Same. She didn't even say dick! That was used in the 40s, I think.

I think Diana Gabaldon likes to be seen and heard, and she attends press events to get both. She loves to talk, or donut seems to me. Plus she likes hanging out with Sam and them. Who could blame her? :)

Welp, you've pretty much covered all the issues I have with the show. I don't think the showrunner truly understands what story he's telling, as evidenced by his own words in his own podcasts.

:)

I'll bite because curious - what is it you don't like? I'll admit I have had problems with some of the decisions made in the adaptation, but generally I think it's well done and will continue to watch. I certainly don't think it sucks so I am genuinely curious what makes it so for you.

We don't know how they will ha for roger yet. We'll probably have to wait 11 episodes to see. SPOLIER roger was the first 20th c person to believe her story and yet in the show Frank believes it. That is another thing that will change Rogers role.

My comment is based on the book. Should have noted it as such. Based on some of RDM's comments in his podcast of the season 2 opener, we will see the faultlines in this arrangement. I'll leave it at that. And this wasn't the pilot.

Did I say he should do that? He claimed that he was going to be married to his work. His claims don't match his actions. That was my point and that's what I said.

And it doesn't make "perfect sense" from any perspective, even a psychological one. Burning clothes doesn't eliminate the need to get to the root of those emotions. It's more like something that makes TV-psychology sense but not real life sense.

I wouldn't say it's entirely clear. If it were there probably still wouldn't be questions about it.

I'm judging based on last season and I do feel Jamie is underdeveloped. This episode appears to be an extension of that. Which is probably why the original poster find Jamie hard to take seriously. That is faulty characterizatio. I, too, will reserve full judgment until I can see the context of the other episodes. But…

Oh ok. I missed that on the mobile device for some reason.

Yes! This is such a critical element of their dynamic. He was 8 years older (I think, can't remember the exact gap) and already a professor when they married. He had certain expectations about her role as a wife and Clare, at the tender age of 19, likely didn't know what she wanted out of life. She certainly had a…

Agreed. The breakdown was mostly on Claire because she just wasn't fully present. Frank tried to do all he could to get her attention and get a loving response from her. If she had been fully in the moment then they probably could have been happy.

I think you're spot on with this analysis. In many ways Frank views Claire as the 19-year old he met before the war. In some ways he views her as child and this story she's telling is a fantastical tale that children tell that he doesn't truly believe but will give a condescending nod to. And her response is that of a…

But she did hang onto a ghost. Whether or not they discuss Jamie his presence is everywhere. Not talking about it and wishing it away doesn't actually make it go away.

SPOILERS (I guess)

But their relationship is based on more than just sex. That's kind of the point - from what we've seen of the television show it's all about the sex. Sex is not a substitute for character and relationship development.

Yes, of course he loved Claire. Im not disputing that. ( I will add the caveat that he loved the 19-year old Claire he fell In love with before the war. The one who probably looked up to him as though he were the sun and the moon. After the war and her experiences in the 18th century, she is no longer that person and…

Ah Yes, what I call the 'Three's Company' school of literary training. Instead of logical conversations the entire plot centers on a silly misunderstanding that could have been cleared up with a few words. This is a real weak point in DG's writing. That and throwing her own characterization under the bus for a cheap…