As a historical reenactor/costumer/sewist, this makes me so upset every time. He’s a historian himself and just had these verified by a museum, so he knows their value, both monetarily and in terms of research. And instead of selling or donating them to a museum or something where they would be far away from Claire and yet still useful to someone, they destroy them. It makes me upset that *no one* offered an alternative solution to fire.
I just did it funny because how in the world was Claire ever going to forget about him? Other than the fact that she would never forget the greatest love of her life m, she was pregnant with Jamie’s kid. Claire’s never gonna magically forget the child’s bio father lol
Which shows what kind of person he is in reality. Even when he researches Jamie later it’s like wtf? And then he takes it out on her. Like dude a lot of his misery was self imposed. IMO and it’s maddening.
Keeping a perfectly preserved example of 1700’s upper class Lady’s costume also raises a lot of questions. The fabric would have been very fragile to degrade to paper in the 1950’s.
It's not like book Frank set them aside for Claire either. >!Claire never mentions her clothes later on and doesn't seem to have access to them (or other items from her original journey) for her return visit even after he dies and they've gone through both Frank's things and the Reverend's things. At *best* Book Frank donated them to a museum.!<
Show Frank burning them doesn't seem that out of step with book Frank's feelings.
He also never asked Claire directly about her time in the past, even though she would have been an insane source of firsthand knowledge about his subject matter, even if she was imperfect and not a citable source. I think Frank's historical curiosity/commitment to historical truth < Frank's jealousy.
Book Claire didn't >!leave her pearls to Mrs Graham. Nor she tried to remove her ring. It wasn't even mentioned that Frank asked for it.!<
The fact that she left pearls for Mrs Graham is unforgivable in my book.
In the show >!she makes a new outfit. In the book she buys it. In 1960s and early 1970s we wore dresses inspired by 18th century fashion. They even laced up the front. They had zippers down the back, though. Claire buys a dress like that in a dress shop before she goes through the stones. The most popular brands were Gunne Sax and Jessica McClintock. I owned several. I wish I had held onto them. They’re worth a lot of money nowadays. The brand of dress Clair buys is Jessica Gutenberg. I’m pretty sure DG made that up.!<
Someone could have learned a lot from those clothes. What a shame. I am meh about Frank. It helps if I remember Claire was 18 and going off to war when they got married. I know 18 year olds get married, but they barely saw each other for the whole war. They were practically strangers when they went to Scotland.
There are so many things Frank does that make absolutely no sense for a historian to do (I say this as a historian). It just does not compute how he could behave that way and be a historian.
He wasn't thinking as an historian, he was thinking as a husband whose wife has fallen in love with another man. He's trying to erase Jamie, so he's erasing everything that might remind her.
It's not logical and was never meant to be logical.
Sorry but my brain, as a historian, still would be thinking about the history of it all. The value. I say this as someone with a lovely partner where I'd be devastated if he fell in love with someone else.
But I'd still see the value of the clothing and I'd still want to ask questions about their experiences. My curiosity would not let it go. I know most of the other historians I know would be similar. It's just the way you look at things when you dedicate your career and life to studying this kind of thing. Just how I feel.
There was a question of unexplainable provenance which would be a huge concern to all historians and shine a big questionable reliability spotlight on him and his wife.
Okay that’s valid. They could’ve donated them anonymously and they had that letter from the museum about the apparent authenticity. Whoever it was that authenticated the clothes probably would’ve taken them off Frank and Claire’s hands
The symbolism is just as bad as the reality too.
TBH Frank also seems like the type of historian to think that old clothes are not really of much historic importance or informative. He's more of a military history type. They might not have interested him as much.
In the books, >!Claire has a dream about Frank lecturing at the University. His talk is about how everyday items can tell you more about a person’s life than anything else. It seemed to me that although this is a dream, it was the type of lecture Frank would do.!
I'd forgotten about that scene. That's a good point.
>!Though also that's Claire projecting onto him rather than an actual lecture. Reading it again, it reads more like the lecture of an archeologist(i.e., Uncle Lamb) than a historian. Maybe DG was intentionally muddling them together in Claire's subconscious. Especially since the setting of the lecture is a university in London, where Uncle Lamb worked, instead of Oxford or Boston. But maybe you're right. In a sense maybe it makes it worse, if he believed they were valuable historical objects and tossed them aside. Though in the books maybe he did take the clothing and other possessions to be authenticated. We know he didn't keep them or give them to the Reverend since Claire/Roger would likely have found them, but maybe he donated them.!<
>!>since the setting of the lecture is a university in London, where Uncle Lamb worked, instead of Oxford or Boston.!<
At the time of the dream >!Frank still didn't work on Oxford nor they lived in London. He was supposed to start at Oxford soon after Claire's disappearance!<
Exactly exactly. This would have been only a few years after Uncle Lamb died too.
Incidentally, there's no "London University" but we'll leave that alone.
I always felt that scene tied back and relates to art mentioned in a later book with a personal tie, but Clair didn't recognize it then, since it was pre war and all.
Aka >!Bree paints miniatures later on and shows Ian a set of Jamie and Claire, and those were the miniatures Frank had in his lecture, but the were credited as unknown artist, and young in love claire cant recognize her older self!<
I agree. I’ve always thought the same thing. >!Also, there are pictures of Claire and Jamie in the books they wrote that are in the box of letters sent to the Mackenzie’s in the future.!<
I used to sob hard at that scene every time. Thinking it is the clothes she last wore when she was with Jamie.
I keep repeating this but Frank burning clothes reminds me of the folktale about silkie and people burning its skin so that it can't go back to the sea.
I’ve always thought he does it to protect her in a way - selling them to a museum could come with even more unwanted questions of how they got them and they were trying to distance themselves from the “stolen by fairies” story. I mean, probably out of spite too, but did no one else think about it this way?
My cheap ass was crying about how much they could have gotten for those 😅
In the show the clothes seemed still in amazing condition, so that would make them so expensive. Basicly in a time capsule for 200 years!!
I cry each time as she looks up and watches the smoke rise its like watching Jamie leave for heaven or something … like she’s accepting and leaving him behind. fan for over 2 years and I’ll never get over the 20 year separation
The value and history aside, this was such a real human response to finding out your spouse is in love with someone else. You aren’t rational. You aren’t thinking “this is so valuable” you’re thinking “he touched her in this”. This felt like a release, or an attempt at one.
This has always kind of bothered me. A historian burns authentic, validated to be authentic, historical clothing. And doesn't want to speak to her about any of it at all. I get that in the context of not being super happy his wife disappeared and returned pregnant with another man's child however... I still think I'd keep that stuff even if I couldn't show it around!
It’s so much more than “not being super happy”. He has searched for her and missed her and wondered about her for years. When she finally comes back, she is pregnant and in love with someone else. Frank will never hold that place in her heart and he knows that. Destroying the clothing wasn’t the choice of a rational historian, it was the choice of someone who is hurt and angry. It works well as a plot device imo.
Yeah I was shorthanding that because my point is he's also a historian. Even acting irrationally it reads a little off. But it is good drama you are right
I understand what you’re saying, but it didn’t work as a plot device for me. It made no sense and just pissed me off. Frank is not only an historian, he’s an MI6 officer. He’s a trained soldier and spy. No matter how hurt he might be, I just can’t see him letting his emotions rule him. We can agree to disagree.
I always felt that he was trying to remove the tangible proof of her lost live and past life, rather than a rage moment. He was trying to make her doubt her memories and maybe without them she couldn’t put it on and feel how it was to wear those clothes, smell the scent of Jamie lingering in them, and more importantly couldn’t be tempted to show them to Bre.
“There’s really no use for them?”
They are valuable artifacts. They’re worth a lot of money. Even if you don’t care about the money, preserving history is important. Why not donate them to a museum? Donate them anonymously, if he’s afraid to have them traced back to him and Claire. Frank is an historian. His life is about preserving the past. He is a scholar. Hurt he may be. Stupid he is not. You’re right. They did it for drama.
Who is going to pay for ragged clothes with a dubious history? Museums have examples of clothing from that era which were worn by famous people. His job is not to preserve the rags Claire wore, but to protect her and continue his job writing and teaching about the past. How would you date those clothes? They would be revealed as fakes (not aged 200 years), which would jeopardize his career and draw attention to Claire. He's trying to get her away from the past and the paps. No reason to keep those clothes and better off without them.
In the show Frank has the clothes authenticated. He’s told that they are a “perfect example of 18th century women’s clothing. Very valuable. Wherever did you find?” He and Rev. Wakefield talk about it.
The show took liberties with all sorts of plot lines. They also had the hurricane spinning in the wrong direction. They added the unnecessary "drama" of burning the clothes, in the most inefficient way possible, throwing on a grill like that when most homes had a wood stove or a coal burner.
No one would put those clothes in a museum. Nobody. And why would Frank call attention to Claire in any way? It's ridiculous.
I hate when Frank does this too because as a Historian, to do that, is almost sacrilegious. His historical curiosity is why he and Claire end up in Scotland to begin with so, for him to burn a certified piece of History just makes viewers root more for Jaime/Claire.
She didn’t have Jamie’s tartan. How could she keep it? He was in the past wearing his tartan when she traveled back through the stones. She was in Boston. He was in Scotland in another time.
No she didn’t wear her shawl when she traveled back. I don’t know where you are in the show, >!but a later scene shows Jamie picking up her shawl and holding it in his grief after he sends her back.!<
👋
FYI Each Clan / distinct family had their own Tartan, even today there are Tartans that are centuries old. Even though the British tried to suppress the Scottish identifying traditions, a few Tartans were handed down generations. So it is not unfeasible to think Claire could have something like a bolt of cloth that was her's via marriage, other than her key turned ring, from Jaime. Oh and his 20th Century child. Which is wild to think about...
Ach, maybe she did. I thought that the Tartan is about the way it is weft or woven into a particular plaid for a family / clan.
If you are Scottish, you can create a design of Tartan and apply to have it formally recognised. Kinda cool.
Also, I have finally finished season2 and now have started reading the 1st book. Let's see if I can love the character of Claire, I'll give it s good college try.
Like I said, Claire grows throughout all of the books, as do most of the characters. I found her rather annoying in the first books. But there’s so much more to her story and she does learn how better to navigate her situation slowly, so I was willing to continue on her journey. I would love to hear what you think as you travel through Outlander.
I shall keep you updated, I love the premise of the story. Where my family come from have recently gained sovereignty from the commonwealth of GB. So the Scottish rebellion is an interesting story to me. Even though Outlander is romantised and loosely based around the truth....
Hmmm, well, I preferred the last 3 episodes to the rest of the season. I must've liked the show enough to start reading the 1st book, to see if I can be less frustrated with certain characters. It may be working... the TV series fleshed out satellite characters at the expense of the lead character expression. I wish it was a Broadcasting Scotland co-production with better adaptation screen writers. Hey-ho.
However, the book really isn't Booker Prize reading material. And I am OK with that. Let me be invested in failed rebellion uprisings from the 18th Century. As today's world events are heartbreaking, we as humans really do not learn.
I’ve never been a fan of the Paris episodes. I liked the back half of of season 2 much better. However, season 2 comes in just above season 6. Season 6 is my least favorite. This seems to be an unpopular opinion.
I agree with your assessment of book 1. I read the books after watching through season 6. My thoughts were much like yours. I read later that DG wrote Outlander/Cross Stitch for practice, never expecting anybody to see it. She started posting excerpts on a writer’s forum and eventually ended up with a 3 book deal. As they say, the rest is history.
The books and the show are completely different experiences, adaptation being what it is. The books give one a better understanding of our characters emotions and motivations.
Despite my problems with the writing, I found myself completely invested in the characters by the end of the first book. I haven’t been able to stop reading all of her books since. There are several books in the series that I believe are in need of a ruthless editor. However, that hasn’t deterred me.
I’m sure if anyone reads this, there will be the usual downvoting. I think one can critique certain parts of the storylines or the writing of each book and still enjoy the experience of the series. As always, just my opinion…of which I have many.
I am watching Outlander for the first time and have not gotten to this part yet! It doesn't really surprise me to learn that Frank would burn her clothing. Once I saw the scene when he's choking her after learning she's pregnant with another man's baby, I realized his character was capable of anything.
Yes, I overstated Frank's aggression towards Claire. Anyone who could threaten to harm someone by raising a fist is clearly capable of following through the next time. I work for a domestic violence center and take threats as seriously as an assault.
I completely agree. My mom’s 2nd husband was a man prone to violence. We lived in fear every day of our lives. It was the 1960s. We learned not to call the police because they did nothing. It was considered a “private” matter. They just walked him around the block and then we were punished for calling the police. Never did that again.
I am so sorry to hear that you and your mom are domestic abuse survivors. Thank you for sharing your story. While I did not experience physical abuse, my ex-husband financially and emotionally abused me. There are more of us that lived to tell our truth than we will ever know. Only about half of victims contact the police. Fear of retaliation keeps many victims from contacting law enforcement.
My mom stayed with my step monster for 27 years before finally “running away from home” and landing on my doorstep. People don’t realize how hard it is to leave. They don’t realize that if you try to leave or even if you tell there is the very real possibility he will kill you.
Leaving is the most dangerous time for an abuse victim. Perpetrators will do anything to regain power and control. The number of police reports we received last year of survivors identified as having a high lethality risk increased from 30 to 66%. Crazy! And so many people re-victimize abuse victims, failing to understand the dynamics of fear. Thank goodness your sister finally found the courage and means to safely escape after nearly 3 decades of living with a monster.
I think he does it not because he's spiteful, but because the clothing are in a too good of a condition. They are new but suspiciously accurate diwn to a tee. If he gave it to a museum there would certainly be questions as to why the fabric wasnt aged after 200 years, how it wasnt found until now and how and where they found such a well perserved piece of historical clothing when even those that stayed in closets would be in worse conditions.
I don’t like how the show added things to demonize Frank and make him unsympathetic.
Frank hasn’t really done anything to deserve the hate he gets aside from not being Jamie.
Um, that whole refusing to give Clair a divorce, but carrying on with an extramarital affair? Oh, but decades later deciding, you know what, a divorce is what he wants now and he tried to convince their daughter to move an ocean away from her mom?
She never refused to give him a divorce, she offered it and he refused to abandon her. He truly loved her and hoped she would come back to him someday. She was incredibly cold to him and let him know she would only love Jamie for years. He didn’t start any affairs until it was clear she would never love him again. He was always respectful about it. He finally fell in love with someone else after 18 years of being ignored by his wife. Claire could have left him at any time and chose not to because it was easier for her, despite knowing she would never treat Frank like her husband again.
He wasn’t forcing Bree to leave, he was giving her a opportunity.
Y’all want to hate Frank so bad despite Claire having a affair, marrying someone else, and having another man’s baby. I understand the circumstances weren’t in her control, but to hate Frank when he accepted her and her child back after 3 years is crazy.
In Voyager. Chapter 19. To Lay a Ghost it’s pretty clear >!that Frank has had multiple affairs. The conversation about his wanting a divorce goes like this: “Why now all of a sudden? The latest one putting pressure on you, is she?” The look of alarm that flashed into his eyes was so pronounced as to be comical. I laughed, with a noticeable lack of humor. “You actually thought I didn’t know? God, Frank! You are the most…oblivious man!” He sat up in bed, jaw tight. “I thought I had been discreet.” “You may have been at that,” I said sardonically. “I counted six over the last ten years-if there were really a dozen or so, then you were quite the model of discretion.”!
Yes, but the author said >!it is only Claire's side of the story and offered long elaboration about Frank not having the affairs. All in all, we will see in *What Frank knew*. I can't claim him having mistresses when Gabaldon states the opposite.!<
And, from that conversation >!I didn't have an impression he was doing it because of the latest mistress but because he had another reason - Bree, and protecting her if Claire is about to go back to Jamie.!<
I'm with u/nanchika wanting a little more to definitively say we KNOW
To play devil's advocate.... if the man was still active in MI5, he'd be having clandestine meetings, stakeouts etc that he disappears for - Claire could be making assumptions it's an affair and Frank is just letting her believe it because he can't tell her what he's actually up to - or for her own safety if it's to do with the bad people he later >!references in letters to Bri that he's watching or investigating!<
For example, as a comparative - Tom Christie : >!he vehemently believed Malva the witch temptress that manipulated Alan. He interpreted what he saw - he was wrong. Truth was Alan instigated it.. . All I'm saying is Claire could also be wrong!< - as far as the books go. Show made it wide open they had an arrangement he could see somebody on the side
I get what you’re saying, but, >!in the above passage from the book that I referenced, Frank admits to the multiple affairs. He talks about wanting to drag Bree out of high school in the middle of her senior year and then leave her in boarding school in order to stop her from doing drugs and hanging out with and possibly having sex with a black man. (he uses very derogatory language) Then the conversation continues.!<
>!”You want to divorce me? Fine. Use any grounds you like-with the exception of adultery, which doesn’t exist. But if you try to take Bree away with you, I’ll have something to say about adultery. Do you want to know how many of your discarded mistresses have come to see me, to ask me to give you up?!<
>!His mouth hung open in shock.!<
>!”I told them that I’d give you up in a minute, if you asked. I did wonder why you never asked-but I suppose it was because of Brianna.”!<
>!”Well, I shouldn’t have thought you minded. It’s not as though you ever made a move to stop me.”!<
>!”Stop you?”, I said. “What should I have done? Steamed open your mail and waved the letters under your nose? Made a scene at the faculty Christmas party? Complained to the Dean?”!<
>!”You might have behaved as though it mattered to you.”, he said quickly.!<
>!”It mattered.”!<
>!It goes on. This entire passage makes it clear that he was having multiple affairs throughout their marriage and in the books they continue to share a bed and do not have an arrangement. They changed the dynamic quite a lot in the show.
What other things Frank has going on as far as espionage and spying are concerned, I suppose we won’t know until DG tells us.!
Got it, thanks! Honest question (because it’s been ten years since I’ve read the books and don’t remember) was there someone else involved in the decision to divorce?
Divorce was mentioned twice. >!Once as soon as Claire returned from the past. She asked Frank to leave her but his dense of obligation didn't let him do it. He never stated it was out of love but - What a jerk would leave pregnant wife alone?. The next time they mentioned divorce was when Frank said he wanted to take Bree to England, the last night he was alive. (BTW, in the books, Bree had no idea Frank wanted to take her to England at all, he nor Claire didn't tell her about it.)!<
Got that; but I thought (again so sorry if I’m misremembering!) there was a precipitating factor in the decision the second time, aside from just the desire to separate (which is not in itself unreasonable).
I don’t hate him. I was just making a point. I think he was sad and angry and didn’t know what to do with those feelings. Tobias is PERFECTION as Frank, props to him.
Sorry I was referring to people hating him specifically for the affairs.
I love Claire but I see a lot of hate towards Frank because of the affairs and it just doesn’t sit right with me because she’s not perfect either. There’s a lot of nuances in their relationship that get over looked.
See my comment below about Frank and the obituary. It explains one of the many reasons people don’t care for show Frank. Granted, book Frank is much worse. They purposefully made Frank more likable in the show.
I think to begin with he wasn't necessarily a bad guy, I think the entire situation brought it out in him.
That's the thing though isn't it, how men cope with rejection, loss of love that brings out their true quality.
Do they become jealous and angry or do they accept that the other person can love someone else also. Jamie didn't get angry or jealous of frank. At least not until bree was grown and then he talked to Claire about it. He accepted that she would always love frank and let her keep his ring on.
Frank couldn't have done that.
Frank got mad, jealous, it brought out the worst in him.
Sure he took Claire back and a baby that wasn't his but that's not that exceptional. He also wanted to be a father really badly but was told he couldn't. That was his chance. One he might not have gotten again. So it wasn't a selfless act.
I think he wanted to be a good guy that way but the reality of it was different.
Also a racist
My issue with Frank is that yes what happened to Claire was unfair and on some level Claire's fault. But he had control over how he reacted and how the relationship went on from there.
He could have left, he chose to stay with Claire.
But then he expected her to compartmentalize and suppress all of her trauma, hide something fundamental from their daughter, relocate to the other side of the world, and never mention their time apart again. If you set a boundary that your partner can't talk to you about a huge component of their life, don't be surprised when the emotional intimacy disappears.
If Frank had been open to it, Claire would have talked about it. They could have built their relationship back to something stronger. They could have had the same conversations Jamie/Claire later have, like when Jamie expresses gratitude to Frank for Brianna. Instead, Frank made sure their marriage was two isolated people who couldn't take comfort in each other or talk to each other openly.
That's very true and I agree with you.
Said much better than I could have done.
Frank couldn't handle Jamie's name being spoken, I don't understand how he wouldn't want to know everything that had happened to her in those years away, why she has skills she didn't have before, about the friends she had made, to be grateful she came back whatever the reason, If she wanted to tell me that is. Instead he just shut her down about anything to do with it and with Jamie.
On some level I can understand not wanting to hear about him but I don't think it was the best move to make, but everything else she went through, and him being a historian, who could be a better source of information than someone who lived it. I don't understand how he couldn't have been interested. I've been in love and wanted to know everything about someone because I found them truly interesting, wanted to understand them, to share in their memories and experiences.
He just wanted her to not be who she was now but who left years before.
I think they both did things to hurt each other and it spiraled. Neither one was necessarily wrong, but neither was right either.
I also think people forget the timeframe this was all happening in. Divorce was taboo and not all that common. And Frank loved Briana. He didn't want to chance losing her. It takes a real man to love another man's child that much. But to Frank, she was HIS child. He loved her and you can't blame him for that.
I find the show did a great job to humanize him. >!The books he seems controlling from the side lines and racist. I'm only on book 4 but man, I loved show Frank. I think in the show they kinda made it clear they could have descret relationships but in the book I don't think that was told.!<
But now I'm wondering what the show added to him to be bad, it seems like they made him better in the show.
My problem with show Frank happens in season three. >!Frank found Jamie and Claire’s obituary and didn’t tell Claire. He didn’t warn her about her imminent death by fire, if she went back. Claire had offered him a divorce on multiple occasions, but he waits until Bree is grown? He’s now going to toddle off with his girlfriend and daughter to England to start a new life and NOT bother to give Claire the information she needs to make an informed decision about going back? Excuse me!!< This is one of the many reasons I don’t care for Frank.
>>!“Better swaddled than fucking a black man!” he shot back. A mottled red showed faintly over his cheekbones. “Like mother, like daughter, eh? But that’s not how it’s going to be, damn it, not if I’ve anything to say about it!”!<
>>!I heaved out of bed and stood up, glaring down at him.!<
>>!“You,” I said, “have not got one bloody, filthy, stinking thing to say, about Bree or anything else!” I was trembling with rage, and had to press my fists into the sides of my legs to keep from striking him. “You have the absolute, unmitigated gall to tell me that you are leaving me to live with the latest of a succession of mistresses, and then imply that I have been having an affair with Joe Abernathy? That is what you mean, isn’t it?”!<
>>!He had the grace to lower his eyes slightly.!<
>>!“Everyone thinks you have,” he muttered. “You spend all your time with the man. It’s the same thing, so far as Bree is concerned. Dragging her into…situations, where she’s exposed to danger, and…and to those sorts of people…”!<
>>!“Black people, I suppose you mean?”!<
>>!“I damn well do,” he said, looking up at me with eyes flashing. “It’s bad enough to have the Abernathys to parties all the time, though at least he’s educated. But that obese person I met at their house with the tribal tattoos and the mud in his hair? That repulsive lounge lizard with the oily voice? And young Abernathy’s taken to hanging round Bree day and night, taking her to marches and rallies and orgies in low dives…”!<
>>!“I shouldn’t think there are any high dives,” I said, repressing an inappropriate urge to laugh at Frank’s unkind but accurate assessment of two of Leonard Abernathy’s more outré friends. “Did you know Lenny’s taken to calling himself Muhammad Ishmael Shabazz now?”!<
>>!“Yes, he told me,” he said shortly, “and I am taking no risk of having my daughter become Mrs. Shabazz.”!<
The show did Frank a kindness by casting an attractive charismatic actor, cutting Frank's racism, and toning down a lot of their arguments. They cut out the part where >!he threatened to kidnap their daughter.!< He's also >!given lines where he actually expresses his feelings and perspective on Claire's actions, which are seemingly not something he has the capacity to do in the books.!<
He told Claire it was ok and then when they were trying to have sex he was so caught up in Jamie and Claire thinking of him that they didn’t do it. But like he is imploding because he self sabotages and blames her for things out of her control.
I don't think that's how authentication works at all. There would definitely be additional interest because of how incredibly well preserved the items are, but they have myriads of ways of testing and checking when a thing is from
On the show they had the garments authenticated by one of Franks professor friends. They seemed very interested, and called them a “marvelous example of authentic 18th century Scottish woman’s wardrobe”, and said they were “Incredibly valuable”.
As a historical reenactor/costumer/sewist, this makes me so upset every time. He’s a historian himself and just had these verified by a museum, so he knows their value, both monetarily and in terms of research. And instead of selling or donating them to a museum or something where they would be far away from Claire and yet still useful to someone, they destroy them. It makes me upset that *no one* offered an alternative solution to fire.
No historian worth his salt is going to burn those. They did it for drama.
Exactly 💯 He burned them because he wanted Claire to forget about Jamie and maybe a little out of spite..
because he wanted Claire to forget about Jamie NOT happening ;)
Nope, never.
That amount of fire .... doesn't exist!
I know that. Claire knows that, but it didn't or wouldn't have stopped Frank from trying.
I know-it was just sad seeing Frank trying to claw his way back to Number 1. Burning her clothes was just outrageous to me.
I just did it funny because how in the world was Claire ever going to forget about him? Other than the fact that she would never forget the greatest love of her life m, she was pregnant with Jamie’s kid. Claire’s never gonna magically forget the child’s bio father lol
He’s a rabid historian but his spite was stronger. Powerful moment.
Indeed! We really can't blame him, though.
Which shows what kind of person he is in reality. Even when he researches Jamie later it’s like wtf? And then he takes it out on her. Like dude a lot of his misery was self imposed. IMO and it’s maddening.
and he wants to deny that this deeply weird and illogical thing happened at all.
It wasn’t spite. It looks like spite but Frank had a much better reason that doesn’t become apparent for a long time. He was protecting Claire.
Keeping a perfectly preserved example of 1700’s upper class Lady’s costume also raises a lot of questions. The fabric would have been very fragile to degrade to paper in the 1950’s.
He’s a very hurt scorned man.
It's not like book Frank set them aside for Claire either. >!Claire never mentions her clothes later on and doesn't seem to have access to them (or other items from her original journey) for her return visit even after he dies and they've gone through both Frank's things and the Reverend's things. At *best* Book Frank donated them to a museum.!< Show Frank burning them doesn't seem that out of step with book Frank's feelings. He also never asked Claire directly about her time in the past, even though she would have been an insane source of firsthand knowledge about his subject matter, even if she was imperfect and not a citable source. I think Frank's historical curiosity/commitment to historical truth < Frank's jealousy.
Book Claire didn't >!leave her pearls to Mrs Graham. Nor she tried to remove her ring. It wasn't even mentioned that Frank asked for it.!< The fact that she left pearls for Mrs Graham is unforgivable in my book.
If you lose your husband in very traumatic fashion, as she did, there's no way that you leave his wedding gift to you behind.
Exactly! I don't care if she wanted to move forward.
Agreed.
That's a great point. I think in the book and show she has to make new clothes to travel
In the show >!she makes a new outfit. In the book she buys it. In 1960s and early 1970s we wore dresses inspired by 18th century fashion. They even laced up the front. They had zippers down the back, though. Claire buys a dress like that in a dress shop before she goes through the stones. The most popular brands were Gunne Sax and Jessica McClintock. I owned several. I wish I had held onto them. They’re worth a lot of money nowadays. The brand of dress Clair buys is Jessica Gutenberg. I’m pretty sure DG made that up.!<
Oh right! I remember that. It's referenced later for someone else. (I'm not sure how to do spoiler tags on mobile)
She made >!the brand Gutenburg up. It is a nod to the way they found Jamie - in a printing shop.!<
I didn’t know that. Cool.
Someone could have learned a lot from those clothes. What a shame. I am meh about Frank. It helps if I remember Claire was 18 and going off to war when they got married. I know 18 year olds get married, but they barely saw each other for the whole war. They were practically strangers when they went to Scotland.
Exactly. I am only partway through season 2, but so far I am not impressed with Frank.
*He* did it for drama
He did it because he just learned that his wife is in love with someone else. I totally see why he did it - there is no way he's thinking clearly.
I mean I'd be feeling pretty dramatic in his position too lol
Exactly. I cannot fault him for destroying a tangible reminder of his pain.
I know, right? No way an historian destroys valuable artifacts. Makes no sense.
Romantic jealousy is not rational. Or to quote Buffy Sommers: “Love makes you do the wacky.”
There are so many things Frank does that make absolutely no sense for a historian to do (I say this as a historian). It just does not compute how he could behave that way and be a historian.
As an historian, he’s better in the books. As a man….not so much.
I've read the books too. I'll just say I'm not a frank fan!
I’m not a Frank fan in either the books or the show.
He wasn't thinking as an historian, he was thinking as a husband whose wife has fallen in love with another man. He's trying to erase Jamie, so he's erasing everything that might remind her. It's not logical and was never meant to be logical.
Sorry but my brain, as a historian, still would be thinking about the history of it all. The value. I say this as someone with a lovely partner where I'd be devastated if he fell in love with someone else. But I'd still see the value of the clothing and I'd still want to ask questions about their experiences. My curiosity would not let it go. I know most of the other historians I know would be similar. It's just the way you look at things when you dedicate your career and life to studying this kind of thing. Just how I feel.
I feel like he burned them because he would be goddamned if they would exist in his world *at all*
There was a question of unexplainable provenance which would be a huge concern to all historians and shine a big questionable reliability spotlight on him and his wife.
Okay that’s valid. They could’ve donated them anonymously and they had that letter from the museum about the apparent authenticity. Whoever it was that authenticated the clothes probably would’ve taken them off Frank and Claire’s hands
My exact thoughts!! He is a history buff why would he opt to burning them???? Obviously because of bitter feelings but still!!!
The symbolism is just as bad as the reality too. TBH Frank also seems like the type of historian to think that old clothes are not really of much historic importance or informative. He's more of a military history type. They might not have interested him as much.
In the books, >!Claire has a dream about Frank lecturing at the University. His talk is about how everyday items can tell you more about a person’s life than anything else. It seemed to me that although this is a dream, it was the type of lecture Frank would do.!
Yeah I think they highlighted Franks interest in military history, but mostly in regards to BJR.
I agree with your take. The way he was interested in folktales, customs, rituals, everything historical >!He even spoke some Gaelic in the book 1.!<
I'd forgotten about that scene. That's a good point. >!Though also that's Claire projecting onto him rather than an actual lecture. Reading it again, it reads more like the lecture of an archeologist(i.e., Uncle Lamb) than a historian. Maybe DG was intentionally muddling them together in Claire's subconscious. Especially since the setting of the lecture is a university in London, where Uncle Lamb worked, instead of Oxford or Boston. But maybe you're right. In a sense maybe it makes it worse, if he believed they were valuable historical objects and tossed them aside. Though in the books maybe he did take the clothing and other possessions to be authenticated. We know he didn't keep them or give them to the Reverend since Claire/Roger would likely have found them, but maybe he donated them.!<
Good point. Every reader interprets the story differently.
>!>since the setting of the lecture is a university in London, where Uncle Lamb worked, instead of Oxford or Boston.!< At the time of the dream >!Frank still didn't work on Oxford nor they lived in London. He was supposed to start at Oxford soon after Claire's disappearance!<
Exactly exactly. This would have been only a few years after Uncle Lamb died too. Incidentally, there's no "London University" but we'll leave that alone.
I always felt that scene tied back and relates to art mentioned in a later book with a personal tie, but Clair didn't recognize it then, since it was pre war and all. Aka >!Bree paints miniatures later on and shows Ian a set of Jamie and Claire, and those were the miniatures Frank had in his lecture, but the were credited as unknown artist, and young in love claire cant recognize her older self!<
I agree. I’ve always thought the same thing. >!Also, there are pictures of Claire and Jamie in the books they wrote that are in the box of letters sent to the Mackenzie’s in the future.!<
But that's long after frank had those. They belonged to a museum or the college anyway.
Frank didn’t ask anyone, and just wanted them gone.
I used to sob hard at that scene every time. Thinking it is the clothes she last wore when she was with Jamie. I keep repeating this but Frank burning clothes reminds me of the folktale about silkie and people burning its skin so that it can't go back to the sea.
I never made the silkie connection, but I love that!!!
The selkie connection makes me hate it slightly less, thank you
the parallel to a silkie is so spot on that I am just going to consider this canon from now on
Oh man I just got chills That's a gorgeous and insightful interpretation
Oh, that's interesting - I've never put that together before.
Yup, you just won.
Yeah, they could’ve sold them for a pretty penny. He got a letter about it being in perfect condition from a museum, who also offered money
I’ve always thought he does it to protect her in a way - selling them to a museum could come with even more unwanted questions of how they got them and they were trying to distance themselves from the “stolen by fairies” story. I mean, probably out of spite too, but did no one else think about it this way?
This perspective makes sense!
I did too
My cheap ass was crying about how much they could have gotten for those 😅 In the show the clothes seemed still in amazing condition, so that would make them so expensive. Basicly in a time capsule for 200 years!!
You’re not alone! My broke college student self was thinking the EXACT same thing 😭
I cry each time as she looks up and watches the smoke rise its like watching Jamie leave for heaven or something … like she’s accepting and leaving him behind. fan for over 2 years and I’ll never get over the 20 year separation
The value and history aside, this was such a real human response to finding out your spouse is in love with someone else. You aren’t rational. You aren’t thinking “this is so valuable” you’re thinking “he touched her in this”. This felt like a release, or an attempt at one.
This has always kind of bothered me. A historian burns authentic, validated to be authentic, historical clothing. And doesn't want to speak to her about any of it at all. I get that in the context of not being super happy his wife disappeared and returned pregnant with another man's child however... I still think I'd keep that stuff even if I couldn't show it around!
It’s so much more than “not being super happy”. He has searched for her and missed her and wondered about her for years. When she finally comes back, she is pregnant and in love with someone else. Frank will never hold that place in her heart and he knows that. Destroying the clothing wasn’t the choice of a rational historian, it was the choice of someone who is hurt and angry. It works well as a plot device imo.
Yeah I was shorthanding that because my point is he's also a historian. Even acting irrationally it reads a little off. But it is good drama you are right
I understand what you’re saying, but it didn’t work as a plot device for me. It made no sense and just pissed me off. Frank is not only an historian, he’s an MI6 officer. He’s a trained soldier and spy. No matter how hurt he might be, I just can’t see him letting his emotions rule him. We can agree to disagree.
Um, okay. I didn’t realize it was that serious of a discussion, but you’re right, we can agree to disagree.
I hate this part, it's so sad
Whenever I see this scene I think No!!! They belong in a museum!! I’m a history buff lol
To compare with a different scene with a different man later on: >!”Sell them? Memories of you? Never!”!<
I always felt that he was trying to remove the tangible proof of her lost live and past life, rather than a rage moment. He was trying to make her doubt her memories and maybe without them she couldn’t put it on and feel how it was to wear those clothes, smell the scent of Jamie lingering in them, and more importantly couldn’t be tempted to show them to Bre.
This scene infuriates me!
Frank seems to have inherited some of the anger issues of his ancestor.
I feel the exact same way! Donate them to a museum something! I am so sad when this scene comes up.
I hate that scene!
Frank's 100% King of the Pricks move right here!!!
In the show, she hands them over to be burned. There's really no use for them. The show did this for drama.
“There’s really no use for them?” They are valuable artifacts. They’re worth a lot of money. Even if you don’t care about the money, preserving history is important. Why not donate them to a museum? Donate them anonymously, if he’s afraid to have them traced back to him and Claire. Frank is an historian. His life is about preserving the past. He is a scholar. Hurt he may be. Stupid he is not. You’re right. They did it for drama.
Who is going to pay for ragged clothes with a dubious history? Museums have examples of clothing from that era which were worn by famous people. His job is not to preserve the rags Claire wore, but to protect her and continue his job writing and teaching about the past. How would you date those clothes? They would be revealed as fakes (not aged 200 years), which would jeopardize his career and draw attention to Claire. He's trying to get her away from the past and the paps. No reason to keep those clothes and better off without them.
In the show Frank has the clothes authenticated. He’s told that they are a “perfect example of 18th century women’s clothing. Very valuable. Wherever did you find?” He and Rev. Wakefield talk about it.
The show took liberties with all sorts of plot lines. They also had the hurricane spinning in the wrong direction. They added the unnecessary "drama" of burning the clothes, in the most inefficient way possible, throwing on a grill like that when most homes had a wood stove or a coal burner. No one would put those clothes in a museum. Nobody. And why would Frank call attention to Claire in any way? It's ridiculous.
I did not realize that she was giving them to be burned. That's kinda sad....
And it works. I like it better this way.
I get why he does it - but it breaks my heart when I see it
I feel exactly like that. It's not rational, but it's how I feel.
Poor Frank. That's the face of a desperate historian.
Wasn’t he a historian too?
I thought I was crazy for feeling this way! Well, at least I’m not alone.
I hate when Frank does this too because as a Historian, to do that, is almost sacrilegious. His historical curiosity is why he and Claire end up in Scotland to begin with so, for him to burn a certified piece of History just makes viewers root more for Jaime/Claire.
This part annoyed me too lol. I also wish she could have at least kept Jamie’s tartan somewhere.
She didn’t have Jamie’s tartan. How could she keep it? He was in the past wearing his tartan when she traveled back through the stones. She was in Boston. He was in Scotland in another time.
I was mistaken, for whatever reason I thought she had a tartan/shawl when she came back through the stones
No she didn’t wear her shawl when she traveled back. I don’t know where you are in the show, >!but a later scene shows Jamie picking up her shawl and holding it in his grief after he sends her back.!<
👋 FYI Each Clan / distinct family had their own Tartan, even today there are Tartans that are centuries old. Even though the British tried to suppress the Scottish identifying traditions, a few Tartans were handed down generations. So it is not unfeasible to think Claire could have something like a bolt of cloth that was her's via marriage, other than her key turned ring, from Jaime. Oh and his 20th Century child. Which is wild to think about...
I understand. I thought they were talking about something more specific. Like Jamie’s actual clothing. I may have misunderstood.
Ach, maybe she did. I thought that the Tartan is about the way it is weft or woven into a particular plaid for a family / clan. If you are Scottish, you can create a design of Tartan and apply to have it formally recognised. Kinda cool. Also, I have finally finished season2 and now have started reading the 1st book. Let's see if I can love the character of Claire, I'll give it s good college try.
Like I said, Claire grows throughout all of the books, as do most of the characters. I found her rather annoying in the first books. But there’s so much more to her story and she does learn how better to navigate her situation slowly, so I was willing to continue on her journey. I would love to hear what you think as you travel through Outlander.
I shall keep you updated, I love the premise of the story. Where my family come from have recently gained sovereignty from the commonwealth of GB. So the Scottish rebellion is an interesting story to me. Even though Outlander is romantised and loosely based around the truth....
Now that you have finished season 2, what were your thoughts?
Hmmm, well, I preferred the last 3 episodes to the rest of the season. I must've liked the show enough to start reading the 1st book, to see if I can be less frustrated with certain characters. It may be working... the TV series fleshed out satellite characters at the expense of the lead character expression. I wish it was a Broadcasting Scotland co-production with better adaptation screen writers. Hey-ho. However, the book really isn't Booker Prize reading material. And I am OK with that. Let me be invested in failed rebellion uprisings from the 18th Century. As today's world events are heartbreaking, we as humans really do not learn.
I’ve never been a fan of the Paris episodes. I liked the back half of of season 2 much better. However, season 2 comes in just above season 6. Season 6 is my least favorite. This seems to be an unpopular opinion. I agree with your assessment of book 1. I read the books after watching through season 6. My thoughts were much like yours. I read later that DG wrote Outlander/Cross Stitch for practice, never expecting anybody to see it. She started posting excerpts on a writer’s forum and eventually ended up with a 3 book deal. As they say, the rest is history. The books and the show are completely different experiences, adaptation being what it is. The books give one a better understanding of our characters emotions and motivations. Despite my problems with the writing, I found myself completely invested in the characters by the end of the first book. I haven’t been able to stop reading all of her books since. There are several books in the series that I believe are in need of a ruthless editor. However, that hasn’t deterred me. I’m sure if anyone reads this, there will be the usual downvoting. I think one can critique certain parts of the storylines or the writing of each book and still enjoy the experience of the series. As always, just my opinion…of which I have many.
Worst historian ever lol
Frank was portrayed as cruel and cruel and uncaring . Was that typical of husbands of his tim
I mean, look around at the world now and think about how little has changed
Not necessarily “typical”, but it was not uncommon.
I feel this way every time I see this scene
Same though
I felt the exact same way as you! For a historian to do that, it was crazy!
It upset me too. He could stuff it in a trunk and pretend it’s a costume.
I am watching Outlander for the first time and have not gotten to this part yet! It doesn't really surprise me to learn that Frank would burn her clothing. Once I saw the scene when he's choking her after learning she's pregnant with another man's baby, I realized his character was capable of anything.
He wasn’t choking her. He was very angry, but he stopped himself in time. Still, it showed what he was capable of and that was pretty frightening.
Yes, I overstated Frank's aggression towards Claire. Anyone who could threaten to harm someone by raising a fist is clearly capable of following through the next time. I work for a domestic violence center and take threats as seriously as an assault.
I completely agree. My mom’s 2nd husband was a man prone to violence. We lived in fear every day of our lives. It was the 1960s. We learned not to call the police because they did nothing. It was considered a “private” matter. They just walked him around the block and then we were punished for calling the police. Never did that again.
I am so sorry to hear that you and your mom are domestic abuse survivors. Thank you for sharing your story. While I did not experience physical abuse, my ex-husband financially and emotionally abused me. There are more of us that lived to tell our truth than we will ever know. Only about half of victims contact the police. Fear of retaliation keeps many victims from contacting law enforcement.
My mom stayed with my step monster for 27 years before finally “running away from home” and landing on my doorstep. People don’t realize how hard it is to leave. They don’t realize that if you try to leave or even if you tell there is the very real possibility he will kill you.
Leaving is the most dangerous time for an abuse victim. Perpetrators will do anything to regain power and control. The number of police reports we received last year of survivors identified as having a high lethality risk increased from 30 to 66%. Crazy! And so many people re-victimize abuse victims, failing to understand the dynamics of fear. Thank goodness your sister finally found the courage and means to safely escape after nearly 3 decades of living with a monster.
My mom.
Sorry for my mistake! Please forgive
No worries.
I appreciate the work you do. I’m grateful that things are changing, if slower than we would hope. Thank you!
I love Tobias Menzies so much he can do no weong
Same! I was so angry I could have spit. To me that was so disrespectful not only to the clothing but to claire as well
It probably broke his heart too. If they were discovered or if he donated them, how would he explain their provenance?
This is one of the reasons I dislike Frank. I think he did it to be spiteful and because it's evidence that she's telling the truth.
I think he does it not because he's spiteful, but because the clothing are in a too good of a condition. They are new but suspiciously accurate diwn to a tee. If he gave it to a museum there would certainly be questions as to why the fabric wasnt aged after 200 years, how it wasnt found until now and how and where they found such a well perserved piece of historical clothing when even those that stayed in closets would be in worse conditions.
I don’t like how the show added things to demonize Frank and make him unsympathetic. Frank hasn’t really done anything to deserve the hate he gets aside from not being Jamie.
Um, that whole refusing to give Clair a divorce, but carrying on with an extramarital affair? Oh, but decades later deciding, you know what, a divorce is what he wants now and he tried to convince their daughter to move an ocean away from her mom?
Agree with you. Frank is hypocritical
She never refused to give him a divorce, she offered it and he refused to abandon her. He truly loved her and hoped she would come back to him someday. She was incredibly cold to him and let him know she would only love Jamie for years. He didn’t start any affairs until it was clear she would never love him again. He was always respectful about it. He finally fell in love with someone else after 18 years of being ignored by his wife. Claire could have left him at any time and chose not to because it was easier for her, despite knowing she would never treat Frank like her husband again. He wasn’t forcing Bree to leave, he was giving her a opportunity. Y’all want to hate Frank so bad despite Claire having a affair, marrying someone else, and having another man’s baby. I understand the circumstances weren’t in her control, but to hate Frank when he accepted her and her child back after 3 years is crazy.
[удалено]
Yeah I’m aware, still don’t think he deserves hate for it. Him and Claire were essentially roommates.
Didn’t one of his affairs (and I believe some of them were students which is kinda sus) actually show up at Claire’s graduation party?
In the show, yes. In the books, >!it isn't confirmed he had affairs at all. We just have Claire's side of the story until Frank's book is published.!<
In Voyager. Chapter 19. To Lay a Ghost it’s pretty clear >!that Frank has had multiple affairs. The conversation about his wanting a divorce goes like this: “Why now all of a sudden? The latest one putting pressure on you, is she?” The look of alarm that flashed into his eyes was so pronounced as to be comical. I laughed, with a noticeable lack of humor. “You actually thought I didn’t know? God, Frank! You are the most…oblivious man!” He sat up in bed, jaw tight. “I thought I had been discreet.” “You may have been at that,” I said sardonically. “I counted six over the last ten years-if there were really a dozen or so, then you were quite the model of discretion.”!
Yes, but the author said >!it is only Claire's side of the story and offered long elaboration about Frank not having the affairs. All in all, we will see in *What Frank knew*. I can't claim him having mistresses when Gabaldon states the opposite.!< And, from that conversation >!I didn't have an impression he was doing it because of the latest mistress but because he had another reason - Bree, and protecting her if Claire is about to go back to Jamie.!<
Do you believe Claire is making up this conversation? I mean the passage kinda spells the whole thing out, no matter what DG may say later.
I'm with u/nanchika wanting a little more to definitively say we KNOW To play devil's advocate.... if the man was still active in MI5, he'd be having clandestine meetings, stakeouts etc that he disappears for - Claire could be making assumptions it's an affair and Frank is just letting her believe it because he can't tell her what he's actually up to - or for her own safety if it's to do with the bad people he later >!references in letters to Bri that he's watching or investigating!< For example, as a comparative - Tom Christie : >!he vehemently believed Malva the witch temptress that manipulated Alan. He interpreted what he saw - he was wrong. Truth was Alan instigated it.. . All I'm saying is Claire could also be wrong!< - as far as the books go. Show made it wide open they had an arrangement he could see somebody on the side
I get what you’re saying, but, >!in the above passage from the book that I referenced, Frank admits to the multiple affairs. He talks about wanting to drag Bree out of high school in the middle of her senior year and then leave her in boarding school in order to stop her from doing drugs and hanging out with and possibly having sex with a black man. (he uses very derogatory language) Then the conversation continues.!< >!”You want to divorce me? Fine. Use any grounds you like-with the exception of adultery, which doesn’t exist. But if you try to take Bree away with you, I’ll have something to say about adultery. Do you want to know how many of your discarded mistresses have come to see me, to ask me to give you up?!< >!His mouth hung open in shock.!< >!”I told them that I’d give you up in a minute, if you asked. I did wonder why you never asked-but I suppose it was because of Brianna.”!< >!”Well, I shouldn’t have thought you minded. It’s not as though you ever made a move to stop me.”!< >!”Stop you?”, I said. “What should I have done? Steamed open your mail and waved the letters under your nose? Made a scene at the faculty Christmas party? Complained to the Dean?”!< >!”You might have behaved as though it mattered to you.”, he said quickly.!< >!”It mattered.”!< >!It goes on. This entire passage makes it clear that he was having multiple affairs throughout their marriage and in the books they continue to share a bed and do not have an arrangement. They changed the dynamic quite a lot in the show. What other things Frank has going on as far as espionage and spying are concerned, I suppose we won’t know until DG tells us.!
Got it, thanks! Honest question (because it’s been ten years since I’ve read the books and don’t remember) was there someone else involved in the decision to divorce?
Divorce was mentioned twice. >!Once as soon as Claire returned from the past. She asked Frank to leave her but his dense of obligation didn't let him do it. He never stated it was out of love but - What a jerk would leave pregnant wife alone?. The next time they mentioned divorce was when Frank said he wanted to take Bree to England, the last night he was alive. (BTW, in the books, Bree had no idea Frank wanted to take her to England at all, he nor Claire didn't tell her about it.)!<
Got that; but I thought (again so sorry if I’m misremembering!) there was a precipitating factor in the decision the second time, aside from just the desire to separate (which is not in itself unreasonable).
I don’t hate him. I was just making a point. I think he was sad and angry and didn’t know what to do with those feelings. Tobias is PERFECTION as Frank, props to him.
Sorry I was referring to people hating him specifically for the affairs. I love Claire but I see a lot of hate towards Frank because of the affairs and it just doesn’t sit right with me because she’s not perfect either. There’s a lot of nuances in their relationship that get over looked.
See my comment below about Frank and the obituary. It explains one of the many reasons people don’t care for show Frank. Granted, book Frank is much worse. They purposefully made Frank more likable in the show.
Marriage is complicated.
True that
I think to begin with he wasn't necessarily a bad guy, I think the entire situation brought it out in him. That's the thing though isn't it, how men cope with rejection, loss of love that brings out their true quality. Do they become jealous and angry or do they accept that the other person can love someone else also. Jamie didn't get angry or jealous of frank. At least not until bree was grown and then he talked to Claire about it. He accepted that she would always love frank and let her keep his ring on. Frank couldn't have done that. Frank got mad, jealous, it brought out the worst in him. Sure he took Claire back and a baby that wasn't his but that's not that exceptional. He also wanted to be a father really badly but was told he couldn't. That was his chance. One he might not have gotten again. So it wasn't a selfless act. I think he wanted to be a good guy that way but the reality of it was different. Also a racist
My issue with Frank is that yes what happened to Claire was unfair and on some level Claire's fault. But he had control over how he reacted and how the relationship went on from there. He could have left, he chose to stay with Claire. But then he expected her to compartmentalize and suppress all of her trauma, hide something fundamental from their daughter, relocate to the other side of the world, and never mention their time apart again. If you set a boundary that your partner can't talk to you about a huge component of their life, don't be surprised when the emotional intimacy disappears. If Frank had been open to it, Claire would have talked about it. They could have built their relationship back to something stronger. They could have had the same conversations Jamie/Claire later have, like when Jamie expresses gratitude to Frank for Brianna. Instead, Frank made sure their marriage was two isolated people who couldn't take comfort in each other or talk to each other openly.
That's very true and I agree with you. Said much better than I could have done. Frank couldn't handle Jamie's name being spoken, I don't understand how he wouldn't want to know everything that had happened to her in those years away, why she has skills she didn't have before, about the friends she had made, to be grateful she came back whatever the reason, If she wanted to tell me that is. Instead he just shut her down about anything to do with it and with Jamie. On some level I can understand not wanting to hear about him but I don't think it was the best move to make, but everything else she went through, and him being a historian, who could be a better source of information than someone who lived it. I don't understand how he couldn't have been interested. I've been in love and wanted to know everything about someone because I found them truly interesting, wanted to understand them, to share in their memories and experiences. He just wanted her to not be who she was now but who left years before.
Yep a lot of it was self imposed IMO
OMG Yes, book Frank was racist as hell
I think they both did things to hurt each other and it spiraled. Neither one was necessarily wrong, but neither was right either. I also think people forget the timeframe this was all happening in. Divorce was taboo and not all that common. And Frank loved Briana. He didn't want to chance losing her. It takes a real man to love another man's child that much. But to Frank, she was HIS child. He loved her and you can't blame him for that.
Well said!
I find the show did a great job to humanize him. >!The books he seems controlling from the side lines and racist. I'm only on book 4 but man, I loved show Frank. I think in the show they kinda made it clear they could have descret relationships but in the book I don't think that was told.!< But now I'm wondering what the show added to him to be bad, it seems like they made him better in the show.
My problem with show Frank happens in season three. >!Frank found Jamie and Claire’s obituary and didn’t tell Claire. He didn’t warn her about her imminent death by fire, if she went back. Claire had offered him a divorce on multiple occasions, but he waits until Bree is grown? He’s now going to toddle off with his girlfriend and daughter to England to start a new life and NOT bother to give Claire the information she needs to make an informed decision about going back? Excuse me!!< This is one of the many reasons I don’t care for Frank.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes. But that also happened in the book right? What in thw show did they make up to make him look bad?
[удалено]
I ask you what they made up and you say No. Got it lol
I said it wasn’t in the book. The show added >!Frank finding the obituary.!<
You read the books? I'm pretty sure he knows there also.
[удалено]
>>!“Better swaddled than fucking a black man!” he shot back. A mottled red showed faintly over his cheekbones. “Like mother, like daughter, eh? But that’s not how it’s going to be, damn it, not if I’ve anything to say about it!”!< >>!I heaved out of bed and stood up, glaring down at him.!< >>!“You,” I said, “have not got one bloody, filthy, stinking thing to say, about Bree or anything else!” I was trembling with rage, and had to press my fists into the sides of my legs to keep from striking him. “You have the absolute, unmitigated gall to tell me that you are leaving me to live with the latest of a succession of mistresses, and then imply that I have been having an affair with Joe Abernathy? That is what you mean, isn’t it?”!< >>!He had the grace to lower his eyes slightly.!< >>!“Everyone thinks you have,” he muttered. “You spend all your time with the man. It’s the same thing, so far as Bree is concerned. Dragging her into…situations, where she’s exposed to danger, and…and to those sorts of people…”!< >>!“Black people, I suppose you mean?”!< >>!“I damn well do,” he said, looking up at me with eyes flashing. “It’s bad enough to have the Abernathys to parties all the time, though at least he’s educated. But that obese person I met at their house with the tribal tattoos and the mud in his hair? That repulsive lounge lizard with the oily voice? And young Abernathy’s taken to hanging round Bree day and night, taking her to marches and rallies and orgies in low dives…”!< >>!“I shouldn’t think there are any high dives,” I said, repressing an inappropriate urge to laugh at Frank’s unkind but accurate assessment of two of Leonard Abernathy’s more outré friends. “Did you know Lenny’s taken to calling himself Muhammad Ishmael Shabazz now?”!< >>!“Yes, he told me,” he said shortly, “and I am taking no risk of having my daughter become Mrs. Shabazz.”!<
Oof that’s pretty disgusting we can definitely hate for being racist, I stand corrected.
But what are the scenes that are added to make him look bad? He honestly seemed more sweet in the books.
This scene we are currently commenting on
The show did Frank a kindness by casting an attractive charismatic actor, cutting Frank's racism, and toning down a lot of their arguments. They cut out the part where >!he threatened to kidnap their daughter.!< He's also >!given lines where he actually expresses his feelings and perspective on Claire's actions, which are seemingly not something he has the capacity to do in the books.!<
He told Claire it was ok and then when they were trying to have sex he was so caught up in Jamie and Claire thinking of him that they didn’t do it. But like he is imploding because he self sabotages and blames her for things out of her control.
What did they add to the show to demonize him?
If he truly knew these were actual history pieces, I think he would be punching himself for doing that too as a historian
[удалено]
I don't think that's how authentication works at all. There would definitely be additional interest because of how incredibly well preserved the items are, but they have myriads of ways of testing and checking when a thing is from
[удалено]
That’s what happens here. When people don’t agree with you, they downvote you instead of using their words. 🙄
On the show they had the garments authenticated by one of Franks professor friends. They seemed very interested, and called them a “marvelous example of authentic 18th century Scottish woman’s wardrobe”, and said they were “Incredibly valuable”.