It’s official.
Frank has now become The Man. Numero Uno in the Starz saga that is
exploding ovaries and re-heating cold marriage beds all over the world. *but
especially in the United States and Canada where, apparently, ovaries are
particularly ripe and the beds unusually cold. Or so reactions to the Outlander
phenomenon would have us believe.
I am talking about TV Frank, not Book Frank.
I never felt either of the two big PATHYs for Book Frank (SYM
nor EM) which made it easier to fall for Jamie, whom I now refer to as 'Fido'
(explanation forthcoming). I believe
Dr. Gabaldon made Book Frank unappealing on purpose for 2 reasons:
2) Diana didn’t know Tobias Menzies would own the show from the moment he opened his mouth and that Voice unlocked myriad psychological chastity belts worldwide
From Day 1, Frank is given to us on a plate of stability and thoughtfulness, with a generous helping of tenderness and romance and garnished with intellectual prowess (yes, it is almost lunchtime, why do you ask?). His sexy confidence and self-assured posture made trench coats the crotchless panties of menswear, and Frank is to sweater-vests what Dolly Parton is to tank tops. No mean feat that one.
He has a ruggedly attractive face that grows more handsome upon
each word he utters and by the time he is bouncing on the bed with Claire, you
want her to scoot off to the bathroom with an hour long bout of diarrhea so he can sit by the fire and read aloud a
love poem by Browning …or the labels off his shirts…anything to keep him
speaking. *It was a very wise choice not
to have Frank’s voice as the narrator of the story thus far, as nobody would
have seen their screens with their eyes rolled back in eye-fluttering ecstasy.
In Episode 8, we first see him with his back to us in the
police station as he sits rock solid and immovable, a Standing Stone
personified, as he demands answers from
a detective who just happens to drink my favorite brand of coffee (let’s call
it Justice Juice).
And he is as unwavering, relentless and dogged as any tax
collector after a 2 dollar underpayment. Dissing the entire precinct with his acerbic insults,
...he angrily refuses to believe
that Claire has run off with another man, and channeling his inner Kevin
Costner, he becomes Fist Slams On Desk and almost wastes an entire cup of
Justice Juice. He can’t seem to make
them understand that his wife would never leave him willingly. Personally, I don’t know
why he just didn’t show them the Castle Leoch pictures of his Table Top Tongue
Tango with Claire. I mean really, WHAT woman would leave
THAT? *I know I am not the only one who noticed that Frank kept his camera on
his shoulder when he hit third base face-first that day…
Frank was so magnificently desperate and filled with such exquisite
grief that I didn’t even care about the screen jump to the Quickie in the Grass
with Jamie and Claire and I actually hoped it would live up to the 'quickie' part. The juxtaposition
of Frank’s suffering and Claire’s lusty indifference was painful to watch and
instead of feeling excited about some Push Push In The Bush, I felt appalled...the sound of Claire's laughter skipping and bouncing over the sounds of the cracking and crumbling of Frank's broken heart. If she was a man, I would be all over him for cheating on his sweet loving wife who never did him wrong and to whom he seemed devoted...and it IS cheating when you go past Wedding Night Duty to save your skin, into becoming Siamese Twins from the waist down. Me and Aretha know that R.E.S.P.E.C.T. is what you need and Claire is losing mine quickly...
TV Frank has me rooting for him big time and more importantly than Jamie
losing his Cherry, Claire lost her Excuse.
And it was the Excuse of a loveless marriage to an apathetic ‘stranger husband’ that made it okay for her to fall for Jamie. But TV Frank deserves a faithful wife. A
loving D̶e̶n̶i̶s̶e̶ wife.
I LOVE Book Jamie
beyond reason, but TV Jamie is a tough sell against such a massive hunk of good
guyness. I don’t blame Sam for his portrayal of playful and youthful exuberance
as it he was obviously directed to do so, but I couldn’t help but think of Jamie as a
new puppy (hence the 'Fido') who can’t get
over how much he loves playing with his new bone (pun intended)....licking (that
wasn’t kissing) his play toy and copping a 2 second Squeeze N’ Suk on some gratuitous boobage. Meh. Quickie can still be hot. McQuickie...not so much.
In comparison
to the rhythmic rattling of the chandelier at the Inn and that seductive love
fest, the GITAS (Grass In The Ass Scene) just felt wrong. I admit, I am a sucker for a throaty, passionate whisper of lustful sex-talk whilst in the midst
of a rollicking great fuck, whatever
the speed with which it is being delivered…so the GITAS high school giggling left me colder
than the gun barrel pressed on Jamie’s face, which, by the way just
pissed me off even more because FRANK would have turned around and bitten that
barrel in half with his teeth and spit the bullet in the soldier's eye, then he would've shitkicked
them both for the interruption. Just sayin'...
This isn’t just adoration talking here. The ambush after the bar scene proves that
well enough. Two attackers were nothing to Frank. He smoked them like a cheap cigar and even had
the presence of mind to NOT snap the neck of the bitch that suckered him into
the trap in the first place. I would have saved her the trouble of ever needing
fillings, but that’s just me. Frank has control, even half drunk, enraged, disillusioned and without his hat.
That BJR gene
is well diluted methinks (too bad in this case though).
I also like the fact that Frank went up to the Stones even though he'd never heard of nor believed in that Time Portal fiddle-faddle folklore (which was a major plot flaw my opinion because prior to that, Frank was a veritable encyclopedia of Anything Scotland and could quote everything from the dates of pagan celebrations and obscure 16th Century political minutia, to the measured radius of Bonnie Prince Charlie's anus, but I will let that go for now...). I was hoping the directors would keep straying
from the book as they have been doing so expertly thus far, and for a blissful minute there, I thought
they had whipped out a biggie and were allowing Frank to see Claire again (that piercing, haunting music gave one real hope for such). The unspeakable hope etched on his face was almost unbearable to witness...
but her being snatched away last second kept things
on track and Frank’s ruin was complete. I was both crushed for dear Frank and thankful
that Tobias had a chance to work his magic and stretch his acting muscles. He
was devastatingly devastated.
In the best scene in the series so far and the only one so far
that brought me to tears, Frank baying at an invisible moon, his lover’s name
ripped from his lips at the foot of the Stones that took her, I was left bereft
of any feeling except a wish that my husband would run downtown and buy a
sweater vest.
And a trench coat.
I like this unexpected twist of my affections. This Unexpected
Hero of The Heart (and this unexpected attraction to tweed). Frank was rather an afterthought
in the book, a necessary plot device, but in the
tv show he is, thankfully, a Force of Nature. Maybe I am just not cougarish
enough for Jamie to be the one to light this old fire. He is a fine laddie, but a
mere puddle to the tsunami that is Frank Randall.
*How a tsunami and an old fire can possibly amount to anything good is beyond me at the moment, but I am willing to examine this more closely, as always, over a glass of Cape Ruby...
BEST VIDEO EVER!!! Expresses my feelings better than words: MUST SEE!
DIANA RE-POSTED THIS ARTICLE ON HER FACEBOOK PAGE!
*and she was entertained. I entertained Herself! I can die a half-happy woman now. To die fully happy would involve Boromir and wild jungle sex and...ummm...never mind.
*click pics to enlarge
This article has now received over 14,000 views...in one day. The Power of DG. Thank you Diana! (*UPDATE: as of today Jan 6 2015, there have been JUST shy of 20,000 view of this article because of Diana. Gotta love it. But I think 19,999 of them don't agree with me. LOL! )
My favorite:
IN DIANA'S OWN WORDS
Here is the article...a reply to a fan question about Frank:
Nov. 13, 2005
"As to L'Affaire Frank... Geez Louise. You guys.
Of course Frank isn't "a pathetic slimeball." Where do they come up with these ideas? (My personal guess would be that the people holding this particular opinion are possibly not that fond of their own SO, and would trade him in for Jamie in a heartbeat. Ergo, they project things onto Frank. But that's only a guess.)
Look. In the books, we see Claire and Frank's relationship only from Claire's point of view. Which is understandably a trifle biased, following her return through the stones.
What we see prior to her disappearance is an awkward but affectionate relationship between two people who are married, but who are effectively strangers-they've barely seen each other in six years, and have been back together for only a few days. They're feeling each other out, trying to reestablish the connection they once had, and struggling to overcome the fact that they are now quite different people than who they once were.
Frank asks her diffidently at one point whether she had ever been tempted to stray during the war-assuring her that he would understand if she had. Claire-and the reader-think that his reason for doing this may well be that he had strayed, and would feel better about confessing his own transgression if she had suffered similar temptations.
Well, maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. It's actually not an abnormal question to ask a mate you haven't seen in six years, and one whom you know has been working closely with hundreds of wounded (and thus possibly emotionally appealing) men, in conditions that you know are stressful, dangerous, and highly conducive to passionate, if short-lived, physical attractions.
He's trying to ask it tactfully, but-they're strangers. She takes offense, and he hastily drops the question. He doesn't bring it up again, in the time they're together-which is fairly short. So you have to draw your own conclusion there:
1) he hasn't been having affairs himself, but can't help a certain male feeling of curiosity/jealousy about what Claire might have been doing,
2) perhaps he had a brief fling, which he regrets, and wants to confess this to Claire, so their marriage can resume without his feeling constant guilt, or
3) he's been screwing every woman who crossed his path, but would like to find out that Claire's had her own affairs, so he can throw it back at her in case she ever finds out.
OK. There is NO evidence favoring any one of these three alternatives. None. Any one of them is as likely as another. The reader's conclusions depend on the reader-and each reader brings his or her own experiences and background to the act of reading.
Now, Claire disappears. No warning, no trace, no nothing. What do you reckon happened, when she didn't come back? A police search, no leads-and probably deep suspicion of the husband, who is the Most Likely Suspect. So Frank's left panicked, then grief-stricken, while probably being interrogated and threatened about his wife's disappearance. But this must obviously have all died down in the next three years, and Frank begins to rebuild his life.
Does the rebuilding involve any kind of relationship with women, or a woman? Quite possibly; he's a handsome, personable man, with friends who would think it their duty to introduce him to women.
BUT.
Claire comes back. Filthy, malnourished, and hysterical, if not outright demented. And, of course, pregnant. She tells him an unbelievable story, presumably the product of a disordered mind, the result of whatever horrible abduction/captivity/rape has resulted in her present condition. She tells him to leave her.
Does he leave her? No. Does he produce another woman and explain that actually, dear, while you were gone, Mary and I. No. He replies shortly that no one but a cad would leave a woman in her condition.
So, OK. HE doesn't think he's a cad. Why on earth should anybody else? He does stay with Claire, not only while she's recovering, but thereafter. There's no hint that he's pursuing a love affair started while she was gone; in fact, he takes her to Boston, so that no hint of scandal will attend Bree's birth. If he did have some relationship while she was gone, plainly he's broken it off (and perhaps the removal to Boston is to make such a break more definite-we don't know, because we don't know what he was doing during those three years).
All right. From this point on, Claire's view of Frank is definitely suspect, because her own state of mind makes it impossible for her to connect fully with him, save for brief interludes of tenderness, when they're able to reach one another physically (like the night he makes love to her on the floor of the nursery). Yes, their relationship is strained-we know that, because we see it. But the relationship of any new parents is strained (believe me on this), even if the two parties aren't on difficult terms to start with. And these two parties definitely are.
Claire thinks he may be having affairs, but she doesn't ever have evidence of it. Either the guy is very dang good at hiding this stuff (and unfaithful spouses almost always give themselves away)-or he isn't having affairs. He may well be seeking companionship, sympathy, and ego-reinforcement from other women (he ain't gettin' a lot of those things at home-but note that he isn't leaving, either), but it's at least possible that he isn't crossing the line into actual physical infidelity. Note that Claire says that now and then she forces her sexual attentions on him, trying to prove that he's been with someone else (and thus unable to respond to her)-but that every time, he does respond to her, even if with mutual rage.
On the other hand, Frank knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that Claire's been unfaithful to him. At first, he most likely thinks she's been raped, but she goes on insisting on her absurd story. If it's true in any way-then she did it on purpose. This can't do his feelings any good. But he stays, because only a cad would abandon a pregnant woman with no resources-and he isn't a cad.
See, all these red-eyed readers are identifying with Claire (for the excellent reason that she's telling the story)-but they'd do better to watch Frank. He clearly has a code of honor, and by God, he's sticking to it, dearly though it may cost him. Would a man with this kind of code then proceed to have promiscuous affairs?
Maybe--but maybe not. His own image of himself as an honorable man is probably as valuable to him as Claire is, at this point; if he won't abandon her, he won't abandon that image, either.
Now, their relationship is definitely a difficult one. On Claire's side, there's grief, resentment (over being parted from Jamie), the fractured feelings of giving birth to Jamie's baby, and the struggle to build a career (which is probably not something Frank ever expected her to want to do, and wasn't prepared for). You note that she apologizes to Frank only once, in their initial conversation after her return-at which point, she's completely hysterical. She makes it clear that she loves Jamie more than him, even if Jamie is dead-this is Not All That Good for a marriage.
Mind, divorce was simply Not Done at this time, in either the UK or the US. A divorced woman was stigmatized, as was the child of divorced parents.
Frank--honorable man that he sees himself as-isn't going to expose either Claire or Bree to that stigma. Besides, he's in love with Brianna, and doesn't want to be parted from her. To not only divorce Claire but also get custody of Bree would mean a huge, ugly, public court-case, in which he would have to accuse Claire of moral depravity, alcoholism, and anything else he could think of-and prove it. No-fault divorce hadn't been invented; a divorce had to be approved by a juDianae, on the basis of strong evidence. (For the same reasons, Claire wouldn't seek to divorce Frank.)
A) She wouldn't deprive Brianna of a father who plainly loved her,
B) she wouldn't expose Bree to the trauma of an ugly divorce case, and
C) she'd have to prove that Frank was guilty of various horrible things.
And we do see evidence that he still does love Claire. He's angry at her, confused by what's happened, and obviously having a hard time with everything-but he does love her. Enough to help her with her medical career, even though he doesn't like her having it and objective enough to admire the sense of destiny that drives her to it, even though he's somewhat jealous that he doesn't possess that drive himself.
Frank a pathetic slimeball? Good grief. He's the major tragic figure of the books, unsung though he is. He is-on the evidence to hand-a stand-up guy, who's taken a horrible set of circumstances (which he didn't cause and had nothing to do with) and done the best he could to build a family, do right by his daughter, and treasure what strands of occasional tenderness form between himself and his guilt-ridden, emotionally-distant wife."
That help?
--Diana
On Nov. 14, 2005
Diana wrote:
"P.S. Forgot to note in the above that Frank, Claire, and Brianna are all Catholics. Catholics _really_ didn't get divorced in the '50's--they still don't do it all that often, since it means excommunication.
I don't at all understand why the anti-Frank contingent thinks Claire should have left the marriage, though. Why? Frank wasn't beating her, or mentally torturing her, or otherwise behaving badly (with, of course, the _possible_ exception that he was being unfaithful. And that, we don't know). The only overwhelming reason she might have had would be to go back to Jamie--which is something that Frank obviously knows, which is why he doesn't tell her when he finds evidence that Jamie didn't die at Culloden. (And while I'm sure that the anti-Frank people view this as more evidence that he's a Bad Person, consider what he himself says in his letter to the Reverend. True, he _didn't_want to lose her (i.e., he loved her), but he also didn't want to cause her and/or Brianna additional grief and suffering by giving her an impossible choice. She was by that time reconciled to her live in the present, doing well as a doctor, and if their marriage wasn't great, it mostly wasn't bad.
If she knew Jamie was alive, though...either she'd choose to try to return to him, leaving her young daughter (more horrible guilt), or she'd stay for Bree's sake, but be constantly torn by yearning for Jamie. So Frank didn't tell her. He clearly had mixed motives for that, but they weren't necessarily evil ones, at all."
Nov. 13, 2005
"As to L'Affaire Frank... Geez Louise. You guys.
Of course Frank isn't "a pathetic slimeball." Where do they come up with these ideas? (My personal guess would be that the people holding this particular opinion are possibly not that fond of their own SO, and would trade him in for Jamie in a heartbeat. Ergo, they project things onto Frank. But that's only a guess.)
Look. In the books, we see Claire and Frank's relationship only from Claire's point of view. Which is understandably a trifle biased, following her return through the stones.
What we see prior to her disappearance is an awkward but affectionate relationship between two people who are married, but who are effectively strangers-they've barely seen each other in six years, and have been back together for only a few days. They're feeling each other out, trying to reestablish the connection they once had, and struggling to overcome the fact that they are now quite different people than who they once were.
Frank asks her diffidently at one point whether she had ever been tempted to stray during the war-assuring her that he would understand if she had. Claire-and the reader-think that his reason for doing this may well be that he had strayed, and would feel better about confessing his own transgression if she had suffered similar temptations.
Well, maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. It's actually not an abnormal question to ask a mate you haven't seen in six years, and one whom you know has been working closely with hundreds of wounded (and thus possibly emotionally appealing) men, in conditions that you know are stressful, dangerous, and highly conducive to passionate, if short-lived, physical attractions.
He's trying to ask it tactfully, but-they're strangers. She takes offense, and he hastily drops the question. He doesn't bring it up again, in the time they're together-which is fairly short. So you have to draw your own conclusion there:
1) he hasn't been having affairs himself, but can't help a certain male feeling of curiosity/jealousy about what Claire might have been doing,
2) perhaps he had a brief fling, which he regrets, and wants to confess this to Claire, so their marriage can resume without his feeling constant guilt, or
3) he's been screwing every woman who crossed his path, but would like to find out that Claire's had her own affairs, so he can throw it back at her in case she ever finds out.
OK. There is NO evidence favoring any one of these three alternatives. None. Any one of them is as likely as another. The reader's conclusions depend on the reader-and each reader brings his or her own experiences and background to the act of reading.
Now, Claire disappears. No warning, no trace, no nothing. What do you reckon happened, when she didn't come back? A police search, no leads-and probably deep suspicion of the husband, who is the Most Likely Suspect. So Frank's left panicked, then grief-stricken, while probably being interrogated and threatened about his wife's disappearance. But this must obviously have all died down in the next three years, and Frank begins to rebuild his life.
Does the rebuilding involve any kind of relationship with women, or a woman? Quite possibly; he's a handsome, personable man, with friends who would think it their duty to introduce him to women.
BUT.
Claire comes back. Filthy, malnourished, and hysterical, if not outright demented. And, of course, pregnant. She tells him an unbelievable story, presumably the product of a disordered mind, the result of whatever horrible abduction/captivity/rape has resulted in her present condition. She tells him to leave her.
Does he leave her? No. Does he produce another woman and explain that actually, dear, while you were gone, Mary and I. No. He replies shortly that no one but a cad would leave a woman in her condition.
So, OK. HE doesn't think he's a cad. Why on earth should anybody else? He does stay with Claire, not only while she's recovering, but thereafter. There's no hint that he's pursuing a love affair started while she was gone; in fact, he takes her to Boston, so that no hint of scandal will attend Bree's birth. If he did have some relationship while she was gone, plainly he's broken it off (and perhaps the removal to Boston is to make such a break more definite-we don't know, because we don't know what he was doing during those three years).
All right. From this point on, Claire's view of Frank is definitely suspect, because her own state of mind makes it impossible for her to connect fully with him, save for brief interludes of tenderness, when they're able to reach one another physically (like the night he makes love to her on the floor of the nursery). Yes, their relationship is strained-we know that, because we see it. But the relationship of any new parents is strained (believe me on this), even if the two parties aren't on difficult terms to start with. And these two parties definitely are.
Claire thinks he may be having affairs, but she doesn't ever have evidence of it. Either the guy is very dang good at hiding this stuff (and unfaithful spouses almost always give themselves away)-or he isn't having affairs. He may well be seeking companionship, sympathy, and ego-reinforcement from other women (he ain't gettin' a lot of those things at home-but note that he isn't leaving, either), but it's at least possible that he isn't crossing the line into actual physical infidelity. Note that Claire says that now and then she forces her sexual attentions on him, trying to prove that he's been with someone else (and thus unable to respond to her)-but that every time, he does respond to her, even if with mutual rage.
On the other hand, Frank knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that Claire's been unfaithful to him. At first, he most likely thinks she's been raped, but she goes on insisting on her absurd story. If it's true in any way-then she did it on purpose. This can't do his feelings any good. But he stays, because only a cad would abandon a pregnant woman with no resources-and he isn't a cad.
See, all these red-eyed readers are identifying with Claire (for the excellent reason that she's telling the story)-but they'd do better to watch Frank. He clearly has a code of honor, and by God, he's sticking to it, dearly though it may cost him. Would a man with this kind of code then proceed to have promiscuous affairs?
Maybe--but maybe not. His own image of himself as an honorable man is probably as valuable to him as Claire is, at this point; if he won't abandon her, he won't abandon that image, either.
Now, their relationship is definitely a difficult one. On Claire's side, there's grief, resentment (over being parted from Jamie), the fractured feelings of giving birth to Jamie's baby, and the struggle to build a career (which is probably not something Frank ever expected her to want to do, and wasn't prepared for). You note that she apologizes to Frank only once, in their initial conversation after her return-at which point, she's completely hysterical. She makes it clear that she loves Jamie more than him, even if Jamie is dead-this is Not All That Good for a marriage.
Mind, divorce was simply Not Done at this time, in either the UK or the US. A divorced woman was stigmatized, as was the child of divorced parents.
Frank--honorable man that he sees himself as-isn't going to expose either Claire or Bree to that stigma. Besides, he's in love with Brianna, and doesn't want to be parted from her. To not only divorce Claire but also get custody of Bree would mean a huge, ugly, public court-case, in which he would have to accuse Claire of moral depravity, alcoholism, and anything else he could think of-and prove it. No-fault divorce hadn't been invented; a divorce had to be approved by a juDianae, on the basis of strong evidence. (For the same reasons, Claire wouldn't seek to divorce Frank.)
A) She wouldn't deprive Brianna of a father who plainly loved her,
B) she wouldn't expose Bree to the trauma of an ugly divorce case, and
C) she'd have to prove that Frank was guilty of various horrible things.
And we do see evidence that he still does love Claire. He's angry at her, confused by what's happened, and obviously having a hard time with everything-but he does love her. Enough to help her with her medical career, even though he doesn't like her having it and objective enough to admire the sense of destiny that drives her to it, even though he's somewhat jealous that he doesn't possess that drive himself.
Frank a pathetic slimeball? Good grief. He's the major tragic figure of the books, unsung though he is. He is-on the evidence to hand-a stand-up guy, who's taken a horrible set of circumstances (which he didn't cause and had nothing to do with) and done the best he could to build a family, do right by his daughter, and treasure what strands of occasional tenderness form between himself and his guilt-ridden, emotionally-distant wife."
That help?
--Diana
On Nov. 14, 2005
Diana wrote:
"P.S. Forgot to note in the above that Frank, Claire, and Brianna are all Catholics. Catholics _really_ didn't get divorced in the '50's--they still don't do it all that often, since it means excommunication.
I don't at all understand why the anti-Frank contingent thinks Claire should have left the marriage, though. Why? Frank wasn't beating her, or mentally torturing her, or otherwise behaving badly (with, of course, the _possible_ exception that he was being unfaithful. And that, we don't know). The only overwhelming reason she might have had would be to go back to Jamie--which is something that Frank obviously knows, which is why he doesn't tell her when he finds evidence that Jamie didn't die at Culloden. (And while I'm sure that the anti-Frank people view this as more evidence that he's a Bad Person, consider what he himself says in his letter to the Reverend. True, he _didn't_want to lose her (i.e., he loved her), but he also didn't want to cause her and/or Brianna additional grief and suffering by giving her an impossible choice. She was by that time reconciled to her live in the present, doing well as a doctor, and if their marriage wasn't great, it mostly wasn't bad.
If she knew Jamie was alive, though...either she'd choose to try to return to him, leaving her young daughter (more horrible guilt), or she'd stay for Bree's sake, but be constantly torn by yearning for Jamie. So Frank didn't tell her. He clearly had mixed motives for that, but they weren't necessarily evil ones, at all."
*see the original article here; top post on menu: Diana On Frank
This was a fun read and interesting view. I am not particularly enjoying the characterization of Jamie in the TV series, but I'm willing to wait and see. ;)
ReplyDeleteThank you. I am very curious about how they handle the show now too...with a very sympathetic and sexy Frank and a Claire who obviously loves him. In the book, there was no such bond...but more of a duty filled relationship which made Jamie's character so much more endearing. I feel a LOT more chemistry between F&C than J&C. Cheers!
DeleteMe too- I am definitely in camp Frank, because he isn't (camp, that is.)
DeleteI agree! I am loving the heck out of TV Frank and even before this last ep, I was digging him, even as Black Jack. I never realized how sexy Tobias is until Outlander. Now I want to go back and watch or rewatch some of his other movies to compare or see if it's this specific set of director/producer that is crafting his characters in a way more appealing to me. I was even grooving on a whole antihero thing of liking Jack Randall, not in a storyline sense (I am an old fan of the books) but just enjoying how he does "psychopath." Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I also think TV Frank lets us see better how difficult it was for Claire to be between two husbands, both of whom are ideal husbands in quite different ways.
ReplyDeleteI am relieved to know that I am not alone in this... :) Cheers!
DeleteExcellent! No, you are definitely not alone in these thoughts. Even before the show, as I was reading the books, I began to lose that intense interest in Claire and Jamie....and become more invested and interested in the rest of the story and characters involved. For me, my one harbored resentment against Claire has been her leaving Bree to be with Jamie. Something about that scenario just has never sat well with me even though Bree is pretty much an adult when Claire leaves. Tobias Menzies has breathed such life into Frank that I find myself more and more drawn to him and his story!
DeleteI felt much more for TV Frank. But I am still team Jamie. He is her soulmate. Neither Jamie or Claire are ever whole again without the other.
ReplyDeleteI hear ya. I am very much Team Book Jamie...so I understand why you feel that way. I am just having a hard time being Team TVJamie as he is being made to look immature (but sweet) and Frank is being made the betrayed Good Loyal Husband. And poor Claire looks the bad guy as she has no reason to be disloyal to Frank... :(
DeleteWell, that's what bothers me most. Jamie is supposed to be the hero of this story and we will have to love him unconditionally since he will be with us for the next 8 seasons (hopefully). I don't think it's fair with Jamie/Sam what the Outlander production is doing with the characters. Tobias is a great actor but Frank isn't supposed to be such a good guy. We all know he isn't (at least in the books he isn't. We can't be all so wrong about him, since everyone's opinion about book Frank is very similar).
ReplyDeleteI happen to agree with you. It's just that I am fine with the show veering to off the course because I am not invested in it heavily like I am with the books, but I actually WOULD have preferred if they would have stayed with a unsympathetic Frank who is easy to see someone not being madly in love with...and even wanting to leave, but as it is now, nothing they can do will make me not feel deeply for poor Frank who cherished his wife. So yea...not a good move.
DeleteClaire is the Hero of Outlander, not Jamie or Frank.
DeleteLeeann: I think the Outlander series has many heroes.
DeleteInteresting - just goes to confirm that everyone has their own tastes. I loved your post, it's clever, fun and a great read. But my own feelings about Frank and the treatment they're giving the character in the series is just about totally opposite. I think Tobias Menzies is a great actor, this is not anti-TM. But I don't find him attractive in the least (just my personal preferences there) though he does have a decent voice. My biggest gripe though is not that they are showing some Frank parallel-story, but how they are showing it. I feel it doesn't represent the man's character at all based on what we do get of him from the book. Won't go into detail -- just to say, in my view he is more of a brainiac -- suave, urbane, loves his wife -- but not 'kung-fu secret agent' material, nor an overtly emotive temperament, and certainly not someone in tune with the universe enough to hear his wife calling through the stones, that whole scene fell flat for me. So -- great post but I respectfully will stick with Fido! LOL (who, by the way, I also feel has been given short shrift and treated a little off-kilter so far in the series)
ReplyDeleteGreat response...and I hear you, truly. I have come to adore Frank Randall...but only in the show, and although that is fun for me, if asked, I would have stuck to the book for the tv script and focused on Jamie and Claire and left Frank 'easy to forget'. The way they have outed him as a heroic tortured husband has made Claire look disloyal in the 'what a ungrateful bitch' sense instead of the 'not-her-fault-her-I can-relate' sense like the book. So what we are left with is a Jamie who looks like a nice guy but not too deep (Short shrift indeed! Gross understatement!), and a unsympathetic Claire. I embrace the difference because I LOVE LOVE the books but only like the show. But I am curious in how they will handle the changes and reconcile the damage they did...
DeleteYou've nailed it with this article. I know the Starz people are probably doing another eye-roll over the book vs TV show comparisons - but they really do need to take their portrayals of the characters into more consideration. I've had a bit of a hard time explaining to my DH, and others I have convinced to watch the show, that Jamie really is Claire's soul mate. As a matter of fact, DH and I got into a loooooong discussion about Claire - because her portrayal in the TV show does make her seem like a callous biotch. DH was really distressed over how quickly she turned away from Frank with Frank being the up-and-up loving hubby that he is. He admitted that he placed himself in Frank's shoes and was truly hurt by Claire's behavior. I had to read excerpts from the book to show him that Claire really is trying to get back to Frank, who isn't such a love in the book. I've squirmed over the way Jamie still seems, as you said, like a puppy. BUT - I'm going to have faith that things will right themselves and it will make sense when Claire chooses to stay with Jamie and not hop, skip and jump right back through those stones to Frank.
ReplyDeleteI feel for your hubby. I can imagine what it looked like to non-book readers. :( The show may try and right itself but the damage is done and it will be hard not to see Frank's tortured face when C&J are frolicking about....
DeleteJust like art ... literature and movie-making are very subjective. ☺ I didn't identify (or emphasize) with Frank in the book and still don't (even though Tobias Menzies brings a very human touch to the character). I think in the second half of the first season, TV Jamie will take on more of the characteristics that book Jamie has ... and Frank, poor long-suffering Frank ... will be left in the shadows again. Maybe that's because once you get farther into the books, any sympathy for Frank kind of goes out the window.
ReplyDeleteI read the books when they first came out so details escape me, but I do not recall ever feeling bad for Frank. That made it understandable and wonderful when Claire found her soul mate in Jamie. And I agree...literature is subjective at best. As many opinions and perspectives as there are people reading. :)
DeleteTo me, Frank has the sex appeal of a manikin. Claire initiated ever sexual encounter she and Frank had. I prefer a MAN, not a pansy.
ReplyDeleteFair enough. Variety is the spice of life and life would be dull indeed if we all liked the same things. *BTW...mannequins these days are kinda hot...just sayin'. ;)
DeleteI'm so relieved to find I'm not alone in my love of Frank! Great article!
ReplyDelete~Amanda
Cheers Amanda! Glad you enjoyed it. :)
DeleteTobias Menzies plays Black Jack Randall too well, and I cannot look at the same man playing Frank and find anything attractive, not after the scenes in Garrison Commander. Any kind feelings I had for Frank have been completely trumped by hatred of BJR, especially as embodied so well by Menzies. To me, the Frank scenes are show-blockers. I'm really not at all interested in him.
ReplyDeleteYou are not alone. :) But that is okay...more for me.
DeleteI agree that Tobias Menzies as Frank/Jack Randall is perfect in every way. So much talent and versatility and he seamlessly embodies two very different characters. His voice as BJR gives me goosebumps - intense and menacing. . . I like everything about the series and I certainly agree with almost all of the casting choices, Sam as Jamie included. But I stop short of analyzing the director's choices there because for me the ultimate enjoyment is seeing the books come to life. And although some of his choices are not mine, it is his vision and thoroughly valid in every way.
ReplyDeleteI too am pleased that the books have come to life, and will strive to enjoy them separately as to minimize disappointment...but analyzing and critiquing is what I do. Opinions are for sharing and I do appreciate yours. :)
DeleteLest anyone forget, Jamie is still a very young guy only now becoming a fully fledged man with all the responsibilities that entails. In the books we watch him grow slowly. I think that the TV series is genius in presenting Frank as a much more filled out character and making us care about him and root for the Mr/Mrs Randall pairing. I've been watching the series with a friend who has never read the books and her observations and speculations are quite interesting and make me see things in a different way. Back to Jamie... he's only had himself to fend for in the last 4 years. He's led a rootless life and its no wonder that he's not yet the Jamie, King of Men, we've all come to love... if we've read all the books. So I see that its hard to reconcile him NOW to the man he will become. AND we're only seeing Claire's POV. Jamie is still keeping his thoughts to himself. As for Claire, she's leading a double life, having to watch everything she says and to whom. What a relief it must be to lose herself in drink and lust. At this point, that's all it is for her. So I guess I don't agree with you all except for Tobias Menzies, who's a joy to watch in this expanded role. Love your post, though.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts...well said. The 'losing oneself in drink and lust' makes sense but with Frank being portrayed so sympathetically, it is hard to forgive her still. IMHO. Again, I am a Book Jamie lover and a TV Frank lover, so it is a struggle for me to balance both. But I am trying! Cheers!
DeleteIn the book, it is implied that Frank cheated on Claire when they were separated due to the war, but that Claire remained faithful to Frank. I think that perhaps this implication does not come out as clearly in the TV show as it did in the book. This implication in the book is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons why I do not feel much sympathy for Frank after Claire accidentally goes through the stones. I think the TV show didn't do a good enough job of implying that Frank had cheated, and therefore, he comes off as a great husband and Claire as perhaps as selfish to those who have not read the books. I also think that the TV show provides more of Frank's side of the story (on his side of the stones) than the book did. Because I have read the books several times, I still feel that Frank cheated on Claire during the war and that Jamie is destined to be her soul mate for all eternity.
ReplyDeleteI know the books well...and I love them the most. The tv show is an entire new entity that I must circle like Claire circled Jamie on their wedding night and find the juicy bits to savor and help bolster the less palatable ones. *and Herself has already said Frank didn't cheat on Claire...but one was free to believe their own interpretation. I can live with that.
DeleteWhen Frank asks Claire if she has 'strayed' during the war (to her horror) and insists he'd love her anyway, it was clear to me that he was projecting his own feelings onto her (whether he acted on them or not). Witnessing TV Frank's meltdown at the stones was actually a relief - for the first time he seemed genuinely bereft and more than just pissed off that his wife might have run off with another man...she might actually be gone forever...dead. Finally, some tears and desolation at that prospect.
DeleteBut I realize that I may still be annoyed at Frank for not including his parents in his wedding to Claire - they hadn't met her yet and were waiting at a nearby restaurant! Does this not bother anyone out there??!? Contrast this to Jamie who is desperate for some sense that his mother would have approved of his marriage and would have given anything to have had his parents present at his wedding. Score one for Jamie on that point. Maybe I'm just an over-sensitive mother of three, but if Frank were my son.....
Enjoyed the article. I find the TV Frank just fine as in a few books later he will take Claire back and raise Jaimie's daughter. we're seeing the kind of man he can be. We can also see the fortitude that he has from being in the intelligence service. I like the details of Frank's life during the war working for M-5 or one of the other intelligence divisions that got England through the war. We got off easy here in the states. England after the war will be on rations for years and so many places were bombed. Claire and Frank haven't seen each other except a few times. They would be awkward. What is really neat is how Frank and Randall are so brilliantly acted by Tobias. Different, but hints of some same hard and soft edges.
ReplyDeleteAs for Claire and Jaimie, as Gabaldon has said, it's about a life. They are romantic figures that will stand the test of time. Frank will only be there to bridge that life.
Sorry...messed up my reply (bedtime! :P ) What I wanted to say was that agree with your assessment of Tobias's acting, and your last statement...but in regards to the books only.
DeleteThat was hilarious - your quips are genius :D Sadly, this cougar (is 15 yrs a cougar?) is all about Jamie (it's those eyes and that deep Scottish voice - I just have handle it). Frank is a dear and I do feel sorry for him and I think that is part of the directors plan - to give Frank a presence that he never had in the books - after all if Frank and Claire were truly in love with each other then it stands to reason that we should see not only Claire's struggle but Frank's anguish (which is being portrayed brilliantly by Tobias). BUT I am Team Jamie both book and TV - sorry ladies ;) lol
ReplyDeleteThanks Monique! It was fun to write...beats doing the dishes. ;) And no need to be sorry. I KNOW I am in the minority on this. LOL!
DeleteLOVED THIS POST! I was Team Frank before it was cool (even in the books). Mind you, I'm also Team Jamie. But I never understood the rancor Outlander fans have for Frank and I think the TV show is capitalizing on that aspect of him - he loved Claire. And Gabaldon makes it clear that Claire is torn between them for a long, long LONG time.
ReplyDeleteCheers and thanks! I am not sure how cool it is to be on a small team like ours, but I am on it nevertheless. HA! Again, I am on TV Franks Team and Book Jamie's. :)
DeleteI don't remember Frank being a character I felt sympathy for in the first book, it seems to me his true character was revealed in the second and third books. That's when I really started to dislike him. I believe that the producers are building Frank up so much in the first season to explain why Claire would try so hard to get back to him, because why would she if he wasn't a great guy? But they will show his true colours in the second season. I'm Claire and Jamie all the way, but I love what Tobias is doing with both the roles of Frank and Jack.
ReplyDeleteI think Claire's wanting to go back to Frank need not have been expanded upon. Frank is not the only reason to want to get back so desperately: he represents safety, familiarity, family, modernization and every bit of home and sanity she has ever known. No running and hiding, no abductions, nobody to hate her or feel jealous over, no confusion or fear... in short. LIFE as she knows it. THAT is reason enough don't you think, to want to get back to her own era?
DeleteI hope the TV JAMIE blends into the BOOK JAMIE. I had a hard time putting down BOOK JAMIE and would DVR TV JAMIE for a convenient time. I couldn't leave home without BOOK JAMIE, he travelled nicely in his paper back version.
ReplyDeleteBook Jamie is forever loveable. :)
DeleteTo me, there was always more to Book (#1) Frank, even though his story wasn't really told in the book. Claire and Frank got married, the war started, they were seperated for years, they grew apart. They reunite, she disappears.
ReplyDeleteNow, Book Frank could have believed she went to be with her Scot (cf. Jamie's ghost) and could have moved on. But when Claire returns two years later he is still single (though hey, he's hot, right? And smart? And he can have other women, we know that.) and as soon as he is told she has been found, bam! there he is back by her side. Pregnant by another man? Oh who cares. Not Frank. She tells a story about disappearing through the stones and ending up in the 18th century. Instead of having her hospitalised for the rest of her live and giving the baby up for adoption he stays with her and raises the child as his own. Yes, he is an ass. He cheats on her with what feels like every woman he works with but instead of having her declared dead or divorcing her or having her put away... there he is. Noble Frank, taking his wife back who had disappeared for years, raising the child she is pregnant with as his own (and we know he loves Brianna) and staying with them til his death. No, not a happy marriage for sure but he could have done worse to her.
Now TV Frank we see suffer. We do get his story line. We see how much he worries and how much he tries. Whereas Book Frank was just... an empty shell, somebody Claire could return to (and even though we don't get told his side of the story, Book Frank must have tried, too. Otherwise he could just have walked away from Scotland, remarried and started a new family during the years after Claire's disappearance). With so much hatred bottled up inside herself because he looks so much like his ancestor who did horrible things to Jamie (and her). No matter how hot Book Jamie is or that he is Claire's soulmate, Book Frank (and TV Frank...) never stands a chance after what Black Jack did.
I still like Book Jamie best ;) though TV Frank is currently a close second. He will ruin it all later on if they stick to Book Frank. So sad.
I just added a reply by Diana to a fan who asked about Frank (from 2005). I think you will agree that it is spot on. Check it out! :)
DeleteOh, I am so glad that I am not the only person who loves book Jamie (so much) more but likes TV Frank more. I have not been happy with TV Jamie yet and I suspect it's because I want him to totally grow up and be the man I know he is. I think the casting has been great, but Jamie has been played like he's a kid. And even though he's young, he is NOT a kid, even at this point in the story.
ReplyDeleteI'm ready for him to be "my Jamie", LOL.
TV Frank is just too awesome. Good looking, tall, tough, in love, and quite honestly... more manly at this point than TV Jamie (don't hit me). I guess I understand why they are making us like him so much but I really want to start liking Jamie more.
I.need.book.Jamie.
Exactly. I agree 100%. *don't get to say that very often... ;)
DeleteI really felt that Book-Frank got a bad deal; was handed a batch of massive lemons and made lemonade. He loved Claire, loses her mysteriously and doesn't get to have any kind of closure, i.e. the finding of her body or a "Dear Frank" letter. Then, as he's rebuilding his life as best he can, she turns up apparently crazed and definitely pregnant. Does Frank put Claire in a nice sanatarium and walk away? No. He stands by her and supports her as her husband and brings her half a world away so she will be less troubled by scandal, and rebuilds yet again.
ReplyDeleteBut what really upped my respect for Frank was not his maintaining and supporting Claire as his wife (which he might have felt he had to do for appearances and his family honor), but how he raised Brianna. A lesser man might have looked upon this red-headed changeling baby, so obviously the child of another man, as a burden, or even a 'trophy' - i.e. Frank would 'own' the child of Claire's mysterious lover, put his own name and stamp on the kid. And there might have been an element of one-upmanship in his taking on baby Brianna and determining to raise her as his daughter, possibly subconscious. But does Frank behave like a cool and distant authority figure to the changeling who he now 'owns' by right of fatherhood and limit himself to providing her with food, shelter and education? No! He loves her from babyhood on, from the minute he first lays eyes on her. He's excited when Claire tells him about Brianna's physical precocity; he's read Dr. Spock (if I remember right), he falls asleep cuddling the baby. Frank brings little Brianna to his office to stay during the day so Claire can continue building her own impressive career. He helps Claire raise a strong, self-confident young woman. And, Frank foresees that Brianna might have to return to the past - and the interloper - that spawned her, for her own safety, and not only helps her prepare for that transition by teaching her to shoot, but writes her a letter about it, which had to have been emotionally a bit difficult for Frank, i.e. telling his beloved daughter to go to her bio-father, the man who stole Claire from Frank.
For a man of his time, or even of any time, Frank is exceptional and, I think, noble, in both his behavior toward Claire and particularly his treatment of Brianna. (I'm still annoyed that Brianna didn't give Jemmy "Franklin" as a middle name) Is Frank perfect? No. Was his decision to divorce Claire and take Brianna noble? Perhaps not; but I think he could only take so many years of being second best to the mysterious Jamie with his own wife; and wanted to get away from the marriage that had probably been torturous for him; and he was not about to leave Brianna behind.
I wish there would be a way for Jamie and Frank to meet (during Brianna's adulthood) - I want to know whether they'd kill each other or come to some kind of truce. It would be an interesting confrontation.
Well said indeed! Bravo! And, of course, you are preaching to the choir....I agree 100%! Thanks for taking the time to share...it's nice to know I am not alone. ;) Cheers! **Hey...could I have your permission to post this on our Outlander site? Please let me know...or if you ARE a member of OS, then post it there....
Delete