Let’s Talk About Frank: Bit Player or Significant to the Story?

Written By: Anne Gavin




Note: This Post Contains Spoilers

So what about Frank Randall?  One of my fellow staff writers for this blog wrote a very extensive piece recently about her feelings on the enigmatic Mr. Randall.  However, I have a bit of a different take on the first husband of our intrepid heroine; former British Intelligence officer, Historian, Genealogist, supposed descendant of the evil Black Jack Randall, non-industrious lover and maybe one of the most misunderstood characters of the Outlander book and television series.  What makes Frank tick and why are the TV Series producers so keen on “Frank’s Story”?  Let’s discuss how one boring historian can ignite the Outlander Fandom into furious frenzy at the mere mention of his name.


At first glance in Episode 1, Frank and Claire make a dazzling pair.  Sun shining like a spotlight on the two of them as they make their way through the picturesque Scottish Highlands in their gleaming automobile while impeccably and fashionably dressed.  Attractive, young and embarking on an adventure to re-discover themselves.  

What’s not to like?  Frank seems doting enough.  He can be seen looking admiringly at his wife numerous times.  He loves her intellect, her spirit, her beauty and clearly pleased that she is interested in all his endeavors.  He loves her.  Of that, I have no doubt.   And, then there is Claire.  Back from the war – a place where she saw and experienced horrific things, maybe some even unspeakable.  She was a woman who surely must have experienced sexism or harassment in a time when women weren’t necessarily considered equal to men. 
I imagine she must have had to develop a thick skin and learn to fend for herself.  Likely she had a foundation for this in the years she spent with her Uncle Lamb after her parents passed.  But, now, the self-sufficiency and the memory of long hours tending to dying and mangled men had faded and here she was – playing the part of a proper English wife.  She was back where she was supposed to be.  Or was she? 

Clearly struggling with what’s next for her and her spouse, Claire appears determined to play the doting wife.  She is at times amused by the seemingly singular scholarly focus of her beloved, and at the same time wistful about a life still not realized.  Longing for a vase and a home and the stability that comes with those things, yet pushing boundaries with her sexual aggressiveness and non-traditional way of thinking. 




Frank is also playing a part, it would seem.  He sensed things weren’t quite right with his bride but seemed at a loss for what to do about it.  He seemed ready to confess…to something…about maybe a life not well lived while he was parted from Claire.  But, he stops short of saying anything and instead retreats to pursuit of his historical endeavors.  And, isn’t this a typical male reaction to conflict? (nothing personal male readers)  No need to talk about anything – just carry on and all will be right!   At this stage of the story, Frank seems, well, human to me.  I feel sympathy for both these people.  They are both struggling to get back to something but at a loss for how to do so.


An examination of the Claire-Frank relationship and even further examination in Episode 108, “Both Sides Now,” is crucial to Claire’s story especially for non-book readers who must grasp story concepts and arcs and character motivations in just 16 short episodes.  And, from the book series perspective, if Diana Gabaldon meant for Frank Randall to be a bit player, she would not have carried this character – alive and dead through the first three books in the series and beyond into subsequent books.  Heck – Claire herself bears some responsibility for keeping Frank’s story alive by never taking off that damn wedding band…ever.  Why is that?  Claire will always have the specter of Frank hanging about for many reasons, not the least of which is she loved and respected the man despite his shortcomings.




Now, I am as besotted as the rest of the Outlander Fandom with one James Alexander Malcolm Mackenzie Fraser and no doubt in my mind, that Jamie is Claire’s heart and soul.  Claire needs to be with Jamie – it’s the something she was looking for that she didn’t find with Frank.  But, dear Outlander fans, in order to understand the Claire-Jamie love – a love that will span decades – we must know and understand Frank’s Story.   It’s the story of a man deeply flawed yet one who was confronted with an almost unfathomable situation.  Think about it.  His wife disappears for 3 years without a trace.  She shows up again pregnant with another man’s child, disheveled and raving about standing stones and travel to the past and God knows what.  Frank is a scholar and an intelligent man.  How do you reconcile this if you are him?  It must have been so vexing for someone so analytical and steeped in logic.  And, if you are Claire, Frank represented the life she thought she wanted – one of stability and predictability and consistency.  Despite her growing love for Jamie, it was that life that Frank represented that she wanted to get back to.  For this reason, Frank’s Story has to be told. 





At his core, Frank is human.  And, as we will see in later episodes and books, Frank makes mistakes and like almost every human being, Frank has the devil on his shoulder at times (or perhaps Black Jack).  It can be hard to separate our love for the Jamie-Claire story from the need to understand the life Claire had before and after Jamie.  And, of course, when you are talking time travel, this can get really confusing.  But, Claire has a life with Frank. 

For over 20 years, Claire shared a life with this man and much more.  Their life was probably like many other married couples.  It had its ups and downs, perhaps its infidelities – physical and emotional – and it had periods of anger and resentment, threats to leave, etc.  But, TV series watchers who want to banish this man because it feels good for them to do so does Diana’s storytelling a great injustice.  Both Diana Gabaldon and Ron Moore know that Frank’s Story is foundational for much of what will come after.  It must be told. 


Hating Frank or hating what he did or might eventually do to Claire or hating him because he’s NOT Jamie undermines the necessity to understand the story.  The story is about a woman torn between two different lives, two different centuries and, at times, two different men.   The theme repeats itself many times throughout the Outlander series – and for sure in the first four books.   Despite her eventual deep love for Jamie, Claire has been profoundly conflicted at times and remains so for most of the first half of the Book Series.  We only understand that when we know and yes, appreciate, Frank’s Story.  Flawed, exasperating, dull at times?  Yes.  Significant to Claire and Jamie’s story?  Absolutely.   Don’t hate the man.  Instead embrace this character because he makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the progression of the Outlander saga while also contributing to the many layers of Claire and Jamie’s Epic Love Story.   You’re a player, Frank.  Don’t let anyone tell you different!


As the TV Series goes forward do you think it’s important to tell Frank’s Story?  If you are done with Frank, explain why.  Will further examination of Frank’s Story in later TV episodes cause you to stop watching? 


 

91 comments

  1. I've been waiting to comment on this!! Yes! So much yes!! I don't understand the fan outrage against exploration of Frank. It tells a more interesting story about Claire and is SO very necessary! Most husbands would react poorly to being a cuckold. Seriously! Great work!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Kendra -- needless to say, I agree. What I didn't say in the piece is that liking Frank, or his character, is different from recognizing that he just needs to be there -- part of the story -- and an important part. I don't really understand the outrage about him either -- because -- he's an integral part of Diana's story. I expect more outrage when the first few episodes of Season 2 premiere...but...I guess it just makes it interesting! Gotta love this Fandom!

      Delete
    2. Enjoyed this very much. So agree with you, Anne, that Frank is an important part of the story-without him, Claire would never be conflicted and that is part of a great story.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comment, Sara. I try to separate my dislike for Frank from the fact that he's important to the story -- to Jamie and Claire's story. Hard sometimes especially knowing some of his future actions.

      Delete
    4. You make such a great point, Anne, because we cannot ever understand anything fully unless we understand it in context. In that respect, the series is very limited compared to the books. But even while reading the books, one has to dig a little deeper and think about what that relationship with Frank meant to Claire. I absolutely agree that he represents stability and consistency, things that Claire has never experienced and thinks she wants. To me, this is Frank's trump card, and in addition to her original commitment to him, this is what pulls Claire. Especially in the early days of her life with Jamie - surely she would have sighed a bit for the safety and the familiarity of the world that Frank represents. And understanding Frank as a human being makes the rest of his story a little bit more understandable, maybe? Thanks for taking this on - I really believe that understanding Frank's point of view will deepen the experience of the fans.

      Delete
    5. You make such a great point, Anne, because we cannot ever understand anything fully unless we understand it in context. In that respect, the series is very limited compared to the books. But even while reading the books, one has to dig a little deeper and think about what that relationship with Frank meant to Claire. I absolutely agree that he represents stability and consistency, things that Claire has never experienced and thinks she wants. To me, this is Frank's trump card, and in addition to her original commitment to him, this is what pulls Claire. Especially in the early days of her life with Jamie - surely she would have sighed a bit for the safety and the familiarity of the world that Frank represents. And understanding Frank as a human being makes the rest of his story a little bit more understandable, maybe? Thanks for taking this on - I really believe that understanding Frank's point of view will deepen the experience of the fans.

      Delete
    6. Barbara -- I like how you say that Frank's trump card is his consistency and stability. I do think this is what pulled on Claire for a very long time. And, to know Frank is to know and understand this. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Much appreciated.

      Delete
  2. Nice piece. I, as well, don't understand all the Frank hate - at first I thought it was because many viewers were not familiar with the books or the story and therefore were simply clueless as to the backstory. But having been part of many FB Outlander groups, found that even long time readers hated Frank. How can you hate a man who lost his wife, then stood by her when she returned 3 years later, pregnant, and stating (and later proving) that she loved another? A man who adored her daughter and raised her not only to be a wonderful person, but made sure that should she ever find her way to the past, she would be accomplished and capable? I just don't understand it. Of course, I don't understand the Bree or William hate, either. I have firmly come to believe that many just don't want to hear anything that isn't about Jamie and Claire. It is the interruption and distraction from the timeless love story they hate - not the actual character. Personally, I thought Frank was a hell of a man to stand by Claire, even knowing she would never love him as she did Jamie; he helped her become a doctor when a woman being a doctor just wasn't done; he continued to love her and support her, knowing all the while that his love was doomed. Don't know many people who would do what he did, whether he did it well or not. I, for one, relish hearing more about Frank and will enjoy an enlargement of his story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Victoria -- thanks for your thoughtful comment. Yep -- though not perfect, Frank did more than a lot of men in his position would have done. I think he did the best he could and I do think his love for Bree for real. It's interesting how both book readers and series watchers seem to have such a visceral reaction to him, but I think your hypothesis is right. If it's not about J&C, then they just don't want to hear/see it. Ah, well -- it's what makes Diana and her writing so compelling. Again, thanks for chiming in!

      Delete
    2. Frank continually cheated on Claire throughout the 20 years they were together. That to me is a huge reason to totally dislike the character. Did the best that he could? Be real. He was a jerk.

      Delete
    3. Well, Kathleen, yes, it would seem that he did, although for some reason, Diana, won't confirm the cheating. That said, I try to separate my dislike for some of what Frank did in future books from my opinion that's he's overall very important to moving the Claire and Jamie story forward. But, yes, at times he was a bit of a jerk, definitely flawed and human. Thanks for your comment.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very well written. I think their is confusion with the Frank hate and its not about the book. I think its more about the show. With 13 episodes fans want to see more about Jamie, Claire and the uprising. They dont want to much want precious screen time wasted on Frank. I think this is where people are disliking the character. If the show had more episodes then I think the fans would not be so opposed to Franks story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment, Emily. I do understand the frustration with the show and not having enough time to get to many of the iconic book scenes. It will be interesting to see how the TV producers handle Frank's Story in Season 2 and whether the perception will continue among book readers, in particular, that too much time is being wasted on things other than J&C. Something to look forward to!

      Delete
  5. Thank you, Anne! Beautifully written and I totally agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Diamond in the Rough! Great name, by the way!

      Delete
  6. Wow, Anne - that piece is fantastic! I've become a Frank lover (or a lover of including Frank) based on Tobias Menzies' brilliant work. But you are so right - leaving him out leaves an entire segment of Diana's vision for these stories. The last line made me LOL - "you're a player, Frank." HA!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ashley -- thank you. Complicated character but I do agree that Tobias did a superb job of portraying Frank in the first season. He's very talented.

      Delete
  7. I agree Emily Sadowski. However, I feel the dislike of Frank is more than just giving him more screen time, thus leaving less for Jamie. The portrayals of both characters are so different from the book, and many book fans are very upset because of it. Perhaps there's more to Frank's story that we may hear about in Diana's last book, or a short story, which she has said may happen. It just seems out of place to begin and end the first half with Frank. The romance between Frank and Claire was explored more deeply than Jamie and Claire and, honestly, Claire seemed more in love and happier with Frank. If I had not read the book, I would cheering for Frank, since that was the only thought on Claire's mind. The only reason I would be cheering for Jamie was his looks, since his character was never developed to compare with book Jamie. This is not a put down for Sam's acting ! On the contrary, he was brilliant. He became Jamie in my mind, and it was evident he owned the role as his Jamie too. To do this with very little dialogue from book Jamie, and doing things completely opposite of his character, was nothing short of genius. Fans who wanted Jamie's character to remain true to the book, were very upset, and naturally used Frank as the scapegoat. To not see and hear Jamie's humor, quick wit, and maturity for his age was, as one very irate fan put it---- " abusing Jamie". Simply put : Season 1 never developed the basis for all the books that followed - - - The story of Jamie and Claire and the trials, heartaches, adventures they endured, because above all else, they were true soul mates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jamie Fan in Disguise -- I do agree that Frank's character was fleshed out more in the TV Series, as is the case with others like Murtagh -- who has a much bigger, in your face role, than in the books. But, I think this works for TV better, b/c for the reasons I stated in the post -- Frank's Story is really key to a large part of the overall story going forward. Unlike you, though, I see Frank's Story as part of the Jamie and Claire "trials, heartaches ,adventures they endured." Agree -- J&C are everything, but Frank definitely played a role. Thanks for your comment. though. I love hearing different perspectives on the story!

      Delete
  8. Lovely article. I personally see a lot of value in Frank. There are many thing going to happen in the next few books that I have had thoughtful debates with people about, and many are over how he should have just been forgotten and left behind. I think none of Claire and Jaime's story could have happened without him, and as we get more about his preparation of Bree I think that even more. There would be no Jaime and Claire or Bree and Roger with out Frakes Randall...and I love that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheshlin -- Yes, Bree, Roger -- all heavily influenced by Frank. Totally agree. Thanks for your comment.

      Delete
  9. Thank you, Anne, for your thoughtful article about Frank. Thank you, perhaps most of all, for the Spoiler Alert included at the top! I have found that not all those who post about Outlander are that thoughtful. I would've wigged out if I had accidentally learned plot points prematurely! I feel for people like Blake who have made a conscious decision to keep pristine, book-free minds with which to enjoy the Starz series. The more popular the Outlander phenomenon becomes, the more difficult that innocence will be to maintain. I realized quickly that my only real choice was to read the books myself to avoid accidental disclosure! I greatly admire Mary's ability to live with an "unenlightened" series-only viewer, and will now be following in her footsteps when my own non-reader husband and I embark on Season 2 in April. There are elements about it which are gonna be a lot of fun. Perhaps he can cultivate his own "Outlandish Theory of the Week"! 😆

    ReplyDelete
  10. Vicki J. -- thanks for your comment. Yes, it was almost impossible to write about Frank without Spoilers, so added that thinking there may be some strong souls who are resisting the books (BLAKE!) Good luck with your husband although, as with Mary & Blake, it could lead to some lively and interesting discussions. That's not a bad thing!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Delightful article and I agree that Frank is as entwined in the story as Jamie and Claire and that is what is great about it!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you, leighcard! Glad you enjoyed it. Frank is a fun character to pick apart! Diana is so brilliant!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe the reason the show features him so prominently is because they know he becomes important later in the books? I'm talking after MOBY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenp -- I do think that exposing more of Frank is because he's important to Claire's story as the Outlander saga continues through multiple books. TV viewers don't know this so he must be more fleshed out in earlier episodes.

      Delete
  14. The show had one job above all others - show us why Claire would leave Frank for clear as lovey-dovey instead of the marriage on the brink as it was when she left in the book, I have no idea why she stays with Jamie. To add insult to injury, they botched the exposition of the stones seen so badly that it's not even clear she chose. It makes more sense to think the stones didn't work. That's why I hate the expansion of Frank's character - it ruined the whole story. I know fans who were recording that their non reader friends were asking if Jamie and Claire we're going to go back to the stones so that she could go back to Frank at the end of the final episode!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jessica -- I really appreciate your perspective on this. Thanks for sharing.

      Delete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am a fan who was not happy with the additional "Frank" scenes, nor will I be happy with more of Frank in Season 2. But I don't hate Frank. . .that's ridiculous. I don't appreciate the character's expanded importance in the series. The reason is simple: more Frank, less Jamie and Claire. In Season 1, Jamie's character was not developed as it was in the book. Where was his humour, his intellect, his leadership qualities? One of the funniest scenes in the book was totally omitted, but showed Jamie's ability to tell a story and laugh at himself (the first visit to Leoch of the Duke of Sandringham). The Lallybroch episode, a favorite chapter of mine in the book, portrayed him as a boor; in the book he possessed the qualities of a laird, knowledge, compassion, decisiveness. The omissions and changes made to Jamie's character were disappointing enough, but to show Frank meeting a woman in a bar and then beating up some con men in an alley wasted minutes as far as I am concerned. DG did not portray Frank as having a brutal streak like his ancestor. Yes, Claire loved Frank; she wanted to return to him and she tried, but when Jamie risked his life for her twice, when he declared his love, his understanding, his respect for her, she made her choice. As DG developed Claire's story in Outlander and subsequent books, she had Claire experience guilt and reflect often on her life with Frank, his intellect, his personal finesse and urbanity, and the many things she learned from him. Fine, let Claire reflect. . .give her the lines. . .but Frank scenes are not necessary. They take up valuable time from Jamie and Claire's story. Actually, I think the addition of "Frank" scenes has to do with RM's personal admiration for Tobias Menzes. Now, don't get me wrong. . .TM is a fine actor; I have the greatest respect for him. He portrayed BJR consummately, and he was great as Frank, but really, I don't think his role needs to be expanded. As for adding "Frank" scenes for the audience members who haven't read the books, I believe that is just an excuse. I've never read "Poldark," but if there is something I don't understand about the series, I'll look it up or read the books for myself. A producer doesn't have to change the story, change the characters, or add scenes for my clarification. Probably, most of us who love the books and have read them 3 or 4 times each love them because of the Jamie/Claire story. . .not because of Frank. Just my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Della -- thanks for adding your perspective. Much appreciated. I agree with 95 percent of what you say but I do see Frank as a pivotal character in Jamie and Claire's story and exploring that, is important -- especially for the TV adaptation. But, that said, you make some excellent points and really love reading your POV! Hope you and Jamie Fan in Disguise connect. Outlander has a way of bringing people together!

      Delete
    2. Agree with everything you say, Della Dartford. First let me say I LOVE the books and the series, but have had some disappointments in how things were portrayed in the series, while loving it nonetheless.

      I am NOT a Frank hater, but do confess that I think he's somewhat of a snooze. While agreeing with Anne Gavin (hi, Anne!), that Frank is a pivotal character and should not have been dismissed, I also felt the expansion of him and extended scenes were unnecessary and took precious time away from other, IMO, more important things that were left out due to "time constraints" and "story arcs." I realize the book and television are different mediums and allowances have to be made, but just wish some things were done differently.

      As far as Frank being honorable (or not, according to some people's interpretations) taking Claire back when she returned through the stones, people have to remember that the '40's were a much more conservative time than present day. Divorce was highly frowned upon, and add to that that F & C were both Catholic (although non-practicing), makes divorce that much more forbidden. Frank does what is EXPECTED by society, and it might be somewhat so that society does not think poorly of him by being a "cad" and leaving a pregnant, potentially mentally deranged wife.

      As far as character development goes, I personally feel that Jamie's character was the most under-developed of all, which is sad since he's one of the 2 main characters. I think the writers depended on his good looks and physical actions to flesh out his character and skipped over the subtle nuances that make us all love him most...his humor, honor, integrity, maturity, intuition, sensitivity, and natural leadership abilities. We may have gotten glimpses in the series, but I think it missed the mark somewhat, especially in the Lallybroch episode when he looks very immature and pompous until the end when Claire talks to him and he comes around.

      While writing this response, I had somewhat of an epiphany about the differences between Frank and Jamie. While Frank is an honorable man and does what is "right" by Claire, it seems what he does is out of duty, the fact that it SHOULD be done, whether he wants to or not. With Jamie, it seems his honor is ingrained. His honor comes from the fact that it is the right thing to do and he could not do otherwise even if he wanted to.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for commenting Maryann. You make an excellent point about Jamie vs. Frank when it comes to doing the right thing. While Frank took Claire back when she returned, he did it because it would have been embarrassing for both if he had not and also, I think, he may have really wanted that child -- even knowing it was another man's. And, no disputing that he really did love Bree. But, Jamie is grounded in morality and honor and duty to his clan and his family. No greater sense of honor was on display when Jamie took Claire to the stones not once but twice. His sense of right was even greater then his burning love for Claire. Truly the King of Men! Thanks for taking the time to reply and add your thoughts about this post!

      Delete
  17. Della Dartford You have stated very well what many of us have been saying and writing to anyone and everyone. So far no one who has influence to sway the powers that be, are listening And the powers that be, are too arrogant to listen I'm actually too tired to try and write the same thing over and over If my comment is still up please try and read it.Thanks again for defending a wonderful story Wish somebody would listen that has the power to give us back the real story

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really appreciated your comment !!! Would you be interested in talking to other like minded fan? Email available upon request Hope to hear from you

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Jamie Fan in Disguise -- you and Della connect on your Frank opinions. I love that!

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Unknown ska Maryann Mister. Wonderful post. While I did not agree with everything you said, the FACT that Jamie's character was never developed, is absolutely correct. However, I don't agree with Ron depending on Sam's good looks and physical actions for viewers to sense what he is all about. The physical actihon was even limited by Ron. He refused to let Jamie kill Horrocks, had him obeyed Ned.? ???? to take empty gun to W3W, and had him feeding the horses during the brawl. He needed that scene from the book,,to show his "physical action" and for Claire to see them!! His good looks and height,,I chalk up to plain ole jealousy.
    The Frank issue.......why flesh him out when readers have waited 20+ years to hear what he did or what he knows? The bottom line is Ron likes Tobias (words straight out of Diana' s mouth).And whatever he can do to give him a more visible and important role....then that's what will happen. I have never heard of taking a supporting role, and making him the hero. He was even given a tough guy street fighter persona. And oral sex reserved for Jamie to serve Claire's needs .Anyway, I have already stated most of this, and will hope for improvement in S2. I see the talent in Sam, and will continue to watch, but I believe Ron's motives to improve and put himself as the genius behind the show, will backfire on him. And the tragedy will hurt all of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jamie Fan in Disguise -- thanks for your additional comments. I hear you about the seemingly complicated Ron/Sam/Tobias triangle. But, I do not believe, in the end, that Ron will screw this up. You forget that he has to go home every night to one of the biggest book fans there is -- his wife! And, we all know that Miss Terry hardly ever keeps her opinions to herself. Sam will shine in Season 2 and 3 and hopefully beyond. His talent is undeniable and the Jamie-Claire story still remains the essence of Outlander. Ron can't and won't change that not as long as Diana, Maril and Terry are around.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for responding, Anne. In answer that Ron will not mess up his wife's favorite book........he already has. According to Terry's statements earlier, she loves the changes. Why?? Because Frank is second to her favorite character and Claire first. Quote: " If I were a lesbian then I would go anywhere with her" So if Claire is first, following Frank, then we know Jamie has certainly been demoted
      I will not go into how Jamie's character has been changed from Dana's fantasy Super hero, since saying it all in previous comments.To undo all those changes in S1. Is not possible, even if Ron wanted to. You would have to start all over. No reason to, if Terry is happy.
      As for Diana, she has no power in the show. If she is secretly unhappy, so what? Still nothing she can do. Her implied comments on Tobias have indicated why Frank has been extended and "fleshed out". She appears quite pleased in public......so what? Throw a tantrum, and lose the little influence (not power) she has as consultant. Some of her comments have even been used incorrectly, in showing her overall happiness with the show. When she said there wasn't anything she would change about the series, she was referring to her book series, not the show.
      Maril's power in the show,? She certainly has it, but apparently the changes are mostly in agreement. There are some exceptions, however. The scene by the river bank was shot with a full blown kiss. She prevented it from being shown .Why? Because, she at least acknowledged how book Jamie would never do this.
      I am still anxious for Season 2, but have resigned myself to an "average" Jamie, who only shines because of Sam. If Ron gives Sam more screen than last season, I will be a little more pleased, but never if he had followed Jamie's personality in the books.
      And the book is not about a love triangle!! I am not talking with Ron in the mix, but the Frank/ Claire /Jamie triangle. There again, Ron's lack of understanding Diana's story line, or that he just wants to do Outlander his
      way.r

      Delete
    3. I agree Jamie Fan in Disguise, but cannot look forward to season 2...Who takes wastes good source material and replaces it with crap writing and dialogue to prop up a favored actor. The silly face pans, the Claire haire scene and the campy pieta scene in 16 were absurd not to mention trying to toss in some Stockholm syndrome off the cuff..then wallah!!!! heals with lavender and slaps...and that's just for starters......Leery gate with no neck bad actress talking with an over full mouth fuill of big teeth...Mercy ..who put that ribbon on her neck to make it look shorter and what happened to the king of men having only one bride but will think about banging a kid..who claims virginity but I don think her dad believes it....Then there is the wooden sad scene of " I cant have kids." ended with " oh well run along ' then a total collapse and Jamie looking like maybe he should have shoved her through the stones..I blame the director for that one...the list is endless......actors looking down to talk to taller characters and vise versa... Plus all the choppy edit.....Whew!!! Easy to see why RDMs last show was cancelled so fast.

      Delete
    4. Unknown -- well -- you say a lot here! Yes, there are scenes in the TV series that seem rushed or slightly "off" from Book Jamie in particular. But, I think that's primarily because of the medium. Just not able to flesh out/explain as much as the 850 page book in 16 one hour episodes. I do understand your frustrations but do not share them. I am optimistic about Season 2 and grateful for it. We will all see together how it goes down. I am sure there will be more disagreements but it's al interesting and I live to talk about Outlander -- whether folks share my opinion or not. So, thank you for sharing your opinion and taking the time to read the blog and comment. Please come back!!!

      Delete
  20. Sorry about several typo errors. I cannot find my edit on this new android

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jamie Fan in Disguise -- well...I understand where you are coming from on some of your points/disappointments about the TV series. However, I am generally very happy with it. Very interesting your take on Diana's public comments. It's probably true that any internal discussions or disagreements she may have with the Showrunner and other producers, she won't likely air publicly. I actually think that's just being professional. But, she has talked publicly (in interviews) about a few times during production of Season 1 where she pushed hard to have things be changed and that it got a little heated. I think RDM and DG have a relationship based on respect and that this will continue going forward. Diana is no shrinking violet but she also respects that TV is not her medium and she may need to give in from time to time. We shall see how it all shakes out next Season. I am sure there will be much more to discuss and debate. As always, I REALLY appreciate you engaging so passionately on my Blog Post and on the Outlander Cast Blog in general. Our readers are MOST important to us and inform what we do. So, thank you. Please keeping reading!

    ReplyDelete
  22. How should I think about Frank as compared to Jamie? Well let's see!! Both men are initially products of their generation or time. Both have some very good aspects of their character and then some typical male qualities. What sets them apart is the way they relate to Claire. Actually, I believe that it is the way she interacted with each man that eventually changes them and, in some ways, the way these two changed Claire. Was Claire a different person in 1945 than she became in 1743? Yes, I believe so. That is why she had different relationships with Frank and Jamie. She changed Jamie more than she did Frank, but both love(d) her unconditionally. I actually respect Frank for what he did for her and Brianna, even though he knew that Claire didn't really love him any more. Maybe Claire also respected Frank and that is why she always wore her first wedding ring.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Unknown -- agree with much of what you say. Both men play a very important part in Claire's life. They are very different men although both loved her. I just think Jamie allowed Claire to be herself a bit more than Frank did. Claire was her true self with Jamie -- just one of the reasons J&C are soul mates. Thanks for reading and commenting. Come back to the blog and see us again!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Excellent and well done! I agree with what you've said. I must say that its refreshing to read something that is well thought out. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bwen -- Thanks for stopping by! Glad you liked the piece. Frank plays an important role in the Outlander story and often I don't think he gets enough love! And, there is much more to love on the Outlander Cast Blog so I hope you'll check out some of the other great pieces. Again, thanks for reading and commenting. Look forward to seeing your comments on future posts!

      Delete
  25. As a writer, I can say that if Frank was removed from the story, it would be A LOT less interesting than it is. The conflict is ratcheted that much higher for Claire through the books because of it. He's portrayed wonderfully in the series, as well. I wasn't aware of people disliking him. Kind of a bummer to know that, since he's such an integral part of the story, especially in the earlier books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Angel Payne -- Yep, Frank is very polarizing. Some people despise how big a role he has in Season 1. However, as my post suggests, I think it's appropriate because, as YOU say, his role is integral. But, it's great that Outlander can stir so many different emotions in people. The genius of Diana Gabaldon! Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. Please come back and visit the blog again soon!

      Delete
    2. I don't hate Frank Randall , I do think he's a jerk. Frank Randall is very self absorbed. He loves himself. He tells Claire that they are going on a second honeymoon. He chooses the location so he can research his genealogy. Then he chooses where they go sight seeing because his relative might have been there. Frank then spends the time on his second honeymoon with Reverend Wakefield. He also blames Claire for their infertility problems. That remark about Mrs. Baird being able to tell when they attempt to start their family tree was uncalled for. He just wanted to let Claire know he thinks she is to blame. Frank may be educated, but that doesn't mean he is intelligent. He was with British intelligence MI-6 and yet he explains his reason for why he thinks he saw a ghost was because he didn't feel the man brush past him. Really?!? How about the fact that it was pouring rain and yet this man was as dry as a bone.How did he not notice that?!?I think Claire still was old fashioned in some ways. I think she looked at marriage as a forever relationship. Claire is very driven in everything she does including marriage. Failure was not an option. Jamie never treated Claire as a second class person and I think little by little she realized Frank was not her love. A comparison of Frank to Jamie is total opposites. I was so happy when Frank had to face the fact that it was his infertility problem. Of course Claire would have a special place in her heart for Frank. After all he was her first love, but Jamie was her TRUE love.

      Delete
  26. Well done, Shanna Vitteli. . .You certainly summed up Frank's shortcomings and gave very succinct reasons for Claire's choice. Having done that, you support my contention that Frank is a minor character and doesn't need to have his role expanded in the Starz series. Claire can make reference to him or remember him in her dreams or voiceover(s), but we do not need to see added scenes of Frank to know that Claire was once married to him. The added scenes in Season 1 did nothing to enhance his character; those precious minutes kept the audience from enjoying Jamie's story of the Duke's first visit to Leoch, the time when Hamish came to the barn while Jamie and Claire were in the loft, and, of course, some of the important scenes which were neglected in the finale episode.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Della Dartford -- thanks for reading and commenting. I guess we can agree to disagree. Because many of the television viewers have NOT read the books, I do think it's important to explore Frank a bit more -- as we need to understand why for so long, Claire was so keen on getting back to him -- even AFTER meeting her soul mate, Jamie. Yes, lots of decisions had to be made about what to include and not include from the books when making the series. I mourn the loss of several book scenes I would have LOVED to have seen. But, just not enough time and editorial decisions had to be made. But, I LOVE hearing your opinion and others, as well. It's what makes the Outlander Fandom so vibrant and engaging!! Again, thanks for reading and commenting. Come back to the Blog again soon for more Outlander news and original content!

      Delete
  27. Thank you Della.I was glad to see you got the ideas I was trying to convey. I agree Frank should not take up precious time to other important parts of the story. Now that the entire season is out, I can say I have great sorrow at all the deleted scenes. Almost 90% of what was left out was important to the story. I understand completely that the show runner and his partners had to make difficult decisions on what to take out. It would have been really nice if they had put out a version that put in the deleted scenes. Like was done on the episode THE RECKONING. Those scenes gave a completely different bent on many important characters. So yes, Frank is just a bit player. I do realize that as the books go on Frank does play a part so that should have been where Frank's story was portrayed in a larger capacity. I know many will disagree, but it's good to see all views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shanna Vittelli -- thanks for reading and commenting. The new Trailer has brought up all sorts of feelings again about our dear Frank! I absolutely understand where you are coming from. When it comes right down to it -- there is NO comparison between Frank and Jamie. That said, Claire did love him once and he did take her back when she returned carrying another man's child. They did live a more traditional married life for those 20 years (I don't know any marriage that doesn't have conflict or many of the things that Claire and Frank endured) but I still believe Frank's story is an important one and needed to be told more thoroughly than the books -- for the sake of the television viewers -- many of which have not read. But, you are very thoughtful in your analysis of Frank. I learn something all the time from our Blog readers. Again, thanks for reading and commenting. Hope you'll come back to the Blog soon for more Outlander news and original content.

      Delete
  28. I had not read any of the books prior to watching Outlander. I love Tobias Menzies, However, I simply do not care about Frank. When I watch my favorite episodes again I skip through most of the Frank scenes. Yes, Frank is essential to the story for the development of Claire's journey but only for that reason. As such, even in the books, Frank is still a very minor character. I know Ron Moore wanted to make the audience care about Frank, but I simply do not. I felt that time was wasted on a character that I was unable to find anything useful about in the scheme of the story as a whole. I still feel that way. Frank is not boring for me but insignificant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown -- thanks for reading and commenting. Well, your view of Frank is shared by many. That said, he is not my favorite character -- for sure -- but I do think he's important to Claire's story for reasons stated in my Blog post. That said, always love hearing differing opinions. It's why I enjoy the Outlander fandom so much. Hope you come back soon to the Blog for more Outlander news and original content!

      Delete
  29. Great article! I don't understand why book fans hate Frank so much. I've read all the books and I personally wish there was more to the Frank story when Claire came back pregnant and in love with another man. Even though I don't like Frank after the horrible fight he had with Claire before he dies, there still should be more of him.Diana does give us flashbacks in some of the books but I wish there was more on how they lived together and stayed married as Bree grew up. So, I do agree that Frank is an intriguing character that is significant and I love that the show is adding more of him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jessica Loving -- I agree -- Frank is an interesting study. You never know -- Diana may, indeed, write more about Frank. I think she is always thinking about side projects and novellas. It would be fascinating to know more about how Frank and Claire lived those 20 years she was parted from Jamie. Thanks for reading and commenting. Please come back to the Blog soon for more Outlander news and original content!

      Delete
  30. In 1967ish you did not have a baby out of wedlock. Claire loves Frank but Jamie, and her carrying the physical reminder of him, and Frank's acceptance of the child gave her a cover for this child without society intervening. Thinking Jamie dead, her link to him was thru Frank. He was there when she went thru and there when she came back. Divorce? No way! That meant giving up her memories if she was to have a future life. Staying with Frank meant she had a half-life. Even her choice of career was tied to Jamie. Claire-the healer. I do not understand anyone's dislike of Frank. And non-readers haven't a clue what Frank did which sets Claire on the path she takes. Fate or did Frank have a look at his future? Had he lived to 80,the story would not have gone on. Frank is at the heart of this love triangle. He is front and center! I absolutely love @RonMoore enlarged his storyline. #Season3

    ReplyDelete
  31. In 1967ish you did not have a baby out of wedlock. Claire loves Frank but Jamie, and her carrying the physical reminder of him, and Frank's acceptance of the child gave her a cover for this child without society intervening. Thinking Jamie dead, her link to him was thru Frank. He was there when she went thru and there when she came back. Divorce? No way! That meant giving up her memories if she was to have a future life. Staying with Frank meant she had a half-life. Even her choice of career was tied to Jamie. Claire-the healer. I do not understand anyone's dislike of Frank. And non-readers haven't a clue what Frank did which sets Claire on the path she takes. Fate or did Frank have a look at his future? Had he lived to 80,the story would not have gone on. Frank is at the heart of this love triangle. He is front and center! I absolutely love @RonMoore enlarged his storyline. #Season3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tour of Duty -- I think we agree! Frank's story is VERY important to Claire and the Jamie and Claire love story! It's hard to like him for some -- because, it's hard to think or know that Claire was with anyone post Jamie. But, he had an important role to play in Claire's and Brianna's life and he played it out as far as it would go. He's a very interesting character for SURE! Thanks for reading and commenting. Please come back again soon to the Blog for more Outlander news and original content!

      Delete
  32. I'm not a fan of Frank - I think he's extremely boring both in the book and show - but I understand that it's needed to have him both in the show and in the books to be able to tell the story... What I have a problem with is not primarily the fact that they added Frank scenes but the way they (Ron Moore) handle him! If someone who had neither read the books or seen the show only would listen to RMs 16 h of podcasts + the Outlander Cast interview + other interviews they wouldn't understand that the Jamie character is in the chore of the story or that Sam Heughan is the leading male actor because Ron _hardly ever mentions him/them!_ (not even in eps 16 when he gets raped do you get the impression that this is an interesting character/great actor, they rather talk about the extras and the set!) All you hear is that Frank defines Claire, he is the only reason she wants to go back (not going back to her own time, safety, hot water etc), and Jamie is only 'kind of intriguing' while Tobias Menzies is the favourite actor who does everything right so they add more Frank / BJR scenes because they like to have him on set!
    At the same time they changed Jamies character 180 degrees from one eps to another - the honourable virgin who sleeps outside Claires door one eps and the next is he squeezing Laoghaires boob and we're supposed to believe that he is choosing between her and Claire? One eps he is the savvy diplomat who advises Column - and the next a spoiled 15 year old brat would kicks his pregnant sister out of her room - and he wants to join the Watch?? Jamie in the books has flaws but he is also smart, funny, educated and we never see this - Claire is treating him like a kid who needs to be told what to do and he's most valuable with his shirt off...
    If Ron and Co would put as much effort into building Jamies character as they've done with Franks - and if they would compliment Sam as much as the do Tobias - I don't think there would be so much Frank haters. Passive aggressive is bullying in my world and after listening to Ron's podcasts I don't hate the added Frank - but the diminished Jamie... Most of the fans - both book and show - comes for the Jamie/Claire relationship and Ronnie thinks it's all about Claire and pushes Frank and doesn't care about what his audience comes for! (= if the head chef omly pushed the vegetarian dishes in a steakhouse awarded for it's kobe beef.. ) If his focus was more balanced towards all of the characters I'm pretty sure no one would have a problem with the added Frank scenes...

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'm not a fan of Frank - I think he's extremely boring both in the book and show - but I understand that it's needed to have him both in the show and in the books to be able to tell the story... What I have a problem with is not primarily the fact that they added Frank scenes but the way they (Ron Moore) handle him! If someone who had neither read the books or seen the show only would listen to RMs 16 h of podcasts + the Outlander Cast interview + other interviews they wouldn't understand that the Jamie character is in the chore of the story or that Sam Heughan is the leading male actor because Ron _hardly ever mentions him/them!_ (not even in eps 16 when he gets raped do you get the impression that this is an interesting character/great actor, they rather talk about the extras and the set!) All you hear is that Frank defines Claire, he is the only reason she wants to go back (not going back to her own time, safety, hot water etc), and Jamie is only 'kind of intriguing' while Tobias Menzies is the favourite actor who does everything right so they add more Frank / BJR scenes because they like to have him on set!
    At the same time they changed Jamies character 180 degrees from one eps to another - the honourable virgin who sleeps outside Claires door one eps and the next is he squeezing Laoghaires boob and we're supposed to believe that he is choosing between her and Claire? One eps he is the savvy diplomat who advises Column - and the next a spoiled 15 year old brat would kicks his pregnant sister out of her room - and he wants to join the Watch?? Jamie in the books has flaws but he is also smart, funny, educated and we never see this - Claire is treating him like a kid who needs to be told what to do and he's most valuable with his shirt off...
    If Ron and Co would put as much effort into building Jamies character as they've done with Franks - and if they would compliment Sam as much as the do Tobias - I don't think there would be so much Frank haters. Passive aggressive is bullying in my world and after listening to Ron's podcasts I don't hate the added Frank - but the diminished Jamie... Most of the fans - both book and show - comes for the Jamie/Claire relationship and Ronnie thinks it's all about Claire and pushes Frank and doesn't care about what his audience comes for! (= if the head chef omly pushed the vegetarian dishes in a steakhouse awarded for it's kobe beef.. ) If his focus was more balanced towards all of the characters I'm pretty sure no one would have a problem with the added Frank scenes...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking for Jamie -- well...I don't think I could comment on your comment and add anything. I do think that RDM has a bit of a bias towards Tobias Menzies and Tobias as BJR. And, as Executive Producer/Showrunner, you get to take liberties from time to time. The good news for you and others not a fan of the Frank story is that by Season 4 (if they follow the books) we will hear (and likely see) less and less of Frank/Tobias. But, I understand where you are coming from and your frustration. Thanks for reading and commenting. I hope you'll come back to the Blog again soon for more Outlander news and original content.

      Delete
  34. there's also a side bar issue here: jamie and frank - each in his own unique way - reach out to each other. each in essence entrusts the care of claire and brianna to the other when circumstances require it. so it's not just two separate couple relationships, but in essence a triangular family system played out over time and distance. the brilliance of diana's writing is boundless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (not even going to try and re-type your screen name!) -- I have never heard the "Triangle" described this way. Very interesting!!! Thanks for reading and commenting. Come back to the Blog again soon!

      Delete
  35. Astute comments, Looking for Jamie. About the best we book fans can do is wait for Frank to die, but then RM will probably create new scenes just to keep Tobias in the show. The fact that the bulk of the 8 novels deals with Jamie and Claire's relationship seems secondary to the interests of the production team.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Della Dartford -- we shall see. I believe the Frank story will wrap up soon enough. Tobias is a very busy actor. He's moved on to other projects. Maybe Ron will find a new bromance with Rik Rankin!! Just saying. Lots to look forward, though, I still think. Again, appreciate your comments and your opinions. Everyone here is always welcome to express your thoughts -- particularly if they differ from mine!!! Slainte!

      Delete
  36. Frank is crucial to the storyline throughout all 8 books. Spoiler alert...we find Frank behind Brianna's development later in the book series which I find admirable, he went as far as he could to arm her with skills he thought she might need. Selfless? Perhaps. As close to acknowledgement of Clare's situation? Maybe...thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown -- there is no doubt that Frank was a great father to Brianna. And, in fact, taught her many tings that proved useful to her later in life and after she travels through the stones. There is no disagreement about this plot point. However, the Outlander series remains a story about Claire and then about Jamie and Claire. Frank definitely plays a role...but it's not Frank's Story. At least not in the books. Thanks for reading and commenting.

      Delete
  37. What do you mean Frank is an un-industrious lover? He went down on her in a dirty old dungeon, didn't he! Claire implies they had great sex...sure Jamie might be better, but don't count Frank short on the love making scale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown -- Non-industrious -- meaning Claire was teasing him about pulling out his academic books as soon as they arrived in their "honeymoon" suite telling him he would "have to show more industry" if he wanted to start a family. Seems to me for most of the trip to Inverness, Frank was more interested in his academic studies/genealogy then he was spending time with his wife. Claire initiated every sexual encounter they had.

      Delete
  38. My huge comment was lost? OMG!!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well, I don't have time to retype the whole thing. I dislike Frank. But I think he may come back in the next book (or two) as DG wraps up the TT mystery and Jamie's ghost. Frank knew something that had him teach Brianna to defend herself and warn her that she may be a target. He knows something is going to happen and I believe that someone in the 80's is going to want to know more about stone circles and the MacKenzie family will be front and center in that questioning. DG is in close contact with the producers. While we know Moore likes Tobias, I don't think that's the only reason Frank will remain visible in the show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Debbie Burke -- well, we see Frank had large role in Episode 201 but it would have to be MAJOR change in DG's story if he keeps coming back and coming back in any major sort of role. I tend to think this will be the last we see of Frank (Season 2) save for occasional flashbacks. But, Ron may have other plans. I guess we will see.

      Delete
  40. For a long period and many times, Claire'd like to go back to Frank, despite Jamie's existance! I think Frank is a very prominent and "solid" person in Claire's mind and heart. But, Jamie loves Claire more and better than Frank, in a more simple way. A life with Jamie seems less competitive than with Frank. I'm new in Outlander World (so far, first 2 books and half, S1TV), but I firmly believe that Claire falls in love with Jamie's love, chooses Jamie because he terribly wants and loves her. And to be loved is...intoxicating. Claire learn to love by Jamie. Jamie learn to live by Claire. Is easier for Claire to be "somebody" in 1743. From a practical point of view, is better Frank and 1948, but from an "emotional" point of view, Jamie in 1743 is "safer". So, great history, great story, great characters, great vicissitudes. Genius Gabaldon, great script. Great actors. Great acting. Landscape sky-high.... I really like it a lot. REVOLUTIONARY. TY Outlander Cast

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Manu -- YES!!! YES!!! It is a monumental love story between Jamie and Claire. Frank, unfortunately, will never measure up to the King of Men. Claire does learn to live via Jamie and he to love. I like the way you said that! We shall see how far Ron Moore takes Frank's character -- perhaps beyond the books, maybe? I guess we will have to wait and see. Thanks for reading and commenting!

      Delete
  41. Claire is 11years Frank's junior. I think in the beginning we see a man fascinated by his younger wife. He still occasionally treats her as a student needing to be enlightened. She brings him out of his stodginess and lightens his world. Kind of like Mr. Chips. Frank does love Claire and Bree. To allow Claire to follow her passion of becoming a doctor he takes Bree with him so Claire can attend school. To protect Bree if needed in the future he sees she has the necessary skills to survive. As time goes on and morals change, divorce is no longer a stigma, Frank finds someone that loves him for himself. Claire no longer needs him so he decides to leave but to hurt Claire or make her see him he says he is taking Bree. We'll never know if he would really have left, because of the accident. He didn't play the sympathy card and tell Claire about his heart condition. The one thing I have always felt, is that with Frank, Claire was searching for a home. With Jamie she was home. She was complete if he was there. She didn't need things if he was there. Even Bree, didn't complete her the way Jamie did.

    ReplyDelete
  42. SPOILERS HERE. Of course Frank's story is important and of course Claire will never be "done" with him. Nor will Jamie and Bree. Nor will I. The brilliance of this tale is the interdependent weave. The tapestry needs all the threads. He is critical to the tragic aspects of the story. For those 20 years Claire knew Frank was not the get of Black Jack, but rather his kindly, soulful brother. But she did not know Frank would care. She did not know Frank was secretly researching, not just his own ancestry but Bree's as well. Tragic. Frank believed Claire's story, he just couldn't let it in to his marriage and his fatherhood of Bree. I can understand that. Jamie understands Frank really well I think and I bet we'll come to see that in future books.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I agree that we need to see Frank's relationship with Claire and I don't understand why some viewers just want her to 'get over' him. He didn't ask for this, didn't push her into Jamie's arms in any way. She just disappeared! And he can't help it that she ended up in the arms of a charming, sexy Highlander who he can't compete with. Frank is loving and a solid, dependable guy, a typical 1940's buttoned down Englishman. And Claire's experience with his ancestor, Jack, has left her with an understandable amount of anxiety about the ways he reminds her of the nightmare of what Jack did to her and to Jamie, also. Yet she also obviously doesn't want to forget him, and still feels love for and an attachment to him.
    I realized after I had seen the first episode that Tobias Menzie's version of Frank reminded me of my father when he was younger. An American, but a man who served in WWII, a pretty typical 1950's father and husband. The reserve, the sense of some emotions that were kept under control, under the surface, is how I remember my Dad. I think that generation of men very typically behaved that way, so the more I thought about his portrayal of Frank the more I admired how he fleshed out that character.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thanks for the article, i´ve been thinking the same. I´ve never understood why people hate Frank so much and his scenes, like enjoying them means that you prefer him over Jaime. Frank is my favourite character and i couldnt care less about who is with Claire. He is so human, complex and his situtation is so damn dramatic, but even so many people dont want to think about it. I cant understand either why people complain so much about his scenes, the 2º season, we could see Jaime and Claire in every chapter but only 30 minutes of Frank, is it such a waste? not a chance!! in fact he is the best actor in the show ( im not saying the others were bad at all) and his scenes are so damn good, the only episode that almost made me cry was the first one. So i appreciate that they let us know his point of view this time, because it helps us to understand Claire, her hard decision and many things are going to happend from now on. I just wished that he wouldnt have died, the story would be much better if he had travelled in time along with his family, even if Claire and him werent together anymore

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think there is a LOT to franks story. Look at brianna. She knows how to hunt, fire a gun etc. Frank taught her that. I think he knew or thought there was a possibility claire would take Bri back to meet jaime

    ReplyDelete
  46. I think there is a LOT to franks story. Look at brianna. She knows how to hunt, fire a gun etc. Frank taught her that. I think he knew or thought there was a possibility claire would take Bri back to meet jaime

    ReplyDelete
  47. If you want your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (even if they're dating somebody else now) you must watch this video
    right away...

    (VIDEO) Text Your Ex Back?

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Back to Top