Roger & Brianna's Baby

[Nicklshort]

Would that be the ghost outside the B&B where F and C stay on their
anniversary? DG explained that the ghost is Jamie in the Outlandish
Companion. Is this what you meant?

Sorry to take so long replying to your post, I have been under the weather, my
son has been tying up the computer and my income taxes had to get done!
But anyway..... yes, that's the ghost, and yes we know it's Jamie, but we have
been carrying on a prolonged, confusing and highly speculative argument
regarding how it is that Jamie is outside that window when Claire has not yet
gone through the stones and met him yet. Whereupon, we have had posts and
posts about all sorts of conjecture involving time as a moebus (darn, forgot
how to spell it) strip (look it up on the internet if you need an explanation,
its to long and difficult to do here) and, that on some plane, maybe Jamie
knew Claire was coming before Claire knew it.
To cut to the quick, what the heck is the darn ghost doing there at that
point in the story? This is the question that has plagued me since I first
read Outlander a long time ago. And it seems it will be a longer time before
I find out! I almost thought I had it figured when we all think, including
Claire, that Jamie died on the field at Culloden. Well, then you could almost
believe that Jamie haunts the Claire that only exists in 1946(?) since he died
two hundred years before after having known Claire after she went through the
stones... but lo and behold, Jamie doesn't die and I am left, along with alot
of others, to wonder what the deal is.
So now you may understand my angst over this item... it was one of the first
things that foreshadowed the whole premise of the story and its seems it will
be the last thing I get to find out, hence Colleen's joke that we may not find
out til the next decade ... (thanks, Colleen, I had a giggle at that one. )
Nancy

[Kelly Cobb]

Post by Nicklshort
Sorry to take so long replying to your post, I have been under the weather, my
son has been tying up the computer and my income taxes had to get done!
But anyway..... yes, that's the ghost, and yes we know it's Jamie, but we have
been carrying on a prolonged, confusing and highly speculative argument
regarding how it is that Jamie is outside that window when Claire has not yet
gone through the stones and met him yet. Whereupon, we have had posts and
posts about all sorts of conjecture involving time as a moebus (darn, forgot
how to spell it) strip (look it up on the internet if you need an explanation,
its to long and difficult to do here) and, that on some plane, maybe Jamie
knew Claire was coming before Claire knew it.
To cut to the quick, what the heck is the darn ghost doing there at that
point in the story? This is the question that has plagued me since I first
read Outlander a long time ago. And it seems it will be a longer time before
I find out! I almost thought I had it figured when we all think, including
Claire, that Jamie died on the field at Culloden. Well, then you could almost
believe that Jamie haunts the Claire that only exists in 1946(?) since he died
two hundred years before after having known Claire after she went through the
stones... but lo and behold, Jamie doesn't die and I am left, along with alot
of others, to wonder what the deal is.
So now you may understand my angst over this item... it was one of the first
things that foreshadowed the whole premise of the story and its seems it will
be the last thing I get to find out, hence Colleen's joke that we may not find
out til the next decade ... (thanks, Colleen, I had a giggle at that one. )
Nancy

Ah, now I get it. I think. lol

You know, at the time that DG wrote Outlander she really wasn't expecting it
to become this huge series. It was supposed to be a one-time thing. I just
kind of assumed that the ghost was just an interestingly eerie extra bit to
the story. Trying to explain it later will be hard for Ms. Gabaldon, I
think.

Thanks for the fill-in on the conjecture, though...very interesting, and
confusing.:o)

Kelly

[Nicklshort]

Post by Kelly Cobb
I just
kind of assumed that the ghost was just an interestingly eerie extra bit to
the story. Trying to explain it later will be hard for Ms. Gabaldon, I
think.
Thanks for the fill-in on the conjecture, though...very interesting, and
confusing.:o)
Kelly

My good lord! Does this group only get spam anymore?! Took me forever to try
to sort the spam from the posts... and lo and behold... not too many posts.

Sorry if the post I did on the ghost was long and protracted, but, it's my pet
peeve, and I tend to ramble on the subject.

It brings up the idea of how many other things we may have speculated on that
turned out to be completely wrong! There have been things that we have all
discussed and some we may have thought of privately. Anyone care to ramble
about something other than the ghost...? Something we thought would happen, or
a circumstance that we thought might come into play that just turned out to be
a dead end (at least, so far)?

Maybe we can have more posts than spam
if we dredge up some ideas to re-hash or re-examine. By the way, aren't we
getting a new book anytime soon?
Nancy

[Kim]

<snipped>

Post by Nicklshort
It brings up the idea of how many other things we may have speculated
on that turned out to be completely wrong! There have been things
that we have all discussed and some we may have thought of privately.
Anyone care to ramble about something other than the ghost...?
Something we thought would happen, or a circumstance that we thought
might come into play that just turned out to be a dead end (at least,
so far)?
Maybe we can have more posts than spam
if we dredge up some ideas to re-hash or re-examine. By the way,
aren't we getting a new book anytime soon?
Nancy

I have been waiting, book after book, to see Master Raymond again. In my
mind, he's a greater puzzle than the identity of the ghost. Near the end of
DIA, DG seemed to leave his character room to come back, even seemed, IMO,
to hint that he *would* be back and with more answers and stories, and then
nada. Anyone else disappointed that his character never made later books?

Kim

[Kelly Cobb]

Post by Kim
<snipped>
I have been waiting, book after book, to see Master Raymond again. In my
mind, he's a greater puzzle than the identity of the ghost. Near the end of
DIA, DG seemed to leave his character room to come back, even seemed, IMO,
to hint that he *would* be back and with more answers and stories, and then
nada. Anyone else disappointed that his character never made later books?
Kim

It seems to me that Diana did mention writing a series(?) of books all about
Master Raymond after the Outlander series and the prequel are finished.

However, I've been known to be wrong before...it could be happening again.
LOL

Kelly;o)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.675 / Virus Database: 437 - Release Date: 5/2/04

[Kim]

Post by Kelly Cobb

Post by Kim
<snipped>
I have been waiting, book after book, to see Master Raymond again.
In my mind, he's a greater puzzle than the identity of the ghost.
Near the end of DIA, DG seemed to leave his character room to come
back, even seemed, IMO, to hint that he *would* be back and with
more answers and stories, and then nada. Anyone else disappointed
that his character never made later books?
Kim

It seems to me that Diana did mention writing a series(?) of books
all about Master Raymond after the Outlander series and the prequel
are finished.
However, I've been known to be wrong before...it could be happening
again. LOL
Kelly;o)

I still think it would have been neat if Claire had bumped in to Master
Raymond in 1960's Boston. :)

[Nicklshort]

Post by Kim
I still think it would have been neat if Claire had bumped in to Master
Raymond in 1960's Boston. :)

Ohhhhhh yes... would have loved it! It would have been great if he was one of
the people in Gellie's department when she was researching time travel.
But wait, Claire may not have bumped into him but Brianna hasn't met Master
Raymond has she? or maybe she has but we just don't know it yet! Maybe she
bumped into him in 1960's Boston!
Nancy

[Kim]

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim
I still think it would have been neat if Claire had bumped in to
Master Raymond in 1960's Boston. :)

Ohhhhhh yes... would have loved it! It would have been great if he
was one of the people in Gellie's department when she was researching
time travel.
But wait, Claire may not have bumped into him but Brianna hasn't met
Master Raymond has she? or maybe she has but we just don't know it
yet! Maybe she bumped into him in 1960's Boston!
Nancy

Ooohhh, I love it! That would make a great plot twist! Lol, imagine the
description of Claire and Jamie's reactions when Bree begins to describe one
of her professors, a Dr. Raymond Masters. What would he teach? Philosophy?
Theology? Chemistry?

Kim

[Nicklshort]

Post by Kim
Ooohhh, I love it! That would make a great plot twist! Lol, imagine the
description of Claire and Jamie's reactions when Bree begins to describe one
of her professors, a Dr. Raymond Masters. What would he teach? Philosophy?
Theology? Chemistry?
Kim

Chemistry definitely, Philosophy maybe...
but I was thinking Quantum Physics!!!!
Nancy

[Kim]

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim
Ooohhh, I love it! That would make a great plot twist! Lol, imagine
the description of Claire and Jamie's reactions when Bree begins to
describe one of her professors, a Dr. Raymond Masters. What would he
teach? Philosophy? Theology? Chemistry?
Kim

Chemistry definitely, Philosophy maybe...
but I was thinking Quantum Physics!!!!
Nancy

Lmao! *smacks forehead* I completely overlooked the obvious choice, didn't
I? :)

Kim

[Pseudo]

What would he

Post by Kim

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim
teach? Philosophy? Theology? Chemistry?
Kim

Chemistry definitely, Philosophy maybe...
but I was thinking Quantum Physics!!!!
Nancy

Lmao! *smacks forehead* I completely overlooked the obvious choice, didn't
I? :)
Kim

Has anyone read Timeline, by Michael Crichton (sp?). The first few
chapters were all about the theories of quantum physics, but once you
got past that, there was a semi-scientifically-plausible time travel
story.

Pseudo

[Kim]

Post by Kim
What would he

Post by Kim

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim
teach? Philosophy? Theology? Chemistry?
Kim

Chemistry definitely, Philosophy maybe...
but I was thinking Quantum Physics!!!!
Nancy

Lmao! *smacks forehead* I completely overlooked the obvious choice,
didn't I? :)
Kim

Has anyone read Timeline, by Michael Crichton (sp?). The first few
chapters were all about the theories of quantum physics, but once you
got past that, there was a semi-scientifically-plausible time travel
story.
Pseudo

I did read it, and agree with your assessment. I really enjoyed that book.

Kim

[Liza]

I read Timeline too. The movie wasn't as good as the book.

Post by Kim

Post by Kim
What would he

Post by Kim

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim
teach? Philosophy? Theology? Chemistry?
Kim

Chemistry definitely, Philosophy maybe...
but I was thinking Quantum Physics!!!!
Nancy

Lmao! *smacks forehead* I completely overlooked the obvious choice,
didn't I? :)
Kim

Has anyone read Timeline, by Michael Crichton (sp?). The first few
chapters were all about the theories of quantum physics, but once you
got past that, there was a semi-scientifically-plausible time travel
story.
Pseudo

I did read it, and agree with your assessment. I really enjoyed that book.
Kim

[Pseudo]

Post by Liza
I read Timeline too. The movie wasn't as good as the book.

I didn't even know it was made into a movie. Off to imdb for me...

[Nicklshort]

Post by Kim

Post by Pseudo
Has anyone read Timeline, by Michael Crichton (sp?). The first few
chapters were all about the theories of quantum physics, but once you
got past that, there was a semi-scientifically-plausible time travel
story.
Pseudo

I did read it, and agree with your assessment. I really enjoyed that book.
Kim

I read it too... where do you think the quantum physics thing came from? : )

Actually, after I sent that post, I was in the video store and rented the video
of Timeline. Enjoyed the book much better.
Nancy

[Modat22]

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim

Post by Pseudo
Has anyone read Timeline, by Michael Crichton (sp?). The first few
chapters were all about the theories of quantum physics, but once you
got past that, there was a semi-scientifically-plausible time travel
story.
Pseudo

I did read it, and agree with your assessment. I really enjoyed that book.
Kim

I read it too... where do you think the quantum physics thing came from? : )
Actually, after I sent that post, I was in the video store and rented the video
of Timeline. Enjoyed the book much better.
Nancy

I have to jump in here. Timeline the book was fantastic, they totally
ruined the story in movie form IMO.

[Kim]

Post by Modat22

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim

Post by Pseudo
Has anyone read Timeline, by Michael Crichton (sp?). The first few
chapters were all about the theories of quantum physics, but once
you got past that, there was a semi-scientifically-plausible time
travel story.
Pseudo

I did read it, and agree with your assessment. I really enjoyed that book.
Kim

I read it too... where do you think the quantum physics thing came from? : )
Actually, after I sent that post, I was in the video store and
rented the video of Timeline. Enjoyed the book much better.
Nancy

I have to jump in here. Timeline the book was fantastic, they totally
ruined the story in movie form IMO.

Once again, I agree. I was disappointed by what they did with the film
adaptation.

Kim

[Nicklshort]

Post by Kim
Once again, I agree. I was disappointed by what they did with the film
adaptation.
Kim

Was it just me on the film, or did it seem very choppy and jumpy?... had
trouble following the darn thing even though I had read the book.
Nancy

[Liza]

I found it to be too abridged. It had less time to work with, because it
the book they had like 48 hours verses in the movie they had ony a few
hours. I found that to be a deterent. I wanted more of what was in the book
because that's what made the book so good. It had rich detail. The best part
in the movie was the end to be honest because that was taken from the book.
OK, I've rambled enough. I hope I didn't give anything away to those who
read or watched the story Timeline. I just can't wait until the next great
story by Herself :-)

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim
Once again, I agree. I was disappointed by what they did with the film
adaptation.
Kim

Was it just me on the film, or did it seem very choppy and jumpy?... had
trouble following the darn thing even though I had read the book.
Nancy

[Kim]

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim
Once again, I agree. I was disappointed by what they did with the
film adaptation.
Kim

Was it just me on the film, or did it seem very choppy and jumpy?...
had trouble following the darn thing even though I had read the book.
Nancy

It wasn't you. I think some of the best parts of the book were the unspoken
impressions and ideas rolling around in the heads of the characters.

Kim

[Pseudo]

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kim
Once again, I agree. I was disappointed by what they did with the film
adaptation.
Kim

Was it just me on the film, or did it seem very choppy and jumpy?... had
trouble following the darn thing even though I had read the book.
Nancy

I went to imdb to see about the movie... the actors listed screamed 'B
Grade', and the reviews confirmed it... I think it's going to be one
of those books that I won't wreck by seeing on film.

Pseudo

[Martha Robertson]

Post by Nicklshort

Post by Kelly Cobb
I just
kind of assumed that the ghost was just an interestingly eerie extra bit to
the story. Trying to explain it later will be hard for Ms. Gabaldon, I
think.
Thanks for the fill-in on the conjecture, though...very interesting, and
confusing.:o)
Kelly

My good lord! Does this group only get spam anymore?! Took me forever to try
to sort the spam from the posts... and lo and behold... not too many posts.
Sorry if the post I did on the ghost was long and protracted, but, it's my pet
peeve, and I tend to ramble on the subject.
It brings up the idea of how many other things we may have speculated on that
turned out to be completely wrong! There have been things that we have all
discussed and some we may have thought of privately. Anyone care to ramble
about something other than the ghost...? Something we thought would happen, or
a circumstance that we thought might come into play that just turned out to be
a dead end (at least, so far)?
Maybe we can have more posts than spam
if we dredge up some ideas to re-hash or re-examine. By the way, aren't we
getting a new book anytime soon?
Nancy

I believe we'll be seeing a book (to continue the saga of Jamie and Claire
that is) probably in 2005. Though I heard in 2003 it was to be 2004, but
it's
been moved indefinte. I'd like to know who is actually the father of
Brianna's baby. I'd also like to know what Dougal told Jamie before he died.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by Martha Robertson
I'd also like to know what Dougal told Jamie before he died.

That's covered in The Fiery Cross. Jamie tells her exactly what Dougal said
right before he died. And confirms who put the axe to the back of Jamie's head.


peace,

jesse
http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net

"Jesus Christ," I said. There was a faint chuckle near my ear.
"I only said I felt like God, Sassenach," he murmured. "I never said I was."

--Jamie Fraser--
"Outlander" by Diana Gabaldon