This blog serves as a repository for my posts and commentary about the Outlander show and books. It is a complementary blog to my main Contemplating Life, the Universe & Everything (contemplatingoutlander) blog, which is now a more general blog. For my posts about the Outlander fandom see my Outlander Fandom Follies blog. >
Claire’s heart starts to glow blue right before the ghost scene — as she’s calling him home to her via blue light, he calls her home to him via the stones. In doing so, he closes the time loop, and together they defy death itself. 😭💙
There will never be a love story like theirs again. Never.
Contemplations on the Symbolism of the Color "Blue" in Outlander's Finale
Great insight @smashing-teacups! The color blue was always a healing color in the books and show. It is no coincidence that by the end of that segment, Claire's hair is white, fulfilling Adawehi's prophecy (in episode 04x04) that "When your hair is white like snow, you will have wisdom beyond time," including the implied ability to use blue light to heal (like Master Raymond heals Claire in episode 02x07).
Hence, Claire heals Jamie with blue light, "calling [his soul] home" to his body and to Claire. Perhaps the color blue in Outlander not only represents healing, but represents "calling" to the souls of loved ones, as well.
The finale also suggests the color blue (in the form of forget-me-nots) has a part in Jamie "calling" Claire back "home to him" through the stones in the continuous time loop. (Thanks @gotham-ruaidh for introducing the endless time loop concept years ago!)
We learn in the last episode that Jamie's ghost's great love for Claire is what caused the blue forget-me-nots to magically blossom beneath the tallest stone at Craigh na Dun.
Shortly afterward, those blue flowers catch Claire's eye, "calling to" her. In going back to pick them, she falls through the stones and "home" to Jamie.
And so the Jamie & Claire time loop continues its circular path on, and on, and on for eternity.
[edited]
_______________
The Claire GIF had as its base, this GIF, before edits.
I don't normally post anything from Outlander anymore on this blog, since it is now mostly a political blog. (When I post about Outlander, I use my CEO or OFF side blogs.) But it was the series finale, so why not?
Outlander was such a wonderful love story. And I thought the show runners tied up the series very well, considering that Diana has not yet written the last book.
At least we got a plausible explanation for Jamie's ghost and for how the "forget-me-nots" were growing by the standing stones.
BTW, back in Jan. 2009, Diana acknowledged in a response to a question on CompuServ (remember CompuServ? 😳) that when she wrote Outlander, she wasn't exactly sure why she had chosen the forget-me-nots to be what attracted Claire to the stones.
Diana would be the first to say that a writer's subconscious mind often knows the direction of their writing before their conscious mind does. Clearly that was the case with Diana and the "forget-me-nots."
I personally got thrown off the trail of Jamie and the forget-me-nots by a comment of Diana's I had read back in 2015, which was probably very similar to a comment she made in July 2017 to this Twitter post:
I interpreted Diana's comment to mean that Jamie didn't "plant" the forget-me-nots. (Well, it turns out he didn't technically "plant" them--his ghost just mysteriously made them grow.)
In fact, I got so thrown off the trail that back in Aug. 2015 I wrote a highly unlikely explanation for the forget-me-nots that you can read HERE if you want a laugh at its improbability. (At least I had fun with it. 😂)
Anyway, I shall miss the Outlander series, but I do look forward to that last book (assuming Diana ever finally finishes it 🤷🏻♀️).
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.
Brian can’t help but wonder, @contemplatingenjoyingoutlander, if you were able to go back in time, might you have chosen a different example of variations? 😉
Johann Sebastian Bach? — Claire Fraser
Yes. I’m surprised you have heard of him. He sends me things now and again -- He calls them ‘Inventions’ and they’re really quite clever. But I am afraid his music is not the sort to endure. Clever, but no heart. — Mother Hildegarde
Images: Starz / S02E03 Useful Occupations and Deceptions
Image: Cantorion
🤷🏻♂️ Maybe next time? (😂 Chopin was a lovely choice.)
Part 1 Adso steals a wig and "the Devil is in the details"
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.
Since the "endless loop" is coming up again with the Outlander series finale, I thought I would reblog this old post that contemplates that each time Jamie and Claire go through the "loop," there might be some slightly different things that change. In that way, it would be a creative "loop" that allows for free will and with some "variations on a theme."
Here’s something I’ve had in the back of my mind for almost as long as I’ve been an Outlander fan.
Jamie and Claire have always and will always find each other. Literally.
Claire is born in 1918 and falls through time in 1945. She arrives in 1743, spends 3 years there, goes back to the 20th century, stays there until 1968, goes back to 1766. Presumably lives the rest of her days with Jamie until she dies (Diana Gabaldon has repeatedly said that she expects the series to end circa 1800, in Scotland, but then again she said that Book 5 would be called “King Farewell” and that there would only be one more book after that…but I digress…)
Anyway, the key point is that even if Jamie and Claire pass away circa 1800, Claire will be born again in 1918. She’ll fall through time again in 1945. She’ll meet Jamie again in 1743. Etc.
So they’re in an endless loop of finding each other, losing each other, and then finding each other again.
Here’s food for thought: If Jamie and Claire are in this loop - and have been in it countless times - what iteration are we reading about in the Books? Is this their 10th go-round? 100th?
But it doesn’t matter - because they always, always find each other.
Claire’s heart starts to glow blue right before the ghost scene — as she’s calling him home to her via blue light, he calls her home to him via the stones. In doing so, he closes the time loop, and together they defy death itself. 😭💙
There will never be a love story like theirs again. Never.
Contemplations on the Symbolism of the Color "Blue" in Outlander's Finale
Great insight @smashing-teacups! The color blue was always a healing color in the books and show. It is no coincidence that by the end of that segment, Claire's hair is white, fulfilling Adawehi's prophecy (in episode 04x04) that "When your hair is white like snow, you will have wisdom beyond time," including the implied ability to use blue light to heal (like Master Raymond heals Claire in episode 02x07).
Hence, Claire heals Jamie with blue light, "calling [his soul] home" to his body and to Claire. Perhaps the color blue in Outlander not only represents healing, but represents "calling" to the souls of loved ones, as well.
The finale also suggests the color blue (in the form of forget-me-nots) has a part in Jamie "calling" Claire back "home to him" through the stones in the continuous time loop. (Thanks @gotham-ruaidh for introducing the endless time loop concept years ago!)
We learn in the last episode that Jamie's ghost's great love for Claire is what caused the blue forget-me-nots to magically blossom beneath the tallest stone at Craigh na Dun.
Shortly afterward, those blue flowers catch Claire's eye, "calling to" her. In going back to pick them, she falls through the stones and "home" to Jamie.
And so the Jamie & Claire time loop continues its circular path on, and on, and on for eternity.
[edited]
_______________
The Claire GIF had as its base, this GIF, before edits.
Frank Randall asked Claire to not talk about the past. He burned Claire's 18th century clothes - didn't ask her. Looked for and found Jamie Fraser, didn't tell her.
Jamie Fraser has always respected Frank's place in Claire's life. Never asked her to hide anything. Always gave her the space to talk about him.
No, it is not the same. In many ways Frank could never let go of his jealousy of Jamie and that twisted his love for Claire.
Yes, Jamie "respected Frank's place in Claire's life," but Jamie was also quite religious and in Jamie's very Catholic mind, Frank's marriage to Claire took precedence because Frank married Claire first (at least in Claire's lifeline). So that could account for his deference to Frank--and his empathy for Frank's position, which he expressed in the episode.
In contrast, Jamie showed no respect for John's calling John's former "wife" Claire "my dear" when saying goodbye to her. And of course, Jamie nearly killed LJG for having had "carnal knowledge" of his wife.
Now in the book, Jamie hit LJG because, in the "carnal knowledge" confession, John had said they had both been "f*cking" Jamie. Undoubtedly, some of Jamie's trauma from being sexually assaulted by Black Jack contributed to Jamie's near-murderous reaction. (And even if Jamie was not intending to punch LJG to death, his allowing John to be taken prisoner by the Continental Army as a possible "spy"--and doing nothing afterward to try to get him released--suggested Jamie wasn't too ambivalent about someone else killing John.)
Yet, even in the books, Jamie admits to Claire that he is a very jealous man and shows some real jealousy regarding John's having been married to Claire. This results in Jamie's cutting John off for a long time.
However, unlike Frank, Jamie doesn't allow his jealousy to ruin his marriage with Claire--just his friendship with LJG (at least for a while).
It's BJ. He says "I'm not the only one knowing my death date* or something along this line, when BJ captured Jamie and... kept him captive, Claire punished him letting him know about the exact day he (Black Jack) would die.
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.
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]
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.
Brian can’t help but wonder, @contemplatingenjoyingoutlander, if you were able to go back in time, might you have chosen a different example of variations? 😉
Johann Sebastian Bach? — Claire Fraser
Yes. I’m surprised you have heard of him. He sends me things now and again -- He calls them ‘Inventions’ and they’re really quite clever. But I am afraid his music is not the sort to endure. Clever, but no heart. — Mother Hildegarde
Images: Starz / S02E03 Useful Occupations and Deceptions
Image: Cantorion
🤷🏻♂️ Maybe next time? (😂 Chopin was a lovely choice.)
Part 1 Adso steals a wig and "the Devil is in the details"
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.
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).
“…the audience does not have to work through all these steps that book readers have had to do over the years to reconcile…” 😂 If I had 5p for every time I toggle between an episode’s dialogue, a book’s text, and Diana’s timeline to make sense of something that happens in the show, I’d have enough currency to finance Seasons 9 and 10. 😝 Sometimes, having read the books is a disadvantage, depending on how busy you like to be while you relax.
On to reading Part 2 Predestination or variations on a time loop? 🍿…
@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!
Contemplating Enjoying Outlander @contemplatingenjoyingoutlander - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
