Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Predictions

SPOILER ALERT: Dinna read unless you've read chapter 14 in The Fiery Cross.
So yesterday I read where Roger told Bree about the letter from Frank (aka Douchebag Extraordinaire). Were you not impressed with Roger's memorization skills? Myself as well... let me tell you. I could have used that memory in the 10th grade advanced chemistry class I shouldna have been in in the first place... but I digress...   *Thanks to gratefuld95 on travel.webshots.com for the photo.

I have to tell you that I am LOVING all this Frank's-message-from-the-grave business. Loving it. I, being a firm believer in reincarnation, think Frank is/was Jack Randall and have said that from the beginning. So hearing him say (in Drums) that he has the "oddest sense of James Fraser, almost a memory" makes me think I'm right. I almost fell over when I read the poetic "or end forever in some Celtic hell, with our hands wrapped round each other's throat?" Does that not send shivers down your spine? Especially when you think about Jamie sitting up at Culloden and throwing Jack Randall's lifeless body off of himself. Which, by the way, was never really explained any further.  Sassenachs, do you mean to tell me ye havena thought about that? I thought not.

So my latest prediction... not even that firm, but maybe a theory, is that Frank could have come through the stones during his marriage to Claire... and he's going to show up at any point. You never know. Geillis didn't travel exactly 200 years; maybe Frank didn't either. Maybe Frank got so fed up with living in the shadow of a dead man, that he decided to go meet this Jamie Fraser, himself... and ended up in 1770 Scotland. And after inquiring about Jamie's whereabouts, finally found someone who knew where he was - and was told "We just heard Jamie Fraser is living in the colonies with his wife, Claire and their daughter, BRIANNA."  Holy shite - you KNOW that would get Frank on a boat crossing the Atlantic so fast... and then picture it. Claire's doing a little Laparocopy on old Mrs. MacHugh in her surgery while Jamie is out front chopping wood, smelling of woodsmoke and pungent man, and up walks Frank. Whoo hooooooo..... what I wouldn't do to get a little piece of THAT little read. Mmm hhhmmmm. Hell, I might have to write it myself!

OK and speaking of predictions - here is another one - that my friend SHANNON had today. Shannon, Jenn M and Jen L and I got together this AM over coffee to discuss Outlander. Shannon, Jenn and I are all on TFC and Jen L is just starting Drums. So Shannon emails me today and makes the following TREMENDOUS prediction:

I'm thinking that this book is going to be based on alot of religion. Since Jamie is catholic and catholics weren't to own property. He is going to be forced to sign his land over to Roger (b/c he's protestant) in order to keep the land. And of course Jamie is going to loose ownership of his land ONCE MORE!

Now - it's an awesome prediction and verra plausible. But what makes it even more tremendous is that our mentor, my sister Tracey, had the SAME prediction yesterday. She is a few hundred pages past us - and she's our MENTOR! So I am giving major props to Shannon for the mere suggestion. Canna WAIT to see what unfolds....

13 comments:

  1. Verra astute of our Shannon! Yes, I thought that right away, what with all the discussion of Catholicism vs. Protestantism and the big baseball bat being swung that reads DON'T FORGET THAT IT'S AGAINST THE LAW FOR A CATHOLIC TO HOLD TITLE ON LAND.

    ReplyDelete
  2. True... true. I think that's one of those things running in the background in my brain. The foreground is way too consumed with the worry that Jamie is going to get horribly maimed or worse whilst fighting off the backwoods folk that Ogilvie should be fighting instead of shoving Lizzie's strawberry preserves in his pie hole.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK, re: Frank coming through the stones--I reread his letter at the end of Drums, and it said that he tried to do it and nothing happened. So I'm not sure how plausible the idea of him in the flesh suddenly appearing in 1770 is. (Plus, if he had gone back at some point btw. 1948 and 1968, wouldn't Claire have noticed he was gone?)

    HOWEVER, suffice to say that I'm not ready to throw out the "Frank is around in some way, even if it's just in spirit" theory just yet....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't know if I want to spill the beans/burst any bubbles about Frank or not...hmmmmmm.

    Guess I won't. But let me know if you want to know anything.

    Keep reading. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sassy all I saw was "don't know if I want to spill the beans" and I skipped your comment! I'm sorry but I'm afraid! LOL

    I don't really think Frank is going to show up. But it would be cool. I forgot about the "couldn't come through" thing... but maybe it wasn't the right time of year; the same could be said for Jamie. (Those damn stones always seem to be buzzing for Claire!)

    You're right about the time he'd have been gone. I always think it doesna matter as far as him showing up as long as he could go back to the 1770s. But he'd be missing in the 1960s and that's what counts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Carol, it's Megan. I totally agree with the "Roger gets the land" prediction. I also have this nagging prediction that.... Claire is prego! Why all the talk of her age and thinking she's going through menopause, and that she's gained some weight (which I love that Jamie likes), all the contraception talk.... just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  7. LOLOL I JUST hit send on an email to Carol re: the "Claire being pregnant" part--here it is:

    Re: the possibility of Claire getting pregnant--I must say that as a closer-to 47-than-46-year-old woman who is staring down the barrel of the big M, this whole storyline cracks me up. When Claire came back through the stones, she was 48. And at that point, she was thinking of going to get her tubes tied?? WTF??? I mean, I know she's in great shape and all, but still!!! Any ob/gyn she'd have gone to at age 48 would have probably laughed her right out of the office! And THIS was in 1968, where motherhood after 40 was, while not unheard of, certainly much more rare than it is today. And yes, I know that it only takes one time and that Claire's guess was if she found Jamie they'd be doing it like rabbits, but COME ON. And even funnier--they're STILL discussing it now that Claire is what? 53??????????? Jesus, who knew it was that easy to get pregnant back in 1770? Or maybe it's just the strength of Jamie's viral, lashing sperm, do ye think? ROFLMAO.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it's rather silly... yet if Claire were to turn up pregnant, I wouldn't be a) surprised or b) annoyed. It would just crack me up. And yes, I'd think "Whew... that Jamie! Such a STUDDDD!"

    ReplyDelete
  9. I didn't say anything there, Carol. :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just call me "Spoiler Spaz", Sassy! :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. cash advance toronto This website is the most beneficial I enjoyed it to a large extent
    AAA Toronto Payday Loans 1172 Bay St #101, Toronto, ON M5S 2B4 (416) 477-2817

    ReplyDelete
  12. ****GIANT SPOILERS IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE WHOLE SERIES TO DATE******


    I had the same prediction about Jamie and his land. I knew Roger and Bree would be back to the past for that reason. But that wasn't the only reason. I figure they had to go back because Bree will be the only one to help William cope with who he is. Also, it is going to be awesome to see Jenny completely dumfounded when she sees Roger. With the author constantly reminding us that Jenny never forgets ANYTHING....she will be shocked when Roger shows up. If anything will convince Jenny of Clare's time traveling and finally completely mend fences between them, it's Rogers appearance.

    ReplyDelete