Discussion:
Carol D. - Outlander
(too old to reply)
Howard Duck
2017-06-01 10:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We have just finished epiisode 7 of the 3rd season of Outlander. I
just have one thing to say to Jamie:

Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which
destroyeth kings.
Proverbs 31:3

He should take a lesson from Rhett Butler.

Howard Duck
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-03 00:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
We have just finished epiisode 7 of the 3rd season of Outlander. I
Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which
destroyeth kings.
Proverbs 31:3
He should take a lesson from Rhett Butler.
Howard Duck
Glad you are still with us and enjoying.

But umm you haven't watched any of season 3 which will not air until September, - 13 episodes which will take us to December (and the last 3 are still not filmed according to a post by the author yesterday). You meant 2nd I'm sure. So one more episode and back to Scotland and the road to Culloden Moor. Rupert and Angus really tickled the fans in those last episodes.

And the series Jaime is such a wuss compared to book Jamie. On screen they take a lot of Jamie's best lines, decisions, and actions and give them to Claire. If I tell you the ones that made the fans scream online though it will be spoilers. And when you've seen all 29 episodes you've still missed over 1000 pages of those first 2 books with a lot of plot deleted (800 pages of suspense and laughter in Edinburgh and 4 months of battles) And odd stuff added. Horrocks doesn't even show up in the book except as a reference and yet he's in 3 episodes in the series.

However in season 3 and later Jamie should have taken your advice and avoided a whole lot of trouble. But then the books might have ended after the 5th one. He and some male characters you haven't met have no end of trouble with women starting in season/book 4. I doubt the books would have been near as fun or interesting nor the story eventually end up being 10 books. And we all want her to live long enough to write them. She's will have to live to be an active 80 to achieve that. She's not going to tell us how Jamie's ghost ends up outside the bed and breakfast in 1945 until book 10.
Howard Duck
2017-06-03 03:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 17:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
Post by Howard Duck
We have just finished epiisode 7 of the 3rd season of Outlander. I
Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which
destroyeth kings.
Proverbs 31:3
He should take a lesson from Rhett Butler.
Howard Duck
Glad you are still with us and enjoying.
But umm you haven't watched any of season 3 which will not air until September, - 13 episodes which will take us to December (and the last 3 are still not filmed according to a post by the author yesterday). You meant 2nd I'm sure. So one more episode and back to Scotland and the road to Culloden Moor. Rupert and Angus really tickled the fans in those last episodes.
And the series Jaime is such a wuss compared to book Jamie. On screen they take a lot of Jamie's best lines, decisions, and actions and give them to Claire. If I tell you the ones that made the fans scream online though it will be spoilers. And when you've seen all 29 episodes you've still missed over 1000 pages of those first 2 books with a lot of plot deleted (800 pages of suspense and laughter in Edinburgh and 4 months of battles) And odd stuff added. Horrocks doesn't even show up in the book except as a reference and yet he's in 3 episodes in the series.
However in season 3 and later Jamie should have taken your advice and avoided a whole lot of trouble. But then the books might have ended after the 5th one. He and some male characters you haven't met have no end of trouble with women starting in season/book 4. I doubt the books would have been near as fun or interesting nor the story eventually end up being 10 books. And we all want her to live long enough to write them. She's will have to live to be an active 80 to achieve that. She's not going to tell us how Jamie's ghost ends up outside the bed and breakfast in 1945 until book 10.
You are right. This is the second season we are in. We just finished
Je Suis Prest (episode 9). I was afraid you might find my comment
offensive. Of course, Claire might well be seen as a strong
personality (which she is), but she is a woman driven by passions, and
passions that dirive everyone close to her. That might also be seen
as manipulative, albeit not purposely so.

Here ae the episodes of the season we are in now.

S2, Ep1
9 Apr. 2016
Through a Glass, Darkly
Returning to her own time, Claire must reconcile her future with the
life she left behind. Shifting back to the 18th century, Jamie, Claire
and Murtagh arrive in France, but learn that Paris presents its own
challenges.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Not in Scotland Anymore
S2, Ep2
16 Apr. 2016
Not in Scotland Anymore
Claire and Jamie plan to infiltrate Royal Court of France to disrupt
Jacobite Rebellion. Jamie is forced to deal with Prince Charlie in
Paris Brothels.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Useful Occupations and Deceptions
S2, Ep3
23 Apr. 2016
Useful Occupations and Deceptions
Claire finds an outlet for her skills at L'Hôpital des Anges treating
the sick, while Jamie tries to derail the Jacobite Rebellion with the
help of a pickpocket. Claire's new relationship with Mother Hildegarde
provides a source of needed help for Jamie.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

La Dame Blanche
S2, Ep4
30 Apr. 2016
La Dame Blanche
Jamie has an unusual response to Claire's news which brings about a
confrontation. Louise asks Claire for assistance with a delicate
situation, and friendly revelations provide disagreements at a dinner
party with uninvited guests.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Untimely Resurrection
S2, Ep5
7 May 2016
Untimely Resurrection
After the dinner party, Claire tends to Mary (and Alex), while Jamie
deals with Charles' plotting. A visit to Versailles leads to turmoil
for Claire and Jamie.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Best Laid Schemes...
S2, Ep6
14 May 2016
Best Laid Schemes...
Jamie and Claire use Claire's medical knowledge to devise a scheme to
stop a wine deal which could fill the Prince's war chest. When Claire
learns Jamie has gone back on his word, the couple is met with dire
consequences that will forever change their lives.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Faith
S2, Ep7
21 May 2016
Faith
Doctors at L'Hopital des Anges attempt to save the lives of Claire and
her unborn baby; King Louis asks Claire to judge two men accused of
engaging in the dark arts.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

The Fox's Lair
S2, Ep8
28 May 2016
The Fox's Lair
Claire and Jamie return to Scotland, and back to their home,
Lallybroch. Away from the nightmares of Paris, they find solace until
a letter arrives. Jamie must go and visit his grandfather Lord Lovat,
Simon Fraser aka The Old Fox. Claire accompanies Jamie to meet The Old
Fox.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Je Suis Prest
S2, Ep9
4 Jun. 2016
Je Suis Prest
Jamie trains his militia men for the upcoming Rising before joining
the forces. Claire keeps to Jamie and gives him full disclosure on
what little she knows about Scotland's fate in the Rising. Meanwhile,
a young British soldier tries to kill Jamie.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Prestonpans
S2, Ep10
11 Jun. 2016
Prestonpans
Jamie needs to bypass a swamp to lead the Jacobite army to win over
the British army in a critical battle. Benefiting from her experience
as a combat nurse during WWII, Claire tends to wounded and dying
warriors.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Vengeance Is Mine
S2, Ep11
18 Jun. 2016
Vengeance Is Mine
Claire and Highlanders are sent north after the Jacobite leaders
decided to halt their march on London. A band of Redcoats makes
trouble for the Scots, leading to the most unexpected reunion for
Claire.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

The Hail Mary
S2, Ep12
25 Jun. 2016
The Hail Mary
As Jamie puts all of his efforts into turning the Jacobite army away
from the impending slaughter at Culloden Moor, Claire attempts to
comfort the sick Alex Randall. She is stunned when Alex reveals an
outrageous plan to save the mother of his child.
Watch Now
From $1.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Dragonfly in Amber
S2, Ep13
9 Jul. 2016
Dragonfly in Amber
Flashing forward to 1968, Claire travels to Scotland with her
twenty-year-old daughter, Brianna, and meets Roger Wakefield. Claire
visits Lallybroch and Culloden Moor to make peace with the past, while
Brianna and Roger bond over researching Randall family history. Claire
finally reveals the truth to Brianna about her time travel through the
stones, her life in 1700's Scotland, and Brianna's true parentage. The
story is inter-cut with another one back in the 18th century, which
happens on the day of the Battle of Culloden. When Jamie's last ditch
attempts to deter The...

Howard
Howard Duck
2017-06-03 03:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I have been reviewing the British monarchy of that period. It looks
as though "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was trying to get his father, James
Francis Stuart, on the throne, but they failed. Is that who they were
fighting for? But then Jamie wanted to abort this rebellion because
Claire with her foreknowledge knew they couldn't succeed. But then he
thought maybe they could change history.

That reminds me that Daniel 7:25 says of the Antichrist, that he will
think to change times and (God's) laws. Do you think that is what he
will try to do?

According to what I have read, many people (including Princess Diana)
think the royalty of many countries (including Britain) are actually
reptilians that take on the appearance of humans. Is that possible?
I've heard V. Putin believes that also. What do you think?

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-03 21:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
I have been reviewing the British monarchy of that period. It looks
as though "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was trying to get his father, James
Francis Stuart, on the throne, but they failed. Is that who they were
fighting for? But then Jamie wanted to abort this rebellion because
Claire with her foreknowledge knew they couldn't succeed. But then he
thought maybe they could change history.
That reminds me that Daniel 7:25 says of the Antichrist, that he will
think to change times and (God's) laws. Do you think that is what he
will try to do?
According to what I have read, many people (including Princess Diana)
think the royalty of many countries (including Britain) are actually
reptilians that take on the appearance of humans. Is that possible?
I've heard V. Putin believes that also. What do you think?
Howard
From the series it is confusing. But the book sticks to historicals. Yes in episode 207 Jamie and Claire are still trying to prevent Bonnie Prince Charlie from getting funds to invade Britain, but in 208 the King of France banishes Jamie because of the dual and makes a deal for him to go safely back to Scotland. But in 209 Charles manages anyway, arrives in Scotland and publishes a document naming Jamie as a Jacobite traitor even though he and Claire had no intention of participating in such a war, just trying to protect their family and tenants. So their only option is to join and fight to win.

But from our side of history after April 16 1716 that is not possible. The book has about 800 pages of the winter of 1715/16 as they win their first battles and the watch the whole thing crash to defeat and they end up on Culloden moor anyway.

All you will see on the series is Jamie being a close advisor to the king at Prestonpans, then a scene where they are captured in a church and Claire and Jamie get separated. Then the final battle of Culloden about to happen.

But in the book, Claire spends several weeks as a spy in Edinburgh while Jamie, Charles and the army are at the Castle there. Colum visits Charles and Jamie and decides NOT to bring the MacKenzies into rebellion, and then dies sometime in January. Meanwhile, Mary is also there and has found Alex. She and Black Jack and Claire care for him but he dies in February. Then they get to the battle of Stirling where the church scene happens and the story veres away from rebellion to the Frasers until Culloden. But on the DVD you'll only see Prestonpans, the church scene which is critical to the plot, and then Colum and Alex die at Culloden the day before the battle. Bceause their deaths are critical to the plot too.

I think even in the series Jamie KNOWS you can change history because Claire with her medical skills has saved lives and those people live on, getting married, having children etc. who also live and have children. BUT they realize that they alone are not responsible for Charles getting to Scotland. Many people moving in one direction caused it. Which is why he believes when he is committed to the fight by Charles adding his signature falsely that maybe if Claire knows enough about the rebellion they can change the outcome.

As to the royals question, I don't believe in royals as secret reptilians.
Beyond that, as to the anti-Christ, well I'm stuck in a different place than Christians having converted to the Baha'i faith ages ago, which does accept Christ as God's messenger but that another messenger has come since.

In the beginnings of my faith the messenger wrote letters to the Kings proclaiming himself. Those that still remain heads of state are the ones who listened. Queen Victoria accepted him as a messenger but of course being head of the Church of England could not convert. Queen Marie of Yugoslavia, the grandmother of Prince Phillip did convert. So from our perspective, that is a factor in why the Brits still have a monarch.

Also one of the 12 tenants of our faith is that science and religion do not conflict. If it appears they are in conflict then our understanding is wrong for one or both. So what would be the science of reptiles disguised as humans and the chances that many rulers would be of that genetic makeup (other than centuries of incestuous inbreeding). I am descended from most of the European royal houses and I know I'm not a reptile.

I was promised as a child by the Sunday School teacher in the Presbyterian mission that I would see the end times and the anti-Christ in my lifetime. And in fact the reason I converted was 1)in part because of a book in the church library called "Thief in the Night", (which I think was written by William Sears and is a discussion of the promised return of Christ, and the biblical proofs that our messenger is he)

2)then because we knew a number of Baha's in our social group and asked questions and attended teaching firesides, and then

3)one night in my first year of marriage my husband had a medical emergency and while I was praying, a miracle was granted to him before my eyes. And in that moment I became a believer but did not convert. About 3 years later, I was literally prayed into going to the office and declaring myself. When I got there, they were literally praying for me to come.

I am not a person of faith and do not call myself that. I was one of those who had to see to believe. I have never told anyone what that miracle was because its mine and wouldn't mean anything to anyone else. But at the time it happened to me I did not know some things that when I knew them later confirmed to me what I saw, I really saw.

So for me I am expecting the end times. We have been told where Armageddon will occur. We just don't know exactly when. But often when I am listening to the news I wonder is this the time. Is this or that person the Anti-Christ.

But beyond this I cannot answer your question because we are not allowed to proselytise unless specifically asked about Baha'i faith and you did not. And even if you had, I probably would be bending the rule to share in public on someplace like RAM although many years ago something came up where I briefly explained my understanding of one particular thing and shared a quote from our writings. Old timers do know I am Baha'i and I guess now everybody else on RAM who is following this thread.

I hope I answered your question.

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-04 05:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 14:03:08 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
As to the royals question, I don't believe in royals as secret reptilians.
Beyond that, as to the anti-Christ, well I'm stuck in a different place than Christians having converted to the Baha'i faith ages ago, which does accept Christ as God's messenger but that another messenger has come since.
In the beginnings of my faith the messenger wrote letters to the Kings proclaiming himself. Those that still remain heads of state are the ones who listened. Queen Victoria accepted him as a messenger but of course being head of the Church of England could not convert. Queen Marie of Yugoslavia, the grandmother of Prince Phillip did convert. So from our perspective, that is a factor in why the Brits still have a monarch.
Also one of the 12 tenants of our faith is that science and religion do not conflict. If it appears they are in conflict then our understanding is wrong for one or both. So what would be the science of reptiles disguised as humans and the chances that many rulers would be of that genetic makeup (other than centuries of incestuous inbreeding). I am descended from most of the European royal houses and I know I'm not a reptile.
I was promised as a child by the Sunday School teacher in the Presbyterian mission that I would see the end times and the anti-Christ in my lifetime. And in fact the reason I converted was 1)in part because of a book in the church library called "Thief in the Night", (which I think was written by William Sears and is a discussion of the promised return of Christ, and the biblical proofs that our messenger is he)
2)then because we knew a number of Baha's in our social group and asked questions and attended teaching firesides, and then
3)one night in my first year of marriage my husband had a medical emergency and while I was praying, a miracle was granted to him before my eyes. And in that moment I became a believer but did not convert. About 3 years later, I was literally prayed into going to the office and declaring myself. When I got there, they were literally praying for me to come.
I am not a person of faith and do not call myself that. I was one of those who had to see to believe. I have never told anyone what that miracle was because its mine and wouldn't mean anything to anyone else. But at the time it happened to me I did not know some things that when I knew them later confirmed to me what I saw, I really saw.
So for me I am expecting the end times. We have been told where Armageddon will occur. We just don't know exactly when. But often when I am listening to the news I wonder is this the time. Is this or that person the Anti-Christ.
But beyond this I cannot answer your question because we are not allowed to proselytise unless specifically asked about Baha'i faith and you did not. And even if you had, I probably would be bending the rule to share in public on someplace like RAM although many years ago something came up where I briefly explained my understanding of one particular thing and shared a quote from our writings. Old timers do know I am Baha'i and I guess now everybody else on RAM who is following this thread.
I hope I answered your question.
Carol
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. That's very interesting
concerning your belief system. I, of course, am very happily set in
my beliefs regarding Jesus Christ and the Bible - He is all the world
to me.

Yes, miracles can be very convincing for those open to receive them.
However, they do happen within all spiritual faiths. For example:


Miracles alone should not be the whole criteria for our doctrinal
belief. Tell me, do you happen to be genetically related to a Persian
background? The Persians (Iranian) are some of the most attractive
people.

As to reptilian genetics. I am not an authority on this subject,
however, as the study of DNA progresses, it appears that exogenetic
factors may determine more of the physical/mental characteristics of
being than previously understood. Two beings may have identical DNA
and yet external blockers and enhancers really determine what genes
are active and what are not. It seems likely that all of us contain
some reptilian characteristics.

Personally, I suspect that people who participate in ritual ingestion
of human flesh and blood may enhance a reptilian nature within
themselves. They may also tend to become zombie-like, voracious and
mentally stunted. According to some sources, many royals and some
other elites participate in ritual sacrifices and ingestion of raw
human blood and flesh. True? I couldn't prove it but I don't doubt
it either.

Upon the question of now being the endtimes - there we are agreed!

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-05 00:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.
Yes, miracles can be very convincing for those open to receive them.
However, they do happen within all spiritual faiths.
Of course. However, experiencing one is different from just hearing about one.
My choice to convert was based on another of the tenants of my faith, Independent investigation of truth and of course the biblical admonishment that by their fruit you will know them. I spent many months asking questions, attending teaching firesides etc. The miracle, were I to share, would make sense to you perhaps, but it is mine and I do not.

Tell me, do you happen to be genetically related to a Persian
Post by Howard Duck
background? The Persians (Iranian) are some of the most attractive
people.
No. My mother's best friend was a German baroness and they decided when I was in 7th grade that my sister and I were "good candidates" to marry her sons. She started a sort of "princess school" for us and 6 other young ladies. I spent 5 long years learning all sorts of things, besides manners, dancing, learning to do everything "gracefully" etc. And my younger sister tells stories of lessons I missed that were very "a la Gigi". Learning to drink alcohol for instance. Anyway, when I got to college there were young men, mostly ambitious, who felt I "looked right" to be the proper wife for their ambitions. One was a minor Persian Prince. I decided I was not interested in him because I did not want to convert from Christianity, which is quite funny looking back on it. Actually I was not interested in any of them.

I first fell in love with my real life "Jamie" who was a Marine. After 48 years, I still miss him. He often visits me just as I'm falling asleep, or in my dreams. And after he died, I married a man who had no grand ambitions and really had no real interest in my "graces".

But of course to ask that question I assume you did a little research on Baha'i faith. It is otherwise unlikely that you should pop up with the Persian question. Yes they are quite beautiful people. Both on the outside and more importantly on the inside.

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-05 04:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
Post by Howard Duck
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.
Yes, miracles can be very convincing for those open to receive them.
However, they do happen within all spiritual faiths.
Of course. However, experiencing one is different from just hearing about one.
My choice to convert was based on another of the tenants of my faith, Independent investigation of truth and of course the biblical admonishment that by their fruit you will know them. I spent many months asking questions, attending teaching firesides etc. The miracle, were I to share, would make sense to you perhaps, but it is mine and I do not.
Tell me, do you happen to be genetically related to a Persian
Post by Howard Duck
background? The Persians (Iranian) are some of the most attractive
people.
No. My mother's best friend was a German baroness and they decided when I was in 7th grade that my sister and I were "good candidates" to marry her sons. She started a sort of "princess school" for us and 6 other young ladies. I spent 5 long years learning all sorts of things, besides manners, dancing, learning to do everything "gracefully" etc. And my younger sister tells stories of lessons I missed that were very "a la Gigi". Learning to drink alcohol for instance. Anyway, when I got to college there were young men, mostly ambitious, who felt I "looked right" to be the proper wife for their ambitions. One was a minor Persian Prince. I decided I was not interested in him because I did not want to convert from Christianity, which is quite funny looking back on it. Actually I was not interested in any of them.
I first fell in love with my real life "Jamie" who was a Marine. After 48 years, I still miss him. He often visits me just as I'm falling asleep, or in my dreams. And after he died, I married a man who had no grand ambitions and really had no real interest in my "graces".
But of course to ask that question I assume you did a little research on Baha'i faith. It is otherwise unlikely that you should pop up with the Persian question. Yes they are quite beautiful people. Both on the outside and more importantly on the inside.
Carol
Yes, I did a superficial search on Baha'i in Wikipedia. When I think
of Persian personalities, I think of the actress Sarah Shahi
(physically attractive, but I don't know about the rest). She was
co-star of the series "Life" (2007-2009), with Damian Lewis. One of
my all-time favorites.

I'm sorry your marriage turned out to be a disappointment. What a sad
thing to have to say. Fortunately, my wife is a beautiful soul with a
humble self-esteem. Had she not been the personality she is, I'm not
sure what would have happened to us. Once through a particularly
rough period of our lives, I asked the Lord should we part ways. The
Lord said to me, "You will either make it together or you will not
make it." That's a real comeuppance. But my wife and I managed to
raise two boys and two girls (only by the grace of God). Our income
was too low to afford such luxuries as insurance. So, as you might
imagine, we have seen our share of miracles also.

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-06 01:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
I'm sorry your marriage turned out to be a disappointment.
I didn't mean to make it sound like I was unhappy. Its just that my Marine and I had a relationship similar to that of Jamie and Claire. The ancient Scottish vow they had in their wedding which continues through the theme of all 8 books is the part that says "I give you my spirit til our life shall be done." Well that is like being 2 halves of one soul. If you share one soul with another, after you lose them you are left with only half a soul. And it is impossible to have that again with another.

My husband and I lived a happy but rather ordinary life for 22 years. We had some major challenges like having our house stolen, and our son being diagnosed with some horrid medical issues.

But the week of our 22nd anniversary he had brain tumor the size of a tennis ball removed from behind his right eye. The result was he slept for a year, he has amnesia and traumatic brain injury. His entire personality changed. He likes different music, and movies, and books, and foods. He changed his political views. There is nothing of my original husband left really.

I asked him at one point if he needed a divorce to be free and find out who he was. We talked about it for 6 months we decided that there were more reasons to stay together and rebuild than to go separate ways. So we did that. The second relationship was not a good as the first but acceptable.

But now he has some sort of dementia, and other medical issues and there is no relationship left. We are 2 people occupying the same building. That is a disappointment. But not my whole life with him.

Don't be sorry for me. While it was only a little short of 3 years, the relationship I had with my Marine was beautiful and every bit as passionate as Diana writes Jamie and Claire. It has carried with me for half a century.

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-06 03:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 18:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
Post by Howard Duck
I'm sorry your marriage turned out to be a disappointment.
I didn't mean to make it sound like I was unhappy. Its just that my Marine and I had a relationship similar to that of Jamie and Claire. The ancient Scottish vow they had in their wedding which continues through the theme of all 8 books is the part that says "I give you my spirit til our life shall be done." Well that is like being 2 halves of one soul. If you share one soul with another, after you lose them you are left with only half a soul. And it is impossible to have that again with another.
My husband and I lived a happy but rather ordinary life for 22 years. We had some major challenges like having our house stolen, and our son being diagnosed with some horrid medical issues.
But the week of our 22nd anniversary he had brain tumor the size of a tennis ball removed from behind his right eye. The result was he slept for a year, he has amnesia and traumatic brain injury. His entire personality changed. He likes different music, and movies, and books, and foods. He changed his political views. There is nothing of my original husband left really.
I asked him at one point if he needed a divorce to be free and find out who he was. We talked about it for 6 months we decided that there were more reasons to stay together and rebuild than to go separate ways. So we did that. The second relationship was not a good as the first but acceptable.
But now he has some sort of dementia, and other medical issues and there is no relationship left. We are 2 people occupying the same building. That is a disappointment. But not my whole life with him.
Don't be sorry for me. While it was only a little short of 3 years, the relationship I had with my Marine was beautiful and every bit as passionate as Diana writes Jamie and Claire. It has carried with me for half a century.
Carol
This tugs at my heart Carol. It is a matter for sincere prayer, and
my wife and I must do our part. We shall. Our prayer shall be that
God will grant you such abundant joy that it will flood your soul from
here to eternity. Amen!

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-07 00:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
This tugs at my heart Carol. It is a matter for sincere prayer, and
my wife and I must do our part. We shall. Our prayer shall be that
God will grant you such abundant joy that it will flood your soul from
here to eternity. Amen!
Howard
Thank you very much Howard.

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-05 21:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
No. My mother's best friend was a German baroness and they decided when I was in 7th grade that my sister and I were "good candidates" to marry her sons. She started a sort of "princess school" for us and 6 other young ladies. I spent 5 long years learning all sorts of things, besides manners, dancing, learning to do everything "gracefully" etc. And my younger sister tells stories of lessons I missed that were very "a la Gigi". Learning to drink alcohol for instance. Anyway, when I got to college there were young men, mostly ambitious, who felt I "looked right" to be the proper wife for their ambitions. One was a minor Persian Prince. I decided I was not interested in him because I did not want to convert from Christianity, which is quite funny looking back on it. Actually I was not interested in any of them.
You probably made a wise decision regarding your "noblemen" suitors. I
doubt you would have been happy. I hope I do not offend you when I
say it grieves me about your religious choice. I understand that "by
their fruits" can lead us to disillusionment. People (and churches)
can be very off-putting because they are just that - people. But not
Jesus. Jesus is altogether perfect, and not to be compared to any
so-called avatar. Those who seek him with all their heart will find
him because he will reveal himself to them, please believe me. From
what you have said about your mother, I assume she knew him in her
heart. My parents were Christians, but a brother of mine married a
woman (2nd marriage) who was not a Christian. He began to stray from
his roots because his first wife was supposedly a Christian but she
left him; her church would not support him to find reconciliation. He
strayed first toward Catholicism, then toward native American
shamanism. You see, Carol, we have a spiritual enemy who is going
about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, as the Bible tells
us. So, please reconsider your foundation.

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-06 01:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I hope I do not offend you when I
Post by Howard Duck
say it grieves me about your religious choice.
There is no reason to be grieved. As I said to be a Baha'i one must accept
Christ. So any Buddhist must if converting. But we must also accept Mohammed and Buddha. Our son refused to be a Baha'i and we raised him in the Methodist church down the road. The pastors knew we were Baha'i but accepted us fully. Believe it or not I even taught Sunday school, and was a youth group leader. I still attend services there. It is not forbidden to us.

The difference between your faith perspective and mine is that while we both believe in progressive revelation, you believe Jesus is the end and the living God. Whereas from our perspective, we believe rather than a living God he is the perfect reflection of unknowable God as are all messengers (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed etc). And as he promised, as all one God faiths promise, other messengers have come to assist us in knowing him. So perhaps you can see that from our perspective Christians are stuck at a point in progressive revelation further back than us, just as Christians tend to think that Jews are stuck in a place short of knowing God because they do not accept Christ. And yet we all worship the same God.


So, please reconsider your foundation.
Post by Howard Duck
Howard
I appreciate loving concern Howard. However, I believe my foundation is the same as yours but with a gift of another layer of understanding. Truly my Christian background is made richer by the further teachings of our messenger.

The last thing I would say to you on this Howard is that we are forbidden from interfering with the true faith of a believer with a relationship with God however it is labeled. I can see your faith is very strong. And I delight in that for you. Be comfortable in your own faith, and be happy for me in mine.

Should you still have concerns for me, you may pray for me if you wish. Praying for anyone is a great blessing and perhaps it will give you some peace. But let your heart be eased by my telling you that I am solid in my relationship with God. I have peace and joy in my faith.

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-06 03:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 18:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
Should you still have concerns for me, you may pray for me if you wish. Praying for anyone is a great blessing and perhaps it will give you some peace. But let your heart be eased by my telling you that I am solid in my relationship with God. I have peace and joy in my faith.
Carol
As you wish, Carol.

Btw, we finished all but the last half of the last episode (90 min.)
of Outlander video series. We'll finish that tomorrow. They have
made this a bit confusing. It is a little disconcerting trying to
recall what went before what in the two time elements, and who is the
progenitor of whom. Now I guess we can wait for two more seasons to
be produced. I see Hugh Laurie has a series to watch on Amazon Prime
in the meantime.

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-07 01:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
Btw, we finished all but the last half of the last episode (90 min.)
of Outlander video series. We'll finish that tomorrow. They have
made this a bit confusing. It is a little disconcerting trying to
recall what went before what in the two time elements, and who is the
progenitor of whom. Now I guess we can wait for two more seasons to
be produced. I see Hugh Laurie has a series to watch on Amazon Prime
in the meantime.
Howard
Well if there is any confusion, I'll be glad to explain. Being an addict and major fan, I have it all in my head. The last half of episode 213 will probably make it clear. They stuffed a lot into that last 45 minutes.

Remember I've said several times, the series eliminates about 1000 pages of story in the books. And its rich in plot. They just picked out the critical parts of 800 pages of "Dragonfly in Amber", to put in the series.

In the book, Jamie and Claire are with Prince Charles in Edinburgh for 4 months.

Colum shows up in Edinburgh to ask Jamie whether clan MacKenzie should join the rebellion (in December). Jamie tells him no, and Colum dies there and then not 4 months later at Culloden.

Jack is also there at the other end of the main street. Alex is there, dying of tuberculosis. Jack asks Claire to care for him and offers to provide her with military secrets from the British side in exchange. Claire, who would have cared for Alex anyway, accepts since her job is to be a spy and try to change history leading to Culloden. Jack is honorable in this traitorous promise because he does truly love his brother. He is not afraid of Claire because as he says, she told him the date of his death so she "even being a witch" cannot harm him sooner.

Mary shows up (visiting her aunts in Edinburgh) and cares for Alex until he dies in about February. Claire and Jamie are the witnesses to the wedding between Mary and Jack, and Alex performs the ceremony then dies within a few hours. Alex gathers the 4 of them to his room, tells Jack he wish and the marriage happens within minutes. Make more sense that way. That is the only time in the whole story that Jamie and Jack are in the same room and they aren't trying to hurt each other. So that whole scene about Jack refusing to marry her, then agonizing about whether his character could be honorable toward Mary never happened in the book. Claire doesn't manipulate it.

Nor do Claire and Jamie kill Dougal together. Jamie manages that all by himself. This is one of the scenes on screen that the fans feel weakens Jamie as a character. They many times give Claire his power and decisiveness.

Relationships

Claire and Jamie at the end of season 2 and the battle of Culloden had a child named Faith who died at birth in Paris. And since you've probably watched the last half of the episode by the time you read this, you will know Claire was pregnant again when Jamie sent her through the stones because she was pregnant and he sent her back to the future to be safe and for his child to live safely with Frank. That child is Brianna, the redhead that you will have met previously and with confusion, but who you should understand is their daughter at the very end in the last scenes.

Brianna did not know Claire's first husband Frank, was not her father, because Frank made Claire promise not to tell her. So all that stuff in the first episode about Claire telling Bree about Jamie is right, as is the part where Bree believes it finally after seeing Gillian/Gellis pass through the stones in episode 213. Meanwhile as the story unfolds in the following books, Frank does locate records of Jamie and knows he did not die at Culloden. He suspects that it is possible Bree may travel back at some point and throughout his life he prepares her for that, teaching her to hunt, leaving a stone to mark Jamie's fake grave for Claire or Bree to find. That is how in the book Claire ends up telling Bree. They visit a graveyard as part of Roger's research. Roger and Bree visit the chapel and they kiss. At that moment Claire starts screaming a cussing having found both Jack's grave and Jamie's fake stone.

Frank even left Bree a letter, which somehow yet to be explained ends up in a secret drawer in a desk, that warns her not to trust government folks, and she may be in danger from them. BECAUSE (and Frank doesn't know this) Gillian/Gellis at some point has found some old prophecy that at some time in the future the Jacobite cause will be lead by a descendant of Simon Fraser (Jamie's grandfather) but that line she thought had died out, until she discovers in season 3 "Voyager" that Jamie and Claire have a daughter, Bree (at that point) still living in the future.

Yes Gellis is not yet really dead. Dougal rescued her and substituted a corpse for the execution. The "witch" execution was often done by first killing the witch by strangulation and then burning at the stake. And the body burned had a bag over the head. But we don't know that until about 2/3 of the way through "Voyager". On screen it probably won't happen until episode 310 or 311 since there will be 13 total. And at the very end of "Voyager" Gellis/Gillian is preparing to go back to the future to find Bree(but fails) but that is not her only reason for traveling.

Brianna was falling in love with Roger Wakefield in season 2 and he is the fellow researching what happened to the Frasers of Lallybroch. The book makes this a lot more understandable. Roger is hired by Claire to do this rather than tripping over Claire at the funeral. He is immediately attracted to Bree and fascinated by Claire's project. He suspects much and discovers more until he knows nearly all of it. The whole thing on screen about Bree and Roger befriending Gillian in the 60's is rewrite. In the book, Claire secretly hunts for Gillian to try to prevent her from dying as a witch in the past because Gellis/Gillian did indeed save her at the witch trial, and send her a message that tells Claire Gillian/Gellis was a time traveler.

Roger is the adopted son of his great uncle, Reverend Wakefield. In the book Claire knows who he is because the Reverend has a genealogy chart for Roger on the bulletin board in his study, and because she recognizes Gillian/Gellis's green eyes in Roger, but they can't use that on screen because both the actors have blue eyes, and they had condensed all that anyway.

You saw Roger as a child in episode 201 when Claire returns from Culloden to 1947. Roger's birth name is MacKenzie. He is 7 generations descended from Dougal MacKenzie and Gellis Duncan / Gillian. Dougal placed the child with a MacKenzie couple since he could not claim it as his own. We will eventually know him as Buck MacKenzie, first a colonist in North Carolina participating in the "war" of Regulation, and later as a time traveler who scares the heck out of Roger and Bree's kids in the 1970's and then as a trusted relative wandering around in Scotland in the 1740's hunting for Roger's 20th century father, who flew his WWII plane into a lake near Craig na Dun and then tripped through the time passage. .

In book 4 "Drums of Autumn" which probably won't hit TV until 2019, Bree finds a news article in an old magazine that tells her that her parents die a horrific death in the past, so she goes back to warn them. She and Roger at that point have an understanding that they will marry, but she goes back in time without telling him. Her plan was that he wouldn't know and she'd be back before he would find out but that goes awry and he follows her.

Then because Bree and Roger marry secretly and he goes off on a 2 day mission without her, and 2 days later she is raped, she becomes pregnant and
Roger can't get back to her until after the child is born so they stay, because they don't know if the child could go back to the future with them. Fortunately for the next 4 books he is a time traveler. So they go back and forth a few more times for various reasons, always a matter of life or death.

If you are confused about Hamish, he is the son of Dougal and Colum's wife Letitia as it is admitted on the DVD. But because they all 3 chose that together. There was no affair, he just bedded her regularly for 2 months until she became pregnant. Dougal actually says at some point in the book to someone, probably Claire that he told Colum she was all a man could desire but she was bland "pudding". He is much more a womanizer in the books. And actually attempts to bed Claire, with or without marriage, several more times than shows in the DVD. He is a worse character in the book than on screen. The fans don't mind.

So hopefully this removes confusion about who is ancestor of who.

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-07 02:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
Post by Howard Duck
Btw, we finished all but the last half of the last episode (90 min.)
of Outlander video series. We'll finish that tomorrow. They have
made this a bit confusing. It is a little disconcerting trying to
recall what went before what in the two time elements, and who is the
progenitor of whom. Now I guess we can wait for two more seasons to
be produced. I see Hugh Laurie has a series to watch on Amazon Prime
in the meantime.
Howard
Well if there is any confusion, I'll be glad to explain. Being an addict and major fan, I have it all in my head. The last half of episode 213 will probably make it clear. They stuffed a lot into that last 45 minutes.
Remember I've said several times, the series eliminates about 1000 pages of story in the books. And its rich in plot. They just picked out the critical parts of 800 pages of "Dragonfly in Amber", to put in the series.
In the book, Jamie and Claire are with Prince Charles in Edinburgh for 4 months.
Colum shows up in Edinburgh to ask Jamie whether clan MacKenzie should join the rebellion (in December). Jamie tells him no, and Colum dies there and then not 4 months later at Culloden.
Jack is also there at the other end of the main street. Alex is there, dying of tuberculosis. Jack asks Claire to care for him and offers to provide her with military secrets from the British side in exchange. Claire, who would have cared for Alex anyway, accepts since her job is to be a spy and try to change history leading to Culloden. Jack is honorable in this traitorous promise because he does truly love his brother. He is not afraid of Claire because as he says, she told him the date of his death so she "even being a witch" cannot harm him sooner.
Mary shows up (visiting her aunts in Edinburgh) and cares for Alex until he dies in about February. Claire and Jamie are the witnesses to the wedding between Mary and Jack, and Alex performs the ceremony then dies within a few hours. Alex gathers the 4 of them to his room, tells Jack he wish and the marriage happens within minutes. Make more sense that way. That is the only time in the whole story that Jamie and Jack are in the same room and they aren't trying to hurt each other. So that whole scene about Jack refusing to marry her, then agonizing about whether his character could be honorable toward Mary never happened in the book. Claire doesn't manipulate it.
Nor do Claire and Jamie kill Dougal together. Jamie manages that all by himself. This is one of the scenes on screen that the fans feel weakens Jamie as a character. They many times give Claire his power and decisiveness.
Relationships
Claire and Jamie at the end of season 2 and the battle of Culloden had a child named Faith who died at birth in Paris. And since you've probably watched the last half of the episode by the time you read this, you will know Claire was pregnant again when Jamie sent her through the stones because she was pregnant and he sent her back to the future to be safe and for his child to live safely with Frank. That child is Brianna, the redhead that you will have met previously and with confusion, but who you should understand is their daughter at the very end in the last scenes.
Brianna did not know Claire's first husband Frank, was not her father, because Frank made Claire promise not to tell her. So all that stuff in the first episode about Claire telling Bree about Jamie is right, as is the part where Bree believes it finally after seeing Gillian/Gellis pass through the stones in episode 213. Meanwhile as the story unfolds in the following books, Frank does locate records of Jamie and knows he did not die at Culloden. He suspects that it is possible Bree may travel back at some point and throughout his life he prepares her for that, teaching her to hunt, leaving a stone to mark Jamie's fake grave for Claire or Bree to find. That is how in the book Claire ends up telling Bree. They visit a graveyard as part of Roger's research. Roger and Bree visit the chapel and they kiss. At that moment Claire starts screaming a cussing having found both Jack's grave and Jamie's fake stone.
Frank even left Bree a letter, which somehow yet to be explained ends up in a secret drawer in a desk, that warns her not to trust government folks, and she may be in danger from them. BECAUSE (and Frank doesn't know this) Gillian/Gellis at some point has found some old prophecy that at some time in the future the Jacobite cause will be lead by a descendant of Simon Fraser (Jamie's grandfather) but that line she thought had died out, until she discovers in season 3 "Voyager" that Jamie and Claire have a daughter, Bree (at that point) still living in the future.
Yes Gellis is not yet really dead. Dougal rescued her and substituted a corpse for the execution. The "witch" execution was often done by first killing the witch by strangulation and then burning at the stake. And the body burned had a bag over the head. But we don't know that until about 2/3 of the way through "Voyager". On screen it probably won't happen until episode 310 or 311 since there will be 13 total. And at the very end of "Voyager" Gellis/Gillian is preparing to go back to the future to find Bree(but fails) but that is not her only reason for traveling.
Brianna was falling in love with Roger Wakefield in season 2 and he is the fellow researching what happened to the Frasers of Lallybroch. The book makes this a lot more understandable. Roger is hired by Claire to do this rather than tripping over Claire at the funeral. He is immediately attracted to Bree and fascinated by Claire's project. He suspects much and discovers more until he knows nearly all of it. The whole thing on screen about Bree and Roger befriending Gillian in the 60's is rewrite. In the book, Claire secretly hunts for Gillian to try to prevent her from dying as a witch in the past because Gellis/Gillian did indeed save her at the witch trial, and send her a message that tells Claire Gillian/Gellis was a time traveler.
Roger is the adopted son of his great uncle, Reverend Wakefield. In the book Claire knows who he is because the Reverend has a genealogy chart for Roger on the bulletin board in his study, and because she recognizes Gillian/Gellis's green eyes in Roger, but they can't use that on screen because both the actors have blue eyes, and they had condensed all that anyway.
You saw Roger as a child in episode 201 when Claire returns from Culloden to 1947. Roger's birth name is MacKenzie. He is 7 generations descended from Dougal MacKenzie and Gellis Duncan / Gillian. Dougal placed the child with a MacKenzie couple since he could not claim it as his own. We will eventually know him as Buck MacKenzie, first a colonist in North Carolina participating in the "war" of Regulation, and later as a time traveler who scares the heck out of Roger and Bree's kids in the 1970's and then as a trusted relative wandering around in Scotland in the 1740's hunting for Roger's 20th century father, who flew his WWII plane into a lake near Craig na Dun and then tripped through the time passage. .
In book 4 "Drums of Autumn" which probably won't hit TV until 2019, Bree finds a news article in an old magazine that tells her that her parents die a horrific death in the past, so she goes back to warn them. She and Roger at that point have an understanding that they will marry, but she goes back in time without telling him. Her plan was that he wouldn't know and she'd be back before he would find out but that goes awry and he follows her.
Then because Bree and Roger marry secretly and he goes off on a 2 day mission without her, and 2 days later she is raped, she becomes pregnant and
Roger can't get back to her until after the child is born so they stay, because they don't know if the child could go back to the future with them. Fortunately for the next 4 books he is a time traveler. So they go back and forth a few more times for various reasons, always a matter of life or death.
If you are confused about Hamish, he is the son of Dougal and Colum's wife Letitia as it is admitted on the DVD. But because they all 3 chose that together. There was no affair, he just bedded her regularly for 2 months until she became pregnant. Dougal actually says at some point in the book to someone, probably Claire that he told Colum she was all a man could desire but she was bland "pudding". He is much more a womanizer in the books. And actually attempts to bed Claire, with or without marriage, several more times than shows in the DVD. He is a worse character in the book than on screen. The fans don't mind.
So hopefully this removes confusion about who is ancestor of who.
Carol
Whew! Convoluted plot. But I did follow most of episode 213 and the
relationships. I wasn't sure whose progeny Roger was, but you have
made that clear. We'll have to see how much of this we can follow in
future episodes. They spend so much time on romantic scenes rather
than trying to make the story more understandable.

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-08 09:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
Post by Carol Dickinson
So hopefully this removes confusion about who is ancestor of who.
Carol
Whew! Convoluted plot. But I did follow most of episode 213 and the
relationships. I wasn't sure whose progeny Roger was, but you have
made that clear. We'll have to see how much of this we can follow in
future episodes. They spend so much time on romantic scenes rather
than trying to make the story more understandable.
Howard
You are never going to understand the story just watching the DVD's. If you're planning on being around for season 3 in September, then you have time to read the 2 books or listen to an audio books. They are fast reads really. You keep thinking I can't stop here, what happens next. Even seeing the series, you have missed SO MUCH. And I hear from fans that the reader of the audio books is FABULOUS! And I'll bet you would enjoy them, now that you have a taste of how Diana plots her story.

And the fans would disagree on the romantic scenes. Believe it or not MOST OF THEM have been deleted. You have seen the 3 most graphic, the wedding night, the makeup sex at Leoch, and the prison one. All the rest are softer and more romantic, but still somewhat graphic. Rarely does Diana write a love scene that is not graphic, but not as much as those 3. Many are very funny. Jenny catches Jamie and Claire being romantic in the parlor and Lallybroch and says "What are you doing brother?" He replies "Making love to my wife." and Jenny then says "Well if you do it there (on the floor) you'll get splinters in your arse." and walks away. That is basically the whole scene.

But the fans think there was not nearly enough. They have been complaining there was not enough in season 2. And really they deleted almost all of them last season. Some died because they were in parts of the book that were left out of the plot. Ron and Diana have both promised there will be more in 3. There are several that are critical to the plot.

Just tonight I was reading on Facebook major celebration that they have revealed in "Voyager" we will see the turtle soup scene, much celebration. Their first night together after Claire returns to the 18th century is done, then the plot requires another one when Jamie takes Claire back to Lallybroch. Essential.

Not only that but in "Voyager" Fergus is an adult and gets married. There is a wedding night that is sort of central to moving the plot forward so that is likely in there, plus Fergus and his bride are on the voyages with Jamie and Claire so there are more scenes promised in hints by the production people. There will be "romance".

"Voyager" will be quite confusing if you don't pay close attention because Jamie has several identities. You heard reference to Red Jamie in Season 2 but it was so low key you might have missed it. Next season he will be James Fraser, Red Jamie, Jamie Roy, Alexander Malcom, and Captain Alessandro that I can remember. There might have been a couple more. I can't exactly remember which names he used in some places. But they'll use at least all these in just 13 episodes. The Red Jamie character was a BIG part of "Dragonfly in Amber" season 2 in the book. Most of the 800 pages they left out he was Red Jamie. And that is why the Duke of Sandringham was counting on solving his problems by trapping Jamie. But since that part was dropped from the series, so it was likely confusing to people who didn't know the book plot.

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-08 11:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 02:04:34 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
"Voyager" will be quite confusing if you don't pay close attention because Jamie has several identities. You heard reference to Red Jamie in Season 2 but it was so low key you might have missed it. Next season he will be James Fraser, Red Jamie, Jamie Roy, Alexander Malcom, and Captain Alessandro that I can remember. There might have been a couple more. I can't exactly remember which names he used in some places. But they'll use at least all these in just 13 episodes. The Red Jamie character was a BIG part of "Dragonfly in Amber" season 2 in the book. Most of the 800 pages they left out he was Red Jamie. And that is why the Duke of Sandringham was counting on solving his problems by trapping Jamie. But since that part was dropped from the series, so it was likely confusing to people who didn't know the book plot.
Carol
I'll have to try to watch carefully, and ask for your help if I run
into a problem. Speaking of the Duke of Sandringham, that actor,
Simon Callow, is an interesting guy, and perfect for this role. I've
seen him in lots of British productions. We are very fond of BBC
mystery series. We have seen all of the Inspector Morse, Inspector
Lewis, Endeavour series, all based on Colin Dexter's books and
characters. And then we have watched all of Inspector Lynley, Frost,
Foyle's War, Midsomer Murders, and of course, all of Agatha Christie
and Dorothy L. Sayers, plus P.D. James, and a few others.

As to the love scenes and nudity, I always remember a line from
Raymond Chandler's "The Long Goodbye" (I think), "Don't look. All
that nubile flesh will drive you crazy."

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-09 08:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
As to the love scenes and nudity, I always remember a line from
Raymond Chandler's "The Long Goodbye" (I think), "Don't look. All
that nubile flesh will drive you crazy."
Howard
LOL. I have to admit that I didn't get sucked in to "Outlander" until it was on TV. I remembered the lady at Left Coast Crime telling me that she also wrote the mysteries and how I really didn't enjoy my first exposure to Lord John.

But I also remembered a bit about Diana's talk, and her mentioning a highlander and that she thought she had material for one more book. HAH! So I thought I'd watch an episode and see, since I really don't like romance novels. They are just so locked in rules of the genre. To me they are silly, unrealistic, there are absolutely no suprises.

So anyway I watched the first episode and thought well, interesting enough, I'm not sure, but I'll watch one more. And I did that each week, until the mid-season finale (what an oxymoron) when Jamie is sitting in the window threatening Jack who is about to rape Claire. And they said "next episode in 6 months" and I knew I was hooked. Ran out and bought the book the next day.

But I was still casual and undecided when the wedding episode aired, and I tuned in late and there are naked people rolling around it bed. I shreiked and yelled at the TV that I didn't want to watch naked people. It was a shreik and prompted everybody in the house to run into the room. I turned it off. I figured I could go back at the end of the episode, then watch it and fast forward through the naked people, being totally unaware what was coming.

But then of course it turned out about half the episode was naked people, just not always rolling around in bed. And I've seen naked ladies before, being one myself on many occasions. Seeing Sam/Jaime naked was no problem since they only showed his behind or above the waist from the front. The giggley fans do love his bod. He's well built from all that body building, biking and mountain climbing.

I do not lust for him. Don't understand the women who do.
But he does have the most beautiful blue eyes.

Carol

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-09 21:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 01:33:35 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
I do not lust for him. Don't understand the women who do.
But he does have the most beautiful blue eyes.
Carol
Sometime I wonder if those actors are really doing it. I guess that
would be called "Method" acting. Otherwise is would be called
"Technique" acting wouldn't it? :-) I remember a drama teacher
telling his class, "We are actors. We are here to live out our joys
and sorrows before audiences." He obviously did not believe in Method
acting. Laurence Olivier said he couldn't do Method acting; he just
observed the behaviors of people and imitated it. But on screen,
Method acting can draw an audience right into the emotions.

I thought Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" was amazing, and much of it was
improvised. The first scene, with Martin Sheen, was realistic because
he was really drunk and his narration was stunning too. That scene
was nothing less than a music video for the song "The End" by Jim
Morrison and the Doors. Dennis Hopper: "What am I, man? I should
have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent
seas" (borrowed from T.S. Eliot). Robert Duvall: "I love the smell
of napalm in the morning. It smells like…VICTORY." Many memorable
lines right out of the heads of the actors.

However, as talented as some actors may be, I don't attribute their
personas or the roles they play to themselves. In fact, I think a
quote from Max Allan Collins' "Bye Bye Baby" is fairly apropos:
Bobby (Kennedy) shook his head; he looked very young and very old all
at once. "Why are these actors so difficult to deal with?"

"It's because they're damaged goods, Bob. They're talented, often
gifted, but they live out of suitcases and pretend to be somebody they
aren't, for a living. You know-like politicians?"

He showed no reaction, looking out at the ocean again. He wasn't known
for his sense of humor.

"Think of them this way, Bob-they're carnies."

That did get a faint smile out of him. "You're saying Laurence Olivier
and, uh, Peter O'Toole and Audrey Hepburn are carnival people."
. . .
"Yup. Hardworking folk in the entertainment business, but a breed
apart." I painted the air with a hand. "Suppose you needed a new
driver for the presidential limo. Would you choose a nice young
chauffeur with a Secret Service background check? Or would you look
for a guy with four teeth and six tattoos who hasn't shaved in three
days and chain-smokes whose prior job was tending the Tilt-A-Whirl?"
------------------

I look upon good acting as wonderful paintings - the actors themselves
as talented canvasses.

Howard
Howard Duck
2017-06-10 03:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 01:33:35 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
I do not lust for him. Don't understand the women who do.
But he does have the most beautiful blue eyes.
Carol
Sometime I wonder if those actors are really doing it. I guess that
would be called "Method" acting. Otherwise is would be called
"Technique" acting wouldn't it? : I remember a drama teacher telling
his class, "We are actors. We not are here to live out our joys and
sorrows before audiences." He obviously did not believe in Method
acting. Laurence Olivier said he couldn't do Method acting; he just
observed the behaviors of people and imitated it. But on screen,
Method acting can draw an audience right into the emotions.

I thought Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" was amazing, and much of it was
improvised. The first scene, with Martin Sheen, was realistic because
he was really drunk and his narration was stunning too. That scene
was nothing less than a music video for the song "The End" by Jim
Morrison and the Doors. Dennis Hopper: "What am I, man? I should
have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent
seas" (borrowed from T.S. Eliot). Robert Duvall: "I love the smell
of napalm in the morning. It smells like…VICTORY." Many memorable
lines right out of the heads of the actors.

However, as talented as some actors may be, I don't attribute their
personas or the roles they play to themselves. In fact, I think a
quote from Max Allan Collins' "Bye Bye Baby" is fairly apropos:
Bobby (Kennedy) shook his head; he looked very young and very old all
at once. "Why are these actors so difficult to deal with?"

"It's because they're damaged goods, Bob. They're talented, often
gifted, but they live out of suitcases and pretend to be somebody they
aren't, for a living. You know-like politicians?"

He showed no reaction, looking out at the ocean again. He wasn't known
for his sense of humor.

"Think of them this way, Bob-they're carnies."

That did get a faint smile out of him. "You're saying Laurence Olivier
and, uh, Peter O'Toole and Audrey Hepburn are carnival people."
. . .
"Yup. Hardworking folk in the entertainment business, but a breed
apart." I painted the air with a hand. "Suppose you needed a new
driver for the presidential limo. Would you choose a nice young
chauffeur with a Secret Service background check? Or would you look
for a guy with four teeth and six tattoos who hasn't shaved in three
days and chain-smokes whose prior job was tending the Tilt-A-Whirl?"
------------------

I look upon good acting as wonderful paintings - the actors themselves
as talented canvasses.

Howard
Mike Burke
2017-06-10 05:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 01:33:35 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Snipt
Post by Howard Duck
He showed no reaction, looking out at the ocean again. He wasn't known
for his sense of humor.
"Think of them this way, Bob-they're carnies."
That did get a faint smile out of him. "You're saying Laurence Olivier
and, uh, Peter O'Toole and Audrey Hepburn are carnival people."
. . .
"Yup. Hardworking folk in the entertainment business, but a breed
apart." I painted the air with a hand. "Suppose you needed a new
driver for the presidential limo. Would you choose a nice young
chauffeur with a Secret Service background check? Or would you look
for a guy with four teeth and six tattoos who hasn't shaved in three
days and chain-smokes whose prior job was tending the Tilt-A-Whirl?"
------------------
I look upon good acting as wonderful paintings - the actors themselves
as talented canvasses.
A very good friend, a brilliant school teacher and semi-pro theatrical
actor/director in his spare time once told me that, in general, actors
tended to be "empty vessels" without an original thought in their heads.
He insisted that it was this trait that cleared their brains for learning
lines and taking direction. Obviously exceptions exist, but observation
suggests that these are more likely to be seen rather than heard.
--
Mique
Howard Duck
2017-06-10 09:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Burke
Post by Howard Duck
I look upon good acting as wonderful paintings - the actors themselves
as talented canvasses.
A very good friend, a brilliant school teacher and semi-pro theatrical
actor/director in his spare time once told me that, in general, actors
tended to be "empty vessels" without an original thought in their heads.
He insisted that it was this trait that cleared their brains for learning
lines and taking direction. Obviously exceptions exist, but observation
suggests that these are more likely to be seen rather than heard.
Good point Mique! Hollywood-philes seem to see them as gods.

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-12 05:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
Post by Mike Burke
Post by Howard Duck
I look upon good acting as wonderful paintings - the actors themselves
as talented canvasses.
A very good friend, a brilliant school teacher and semi-pro theatrical
actor/director in his spare time once told me that, in general, actors
tended to be "empty vessels" without an original thought in their heads.
He insisted that it was this trait that cleared their brains for learning
lines and taking direction. Obviously exceptions exist, but observation
suggests that these are more likely to be seen rather than heard.
Good point Mique! Hollywood-philes seem to see them as gods.
Howard
ROTFLMAO

Yes Mique. That is a good description of most of the actors/actresses I know. And my BFF had one of the most empty heads I've ever known.

Carl

Carol Dickinson
2017-06-12 05:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
Sometime I wonder if those actors are really doing it. I guess that
would be called "Method" acting. Otherwise is would be called
"Technique" acting wouldn't it? : But on screen,
Method acting can draw an audience right into the emotions.
However, as talented as some actors may be, I don't attribute their
personas or the roles they play to themselves.
I look upon good acting as wonderful paintings - the actors themselves
as talented canvasses.
Howard
My BFF Audrey, who was my coworker, and my roommate for 5 years, was an actress. Before she was diagnosed with cancer she made a living acting. She was in a traveling troupe that traveled the world. She also did a bit of television. She was worked with some big names. She had just gotten her big break to be in a big Hollywood movie when she was diagnosed and she walked away from it.

But I have lived with an actress. I know this about some of them (because she rubbed elbows with lots of the locals) I think a lot of them can't tell the difference between "acting" and "pretending to be somebody else". I have this theory that lots of actors and actresses fall in love because they are cast that way and they have to believe it in order to play the role.

If you mean by "doing it" are they really having sex . . . in the case of Sam and Cait, they aren't. He has a steady girl. And there is a clip from some interview show that is pasted all over the fan pages about the filming of the wedding night scenes. It "slipped out" that they both had to get drunk to do them. They are very good friends though who genuinely like each other, which is a good thing considering the amount of time they have to spend naked together.

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-10 03:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 01:33:35 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
I do not lust for him. Don't understand the women who do.
But he does have the most beautiful blue eyes.
Carol
Sometime I wonder if those actors are really doing it. I guess that
would be called "Method" acting. Otherwise is would be called
"Technique" acting wouldn't it? :-) I remember a drama teacher
telling his class, "We are actors. We are not here to live out our
joys and sorrows before audiences." He obviously did not believe in
Method acting. Laurence Olivier said he couldn't do Method acting; he
just observed the behaviors of people and imitated it. But on screen,
Method acting can draw an audience right into the emotions.

I thought Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" was amazing, and much of it was
improvised. The first scene, with Martin Sheen, was realistic because
he was really drunk and his narration was stunning too. That scene
was nothing less than a music video for the song "The End" by Jim
Morrison and the Doors. Dennis Hopper: "What am I, man? I should
have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent
seas" (borrowed from T.S. Eliot). Robert Duvall: "I love the smell
of napalm in the morning. It smells like…VICTORY." Many memorable
lines right out of the heads of the actors.

However, as talented as some actors may be, I don't attribute their
personas or the roles they play to themselves. In fact, I think a
quote from Max Allan Collins' "Bye Bye Baby" is fairly apropos:
Bobby (Kennedy) shook his head; he looked very young and very old all
at once. "Why are these actors so difficult to deal with?"

"It's because they're damaged goods, Bob. They're talented, often
gifted, but they live out of suitcases and pretend to be somebody they
aren't, for a living. You know-like politicians?"

He showed no reaction, looking out at the ocean again. He wasn't known
for his sense of humor.

"Think of them this way, Bob-they're carnies."

That did get a faint smile out of him. "You're saying Laurence Olivier
and, uh, Peter O'Toole and Audrey Hepburn are carnival people."
. . .
"Yup. Hardworking folk in the entertainment business, but a breed
apart." I painted the air with a hand. "Suppose you needed a new
driver for the presidential limo. Would you choose a nice young
chauffeur with a Secret Service background check? Or would you look
for a guy with four teeth and six tattoos who hasn't shaved in three
days and chain-smokes whose prior job was tending the Tilt-A-Whirl?"
------------------

I look upon good acting as wonderful paintings - the actors themselves
as talented canvasses.

Howard
Howard Duck
2017-06-03 16:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 17:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
However in season 3 and later Jamie should have taken your advice and avoided a whole lot of trouble. But then the books might have ended after the 5th one. He and some male characters you haven't met have no end of trouble with women starting in season/book 4. I doubt the books would have been near as fun or interesting nor the story eventually end up being 10 books. And we all want her to live long enough to write them. She's will have to live to be an active 80 to achieve that. She's not going to tell us how Jamie's ghost ends up outside the bed and breakfast in 1945 until book 10.
I wondered who that was outside looking up into her window. So, it's
Jamie's ghost!

Howard
Carol Dickinson
2017-06-03 21:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Howard Duck
I wondered who that was outside looking up into her window. So, it's
Jamie's ghost!
Howard
Goodness! should have figured that out from the costume alone let alone that he was so huge, taller and bulkier than Frank.


In the book there is a line which is a fan favorite and illustrated in art on fan pages all the time. I don't know if I can quote it exactly (well there are 2 of them).

In Dragonfly (season 2) Jamie says to Claire something like "I will find you if I have to spend 200 years in purgatory (something like) I will wait". I think the series makes it clear they are Catholic although Claire is non-practicing until she meets brother Ambrose (but not like on the DVD in Scotland in France which is where Ambrose Fraser "really" lived.)

And the second is from Voyager book 3 after they have found each other 20 years later and he says something like "When I was dead, for 200 years I loved you."
Since while she was in the 20th century, he was dead, it makes sense to the reader.

In the books Jamie cannot time travel but after book 7 their daughter and her husband who do time travel, and had children in the 18th century then go back to the 20th (the grandchildren can time travel too) Jamie time travels in dreams. He can see things the family is doing in the 20th century. And when he tells Claire about them, he can describe buildings he's never seen that Claire knows well, and he can describe things like a telephone, and even electric light and the shape of the ceiling lights. So probably, there's something in the Gabaldon time travel theory that makes it more than just a ghost showing up like they do (I saw my Grandfathers' ghosts visit me, so I do believe in ghosts.) My mother knew about that and confirmed I saw my Dad's father. But then she died and went to heaven, and was given a choice to stay or be sent back so she was a believer all her adult life and went joyfully in the end.
But we won't know until the end of book 10, a decade from now.

Carol
Howard Duck
2017-06-04 05:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 14:19:52 -0700 (PDT), Carol Dickinson
Post by Carol Dickinson
Post by Howard Duck
I wondered who that was outside looking up into her window. So, it's
Jamie's ghost!
Howard
Goodness! should have figured that out from the costume alone let alone that he was so huge, taller and bulkier than Frank.
In the book there is a line which is a fan favorite and illustrated in art on fan pages all the time. I don't know if I can quote it exactly (well there are 2 of them).
In Dragonfly (season 2) Jamie says to Claire something like "I will find you if I have to spend 200 years in purgatory (something like) I will wait". I think the series makes it clear they are Catholic although Claire is non-practicing until she meets brother Ambrose (but not like on the DVD in Scotland in France which is where Ambrose Fraser "really" lived.)
And the second is from Voyager book 3 after they have found each other 20 years later and he says something like "When I was dead, for 200 years I loved you."
Since while she was in the 20th century, he was dead, it makes sense to the reader.
In the books Jamie cannot time travel but after book 7 their daughter and her husband who do time travel, and had children in the 18th century then go back to the 20th (the grandchildren can time travel too) Jamie time travels in dreams. He can see things the family is doing in the 20th century. And when he tells Claire about them, he can describe buildings he's never seen that Claire knows well, and he can describe things like a telephone, and even electric light and the shape of the ceiling lights. So probably, there's something in the Gabaldon time travel theory that makes it more than just a ghost showing up like they do (I saw my Grandfathers' ghosts visit me, so I do believe in ghosts.) My mother knew about that and confirmed I saw my Dad's father. But then she died and went to heaven, and was given a choice to stay or be sent back so she was a believer all her adult life and went joyfully in the end.
But we won't know until the end of book 10, a decade from now.
Carol
It is very comforting to know where you are going after you leave this
earth as did your mother. I'm a little surprised you did not become
an adherent to her faith. (or did I misunderstand you?)

Howard
Loading...