contemplatingenjoyingoutlander

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

MIK s2e2: MĀORI CULTURE: Sam recalls some poignant moments when he gets a Māori "moko"

After reading a post about a TV Line recap of MIK episode 202, I decided to watch this episode about Māori culture for myself. I was touched by the scenes where Sam and Graham each tell their stories in the process of getting a nonpermanent version of a "moko" (or tā moko), a deeply meaningful form of tattoo in the Māori culture.

Tā moko artist Hohua Mohi explains that someone who wants a moko will "sit down for a good hour" and start talking about some part of their life that is meaningful, like their family, where they came from, etc. As they are talking, the moko artist is drawing, and consequently, every moko is unique and very personal.

The Story Behind Sam's Moko

SAM: Well my dad left, when I was, uh, very young, three years old, so I didn't--I didn't know him at all. HOHUA: Yeah. SAM: I actually didn't know his name.

SAM: And uh, my mum brought me up with my elder brother in the south of Scotland. She's--she's been very, very strong my whole life. And she struggled, I think, to look after two young boys.

SAM: Um, and it probably wasn't until I was… mid-20s that I finally, uh, met my dad. And, actually, very recently, I got to see him just before he died, which was uh, incredible, just to learn about him and his life.

SAM: And, uh, we spent a few days together. I work a lot, and I'm very fortunate. But I always put it first. So I guess, uh, relationships are difficult.

Sam's Moko Explained and Revealed

HOHUA: So, if you look at it, it talks about your--your father. It talks about your dad and then your brother in here. This manaia here represents your mum. And so it's obviously facing upwards. SAM: Yeah. HOHUA: I've been giving you advice. SAM: Ah, so she's been giving me advice, mm.

HOHUA: And if you look at it, rather than just follow a single line, all of these colors, they branch off, they branch off, they branch off. SAM: Yeah, yeah. HOHUA: And it was-- They came from you talking about how you wanted-- ultimately, you know, you don't know whether or not you're gonna settle down there, but you- you want to go and see the world. SAM: Somewhere else, yeah, yeah. HOHUA: So that's what--that's what this will remind you of. You know? SAM: Different branches.

HOHUA: Yeah, but also, no matter which way you branch off, never forget where... [speaking native language] SAM: Wow. HOHUA: Hmm. SAM: My friend. [shakes hand] So beautiful. GRAHAM: That is really-- SAM: Thank you so much. GRAHAM: It's pretty. SAM: Isn't that awesome?

SAM: A strange experience as well. GRAHAM: A unique experience. SAM: Yeah, just also very personal. It felt like going to therapy a little bit. GRAHAM: Yeah. SAM: But, uh, very, very honored. GRAHAM: Yeah. Yeah. Really, thank you so much.

Being a therapist myself, it seemed to me that the process of getting a moko is very much a therapeutic experience. The person getting a moko focuses inwardly and shares important parts of their past that define who they are. The moko artist appears not to be judgmental and listens at a deep level. Then the artist presents the moko, which is a visual symbol of something very unique about the person. And they also give verbal feedback to the person about what they have understood to be the essence of their story.

Sounds like a "therapeutic" encounter to me!

[edited]

___________ NOTE: Images of Sam's moko were enhanced for clarity and to accentuate the colors. Thanks @thetruthwilloutsworld for making the TV Line Recap post. I'd never watched any episode of MIK before. I'm glad I watched this episode. I enjoyed learning about Māori culture as well as finding out more about Sam's and Graham's personal backgrounds.

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

I can't wait for this either. It is one of the weirdest plots in the book series, but given that Lord John was in love with Jamie, raised Jamie's son, and was engaged to Bree for a while, it was perhaps inevitable that Lord John would have a "relationship" with Claire!

I made this chart a long time ago for a different post. But it illustrates the weird connections that Lord John has to the Frasers and the Dunsanys.

If there is a soap opera element to Outlander, Lord John is at the heart of it! [pun intended]

Claire and Lord John getting married is probably getting closer to see. Not a big fan of this plot but the drama it's going to be insane.

Call me crazy but I can't wait for this!

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

Thanks to the addition to this post @brian-in-finance! Yes, I had thought of Bach, his Goldberg variations are wonderful, but I ended up with the Chopin because it literally had "Variations on a theme" as part of its title. (Not a very profound reason. 😁🤷🏻‍♀️)

But Mother Hildegarde is one of my all time favorite Outlander characters and I forgot she played Bach--and corresponded with him. Fortunately, I don't have to go back in time and add her to the post, because you created that "variation" for me. 😉 Thanks🙏🏻again.

gif source (before edits)

OUTLANDER: ON CHANGING THE PAST, PART 2: Predestination or variations on a time loop?

In episode 704, Roger wrestles with the Presbyterian notion of predestination, after realizing that he and Bree had indirectly prevented Jamie and Claire's death by fire.

Roger explains to Bree that because they apparently changed Jamie and Claire's fate, he has begun to doubt that God is in "control" of what happens to humans. This in turn makes him wonder if he can become a Presbyterian minister.

I know that one popular belief in this fandom about the Outlander universe is that time is a "loop" that Claire and Jamie repeat over and over again. But then how does one account for the small changes to the past that occur in that loop?

Variations on a theme?

Perhaps in the Outlander universe, God is like a musician or artist, Who is unsatisfied with how some of His creations turned out, and so He allows certain people to go back in time to make corrections.

In that case, time in the Outlander universe could be a creative "loop" with "variations on a theme," in which God inspires certain humans to make different changes to the past in an attempt to create better outcomes.

Who knows? But I certainly empathize with Roger's wish that he understood better what was happening in the universe his character inhabits.

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

@brian-in-finance I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets confused between the books and show at times--and I'm glad you also use DG's time line. It does come in handy!

OUTLANDER: ON CHANGING THE PAST, PART 1: Adso steals a wig and "the Devil is in the details"

I confess, time travel dilemmas have always confused me. And in he case of Outlander, such dilemmas became even more confusing when the show differed slightly from the book series. Especially regarding the details of Jamie and Claire's obituary/ death notice, and the time line for the Big House fire, Mandy's birth, and the return of Roger, Bree and the kids to the 20th century.

In the show at least, the question about whether Roger and Bree changed Jamie and Claire's fate in the past was quickly settled in the affirmative. In episode 703, Roger explains to Bree that the match sticks she created in the past, "caused a fire" in December that her parents survived. So there was nothing left of the Big House to burn down and kill them the following January.

However, things were not so simple in the book series.

WARNING: Outlander book series spoilers ahead.

1776 VERSUS 1775: Divergence in the book series' and show's time lines

I realized part of my confusion with this plot was that the show and the book series had two slightly different time lines.

THE BOOK SERIES TIME LINE. In the official Outlander book series time line, Mandy was born in April 1776, and Roger, Bree & the kids returned to the 20th century on November 1, 1776. Furthermore, in An Echo in the Bone (ECHO), Jamie's letter to Bree announcing that he and Claire survived the fire was dated December 31, 1776. Consequently, there was no doubt in the book series (at least initially) that all these events happened in 1776.

THE SHOW'S TIME LINE. In episode 703, Jamie's same letter to Bree is dated April 1776. So in the show--unlike in the book series-- the Big House fire must have happened the previous December 1775.

Consequently, in the show, Mandy must have been born in 1775 and Bree, Roger & the kids must have returned to the 20th century in 1775.

The Show's "Obituary" vs. the Book Serie's "Death Notice"

THE "OBITUARY." In the show, a full obituary was written for the Frasers. But in the copy of it that Roger and Bree found in the future, the last digit of the year in which the obituary was published was blurred. The date of the obituary was therefore 21 January, 177X, and the obituary said that they died "On Sabbath evening last." Without the exact year, Roger & Bree couldn't extrapolate the exact date on which "Sabbath evening last" fell. As we shall see, in some ways, this made the plot simpler.

THE "DEATH NOTICE." In the book series, a simple death notice was written for the Frasers, rather than a full obituary. In Drums of Autumn (DOA), Diana Gabaldon tells us that the death notice was published in the Feb. 13, 1776 issue of a NC colonial newspaper, and the date of the fire was "January 21 last":

As we shall see under the cut of this post, it turns out that knowing the year when the Frasers' deaths reportedly occurred makes a lot of difference--at least in the book series.

ABOSAA: Adso and the January 21st Fire

Given the exact date of their deaths in the death notice in DOA, by the time of A Breath of Snow and Ashes (ABOSAA), the family assumed that Jamie and Claire would die in a fire in the Big House on January 21,1776.

Consequently on Jan. 21st they all gathered in Brianna and Roger's cabin (with Bree & Roger, who were still living on Fraser's Ridge, according to the book series' time line), to avoid being in the Big House that evening.

Then a mishap with Rollo caused the visiting Major MacDonald to fall in the snow. Claire put his wet wig in the pantry behind the phosphorous to keep Adso from getting it, to no avail, as she discovered when she later went to get the Major's wig for him:

“Oh, your wig! Just a moment, Major—I’ll fetch it.” I rushed out and round to the pantry—just in time to hear a crash as something fell inside. I jerked open the door, left ajar from my last visit, and Adso streaked past me, the Major’s wig in his mouth. Inside, the lean-to was in brilliant blue flames. --Diana Gabaldon (2005, p. 907)

Further damage of the pantry and the cabin by fire was prevented by Major MacDonald sacrificing his wet coat.

That's how Jamie and Claire "survived" January 21st in ABOSAA. Although DG never explicitly states it (at least that I recall), I always assumed that at least initially everyone thought the newspaper got it wrong about which house caught fire. And perhaps, they also assumed that because they had been forewarned about the fire, Adso's little escapade didn't end with the cabin burning down.

Regardless, Jamie and Claire must have thought they were finally safe from a fiery death--until Dec. 21, 1776, when the Big House caught fire.

[See more below the cut about why the death notice in the book series reported that the fire happened in January and not December, and why knowing the year the death notice was printed in the book series helped Bree and Roger realize they did in fact change the past after all.]

The Devil is in the Details

In ABOSAA Epilogue II: The Devil is in the Details, we learn that the original death notice that had been submitted to the newspaper reported that the fire had happened in December, but Sampson, the "new printer's devil" (i.e., apprentice) didn't have slugs in the right font for December and so he changed the date to January.

“What’s this, then?” Amos Crupp squinted at the page laid out in the bed of the press, reading it backward with the ease of long experience. “It is with grief that the news is received of the deaths by fire …  Where’d that come from?” “Note from a subscriber,” said Sampson, his new printer’s devil, shrugging as he inked the plate. “Good for a bit of filler, there, I thought. [...] “Hmph. I s’pose. Very old news, though,” Crupp said, glancing at the date. “January?” “Well, no,” the devil admitted....“ ’Twas December, by the notice. But I’d set the page in Baskerville twelve-point, and the slugs for November and December are missing in that font. Not room to do it in separate letters, and not worth the labor to reset the whole page.” --Diana Gabaldon (2005, p. 980)

At first glance, it appears that DG had implied in ABOSAA that Roger and Bree didn't change history--that the newspaper had just printed the wrong month because of missing slugs in the proper font.

So the mystery about the wrong month in the death notice was solved--or was it?

Maybe More Was Afoot Than the "Printer's Devil's" Mistake

One might think that the books and show diverge here. In the show, the explanation for the erroneous month in the obituary is rather straight forward. It's because Roger and Bree had changed history. But in ABOSAA, we have a logical explanation for the incorrect month in the death notice--or do we?

Because in ECHO, Roger and Bree discover upon their return to the 20th century that one thing has changed in the death notice--the date. Although, they don't say which part of the date (the month or the year or both), at the very least, the YEAR had to have changed.

in ABOSAA, the Big House burned on Dec. 21, 1776. Therefore, news of the fire couldn't have appeared in the Feb. 13, 1776 newspaper like it originally did--because that would have meant the death notice was published slightly more than 10 months BEFORE the fire. Consequently, in ECHO, after they returned to the 20th century, Roger and Bree must have noticed that the YEAR that the newspaper printed the death notice had changed to 1777.

Confused? All I have to say is: Where is "Back to the Future's" Doc Brown when you need him? 🤷🏻‍♀️

In ECHO, Claire realizes that something is amiss with time when she talks to Tom Christie in Wilmington in April 1977. Tom told Claire that he had heard about the fire in "late January" from "a man named McCreary" who "had just come down from the mountain." Tom then asked Claire:

"Was there a fire?" “Well, yes, there was,” I said slowly, wondering whether—and how much—to tell him of the truth of that. Very little, in a public place, I decided. “Maybe it was Mr. McCreary, then, who placed the notice of the fire in the newspaper—but he can’t have.” The original notice had appeared in 1776, Roger had said—nearly a year before the fire. [emphasis added] “I placed it,” Christie said. Now it was my turn to blink. “You what? When?” I took a good-sized mouthful of whisky, feeling that I needed it more than ever. “Directly I heard of it. Or—well, no,” he corrected. “A few days thereafter. I … was very much distressed at the news,” he added, lowering his eyes and looking away from me for the first time since we’d sat down. --Diana Gabaldon (2009, p. 189)

So Claire knows something is wrong with the time line. The Big House burned down on Dec. 21, 1776 but the original notice about the house burning was printed on Feb. 13, 1776--months BEFORE it happened.

Bree and Roger must somehow have changed Claire's and Jamie's fates after all--in BOTH the book series and in the show.

This is likely why the show runners chose to simplify the plot by obscuring the the last digit of the year of the obituary's publication. By making the year vague, the audience does not have to work through all these steps that book readers have had to do over the years to reconcile the date of the death notice being about 10 months before the Big House burned down.

Still, that isn't the end of the questions about changing the past in the Outlander universe. Roger raises more religious questions in both the book series and the show. Part 2 of this two-part essay series will explore those questions.

________________ IMAGE SOURCES: 1) All Outlander gifs are mine--they were made from Starz Outlander episode 703, as was the screencap of Jamie's April 1776 letter. 2) Winona Ryder confused gif source (before edits). 3)* Jamie's December 31, 1776 letter was a direct quote from ECHO, reformatted to replicate a handwritten letter. 4) the obituary screenshot source (before edits); "Sabbath evening last" inset source (before edits); "21 January, 177X" inset composite sources: 01 + 02 (before edits). 5)* The Feb. 13, 1776 death notice was a direct quote from DOA reformatted to replicate a colonial newspaper death notice. 6) The Adso manipulated image was made from these sources (before edits): 01 + 02 + 03. 7) The illustration of an 18th century printing shop source. 8) The Back to the Future Doc Brown video source for gif (before edits). 9) The Claire and Tom Christie screenshot source (before edits).

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

Adorable 😊 Swiftest of Lizards. Wee lan James Ill

@nikosis_sakihaw

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

OUTLANDER: ON CHANGING THE PAST, PART 2: Predestination or variations on a time loop?

In episode 704, Roger wrestles with the Presbyterian notion of predestination, after realizing that he and Bree had indirectly prevented Jamie and Claire's death by fire.

Roger explains to Bree that because they apparently changed Jamie and Claire's fate, he has begun to doubt that God is in "control" of what happens to humans. This in turn makes him wonder if he can become a Presbyterian minister.

I know that one popular belief in this fandom about the Outlander universe is that time is a "loop" that Claire and Jamie repeat over and over again. But then how does one account for the small changes to the past that occur in that loop?

Variations on a theme?

Perhaps in the Outlander universe, God is like a musician or artist, Who is unsatisfied with how some of His creations turned out, and so He allows certain people to go back in time to make corrections.

In that case, time in the Outlander universe could be a creative "loop" with "variations on a theme," in which God inspires certain humans to make different changes to the past in an attempt to create better outcomes.

Who knows? But I certainly empathize with Roger's wish that he understood better what was happening in the universe his character inhabits.

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

OUTLANDER: ON CHANGING THE PAST, PART 1: Adso steals a wig and "the Devil is in the details"

I confess, time travel dilemmas have always confused me. And in he case of Outlander, such dilemmas became even more confusing when the show differed slightly from the book series. Especially regarding the details of Jamie and Claire's obituary/ death notice, and the time line for the Big House fire, Mandy's birth, and the return of Roger, Bree and the kids to the 20th century.

In the show at least, the question about whether Roger and Bree changed Jamie and Claire's fate in the past was quickly settled in the affirmative. In episode 703, Roger explains to Bree that the match sticks she created in the past, "caused a fire" in December that her parents survived. So there was nothing left of the Big House to burn down and kill them the following January.

However, things were not so simple in the book series.

WARNING: Outlander book series spoilers ahead.

1776 VERSUS 1775: Divergence in the book series' and show's time lines

I realized part of my confusion with this plot was that the show and the book series had two slightly different time lines.

THE BOOK SERIES TIME LINE. In the official Outlander book series time line, Mandy was born in April 1776, and Roger, Bree & the kids returned to the 20th century on November 1, 1776. Furthermore, in An Echo in the Bone (ECHO), Jamie's letter to Bree announcing that he and Claire survived the fire was dated December 31, 1776. Consequently, there was no doubt in the book series (at least initially) that all these events happened in 1776.

THE SHOW'S TIME LINE. In episode 703, Jamie's same letter to Bree is dated April 1776. So in the show--unlike in the book series-- the Big House fire must have happened the previous December 1775.

Consequently, in the show, Mandy must have been born in 1775 and Bree, Roger & the kids must have returned to the 20th century in 1775.

The Show's "Obituary" vs. the Book Serie's "Death Notice"

THE "OBITUARY." In the show, a full obituary was written for the Frasers. But in the copy of it that Roger and Bree found in the future, the last digit of the year in which the obituary was published was blurred. The date of the obituary was therefore 21 January, 177X, and the obituary said that they died "On Sabbath evening last." Without the exact year, Roger & Bree couldn't extrapolate the exact date on which "Sabbath evening last" fell. As we shall see, in some ways, this made the plot simpler.

THE "DEATH NOTICE." In the book series, a simple death notice was written for the Frasers, rather than a full obituary. In Drums of Autumn (DOA), Diana Gabaldon tells us that the death notice was published in the Feb. 13, 1776 issue of a NC colonial newspaper, and the date of the fire was "January 21 last":

As we shall see under the cut of this post, it turns out that knowing the year when the Frasers' deaths reportedly occurred makes a lot of difference--at least in the book series.

ABOSAA: Adso and the January 21st Fire

Given the exact date of their deaths in the death notice in DOA, by the time of A Breath of Snow and Ashes (ABOSAA), the family assumed that Jamie and Claire would die in a fire in the Big House on January 21,1776.

Consequently on Jan. 21st they all gathered in Brianna and Roger's cabin (with Bree & Roger, who were still living on Fraser's Ridge, according to the book series' time line), to avoid being in the Big House that evening.

Then a mishap with Rollo caused the visiting Major MacDonald to fall in the snow. Claire put his wet wig in the pantry behind the phosphorous to keep Adso from getting it, to no avail, as she discovered when she later went to get the Major's wig for him:

“Oh, your wig! Just a moment, Major—I’ll fetch it.” I rushed out and round to the pantry—just in time to hear a crash as something fell inside. I jerked open the door, left ajar from my last visit, and Adso streaked past me, the Major’s wig in his mouth. Inside, the lean-to was in brilliant blue flames. --Diana Gabaldon (2005, p. 907)

Further damage of the pantry and the cabin by fire was prevented by Major MacDonald sacrificing his wet coat.

That's how Jamie and Claire "survived" January 21st in ABOSAA. Although DG never explicitly states it (at least that I recall), I always assumed that at least initially everyone thought the newspaper got it wrong about which house caught fire. And perhaps, they also assumed that because they had been forewarned about the fire, Adso's little escapade didn't end with the cabin burning down.

Regardless, Jamie and Claire must have thought they were finally safe from a fiery death--until Dec. 21, 1776, when the Big House caught fire.

[See more below the cut about why the death notice in the book series reported that the fire happened in January and not December, and why knowing the year the death notice was printed in the book series helped Bree and Roger realize they did in fact change the past after all.]

The Devil is in the Details

In ABOSAA Epilogue II: The Devil is in the Details, we learn that the original death notice that had been submitted to the newspaper reported that the fire had happened in December, but Sampson, the "new printer's devil" (i.e., apprentice) didn't have slugs in the right font for December and so he changed the date to January.

“What’s this, then?” Amos Crupp squinted at the page laid out in the bed of the press, reading it backward with the ease of long experience. “It is with grief that the news is received of the deaths by fire …  Where’d that come from?” “Note from a subscriber,” said Sampson, his new printer’s devil, shrugging as he inked the plate. “Good for a bit of filler, there, I thought. [...] “Hmph. I s’pose. Very old news, though,” Crupp said, glancing at the date. “January?” “Well, no,” the devil admitted....“ ’Twas December, by the notice. But I’d set the page in Baskerville twelve-point, and the slugs for November and December are missing in that font. Not room to do it in separate letters, and not worth the labor to reset the whole page.” --Diana Gabaldon (2005, p. 980)

At first glance, it appears that DG had implied in ABOSAA that Roger and Bree didn't change history--that the newspaper had just printed the wrong month because of missing slugs in the proper font.

So the mystery about the wrong month in the death notice was solved--or was it?

Maybe More Was Afoot Than the "Printer's Devil's" Mistake

One might think that the books and show diverge here. In the show, the explanation for the erroneous month in the obituary is rather straight forward. It's because Roger and Bree had changed history. But in ABOSAA, we have a logical explanation for the incorrect month in the death notice--or do we?

Because in ECHO, Roger and Bree discover upon their return to the 20th century that one thing has changed in the death notice--the date. Although, they don't say which part of the date (the month or the year or both), at the very least, the YEAR had to have changed.

in ABOSAA, the Big House burned on Dec. 21, 1776. Therefore, news of the fire couldn't have appeared in the Feb. 13, 1776 newspaper like it originally did--because that would have meant the death notice was published slightly more than 10 months BEFORE the fire. Consequently, in ECHO, after they returned to the 20th century, Roger and Bree must have noticed that the YEAR that the newspaper printed the death notice had changed to 1777.

Confused? All I have to say is: Where is "Back to the Future's" Doc Brown when you need him? 🤷🏻‍♀️

In ECHO, Claire realizes that something is amiss with time when she talks to Tom Christie in Wilmington in April 1977. Tom told Claire that he had heard about the fire in "late January" from "a man named McCreary" who "had just come down from the mountain." Tom then asked Claire:

"Was there a fire?" “Well, yes, there was,” I said slowly, wondering whether—and how much—to tell him of the truth of that. Very little, in a public place, I decided. “Maybe it was Mr. McCreary, then, who placed the notice of the fire in the newspaper—but he can’t have.” The original notice had appeared in 1776, Roger had said—nearly a year before the fire. [emphasis added] “I placed it,” Christie said. Now it was my turn to blink. “You what? When?” I took a good-sized mouthful of whisky, feeling that I needed it more than ever. “Directly I heard of it. Or—well, no,” he corrected. “A few days thereafter. I … was very much distressed at the news,” he added, lowering his eyes and looking away from me for the first time since we’d sat down. --Diana Gabaldon (2009, p. 189)

So Claire knows something is wrong with the time line. The Big House burned down on Dec. 21, 1776 but the original notice about the house burning was printed on Feb. 13, 1776--months BEFORE it happened.

Bree and Roger must somehow have changed Claire's and Jamie's fates after all--in BOTH the book series and in the show.

This is likely why the show runners chose to simplify the plot by obscuring the the last digit of the year of the obituary's publication. By making the year vague, the audience does not have to work through all these steps that book readers have had to do over the years to reconcile the date of the death notice being about 10 months before the Big House burned down.

Still, that isn't the end of the questions about changing the past in the Outlander universe. Roger raises more religious questions in both the book series and the show. Part 2 of this two-part essay series will explore those questions.

________________ IMAGE SOURCES: 1) All Outlander gifs are mine--they were made from Starz Outlander episode 703, as was the screencap of Jamie's April 1776 letter. 2) Winona Ryder confused gif source (before edits). 3)* Jamie's December 31, 1776 letter was a direct quote from ECHO, reformatted to replicate a handwritten letter. 4) the obituary screenshot source (before edits); "Sabbath evening last" inset source (before edits); "21 January, 177X" inset composite sources: 01 + 02 (before edits). 5)* The Feb. 13, 1776 death notice was a direct quote from DOA reformatted to replicate a colonial newspaper death notice. 6) The Adso manipulated image was made from these sources (before edits): 01 + 02 + 03. 7) The illustration of an 18th century printing shop source. 8) The Back to the Future Doc Brown video source for gif (before edits). 9) The Claire and Tom Christie screenshot source (before edits).

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

OUTLANDER 07x03: NOT "Just a Cat"

In the show, Claire thought that Adso had died in the fire. So of course she was very relieved to find him alive. But as soon as she found him again, she had to say goodbye--at least for a while. And Claire found herself sobbing.

In the book, the morning after the fire, Amy McCallum’s son Aidan found Adso in his bed, so Claire knew he hadn't died. However, shortly thereafter, Claire had to say goodbye to him when she was leaving for Scotland. She also began to sob.

In this excerpt from An Echo in the Bone, Jamie shows he understands some deeper meaning as to why Claire weeps:

“It’s not—don’t worry, I’m … He’s only a cat,” I said, and a small fresh grief tightened like a band round my chest. “Aye, I know.” He moved beside me and put an arm round my shoulders, pulling my head to his chest, while he gently wiped my face. “But ye couldna weep for the bairns. Or the house. Or your wee garden. Or the poor dead lass and her bairn. But if ye weep for your cheetie, ye know ye can stop.” “How do you know that?” My voice was thick, but the band round my chest was not quite so tight. He made a small, rueful sound. “Because I canna weep for those things, either, Sassenach. And I havena got a cat.” --A scene from Diana Gabaldon's An Echo in the Bone (2009, p. 123).

Yes, Adso symbolized all that Claire had lost and a way for her to let out some of her grief.

However, I don't think we should diminish the fact that in the show, Claire was also expressing both relief that Adso hadn't died, and actual sadness that she had to leave him behind when she left for Scotland.

As a therapist, I've listened to many of my clients over the years as they grieved the loss of a pet. They often apologize for their grief, because it's "just a cat" or "just a dog."

But our pets are also members of our families, who give us unconditional love and much joy. Therefore, of course it is perfectly natural for us to feel deep sadness at their loss.

Adso was also special to Claire just because of the joy she felt in being with him. Of course she would be sad at having to leave him behind, not knowing if he would continue to be all right.

There's also something special about raising a cat from kittenhood that brings out the "cat mother--and father" in most of us.

Cait has been a "cat mother" in the past. I know she had two cats as an adult, possibly more when she was younger. Many fans watched Cait take great joy in her cat Eddie. Many of us also mourned for Eddie, when she died.

Actors draw on their own experiences to realistically express emotions. I wouldn't be surprised if Cait had drawn on her experience of losing her cats, when she wept for Adso.

In conclusion, there were many reasons that Claire wept after saying goodbye to Adso. But Adso was a family member to Claire. Never, "just a cat."

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

WILMINGTON, NC,🎇 🎆 JULY 4, 1776: Jamie, Claire, Ian, & Mandy🎇

On July 4, 1776, Jamie and Ian “liberated” a gemstone from Neil Forbes, after they had “a wee difference of opinion wi’ the Wilmington Chowder and Marching Society.”

Unfortunately, Young Ian had stashed the gemstone up his nose for safe keeping–but was unable to get it out.

Claire offered to use her forceps to aid in the… uh …”delivery” of the gemstone for the family’s use.

But Jamie had a “better idea” for extracting the gemstone–involving snuff and a massive sneeze.

After the stone was retrieved (and cleaned) Jamie leaned over his granddaughter and said, 

“Look what Grandda and Uncle Ian have brought ye, a muirninn.”

And then little Mandy responded…

Very slowly, a tiny fist rose through the netting, fingers flexing as they grasped at the stone.

–A scene from Diana Gabaldon’s A  Breath of Snow and Ashes (2005, pp. 927-930)

The TV show did not have a scene where Jamie and Ion “liberating” a gemstone in Wilmington. 

However, in episode 702, the show did offer a similar scene (shown above) as the one in the book, regarding wee Mandy’s first encounter with a gemstone. 

Although Mandy did not reach out to grasp the stone in the show, Mandy made soft “cooing” sounds in appreciation of the stone.

I also loved how Mandy’s right eyebrow rose as she looks at the stone. (Grandda Jamie often raises an eyebrow when appraising something–it must be a “fictionally” inherited trait. 😉)

 Below is a map of the Carolinas in colonial times. The Carolina province divided into North and South Carolina in 1729.

______________________________

Originally posted July 4, 2015; last updated July 4, 2023)

image sources (before edits):  01 (aa + bb), 02 (cc + dd + ee), 03 (ff + gg) , 04 (hh + ii),  05 (jj + kk), 

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

Conversation with my husband about Outlander.

While making breakfast this morning, my husband I started discussing how episode 2 of Season 7 ended. I have not read all of the books. I am only about halfway through Voyager and my husband only watches the show and any information from the books I share with him. However, my husband is an artist and drew a portrait of Malva last summer and told me he ended up finding spoilers of what happened with Malva. He may actually know more than I do.

We were discussing the fire and I told him I saw a preview of people desperately trying to extinguish the fire by bailing water from troughs with buckets. I commented that containing the fire is highly unlikely.

My husband brought up an interesting point by asking, "Wasn't Brianna making water pipes? What happened to the pipes?"

In response to his questions, I simply commented, "She had children; that is what happened to Brianna's water pipes. Additionally, she followed her husband while he was striving to fulfill his calling by becoming a minister. It's akin to when you ask me, why haven't I worked on the blanket recently that I had been knitting. Well, we added a pig and ducks to our farm that need to be taken care of, along with the horses and cows. The same reason you haven't drawn in months. Things get a little busy around here."

We continued talking about the fire and its aftermath. I mentioned that I recalled stumbling on a potential spoiler or perhaps it was fan theory that Tom Christie wrote the obituary. It made me curious wondering if they have not killed off Tom Christie. I am also curious to see how Jamie and Claire manage to survive the explosion and fire since they were so close to the actual explosion. Also, how does his kilt survive the fire?

Our conversation ended with, "48 hours until we can get some answers."

My favorite part in the entire episode.

gif from: moghraidhs

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

OUTLANDER EPISODE 702: Who can resist Grandda Jamie?

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

OUTLANDER EPISODE 702: Two villains meet their untimely ends

Watching the second episode of season 7, I realize how much I've missed the show. They packed a lot into this episode. There were all the feels associated with Amanda's birth, the MacKenzie family saying goodbye to Jamie & Claire, Wille and Bree meeting at last, and Jamie severing his relationship with Lord John because of the war.

But there was plenty of dark drama too, starting with Allan Christie's confession and death, and ending with the Big House on fire.

So I thought I'd take some time to dissect the tangled paths that led two Outlander villains to their deaths in this episode--and to consider the choices that some Outlander protagonists made regarding these villains.

Ian's Retribution for the death of the "bairn" he once thought was his

Episode 702 started with a death, which proved to be apt foreshadowing for its ending.

Allan Christie's death in this episode is very much like the one in the book. Alexander Vlahos brought a good mixture of sleaziness, despair, and infantile anger to his portrayal of Allan.

Cait deftly portrayed Claire's enormous frustration at being put in a situation where she had to stop a man from killing himself, whom she probably wished would die for his crimes.

Finally, John Bell as Ian fully embodied his role as a Mohawk warrior. He was believable in how he stolidly disposed of Allan for having killed the "bairn" he had originally thought was his, but which he still thought "deserved to live." There was nary a sign of the carefree, mischievous lad Ian used to be. (Sadly there was also nary a sign of the boy who was distraught when he thought he accidentally killed someone in the print shop fire.)

Allan Christie was a horrible human being, who had gotten away for years with the incest of his sister Malva, and eventually with Malva's murder and the death of her unborn bairn. [The flashbacks illustrated the creepy brother-sister story perhaps too well--I was extremely uncomfortable watching them.]

Furthermore, Allan's attempt to hide his guilt almost resulted in Claire being hung for a crime for which she was innocent. It also indirectly led to his father's sacrifice to protect Claire.

Still, Claire, ever the physician who takes her oath to preserve life seriously, went above and beyond the call of duty by wrestling the gun away from Allan before trying to talk him out of suicide.

But Claire's valiant efforts were in vain because Ian made the decision to step in and grant Allan his death wish.

Ian's code of justice comes from both the Scottish Highlands and the Mohawk nation; therefore, he does not appear to have any qualms about taking the life of a murderer.

But there are issues I had with Ian's decision, besides the ones I have about his playing judge, jury, and executioner.

Although I agreed with Claire's decision to try to stop Allan from killing himself, I had issues with Claire's suggestion to Allan that he run away.

What I wished had happened is that Ian and Claire had worked together to take Allan to justice. In doing so, they could have cleared Tom's name. Even if they believed that Tom was dead, his memory deserved not to be tainted by a murder he did not commit.

However, I do appreciate that Claire felt that Tom's sacrifice had also (probably unwittingly) spared his son from having to die for Malva's murder. I don't think Tom knew that his son had killed Malva, but the end result was that Allan was free. Claire clearly thought it would have been a waste of Tom's sacrifice, if his son took his life.

Yet, I still wish that Ian in particular had chosen a different course of action, one that didn't involve Ian and Claire having to dispose of the body.

The irony could not have been lost on Claire that she had just escaped from an unjust charge of murder for one Christie, only to go on to help Ian cover up the murder of another Christie.

Both Claire and Ian were lucky that Mrs. Bug decided to help them rather than turn them in.

Wendigo Donner: The man who lost his moral compass in an uncaring past

We saw Roger in episode 701 meet Wendigo Donner, another time traveler, who had come back to help the 18th century indigenous people avoid the genocide that was to come. Unfortunately, Donner's plans went awry, and he ended up becoming a criminal, who didn't do anything to help Claire when she was kidnapped.

Brennan Martin as Donner did a good job of showing just enough of the decent man that Donner used to be to get the kind-hearted Roger to take pity on him.

Fortunately, Bree talked some sense into Roger, and he decided not to help Donner. We don't know what Donner would have done, if Roger had helped him to escape. But most likely, the end result would have been the same.

Despite Donner's crimes, Roger was sympathetic to him, because he felt guilty for some of the things he himself felt compelled to do (or not do) after going through the stones.

Still, Roger never lost himself to despair, anger and selfishness like Donner did. That's because the love of Bree, Jemmy, Claire, and Jamie helped to provide him with a moral compass as he confronted many of the hardships of living in the past. (It probably also helped that Roger was a minister's adopted son.)

Although it is clear that Donner had unselfish motives to travel to the past to help the indigenous people, when he arrived in the 18th century he was truly alone. The rest of "the Montauk Five" weren't with him--or weren't alive.

Unfortunately, unlike Roger, Donner never found a caring group of people in the 18th century to provide him with a moral compass to help him avoid losing his way, as he struggled with the difficulties of living in the past.

Over time, whatever concern Donner had for others took a back seat to his own needs, gradually corrupting him, and tragically leading to this:

The Big House finally did burn down on December 21, 1776. Not on January 21, 1776 as had been recorded. The colonial newspaper had gotten the date wrong.

The epicenter of all that the Frasers had built on the Ridge went up in smoke with the careless lighting of a match. A match that didn't belong in the 18th century, wielded by a man who didn't belong there either.

Still, I'm glad the show's writers made one change from the book in this scene. In the book, it was Ian who lit the match and accidentally caused the ether to explode (after Donner and his gang had been captured).

But it is far more fitting that the show's writers decided to literally show that it was Donner and his selfishness that ultimately made everything go up in flames at the end of his life--and of this episode.

[edited]

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

“They remind me of Disneyland. It’s this place where stories come to life. They say it’s for children, but… really, it’s for the child in everyone. Mama and Daddy would take me there every summer. And the trees all had these little lights in them. Like fireflies. Oh, it was magical… When you’re there, the real world disappears. Nothing bad can happen. They call it “the happiest place on earth.”

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

For your sake, I will continue. Though for mine alone, I would not.

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

𝟭𝘅𝟬𝟮 || 𝟳𝘅𝟬𝟮

[contemplatingenjoyingoutlander]

Outlander S07E02 "Happiest Place On Earth"