Jamie and Claire: real or fictional?
This morning I happened to be looking at the site that tracks usage statistics for my blog, and I noticed that someone had visited (briefly) as a result of a Bing search on "jamie and claire fraser fictional or real".
Well, I'll be honest with you; my first reaction on seeing that was to burst out laughing. I mean, it's one thing to say that these characters seem like real people -- and I have said that myself, many times! -- but seriously, how could you not notice you were reading fiction?!?
On the other hand....maybe Jamie, Claire, et al., are indeed real people, just living in an alternate universe where time-travel is possible?
Maybe there really is a time-travel gene, and the people who mapped the human genome a few years ago just haven't figured out what its purpose is, yet.
Maybe those who have traveled through the stones have just been very, very quiet about it. <g>
- Eric Linklater's book about the Jacobites, THE PRINCE IN THE HEATHER, is real, including the quote about the "Fraser of the Master of Lovat's regiment" who survived Culloden. (Look here.)
- Andrew Bell really did print the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in Edinburgh between 1768 and 1771, while Jamie Fraser was in America.
- The Bethnal Green tube station disaster in London in 1943 (in which Roger's mother was killed) is a real historical event. It's not difficult to imagine that Roger was there, as a small child, among the survivors.
So, what do you think? Are Jamie, Claire, and the rest real or fictional? Does it matter? All opinions welcome, whether you want to be serious about this or not. <g>
For myself, I'm very entertained by the idea that Jamie and Claire do (did?) really exist. But I'd be perfectly happy if Black Jack Randall and Stephen Bonnet did not. <g>