Lassies of Lallybroch in the Caribbean - The Outlander Discussion Thread - Spoilers Ahoy

[MoNigheanDonn]

New thread lassies for all things Jamie and Claire (and all things in between).

Only two episodes left! Hope everyone enjoyed episode 11.

DG definitely pretends they are ten years younger too. All those pregnancy scares in Claire's mid fifties

20yrs pass in the first third of book 3, the next 5 books cover the interminable American Revolution (of which I'm sure there are more interesting fictionalised accounts

Yes, that is terrible, terrible plotting. I would love to be DG's editor. If I was, The teeth clenchingly sleep inducing Gathering would have been limited to two pages.

If I was, The teeth clenchingly sleep inducing Gathering would have been limited to two pages.

What!! Take away all those fascinating descriptions of clouts? You are out of your mind.

All the lead up to Culloden in Book 1 & 2 is very exciting. We know about the Jacobite sympathies, the mistreatment of the Scots under the redcoats, DG builds up a good atmosphere of the times and elicits our sympathies. There is the sense that everything is leading up to it. I appreciate the American Revolution is more than one battle, but there isn't the same sense of events leading up to this momentous historic event, despite Jamie and Claire being involved with George Washington, in Book whatever. It could be so much more exciting and interesting.

What!! Take away all those fascinating descriptions of clouts? You are out of your mind

Same goes for all those descriptions of Brianna breastfeeding. I'd have my big red marker pen out and would take great pleasure in giving them a massive strike through. Also Claire breastfeeding Frank would never have made it to the publisher either

The woman has a fetish, I'm telling ya.

It wasn't ever planned as a series though, it was a one-off 'practice' novel. DG admits that she still doesn't plan what happens. So she's walked straight into the dead end of Culloden. And even in a time travelling novel there's no point continuing the greatest love story ever told, because Jamie should by all rights be dead and the Highlands were starved and kept down.

You can see that by Book 3 DG's literally got a timeline of history and picked the next interesting world event after Culloden.

DG definitely pretends they are ten years younger too. All those pregnancy scares in Claire's mid fifties

That is the perfect example of the point I was trying to make upthread. Why have your characters be in their 50's if you aren't going to treat them as such?

When are the pregnancy scares? She's worried after the rape, but I took that to be trauma. Can't remember another one?

The one I remember is not a scare as such but in TFC, she says something to Jamie about not knowing if he would want more kids when she came back through the stones and she discusses it as though it was a possibility.

She would've been at least 50 by this point, fgs.

Seneca, I know it was the British, really, and that many Scots were loyalists. I do find it a bit hard to understand, though, after everything that happened in the risings and long before that. In Jamie's case, I think he definitely sees it as rebellion against the English, one Claire has told him will be won. Many highlanders were loyalists, I think, in part because they were oath bound to the Crown and didn't want to rock the boat. As I say, though, I don't know very much about it.

Oh aye, in Snow and Ashes, she's about 58 and both she and Jamie are concerned about pregnancy. It's so unlikely even when she first goes back. You would think she was 38 not 58.

Love your version aka must share with some of my friends who aren't on mn too!

I always forget what ages they are supposed to be. You're right, the pregnancy stuff is just daft then.

Google says Claire is 50 this season. Hahahahaha. Jamie is 45/46. The actors are 38 and 37.

I think there's another pregnancy bit before the Alicia Beardsley episode when Claire has missed a period and is wondering, and then puts it down to the menopause.

Of think one of the reasons that they didn't cast an Amazonian woman as Bree is that Caitriona already struggles to look old enough to have a daughter in her twenties. For the daughter to also be half a foot taller than her would make that even more obvious. She can "mother" SS just be being a bit taller.

I, not of. Stupid fat fingers.

You lot are brilliant. I'm loving reading all your theories. Going back with Bree as a 10yo would have been perfect.

I had a spare day today, so I watched s3 ep 6-10 (when I ran out of time) in a binge. They are much much better rolled together. It was like a super treat. I won't get a day to myself now until the new year.

You'd think a surgeon would know that a pregnancy in your late fifties is a bit (!) unlikely. Is DG so fearsome that nobody can point out really bloody stupid bits?

Is DG so fearsome that nobody can point out really bloody stupid bits?

Claire tries to invent antibiotics, is raped by one of the Louis', wrestles a wolf and cures Jamie's PTSD by shagging him in a magic sex pool.

I think the answer to your question must be a big fat YES (either that or she has a photo of one of her publishers doing something naughty at the Christmas party).

You forgot

• Claire raises and communes with the Loch Ness Monster
• Claire invents anathaesia
• Jamie, the 18th c Highlander, speaks Chinese

Those are my personal favourites.

That hospital in Boston must have collapsed without Claire anyway. There's not a medical specialism she can't turn a hand to!

Claire raises and communes with the Loch Ness Monster

Utterly, utterly bonkers

Going back with Bree as a 10yo would have been perfect.

Taking a female child from the mid-20th century to the 18th is highly problematical from a women's rights standpoint, and I think would have been difficult to do in a sympathetic way.

Less also many Scots fought with the crown at Culloden too especially the lowland Scots.
It was as much a Catholic vs Protestant fight as it was about nationhood.
It’s not surprising that so many Scots were loyalists what with that and the oath that you mentioned too.

They could have sent Claire back with Bree at 10yo in a sympathetic way if the prophesy about killing the 200 year old baby had come out in book 2 . If Claire was taking her away from danger in in her own time from crazy Scots nationalists it would make sense.

Anyway I always find the books work better if you don’t think too hard about them

I really really want a magic sex pool...

Marsali Jamie can speak any and all languages, don't you know?

Courtney pmsl at DG having incriminating photos of her publishers .

I think, considering all the completely bonkers slightly farfetched plotting, I'm sure there is a way Claire could have taken Brianna through the stones earlier. After all, Roger and Brianna take a baby and a small child through later. Lots of the "lore" DG creates around the stones happens from Book 3 onwards, I'm sure it could have been adjusted as a dramatic device.

However, the bonkers plotting does mean you never know what's going to happen next. I'm loving the list of mad things in the books. The Loch Ness monster is ace.

Taking a female child from the mid-20th century to the 18th is highly problematical from a women's rights standpoint, and I think would have been difficult to do in a sympathetic way.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, tbh. Can you elaborate?