I had a sense of deja vu when I finally watched t, and remembered it was similar.

That's probably because she has faith in Jamie to win the duel.

Yeah, I just watched. It definitely could still happen.

I think this was a difference from the books. I can't recall Claire trying to warn Alex off from marrying Mary. In fact, the marriage would be a hardship because he's poor, but it would prevent her from being a spinster for the rest of her life or her uncle from trying to sell her off to someone else in marriage, if…

I absolutely hated that part of the book. It just made me so annoyed with the writer's choices. It was bad enough what happened in the first book, but this particular scene was so unnecessary.

I have to cop to reading the review before seeing the episode. Since I already know the major plot points, it isn't much of a spoiler for me to do so.

I agree. It might be nice for newbies and experts reviews so book readers can discuss certain plot points without spoiling it for others.

So do I. It isn't Sam's fault. From an acting standpoint, he's probably happy with his role. I just think the showrunners wanted to show why Claire was so anxious to get back to Frank instead of showing why she was so anxious to stay with Jamie.

Maybe because the cast is too expensive these days, and ratings are down?

The second tract is wholly ineffective, and the Middle East is on fire. Europe is being overrun by these stone age people, who now have access to the United States. Our borders are completely unprotected. In what fantasy land is Obama's doctrine better than Bush? I was completely against Bush's wars and hated the…

Which is true. If Obama/Biden had even half-heartedly attempted to renegotiate a new status of forces agreement when the first one expired in 2011, we would still be there. I know that hurts peoples' heads to think about, but we're there again after hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives and Europe is…

The books never say he is an equal opportunity sadist. That was Gabaldon's clarification during an interview last year.

Yeah, I didn't believe her then and I don't now. She said that to not offend gay people now that her book is turned into a show when people get fired for being "offensive " when none is intended.

I think the book was more realistic. They jumped on him and knocked him out before he ever knew what hit him.

I know. The men of the period were prettier than the women. I suppose a wig and powder were better when you bathed only once a month.

No, her married name is Frazer. James is Jamie's first name, which I believe is very common.

But the two rapes they depicted are very important to the plot.

I'm pretty sure it was not in this book.

Was that what it was? I thought it was a birthmark.

I find it fascinating to see this show from a perspective of not knowing what will happen or why things are happening. I do feel that there should be a newbies and experts review so people who haven't read the books won't see spoilers.