Outlander 2X1: Through a Glass, Darkly
Added 2024-05-02 00:23:33 +0000 UTCGuys, I really lost my shit in the beginning. I did not want to see her in 1948 with Frank. Under any circumstances. Especially after the morning I had. Lol.
How Claire managed to look Frank in the face and not lose her shit, since he looks, literally, exactly like the man who tried to rape her and did rape, torment, and torture her husband is beyond me.
But we finally get to France (I was so wrong on how I thought they were going to do it), and find that of course, they've already made enemies. They wouldn't be Jamie and Claire if they hadn't. And of course, Claire is still trying to help people, and Jamie is trying to protect Claire, so at the heart, nothing as really changed.
Although, if I'm doing the math correctly (and I really might not) it looks like she and Jamie only have 2 or 3 years together before the Battle of Culloden and we know they are going to lose, so what does that mean?!? Also, if I'm doing the math correctly, this is not Claire's first child. (But I don't math well, so both of these could be wrong.)
Oh, and that dude's title is Count!
Comments
She first arrived in 1743 (from 1945) Paris : 1744
Christine Mugnier
2025-04-14 11:25:07 +0000 UTCClaire always travels with a 202 years difference. Culloden is in 1746. 1744, they arrive in Paris.
Christine Mugnier
2025-04-14 11:24:16 +0000 UTCYour reaction to Claire with Frank in 1948 was hilarious. I'm sorry I enjoyed your pain. ๐ Claire loves Jamie. She belongs with Jamie. She wants to be with Jamie. I don't care about Frank, so if he's hurt by that, oh well.
Allison P
2024-05-06 02:59:10 +0000 UTCHopefully, I didn't confuse you even more. You will definitely understand the timeline as we go along. You understood what was happening in today's epi (2x2). You didn't even have questions. Knowing the dates really just helps you figure out what happens down the road, but you do not need to know them since you will find out eventually as we near the dates. I wouldn't stress about the dates or the history. You'll understand it just fine. Season 2 is probably the most history driven, followed by 6 and 7, but those aren't for awhile yet, so you will get a break after this season. โบ๏ธ
Heather
2024-05-04 02:38:57 +0000 UTCYour math as far as the baby is correct. She's about 5 months pregnant now at the end of 1744. Culloden (1746) is over a year away. In the flash forward in epi 1, it was 1746/1948, so doing the math....
Heather
2024-05-04 02:07:43 +0000 UTCYou can kind of figure it out since they gave you the dates. I just didn't want to specifically tell you. I only clarified because you had the date wrong of Culloden (you were saying 1747), so I was basically just trying to say that the battle was a lot closer than you thought. It's the end of 1744 right now, so that battle is really less than a year and a half away (April 1746), not 3 yrs. As far as simplifying the dates, just remember as of right now we're a little over a year until Culloden. The event Jamie and Claire are trying to stop.
Heather
2024-05-04 02:02:29 +0000 UTCUgh. I've typed both 'no' and 'yes please' and then erased them repeatedly. I don't know! So I've decided...no? But I've very unsure about it! Because I don't understand number (see my shitty education) I don't know if I screwed it up. Boo. But I think I'm gonna go with no. Blech. Time will tell, I guess.
Dana Licciardello
2024-05-04 01:54:11 +0000 UTCYou want me to tell you if it's her 2nd pregnancy?
Heather
2024-05-04 01:47:26 +0000 UTCBut that means it's probably still Claire's second pregnancy, right? That's a lot of numbers. And I suck at them. I'm good with words and names when they are written down. Numbers, not so much. Which means, you'll probably have to tell me this again. I'm sorry! While I usually say (Don't tell me!) could you tell me? I'm really bad at this stuff. I've learned I've super interested in the political stuff, but really I'm in it for the Jamie and Claire stuff, so I might need some reinforcements. ๐ณ
Dana Licciardello
2024-05-04 01:44:32 +0000 UTCYes! Feel bad for me! I was losing my damn mind thinking Claire was stuck in a life that consisted of a man who looked exactly like her tormentor. And her husband's rapist and torturer! But seriously. I have no idea how she'll make this work. I mean as long as she stays in the 1700s it'll be fine. No offense to people to who feel badly for Frank. I do understand it. But I'm totally Team Jamie/Claire. #Sorrynotsorry (Do we still do that hashtag?)
Dana Licciardello
2024-05-04 01:39:14 +0000 UTCClaire does not receive the same pity afforded to the men. We have just witnessed everything that Claire has been through with Jamie at the end of season 1, (and who knows what fresh Hell she just came from) but Frank who we barely know, garners more sympathy. It's odd, but definitely not surprising. Like you said, women will always be judged more harshly than men.
Sabrina
2024-05-03 03:05:32 +0000 UTCI wouldn't say they had a good marriage. She was only 18 when they married and left for war soon after. They only saw each other a handful of times in the 10 yrs she was away. They were practically strangers. That was the reason for the 2nd honeymoon. They were trying to reconnect. Frank yelling in Claire's face, Frank issuing Claire conditions, Frank burning Claire's clothing out of spite, is not just taking his anger out on pots in a shed. Yes, we all love Jamie, but I love Claire as well. Women always receive harsher criticism and judgement from both men and women for not being perfect and for being flawed. They do not receive the same grace, sympathy, and understanding that men do. ("His wife was abruptly taken away from him." Is that not just what happened to Claire?) Claire is not actively and intentionally hurting Frank. Claire is grieving. Anger is a stage of grief. She's allowed to be angry too.
Heather
2024-05-02 18:37:33 +0000 UTCI know we all love Jamie, but, oof, I feel awful for Frank. His way was abruptly taken away from him (they had a good marriage)... She comes back 2 years later, having been/fallen in love/all the above with another guy. Jamie got everything Frank wanted. And now Claire is actively and intentionally trying to hurt Frank for what? Anger towards being taken from Jamie? Anger at Black Jack for all that he's done? No matter what, it's self-destructive... Frank cannot control what Black Jack has done 200 years ago... Frank took the reveal better than I'm many, many people would. But, hearing that his wife got preggers by another dude, jinkies...At least he took his anger out on pots in a shed
hannemanart
2024-05-02 15:03:57 +0000 UTCOh and I felt bad for Dana too when she was watching that. ๐
Sabrina
2024-05-02 04:01:12 +0000 UTCI felt bad for Claire. She's sent back to a life she doesn't want. Claire made her choice and was fine with never seeing Frank again. Me too, tbh. Maybe that's heartless. I mean, I do get it's a very complex situation and Frank was completely innocent in everything surrounding her disappearance, so I do understand feeling sorry for him, but for me it was more than Jamie being a good man or Frank being a good man. Like Claire said, they are meant to be together. The reason for everything that happened was so they can be together.
Sabrina
2024-05-02 03:56:16 +0000 UTCI feel so bad for Frank. We all know and love Jamie, but he is such a good man and can't understand what has happened and I feel so bad for him.
sandrinegeller
2024-05-02 03:27:45 +0000 UTCJust to clarify the timeline a little... The Battle of Culloden takes place in Scotland, April 1746. My guess is it's closer to the end of 1744 in France right now, so that means the battle is about a year and a half away. Also, the future/parallel timeline is 202 years in the future to be precise. So when it was 1948, it was 1746 in the past/parallel timeline that she came from and now that we are back in 1744 it's only 1946 currently in the future/parallel timeline.
Heather
2024-05-02 00:46:06 +0000 UTC
