‘Outlander’ Season 2 Premiere Recap: Chasing Ghosts

Frank didnt believe her in the books. Or at least he never told her he did and led her to think he didn't. That wasn't ambiguous. This is why she was thrilled when, later, roger did believe her when she first told him her tale.

I don't know how the books are (I'm going to read them now); but personally I'd like more balance between the 1700s scenes and the 1900s scenes.

Because he lived in France for several years, if I'm not mistaken, prior to returning to Scotland, as there was a price on his head.

Jamie spent 1738 to 1739 at University in France living with his uncle Jared. He then spent 2 years in the French army fighting with Ian Murray. He is also one of those lucky people that picks up languages very easily!

Jamie went to university in Paris, later served with his brother-in-law Ian in the army in France, and has a prodigious talent for languages.

Call me romantic, but I would pick the Highland warrior every time. Love your post!

Bear in mind that the story is from Claire's point of view. We see Jamie as simple in season 1 because that it how she first sees him. He's a man of his time and position as successor laird in a tribal/feudal society. He has weaknesses, but we see that he is educated, speaks French, savvy (he negotiated that deal with Colum about Dougal's fundraising and the deal with Jared). But simple, no.

Frank didn't have to raise Claire's child - he insisted that he raise her child. His choice. She didn't ask him to. And Jamie is classically educated and speaks multiple languages; he is just as educated as Frank. That you see him as simple means the show has done the character a true disservice.

I also thought it was paralleled by the burning of St. Germaine's ship - getting rid of the immediate danger for the greater good.

The burning of such history in the clothes and demanding she not look at anything Scotch till after his death well that's just another side of the sick that runs in his family and I would not want him to raise my child. I feel he merely wants her back to punish her in that good ole "Randall' way and I wanted her to run and run far and when she reached out for Frank's hand and suddenly it was Jamie's Omg I thought my heart would burst for her. It was so great.
I do wish they would have put in more of Diana's beautiful story surrounding Jamie's recovery in the Monastery. It was beautiful and brought me closer or back to my own faith and, might have balanced out the 'lopsided' feel some viewers have expressed.

I agree with you about the spirituality of the monestery scenes. Diana said somewhere that she wished they'd done more there, but that the production people aren't particularly religious and it didn't resonate with them. In fact, there wasn't going to be any chapel scenes but one of the Starz execs who was a book fan agreed with Diana, so we got a little bit of the flavor. But I would have taken more perpetual adoration over the silly Claire and Murtagh roadshow scenes.

As for Frank, in that case I totally don't agree with you. He's a victim of this circumstance. No, he's not a classic romantic hero like Jamie was written to be, but he truly loved Claire and wanted her back. Not to punish her, but to simply be with her. How that's not obvious boggles my mind, but you're not alone in your views. His wife went missing, and nearly 3 years later comes back pregnant with another man's child and clearly mourning that relationship. All he asked was that if they were to be together, she commit to him and put her past where it belongs (from his perspective). He's flawed, but he's no Jack Randall.

No, she's not, actually.....Fr Anselm explains it to Claire. Two different timelines, Frank isn't even born yet.

Kind of hard to be a bigamist when your original 1945 husband hasn't even been born in the time you end up in when you accidently fall through time. After she returned current time, her Scottish husband ha been dead for centuries.

No she isn't. In the Catholic faith a marriage is only recognized between two Catholics. She is Catholic as is Jamie, Frank isn't. It can be justified in the church that way.

It was a longer time to heal in the book. Also, he never really recovered in his entire life. He would forever be plagued by the experience.

Yes. There is a bit of rage and violence simmering under the surface of the mild mannered historian. I was struck with Caitriona Balfe's eyes when Frank became enraged to the point of raising his shaking fist to her. I think she was as startled by that reaction as Claire. He pupils dialated and she was terrified. The acting all the way around was really fantastic in this opening episode.

Not to hijack the comments here or to give away too much of what may or may not happen in the series, I would like to say that I think many people who have not read the books probably had your same reaction. What happened? They were on their way to France and suddenly they are separated by 202 years again somewhere between the abbey and their arrival in Paris. Why? We already know their attempts to change history failed because the first thing she says after, "What year is this?", is "Who won the battle of Culloden?" So Culloden happened in spite of their best efforts to stop it. What we don't know yet, unless you have read the books, is why she left Scotland to return to her own time. Clearly she is not happy to be there and is heart broken. The source material also began in 1948 with Claire returning to Scotland from America with her now grown daughter Bree. It is 22 years later and she has kept her promise to Frank not to tell Claire as long as he is alive about her birth father. Frank is dead and now Claire needs to tell Brianna about her real father whom she obviously loves and whom she needs and wants to share with their daughter. Along with Roger Wakefield they begin to search for what has actually happened to Jamie during the battle and after. So when we go to Paris and pick up the story of Claire and Jamie it is as a flashback told by Claire to her daughter and Roger Wakefield. It is in my opinion a far more understandable transition back to the 18th century.

The STARZ website has an excellent podcast where Ron Moore discusses the changes, production, and challenges.

Actually, book 2 started in 1968 and was, in my opinion, a crazier transition from the end of book 1. Also, television being a visual medium, we'd be seeing Claire 20 years older than when we last saw her, which would be even more jarring than her swing back to the future at the same age. Basically, what we know now is that she does go back to the future and to Frank. We don't know for how long or at what point of the story - unless we read the books. But these reviews are based on the television depiction of the story. That all said, we know there will be a jump at some point to 1968 because the actors for adult Brianna and Roger were cast and filmed scenes. So we will see an aged Claire as well.

Personally I think the heart of the story is Claire herself and how she navigates what is a crazy set of circumstances. Jaime becomes her primary relationship and it's wonderful and romantic, but it's ultimately Claire's story. So, the fleshed out focus on Frank fits in well, in my opinion, with understanding her initial loss when she travels back to the 18th century, her guilt for falling in love with Jamie and ultimately choosing him over Frank, and how when she goes back to the 20th century and returns to Frank affects her. He's as much of her story as is Jamie and it's only because the books were told from Claire's perspective for so long that we never saw the fallout Frank felt and also more about their relationship together. It all makes her choices more important and poignant, which for me is better than a simple love story.

"Why so much Frank? Why so little Jamie? Why did Claire suddenly leap back through the stones? "

I believe the writers were trying to achieve the same sort of mystery as the beginning of Dragonfly in Amber. The book starts out similarly, in the future (albeit much farther out) with Claire.

As far as why so much Frank, not really sure but I enjoyed it. If there's one thing I kind of which Diana touched upon a little more, was how Frank handled Claire's homecoming. We get vague references in flashbacks in DOA but not much. I think the show is doing an interesting take on the story though.

@Linda The story begins as Claire's story but quicky becomes a story of a timeless soulmate love between Jamie and Claire when they become a couple. It becomes their story and it's never again, solely hers.