#TBT: Did Outlander handle Claire and Jamie’s time apart in Season 3?
During Outlander Season 3, Claire and Jamie were separated for 20 years. It took half a season to reunite them. Was this too long for fans?
The best things come to those who wait. That was certainly the case for Outlander Season 3. We had to wait six episodes to finally see Claire and Jamie see each other again. Well, technically five, since there was a clip at the end of Episode 5, but it would be Episode 6 when the print shop scene would fully happen.
Was this too long? Could the showrunners have handled this 20-year time period differently?
For me, I thought it was okay. I’d have actually enjoyed a little more time of the two apart in different timelines if I’m completely honest. I felt like the 20-year period was rushed, especially for Claire. I wanted to see more of her in medical school, her friendship with Joe bloom, and witness more of what it was like as a mother in 1950s-1960s America. The main focus for Claire seemed to be on rushing through her 20 years to focus more on the research to find Jamie.
More from Opinion
- Droughtlander suggestions: Check out Silo on Apple TV+
- Outlander season 7 episode 8 review: The Frasers are back in Scotland!
- Outlander Season 7 episode 7 review: Does Jamie die in Outlander?
- Outlander Season 7 episode 6 review: Claire meets William (again)!
- Outlander Season 7 episode 5 review: Does Young Ian have a son?
As for Jamie, we got a lot of strategic points of his life, such as Ardsmuir Prison and Helwater. There were many more that we could have had and even Diana Gabaldon has said she’d have liked more time on Ardsmuir. Had Outlander Season 3 shown more time of the two apart then this would have been possible.
But this is Claire and Jamie’s story together
The problem is many fans weren’t interested in seeing Claire and Jamie apart. They wanted the reunion to happen because there was so much in the tail-end of the book. Maybe this is one of those seasons that could have been better with a few extra episodes. Maybe 16 episodes like Season 1 would have worked better to allow for more time on the 20-year separation and then more time on the second half of the book.
It’s worth noting that the 20-year period wasn’t just about the two being separated. It was a crucial point in the story to see the things they did and everything that made them into the people they were when they reunited. Without the stories in the first five episodes, the rest of the season just wouldn’t have made sense.
Flashbacks could have been useful
One thing Outlander Season 3 could have used was more flashbacks. Rather than opting for the first half seeing Claire and Jamie apart, the first or second episode could have seen the two reunite. The two periods could have worked concurrently, showing how certain events in their lives have made them make specific choices.
Flashbacks and running timelines concurrently had been used before. We had the Season 2 premiere with Claire in the 1940s, before jumping back to the 1740s for the rest of that storyline. Then the finale saw the two timelines run together to tell the full story. With good planning, we could have had a season-long of concurrent storylines.
But then hindsight is 20/20. What looked like it works for the showrunners before Season 3 aired didn’t quite turn out to be the case for the fans. It just goes to show the different perspectives.
Next: #TBT: Would Claire and Frank's marriage have survived without the time travel?
Would you have liked to see a little more focus on the 20-year separation in Outlander Season 3? Did this storyline work for you? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Like Claire and Jamie on Facebook for more throwbacks to the Outlander past.