Go Tell the Bees That I Am Gone discussion

My main reason for thinking this is:
Diana stated the ghost in outlander is Jaime.
So, why would he travel forward in time to see her if it ended alright. And why would he be a ghost if he didn't die.
What are your thoughts?

Yes, she will have to incorporate the Jamie Ghost in somehow. I hope she will find a way to do it without tragic circumstances! I think she will.

At some point, he will have to die... I only hope it isn't a horrible death. Maybe his ghost is the "trigger" that starts her journey that he knows she has to take?? I don't know. My only real fear is that BJR never really died, he can time travel as well and Frank is actually Jack!

I've read somewhere that Diana Gabaldon is planning to end series in 1800s, which would make Claire and Jamie about 80. And it is a family saga of sorts. One of them or both of them might be dead by the end of the series, but if they really are in their 80s, I say it is only logical. They will leave the new generation behind.

They are in their 60's. everyone dies. Having a long and happy life together is not a sad thing. In fact if that is really Jamie's ghost in the beginning they are in an infinite time loop with each other. Think about it.

Where is it said that it IS Jamies ghost in Outlander?? It's just that, I got to thinking that maybe it was Jemmy that Frank caught peeping on Clair.

But if is IS Jamies ghost, it makes sense, they were born in different times and he did promise her he'd ALWAYS be with her, so in a sense (weird time travelling sense), like Gwendolyn says, they are in a time loop

I thought that Jamie had dreamed about watching Claire (a breathe of snow and ashes ch 68). When he dreams of the kids in the future, Jem says Jamie is there. I dont know why jamie's spirit can do this, but maybe is something inherited? If I recall correctly Brianna and Jem have also had dreams of events of the past when they were not actually present.

Gabaldon has said it's Jamie and that it will be the last thing in the last book - which is very tantalizing so she definitely knows her audience / readers! Though it does create a paradox - in that timeline Jamie was long dead and had never met Claire - it's a paradox that is used in books and movies (somewhere in time, back to the future, frequency) - it's nonsensical but creates great emotional drama and sighs.

Time travel is linear, you cannot keep going back and forward - but apparently people are doing that in Gabaldon's books. Why doesn't Claire 'go back' to 1746 with the knowledge she acquired in 1965 (that Jamie didn't die)? - in 1968 when she goes back in time to be with him, she lands in 1766. So, since she doesn't go wayyyy back, it means anything can happen!

I do feel that the 'ghost' of Jamie is just Jamie as a young man having an astral dream about a woman he hasn't met yet (as he tells Claire too in one of the books that he dreamt about her) - it's a simple enough explanation - but how did Frank see him? Maybe Gabaldon will make it into something bigger, more fanciful. In the 20 year separation he was constantly dreaming about her (like he says in Voyager). Maybe they were having out-of-body dreams about each other!

As for death - everyone has to die, it's how you live that matters. And as far as I can tell, in this series everyone has had their own share of good and bad endings and beginnings. Everyone has had a measure of a full life: Frank, Claire, Jamie, Laoghaire, Fergus, etc. - all of them got something they wanted as well as something they didn't. By doing what she did in Voyager, Gabaldon showed she wanted a mature authentic love story - warts and all - and not an ideal caricature. For e.g. Jamie started out as honorable but circumstances and choices warped him to father a child out of wedlock, be a smuggler, anarchist publisher and living in a brothel! He's still honorable and honest but checkered and hence more believable. And if it had not been for Claire's entry into his world, he would have been left a one-armed man (due to bad fix of shoulder injury early on in O#1) ending up dead by any number of soldiers or even Jack Randall. Maybe then even Laoghaire would not have had the hots for him!

Most importantly, the kind of connection Claire had with Jamie, any normal person with that kind of longing for that kind of person would have searched the hell for Jamie in 1948 to make sure he was or wasn't dead and whether they could go back in time again or not. Or in the decade that followed! But life happens and so does dramatic license. And that made it a far better story - the fact that they didn't meet each other for 20 years - it allowed everyone to evolve into who they were meant to be or have - and Gabaldon is very good at what she does, so whatever she whips up will rile people up and make them sigh too.

In Claire's post-war time, Jamie was already dead, so he could only appear as a ghost. From when she returned to him in Voyager, they have been together, both alive. She never saw him as the ghost, Frank only told her he'd seen "a" ghost - I believe the ghost question will be linked to the running stag brooch that Jamie was wearing and was wearing the same or similar, when in the carriage with Claire and Fergus, going to visit the King's stables

I heard Diana G. say that the ghost was Jamie and he appeared about 25 years of old. That would put him at the point after The Battle of Culloden where he came close to dying and was drifting in and out. Astral projection? It will be interesting to read when all is said and done. I hope the author does not let us down. Since we have all spent alot of time pondering this. LOL.

***Spoilers***

I think Bees has shed some light on this for us. The Sachem told Claire that (view spoiler)[ she has ghosts following her, in this instance Faith & Frank. This conversation also suggested that these ghosts appear in way that is not necessarily reflective of the deceased's appearance when they died - he described Faith as a young child, rather than an infant. This all leads me to think that the ghost of Jamie we see in Book1 is one of Claire's ghosts who will of course be long dead by the time she makes it to Inverness in 1945/1946 (depending on whether the book or show timeline is to your preference). It also adds to the interesting questions of A) did Frank die in a manner similar to the Sachem that allowed him to see ghosts, as he plainly saw Jamie. And if so, did he see Jamie (and any of her other ghosts) throughout the 20 year marriage with Claire? (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[ Another thought this book has brought on is about the idea of Jamie and his Nine Lives. Given how J&C refer to each other "blood of my blood", that they have no life but that which they share together, I am wondering if the those nine lives are not just reflective of the times Jamie has nearly died, but Claire too, as by their own definition, they share one life, and we have repeatedly had references to them sharing one body, so to speak. Much like in the Greek tradition of soulmates - one body torn in half.)

If so, then by my count (which of course could be wrong as there is no definitive list) Claire and Jamie have used up their nine lives so far.:

Jamie
1. When Dougal poleaxed him in the head
2. After Wentworth
3. After Culloden
4. The snake bite
5. King's Mountain

Claire
1. Faith
2. Nearly drowning during the shipwreck in Voyager
3. ABOSAA when she nearly died of fever and the shaved her head
4. Monmouth

This would bring us to nine in total and would suggest that the next time either one nears death it will be for good and may also mean, it will cause the death of them both.

However, the nine lives were referred to Jamie only so I think there is also a possibility that Claire might survive and have to go back to the 20th C - this is mostly based on how frequently it has been raised by Jamie when he has worried about his own life being in the balance. It would be odd from a storytelling POV to signpost this so often and not do something about it. (hide spoiler)]