thing just basically makes him blow his stack, not thinking at all. And the blame for that CANNOT just fall on Jamie. Remember that Claire's antagonism of Randall and getting caught by him twice in book 1 are the very reason Jamie is suffering from PTSD from Randall's torture...that's not somehting to easily shift aside when seeing red. Here is the guy who tortured you served up on a silver platter for you to kill..and he's even given you more new reasons that he DESERVES to die.

With regards to Jamie's scolding of Claire when he finds out what she did to get him out...it's two-fold in that Jamie is WELL aware that he should not be overly mad at Claire for what she did she did for him...but as a male this literlaly wars inside him with the notion of what she did to get him out. If that makes sense. It's a duality of notion. It's not somehting Jamie will likely every forgive himself for, but it's also something that Claire had a hand in from the mahcinations of what led to it. Is it Jamie's fault for dueling even though he knew the consequences? Yes. Is it also Claire's fault for being party to what led to that going all the way back to being stupidly caught by Randall twice in book 1? Yes. Jamie is an 18th century guy who kept more than a few of his natural, innate era-based male traits at bay at her request...and they all came flooding out at the most inopporutune moment.

Now, think about this...knowing what Black Jack Randall DID to Jamie (and obviously others in his time on the planet) does Claire have ANY right to ask him to NOT kill the man or at least challenge him? I don't Claire's assumption that if Black Jack dies Frank won't exist is worth the ask to be honest.

Claire's apologies and infractions aren't actually much to do with the events France, but stem much farther back into book 1, where almost all of them roots from...thus I don't feel that Jamie is unquestioningly in the wrong...I feel that Claire is at least partially repsonsible for how these events all came to be. Remember also that she does a BUNCH of things that keep Jamie from Randall even BEFORE she asks him not to kill the guy...she's an old hand at keeping things from Jamie that she feels she knows how he'll react to them.

But most of all, the main thrust here is that Jamie's PTSD from Randall (which is mainly what cuases him to go over the egde into duel territory)...is completely and utterly Claire's fault. She's the reason Jamie was so vehemently hunted by the British, which is reason his bounty eas high enough that a Lallybroch worker betrayed him to the British, and how he ends up in Wentworth, and then gets captured because she stupidly decides to be a part of the resuce at Wentworth, gets captured, and then Jamie sacrifices his own self back to Randall to get her out....resulting in his maiming and torture.

In the end, book 1 is Claire's place to make horrible mistakes that Jamie forgives...and Book 2 is Jamie's turn to make them...and Claire forgives.

Gabaldon makes her characters fallible, and to me that's important to make them feel more real. I buy that they make these mistakes becuase these are the kind of (misguided though they may be) things that regular people do wrong every single day.

Hopefully that makes sense Ando. Hopefully this won't make you give up the series, as it's still awesome and the second hald of book 2 is fantastic.

Good reply QT. If I ever screw up, I want you in my corner, arguing for me.

Now for my replies:

Spoiler

Regarding miscarriage and its actual causes vs perceived causes, I as the omniscient 21st Century reader know this. But 1945 nurse-knowledge Claire and 18th Century Jamie? They don't. To both of them the duel did cause the miscarriage. So to both of them Jamie is culpable.

Regarding Jamie and the reasons he fought the duel, I agree that given the circumstances, he had every right to lose his temper and jump into it. And you will notice I discount Frank Randall from the story entirely. Claire's prohibition would hold very little water here.

What I did expect, was that Jamie's other male instincts would be important - the protect-your-woman-and-child instinct. Even if it was not strong enough to prevent the duel, it should have made him utterly remorseful in its aftermath. In fact I wonder whether Jamie ever truly understood the impact of the miscarriage and what it did to Claire?

Now regarding the past, there are several factors.

1. Firstly Jamie was already in severe trouble with Randall before Claire ever showed up.

2. There is no way Claire can be blamed for Randall's initial antagonism towards her. It was totally out of her control

3. Her first capture by Randall was an utter facepalm moment. I agree.

4. I do not see her attempted rescue of Jamie as foolhardy. She could hardly let him hang, if the roles were reversed there would be no doubt that Jamie would be doing his best. Claire gave it an extremely good shot with what limited resources she had

5. I disagree that she made things worse for Jamie. Randall was going to torture, rape and kill Jamie anyway.

6. She brought Jamie out of a very deep PTSD funk. Frankly it was a miracle and I think it offset a lot of her previous debt to Jamie. Its not tangible like saving a life, but in someways its more valuable. I don't think Jamie fully appreciates this either.

7. As for what she did to secure Jamie's release this time, once again she was stuck in a very difficult situation and she used her limited resources at great personal cost. I don't really see how anyone can fault her for it.

And then there is the final point, Jamie's male instincts can make him hate what Claire did, But that does not mean Claire has to agree and accept it.

I am not dropping the series yet though.

Spoiler

The miller would habe betrayed Jamie because of the issue with his son, no matter how much money was on his head. Claire didn't make anything worse there.

While I can understand that Claire wanted to go back to the stones, she should indeed have known better than to go back to a place where Randall is in command. Facepalm indeed. The second time is more easily to understand; who would not go to rescue a beloved person at personal risk.

Re. the miscarriage: I don't know if Jamie really understands what it means to her. They have been separated for some time right after the event, when would have been the time for grieving together. So she had to go through it alone and already made the first steps to cope. What Jamie does learn is that pregnancies are not to be taken lightly.

I'm also not sure Jamie grasps the full impact of his PTSD and what Claire did for him. The concept was unknown in his time. He only knows she somehow helped him to deal with it. And that the ghost is still only buried, not banned (maybe such ghosts can never be fully banned) becomes clear when he reacts so violently to Randall abusing Fergus.

And what if Claire had not adapted Jamie's position but continued to quarrel? The both love each other despite all problems, and they need each other. Keeping grudges would have made the situation worse. Sure, it could have been Jamie giving in, but that's not very realistic, imho.

What puts Outlander above generic Romance - aside from the larger scope of the story - is that it shows that a marriage needs work and that there's no happily ever after just because boy got girl.

[Andorion]

I Got Crabs, on 22 October 2016 - 10:01 PM, said:

Minor gripe about bk quality. 3 is so large and cramping my hands I'm having to handle it a bit dif and I discovered a spine crease right around the 800pg mark and I'm furious. I never crease my bks! If not for finger oil marks on my pb bks I could stick them right back on store shelf. Grr

One of the three reasons I primarily read ebooks. Fat books are very difficult to maintain while reading. In this respect I have found that old hardbacks - published in 60s or 70s have better binding.

[Andorion]

Gabriele, on 22 October 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

Andorion, on 22 October 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 22 October 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

Andorion, on 22 October 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

Outlander 2, chapters 24-35

I suspect this may not be a popular update.

Spoiler

The duel and its aftermath: I have a huge problem here. My reading of how Gabaldon ultimately settles the issue is that both Claire and Jamie were at fault in certain things and there were mitigating circumstances for both.

I disagree.

Given Fergus' story and his past history I fully understand that Jamie had immediate as well as deeply seated reasons to challenge Randall to a duel. However none of these issues or reasons change a single thing about the consequences of his actions - that he would either be in jail indefinitely or be executed. His pregnant wife who is not even from this damn century, would be left alone, dependent on whatever charity she could scrounge up from relatives and friends, and this was at a time when she was cut off from Scotland and Jenny+Ian. Not to mention that her pregancy was already in crisis with the bleeding. Not to mention that she had already pleaded with him not to exactly what he did. In fact I am discounting this last point. To Jamie Frank is an abstraction. But he still had very concrete reasons not to duel. And he did it anyway.

Now Jamie may have been seeing red, and had not processed all of this before the duel, but he definitely had time to think of this when he was in prison. When he thought Claire was dead, and he had killed his wife and child.

So when he gets out, solely through Claire's efforts, when she makes one of the greatest sacrifices a person can make, he has the gall to actually question her actions? This is the second time she has gotten him out of prison at great personal risk and harm. He was in prison because he valued his own honour above the very real reasons not to duel He broke his word to her. She has every right to resent him. She lost her child and nearly her life because of him.
How dare he question a single action she committed, or a single thought she had in this period??

And I don't think Claire is doing herself any favours by submitting to him in this issue. He is unquestioningly in the wrong. She has nothing to apologize for.

I can't support the author decisions that went into this section.


Phew.

Having gotten that out of the way, Raymond actually does have magical powers doesn't he?

And Charles the twerp just casually forges Jamie's signature. Because of course he did. Where the hell did he get the money?

I don't know what they are going to do, but if I was in Claire's place I would try to get Jamie to agree to take Ian and Jenny and the kids and run for the time travelling rocks.

Okay, let's see if I can parse this down a bit.

Spoiler

So here's the thing. Jamie (as Gabrielle said) is an alpha male, from a time period and a place where being an alpha male was how you survived. Time and time again he has put his neck on the line AND gone against his own alpha male instincts to appease Claire's more 20th century outlook.

Yes, this is the second time she's gotten him out of prison at great personal risk...but remember that in book 1 he got her away from Randall when he first captured her...and she KNEW going to see Randall in that instance was a mistake that Jamie dind't want her to do...and she went and did it anyway and got captured and almost raped till Jamie rolled in and rescued her...right? Then remember that when she came to rescue him at the end from prison...becuase he freely offered to take her place after Randall had captured her AGAIN. So there are two instances where Claire's CLEAR idiocy resulted in her putting Jamie at risk. I feel like DRAGONFLY is Jamie's book to screw up in, in the same way.

As someone who has gone through a miscarriage with my wife, she didn't lose the baby because of him and the duel and the stress of that...a miscarriage almost always just means that something wasn't right with the pregnancy to begin with (usually how it attached to the uterus, or how it's progressing ect.) and the body knows somehting is wrong and expells the baby. That it happened at the same time as the duel is merely coincidence (or by narrative design on Gabaldon's part), but I don't think you can hold Jamie acocuntable for that as a result.

Now, returning to Jamie's decision to duel even though he knows the consequences...he's literally let everything that he's fought in himself (even since they arrived in Paris; let aone back in Scotland) pile up...and the Fergus thing just basically makes him blow his stack, not thinking at all. And the blame for that CANNOT just fall on Jamie. Remember that Claire's antagonism of Randall and getting caught by him twice in book 1 are the very reason Jamie is suffering from PTSD from Randall's torture...that's not somehting to easily shift aside when seeing red. Here is the guy who tortured you served up on a silver platter for you to kill..and he's even given you more new reasons that he DESERVES to die.

With regards to Jamie's scolding of Claire when he finds out what she did to get him out...it's two-fold in that Jamie is WELL aware that he should not be overly mad at Claire for what she did she did for him...but as a male this literlaly wars inside him with the notion of what she did to get him out. If that makes sense. It's a duality of notion. It's not somehting Jamie will likely every forgive himself for, but it's also something that Claire had a hand in from the mahcinations of what led to it. Is it Jamie's fault for dueling even though he knew the consequences? Yes. Is it also Claire's fault for being party to what led to that going all the way back to being stupidly caught by Randall twice in book 1? Yes. Jamie is an 18th century guy who kept more than a few of his natural, innate era-based male traits at bay at her request...and they all came flooding out at the most inopporutune moment.

Now, think about this...knowing what Black Jack Randall DID to Jamie (and obviously others in his time on the planet) does Claire have ANY right to ask him to NOT kill the man or at least challenge him? I don't Claire's assumption that if Black Jack dies Frank won't exist is worth the ask to be honest.

Claire's apologies and infractions aren't actually much to do with the events France, but stem much farther back into book 1, where almost all of them roots from...thus I don't feel that Jamie is unquestioningly in the wrong...I feel that Claire is at least partially repsonsible for how these events all came to be. Remember also that she does a BUNCH of things that keep Jamie from Randall even BEFORE she asks him not to kill the guy...she's an old hand at keeping things from Jamie that she feels she knows how he'll react to them.

But most of all, the main thrust here is that Jamie's PTSD from Randall (which is mainly what cuases him to go over the egde into duel territory)...is completely and utterly Claire's fault. She's the reason Jamie was so vehemently hunted by the British, which is reason his bounty eas high enough that a Lallybroch worker betrayed him to the British, and how he ends up in Wentworth, and then gets captured because she stupidly decides to be a part of the resuce at Wentworth, gets captured, and then Jamie sacrifices his own self back to Randall to get her out....resulting in his maiming and torture.

In the end, book 1 is Claire's place to make horrible mistakes that Jamie forgives...and Book 2 is Jamie's turn to make them...and Claire forgives.

Gabaldon makes her characters fallible, and to me that's important to make them feel more real. I buy that they make these mistakes becuase these are the kind of (misguided though they may be) things that regular people do wrong every single day.

Hopefully that makes sense Ando. Hopefully this won't make you give up the series, as it's still awesome and the second hald of book 2 is fantastic.

Good reply QT. If I ever screw up, I want you in my corner, arguing for me.

Now for my replies:

Spoiler

Regarding miscarriage and its actual causes vs perceived causes, I as the omniscient 21st Century reader know this. But 1945 nurse-knowledge Claire and 18th Century Jamie? They don't. To both of them the duel did cause the miscarriage. So to both of them Jamie is culpable.

Regarding Jamie and the reasons he fought the duel, I agree that given the circumstances, he had every right to lose his temper and jump into it. And you will notice I discount Frank Randall from the story entirely. Claire's prohibition would hold very little water here.

What I did expect, was that Jamie's other male instincts would be important - the protect-your-woman-and-child instinct. Even if it was not strong enough to prevent the duel, it should have made him utterly remorseful in its aftermath. In fact I wonder whether Jamie ever truly understood the impact of the miscarriage and what it did to Claire?

Now regarding the past, there are several factors.

1. Firstly Jamie was already in severe trouble with Randall before Claire ever showed up.

2. There is no way Claire can be blamed for Randall's initial antagonism towards her. It was totally out of her control

3. Her first capture by Randall was an utter facepalm moment. I agree.

4. I do not see her attempted rescue of Jamie as foolhardy. She could hardly let him hang, if the roles were reversed there would be no doubt that Jamie would be doing his best. Claire gave it an extremely good shot with what limited resources she had

5. I disagree that she made things worse for Jamie. Randall was going to torture, rape and kill Jamie anyway.

6. She brought Jamie out of a very deep PTSD funk. Frankly it was a miracle and I think it offset a lot of her previous debt to Jamie. Its not tangible like saving a life, but in someways its more valuable. I don't think Jamie fully appreciates this either.

7. As for what she did to secure Jamie's release this time, once again she was stuck in a very difficult situation and she used her limited resources at great personal cost. I don't really see how anyone can fault her for it.

And then there is the final point, Jamie's male instincts can make him hate what Claire did, But that does not mean Claire has to agree and accept it.

I am not dropping the series yet though.

Spoiler

The miller would habe betrayed Jamie because of the issue with his son, no matter how much money was on his head. Claire didn't make anything worse there.

While I can understand that Claire wanted to go back to the stones, she should indeed have known better than to go back to a place where Randall is in command. Facepalm indeed. The second time is more easily to understand; who would not go to rescue a beloved person at personal risk.

Re. the miscarriage: I don't know if Jamie really understands what it means to her. They have been separated for some time right after the event, when would have been the time for grieving together. So she had to go through it alone and already made the first steps to cope. What Jamie does learn is that pregnancies are not to be taken lightly.

I'm also not sure Jamie grasps the full impact of his PTSD and what Claire did for him. The concept was unknown in his time. He only knows she somehow helped him to deal with it. And that the ghost is still only buried, not banned (maybe such ghosts can never be fully banned) becomes clear when he reacts so violently to Randall abusing Fergus.

And what if Claire had not adapted Jamie's position but continued to quarrel? The both love each other despite all problems, and they need each other. Keeping grudges would have made the situation worse. Sure, it could have been Jamie giving in, but that's not very realistic, imho.

What puts Outlander above generic Romance - aside from the larger scope of the story - is that it shows that a marriage needs work and that there's no happily ever after just because boy got girl.

Spoiler

Good point about the Miller's son. I had totally forgotten.



The ideal outcome would have been for Jamie to realize that he was in the wrong. I am not sure why this is unrealistic. He isn not stupid.

Yeah relationships need work. Which is why Claire should have had a good long talk with Jamie about how she felt about the entire matter

[Gabriele]

I Got Crabs, on 22 October 2016 - 10:01 PM, said:

Minor gripe about bk quality. 3 is so large and cramping my hands I'm having to handle it a bit dif and I discovered a spine crease right around the 800pg mark and I'm furious. I never crease my bks! If not for finger oil marks on my pb bks I could stick them right back on store shelf. Grr

I hate creasing spines. The Outlander paperbacks at least have decent cover; some publishers use a cheap cardboard that will crease now matter how careful you are. I replaced my set of Cullough's Master of Rome books a few years ago because of the spines; the new covers are better. The old Penguin Classics sucked, too - on a black spine the creases will stand out even more.

[Andorion]

Outlander 2 finished!


So lots of stuff happened

Spoiler

Charles the twerp came over with no money and only promises? No wonder it failed.

Claire really really needs to stop heading to battle. It never ends up well

So what was Sandringham? Apart from being a lot nastier than imagined?

Very nice twist with the Randalls. One of the better pieces of writing in the series.

So everything went to shit, and Claire made a run for it.

That Roger bit was out of nowhere but I think in the long term they did well with letting Duncan go, her absence might have affected Claire.

Is Claire planning a return to the 18th C?

Question: Has anyone here read upto Outlander 5? The books keep on getting longer after this apparently, and I want to know about the constistency of the quality.

[QuickTidal]

Andorion, on 23 October 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Outlander 2 finished!


So lots of stuff happened

Spoiler

Charles the twerp came over with no money and only promises? No wonder it failed.

Claire really really needs to stop heading to battle. It never ends up well

So what was Sandringham? Apart from being a lot nastier than imagined?

Very nice twist with the Randalls. One of the better pieces of writing in the series.

So everything went to shit, and Claire made a run for it.

That Roger bit was out of nowhere but I think in the long term they did well with letting Duncan go, her absence might have affected Claire.

Is Claire planning a return to the 18th C?

Question: Has anyone here read upto Outlander 5? The books keep on getting longer after this apparently, and I want to know about the constistency of the quality.

I'm sure Gabrielle has read past 5...I'm 3/4 through 4...no dip in writing quality at all...but without getting into spoilers...you need to understand that things are going to shift as Scotland becomes largely calm after the Rising is put down...so prepare for a narrative shift away from impending war and such...I'll not say more. Book 3 was fantastic and book 4 is shaping up for the same.

[Andorion]

Good to know about the quality... yeah it makes sense that things shift from Scotland for the time being.

I will pick up book 3 in a couple of days

[QuickTidal]

I Got Crabs, on 23 October 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

Ugh motherfucker! I'm pissed! Bk3 stuff

Spoiler

come all this way only to be told 855 pgs in Murt is dead at Culloden. I had hope he maybe still kicking offscreen to be used later. That pisses me off and it also makes zero sense now to have changed his arc in S2...

Spoiler

Yeah, that was really cruddy to find out after the fact...and I'm kind of hoping the show keeps him around longer or at least gives him a good death scene...cause I think it's the fact that it happens off the page which bothered me so much.

]

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 October 2016 - 11:06 PM

[Gabriele]

QuickTidal, on 23 October 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:

Andorion, on 23 October 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Outlander 2 finished!


So lots of stuff happened

Spoiler

Charles the twerp came over with no money and only promises? No wonder it failed.

Claire really really needs to stop heading to battle. It never ends up well

So what was Sandringham? Apart from being a lot nastier than imagined?

Very nice twist with the Randalls. One of the better pieces of writing in the series.

So everything went to shit, and Claire made a run for it.

That Roger bit was out of nowhere but I think in the long term they did well with letting Duncan go, her absence might have affected Claire.

Is Claire planning a return to the 18th C?

Question: Has anyone here read upto Outlander 5? The books keep on getting longer after this apparently, and I want to know about the constistency of the quality.

I'm sure Gabrielle has read past 5...I'm 3/4 through 4...no dip in writing quality at all...but without getting into spoilers...you need to understand that things are going to shift as Scotland becomes largely calm after the Rising is put down...so prepare for a narrative shift away from impending war and such...I'll not say more. Book 3 was fantastic and book 4 is shaping up for the same.

I've only read up to book 4 years ago. Book 3 is very good, but I got a feeling that there's more bloat in the following books, plus I didn't care that much about the non-Scotland settings, so I gave up part into book 5. Maybe I'll give it a second try.

Spoiler

Some French money materialised, but too late. And Bonnie Charlie put the tail between his legs and ran at the first setback. Sure, Culloden now is a big turning point in Scottish history, but back then it was not a particularly large battle. A number of highland troops had left for home already when Charles turned back at Derby, and were not present at Culloden. If Charles had stayed in Scotland (he was quite good in hiding for a few weeks), and then made use of the money, if the chiefs had worked together better, things could have been very different. Charles left the field for Cumberland and his retributions, and it is those and the following laws trying to suppress any trace of Gaelic culture, that make Culloden the turning point.

Well, Claire is still very much in love with Jamie, and when she finds out he survived Culloden .....