Book 3: Voyager

[WatchrTina]

I've always thought that that last moment in the scene -- when Geneva says "Wait, take it out" and Jamie says "No!" was put in to give Jamie back a tiny bit of agency in the situation.  It's a contrast to the rape scene with Black Jack where Jamie was victimized so completely -- he had to surrender not only his body but his will.  Jamie could not fight back or resist in any way during that scene and THAT's what nearly killed him.  He doesn't recover (at least in the book) until he is able to fight back against his attacker in a opium-induced fever dream.  I think Diana gave Jamie that "No!" moment in Book 3 so that he is able to maintain a shred of dignity in a humiliating situation (being forced into sex by a spoiled, selfish, 17-year-old girl.)  It also nicely sets him up for remorse at her subsequent death in childbirth -- one more element in the complex, tortured psyche of our hero.

BTW, Jamie's remorse over Geneva's death is more clearly depicted in one of the Lord John novels.  

Spoiler

Lord John comes to Helwater for the funeral and literally stumbles over Jamie who he finds paying self-imposed penance in the chapel, lying on the cold stones before her coffin, keeping vigil there beside her body all through the night before her funeral.

Edited December 9, 2016 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

Diana responds to the faux Geneva rape issue (gosh I'm loving her right now).

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1spdsmc

And now I feel like a complete idiot because I posted the link above to the stupid inverse.com article in the first place -- thus providing them with the eyeballs they were trawling for in the first place.  So I'm deleting it (and Grashka I hope you will too.)

[abbey]

Thank you WatchrTina for posting that. Although I never thought Jamie raped Geneva  I regretfully admit that I read that blog out of curiosity.  Diana as always masterfully explained everything and I can only wish that those still claiming it was rape get a chance to read her words.

[Clawdette]

I am listening to The Scot and the Sassenach as they discuss Voyager during a series of podcasts. They take the position that "Geneva and Jamie rape each other."  I was somewhat saddened by this as I didn't and don't view Jamie's actions as rape. 

I just went through everone's gnashing of teeth with Ross Poldark and now it looks like I better strap on my courage for Voyager. 

[lianau]

On 7.12.2016 at 8:12 AM, Grashka said:

To be fair though, this scene in "Voyager" is uncomfortable even given the context, and yeah, I believe that the way DG handled certain issues in the books she wrote back in the 90s  (Geneva and Mr Willoughby are the prime examples) does feel "outdated" these days. Her approach to various social issues in, for example, "Written in my own heart blood" read much different and sensitive IMO

 

I don't think the scene is outdated , I think a certain part of readers just became very "snowflakey" and now see rape whenever there isn't a 2 page consent contract . By doing so they have watered down the meaning of rape . People who accuse  Jamie of rape apparently don't see any difference between Jamie/Geneva and Mary Hawkins' attack in Paris and they also ignore Geneva in all of it . Does Geneva feel like she's been violated ? No , she planned that night and got exactly what she wanted out of it . I personally feel that calling this rape also takes away Geneva's agency , she is about to be married off to some rich old dude , against her will , and losing her virginity to somebody of her own choice was what little control she could get back . 

[theschnauzers]

Trying to apply 21st century mores to a fictional event set in the 18th century utterly misses the point of the story. Jamie was used and blackmailed by Geneva, but calling that rape misses the point entirely.

Edited December 12, 2016 by theschnauzers
grammer fixes

[nodorothyparker]

Gabaldon also posted that response on Facebook.  

I've already made my feeling about the entire setup of this clear here and elsewhere.  It's stupid.  It's apparently in service to the romantic ideal that Jamie can never be allowed to cleanly or actively decide to have a roll in the hay with someone who isn't Claire even when he has no reason to think she'll ever be an option for him again.  Every time I reskim these books, I want to pull out my editor's pencil and rewrite it to make it a thing of mutual aid and comfort in what's a shitty situation for each of them.  Jamie is a prisoner who isn't free to decide much of anything for himself and Geneva is in nearly every sense of the word being sold to an old man she really doesn't want.

Calling it rape removes all of Geneva's agency from a setup, as stupid as it is, that she created.  She holds nearly all the power and she knows that.  It also removes the one concrete quality that Jaime admires enough about her to tell William about years later.

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

I've already made my feeling about the entire setup of this clear here and elsewhere.  It's stupid.  It's apparently in service to the romantic ideal that Jamie can never be allowed to cleanly or actively decide to have a roll in the hay with someone who isn't Claire even when he has no reason to think she'll ever be an option for him again.  Every time I reskim these books, I want to pull out my editor's pencil and rewrite it to make it a thing of mutual aid and comfort in what's a shitty situation for each of them.

Well, we did get the one encounter between Mary McNabb and Jamie--in the cave. That was all about mutual aid and comfort. So it's not as if Jamie remained true and faithful and ne'er had relations with anyone other than Claire in this series. But yes, I do agree with you, how that was so ridiculous.

7 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Jamie is a prisoner who isn't free to decide much of anything for himself and Geneva is in nearly every sense of the word being sold to an old man she really doesn't want.

Calling it rape removes all of Geneva's agency from a setup, as stupid as it is, that she created.  She holds nearly all the power and she knows that.  It also removes the one concrete quality that Jaime admires enough about her to tell William about years later.

Just so I understand what you're saying @nodorothyparker, you agree that there was a power imbalance here--where Jamie had none, and Geneva had it all- and she was a spoiled, haughty, blackmailing trull, so I have no sympathy for her whatsoever. And that there shouldn't have been any mutual aid and comfort between these two. I think Jamie just said what he did to William years later because Geneva was Willie's mother. Because I don't recall reading anything that went on betwixt those two, where Jamie admired about her. 

[nodorothyparker]

Jenny set up the cave sex with Mary McNabb just as she would later push Laoghaire on him.  If Jaime ever freely chose to be with anyone because it was actually what he wanted we never saw it.

Geneva does have all the power at that particular moment, yes, and it is really hard to be sympathetic at all to her because of that.  But she's also in that situation in the first place because she's a couple of days away from being sold off like a horse (There's later mention that Ellesmere paid the Dunsanys instead of the usual arrangement of her bringing a dowry or fortune to the marriage.) to a guy she really really really doesn't want to marry or have sex with.  It's sort of a classic case of someone being victimized turning and punching down because they can't punch up.

The whole mess could have been avoided had it been written as a mutual aid and comfort thing.  Yeah, it sucks that you're being married off.  It sucks that you're a prisoner here.   We can help each other feel better and forget about it for the night.   Even in his outrage about the whole thing, Jamie does admit at the time to admiring her courage in not just meekly accepting it, to forging on, what have you.   It's the one quality he can later tell their son about that no one else can.

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

Jenny set up the cave sex with Mary McNabb just as she would later push Laoghaire on him.  If Jaime ever freely chose to be with anyone because it was actually what he wanted we never saw it.

According to Mary at the time, Jenny did not send her out there to be with Jamie.  It's not possible to know how true that is and I sincerely hope it is because it's gross to think about Jenny sending one of the servants up to the cave to boink her brother.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

23 minutes ago, toolazy said:

According to Mary at the time, Jenny did not send her out there to be with Jamie.  It's not possible to know how true that is and I sincerely hope it is because it's gross to think about Jenny sending one of the servants up to the cave to boink her brother.  

Didn't Mary also have a wee crush on Jamie, and really did want to give Jamie comfort and some intimacy before he turned himself in to the authorities? I don't recall reading that Jenny did this. That is indeed gross, and makes her come off like a pimp.

And I just can't cotton to the idea that Jamie and Geneva could have comforted each other or given each other surcease. One because Jamie had no fucking rights, but also the huge age difference, and again, Geneva as a character just sucks. I'd rather she found someone closer to her own age to get the deflowering done.  But, it's all moot at this point.

[Dejana]

38 minutes ago, toolazy said:

According to Mary at the time, Jenny did not send her out there to be with Jamie.  It's not possible to know how true that is and I sincerely hope it is because it's gross to think about Jenny sending one of the servants up to the cave to boink her brother.  

The way I picture it, Mary offered to take the last meal to Jamie as did the others who would visit him in the cave from time to time. Jenny, who would have been the one putting together his food basket, was not born yesterday and probably read between the lines of Mary McNab volunteering as tribute, so sending her out there anyway was essentially giving tacit approval of the scheme. Even if Jenny didn't know of Mary's plans, it's still a scenario where a man who's gone without sex for 7 years, trapped in a cave for much of it, has a woman come to him, pleading with him to sleep with her. He wasn't forced but there are better ways for a writer to portray a character choosing to have sex just because he felt like it, than what Gabaldon offered up.

[WatchrTina]

11 minutes ago, Dejana said:

has a woman come to him, pleading with him to sleep with her.

I don't think Mary pleaded.  I think your characterization of her "volunteering as tribute" is much nearer to the mark (and very funny).  I think Diana was quite clear in that scene that Mary was offering Jamie one night of comfort and sweetness so that he could think back on it in the awful days of imprisonment and humiliation that were to follow.  I liked that scene.  I liked Mary.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure Jenny knew what was going to go down and gave it her tacit approval.  Good for her!  Jamie would never have asked for someone to lie with him.   That's not in his character.  But he needed that night and I'm glad Mary realized it and offered him what he needed.

[Dejana]

29 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I don't think Mary pleaded.  I think your characterization of her "volunteering as tribute" is much nearer to the mark (and very funny).  I think Diana was quite clear in that scene that Mary was offering Jamie one night of comfort and sweetness so that he could think back on it in the awful days of imprisonment and humiliation that were to follow.  I liked that scene.  I liked Mary.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure Jenny knew what was going to go down and gave it her tacit approval.  Good for her!  Jamie would never have asked for someone to lie with him.   That's not in his character.  But he needed that night and I'm glad Mary realized it and offered him what he needed.

I wavered about which word to use: he did refuse her more than once and she did have to make a persuasive case, but pleading implies an amount of desperation that wasn't really there. Implored? I don't hate it as a scene but do feel Gabaldon was trying to make Jamie sleeping with someone else somewhat more palatable to the Jamie/Claire diehards.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Dejana

[nodorothyparker]

That's how I've always seen it too.  After watching some of the gnashing of teeth over infidelity and consent issues and just flat out refusal to try to see things through a historical lens in the Poldark discussions this season I already have a pretty good idea how this is going to go over. 

[WatchrTina]

Hmmmm.  Speculation time.  There is so much that HAS to be cut to convert a 1072-page book into a 13-episode series, do we really think Mary and Jamie's one night together in the cave will make it onto the screen?  I hope it does because it reveals something about Jamie's character in that he resists the idea at first (still faithful to Claire, not a man to make "use" of woman, even when she is offering) and then he gives in to the idea (because he is only human, he is facing a terrible ordeal, and he is very much in need of some comfort.)  It also provides a tiny counter-point to 1950/60 Claire having sex with Frank (which she does in the books and presume she'll do in the show.)  But I'll bet the scene with Mary won't make the cut.  It's just too small of a detail.  I'm afraid it will fall by the wayside along with those lovely family moments in book two during the months that Claire & Jamie were at Lallybroch, before Jamie was captured.  Sigh.  So yeah, I predict there will be no Mary in the show.  I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

Geneva, of course, has to be in the show but it will be VERY interesting to see how it is aired.  I'm pretty sure the filming of that scene was already done before this most recent kerfuffle broke out, but the editing is not locked at this point.  I wonder if this sort of thing has any impact on the production team.  I hope not.

[DittyDotDot]

Didn't I see in another thread they were casting for Mary McNabb? Hmm....?

[nodorothyparker]

I read that somewhere too but can't keep straight the protocol of discussing it in which thread.  It took me by surprise too because I would have thought it one of the easier things to simply skip over for time's sake.

[Dust Bunny]

I must have Voyager on the brain, because I saw this and immediately thought of a certain scene. Actually, it could remind an Outlander series reader of quite a few scenes.

http://ktla.com/2017/01/16/giant-alligator-strolls-past-tourists-without-a-care-in-the-world/

Edited January 16, 2017 by Dust Bunny

[millahnna]

I have been stalled out halfway through this book since the first season of the show ended.  Halp.  I'm somewhere on the boats to Jamaica and bored out of my skull.  Did anyone else have a hard time getting through this one? I'm trying to stay ahead of the show but I think I'm going to fail.

[WatchrTina]

1 hour ago, millahnna said:

I'm trying to stay ahead of the show but I think I'm going to fail.

My advice is to let it go.  Enjoy the ride as a non-reader.  Then, when you know how this season plays out, you can always go back and finish reading so as to find out all the stuff they had to cut.

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, millahnna said:

I have been stalled out halfway through this book since the first season of the show ended.  Halp.  I'm somewhere on the boats to Jamaica and bored out of my skull.  Did anyone else have a hard time getting through this one? I'm trying to stay ahead of the show but I think I'm going to fail.

You aren't alone.  Only sheer inertia kept me going the first time but subsequent re-readings caused me to mostly warm up to it.  There are a few things that happen that are golden but there are some things that I generally skip, as well.  The things that I love are:

Spoiler

 

- Claire encountering LJG on board the plague ship as well as her and Jamie's subsequent encounters with him on Jamaica

- Fergus and Marsali's wedding on the beach - absolutely hilarious

- the surreal quality of much of what happens to Claire on Hispaniola - the talking fish, the sheep, the drunken priest, etc. 

 

[theschnauzers]

One thing I’ve liked about Voyager, once I had read all the big novels, was how it tied up many of the storylines of the first two novels and laid the groundwork for what was/is yet to come. On that level it really is fascinating to look at. I haven’t re-read the main series since reading straight through 3 years ago, unless one considers the two Outlandish Companions as a sort of read through, but I may do so during the next Droughlander after this season is completed.

Edited October 22, 2017 by theschnauzers

[toolazy]

21 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

My advice is to let it go.  Enjoy the ride as a non-reader.  Then, when you know how this season plays out, you can always go back and finish reading so as to find out all the stuff they had to cut.

This is good advice.  You can enjoy the show for the show.

[millahnna]

I'm just after the plague ship. 

 

The only reason I'm trying to stay ahead is because I'm a bit of an adaptation junkie.  I find the process fascinating.  I've never had a problem separating source material from an adaptation.  But sometimes I wait until a whole project is done and read the source stuff and other times it feels better to go with the source first.

[Ziggy]

9 hours ago, millahnna said:

I'm just after the plague ship. 

 

The only reason I'm trying to stay ahead is because I'm a bit of an adaptation junkie.  I find the process fascinating.  I've never had a problem separating source material from an adaptation.  But sometimes I wait until a whole project is done and read the source stuff and other times it feels better to go with the source first.

I thought the plague ship was a bit boring.  So many details about how she dealt with the plague.  I didn't really need to know all of that.  I'm a few chapters ahead of you, but this is my second time through.  I'm not really reading this time.  I'm listening to the audio book (which is fabulous, by the way).

 

The story gets more interesting as it goes along ... bizarre at times!, but interesting.  I think you have to be ok with lots of coincidences and just try to enjoy the ride.  Things are going to start moving rather quickly soon.

[DittyDotDot]

13 hours ago, millahnna said:

I have been stalled out halfway through this book since the first season of the show ended.  Halp.  I'm somewhere on the boats to Jamaica and bored out of my skull.  Did anyone else have a hard time getting through this one? I'm trying to stay ahead of the show but I think I'm going to fail.

 

10 hours ago, millahnna said:

I'm just after the plague ship. 

 

The only reason I'm trying to stay ahead is because I'm a bit of an adaptation junkie.  I find the process fascinating.  I've never had a problem separating source material from an adaptation.  But sometimes I wait until a whole project is done and read the source stuff and other times it feels better to go with the source first.

Since you and I seem to be  of a similar mind--being able to separate the two and finding the adaption process fascinating, not to mention you're at the point I almost quite reading too--I'll throw in my two cents as someone who has finished the whole series. 

This book was, IMO, by far the most frustrating to read, but now I look back on it as a favorite book. Where you're at right now is where I also stalled. There is just sooo much going on, but yet nothing seems to be happening. Which I found extremely frustrating. This is not something that is unique to only this book, but IMO is a pretty typical pattern with Diana especially going forward. At some point every book seems to spin it's wheels for a bit with a bramble of history I imagine Diana wrote while doing research--which are interesting on their own, but really are unnecessary to the actual story she's telling. So, once I realized that if I started to read each chapter as it's own little somewhat contained episode and stopped worrying about bigger story--basically just went along for the ride--everything got easier.

Also, it got a lot easier when I decided to just embrace all the whack-a-do, too, but that's probably a whole different issue. ;)

Anyway, I don't want to tell you what to do, but will say, I think if you can skim your way through the next little bit, there are some really nice character scenes to pay it all off. Plus, she does eventually come full circle and does a nice tie in with the first couple books too.

[millahnna]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

 

There is just sooo much going on, but yet nothing seems to be happening. Which I found extremely frustrating. This is not something that is unique to only this book, but IMO is a pretty typical pattern with Diana especially going forward. At some point every book seems to spin it's wheels for a bit with a bramble of history I imagine Diana wrote while doing research--which are interesting on their own, but really are unnecessary to the actual story she's telling.

 Word word word.  You'd think, being an old school Stephen King fan, I could find a way to skim past this bit.  I'm very good at it with his stuff.  But he's prolific AF and I've read all of the old school stuff so I know his voice and how to do that. Diana's voice seems to change a bit with each novel so far.  Which is kind of cool but not helpful for figuring out how to skim her.  

Hilariously, way back on page one or two of this thread, there's a post from me where I was saying I thought this might be my favorite of the series so far and I speculated that I might not have the same problems getting through it that you all did.  And now I shall lol at myself.

[DittyDotDot]

19 hours ago, millahnna said:

Word word word.  You'd think, being an old school Stephen King fan, I could find a way to skim past this bit.  I'm very good at it with his stuff.  But he's prolific AF and I've read all of the old school stuff so I know his voice and how to do that. Diana's voice seems to change a bit with each novel so far.  Which is kind of cool but not helpful for figuring out how to skim her.

I agree that each book seems to have a different tone and feel to it--which I think is something sort of brilliant that Diana gets right--but she does have some patterns that seems true for all the books. It's been my observation that at about the 60 percent mark is when she starts to go off on her historical tangents and the 70 percent mark is usually what I call the stupidity portion of the book--that's where there seems to be shift from the meandering character dramas to kicking the plot in gear and there is generally a fair amount of stupid that goes on to get everyone in place for that.

In general, I tend to skim--I rarely can bring myself to outright skip anything, though--the battle and/or action sequences. It seems the writing of them gets away from Diana and they become somewhat tedious for me to read pages and pages of them. Later books, I skim some of the medical procedures for the same reason. In this book, I remember skimming through the plague ship parts and a lot of the aftermath of that. Not that it ever totally stops, but it seems to quiet down a bit and we get some really nice character beats to balance out all the drama.

19 hours ago, millahnna said:

Hilariously, way back on page one or two of this thread, there's a post from me where I was saying I thought this might be my favorite of the series so far and I speculated that I might not have the same problems getting through it that you all did.  And now I shall lol at myself.

This book is really deceptive in that it starts out as an almost entirely character-driven piece that turns into almost entirely plot-driven about halfway through. So, yeah, I can see how you came to that conclusion! But, like I said, looking back I do think this is my favorite of the whole series now.

[Crankybroad]

I'm reading the series for the first time, and I have to admit I prefer some of the choices made by the showrunners. However, this book is pulling me in much more than the first two, and I expected not to like it as much. Unlike a lot of readers it seems, I prefer when the books open up more and I get the perspectives of other characters. I'm really enjoying Roger. 

I'm a third of the way through the book. I'm reading it obsessively, which I didn't do with the other two. I read "Outlander" in 3 days (Christmas break) and DiA in 19 days, but there were days reading DiA that I didn't even pick it up. I'm all in on "Voyager."

I did not like John Grey finding out about Jamie's family to subtly threaten them to get Jamie to tell him about the gold. I'm worried I may not be able to forgive him, and that will ruin the character for me. That was an unpleasant bit of characterization I wish I'd not read. 

[Kim0820]

On 9/10/2014 at 8:12 AM, peacefrog said:

I did not like book 5 the first time I read it but after reading again I would rank it as 2nd best after book 6. You have to get past the first part of it. Now I love that part!

Voyager is like 2 different books in one. First reading I was sure Claire or Jamie were going to go back through the stones to warn Brianna at the end(this was before I realized Jamie could not time travel).

I hope DG lets him at some point - Claire asked him to go with her at the end of book 2 and making it that he couldn't made that consistent, but it would be easy to change.  He couldn't leave his friends, walk away from Culloden like that.  His 18th century sense of honor could not allow that. 

A plot where he had to deal with being in the 20th century for a while just could be interesting.  

On 9/20/2014 at 7:36 AM, ElsieH said:

Maybe this should be in the book 1 thread, but since book 3 starts out in the 60's when Geillis went through the stones, I guess it can go here too. Has anyone wondered why it is that  Geillis went farther back in time than Claire did? She seemed to have been there a while when Claire showed up, but she actually went through the stones 20 something years after Claire did. 

Geillis had some control - she had studied it.  She knew when she wanted to go back to.  Claire just accidentally went and coincidentally went back to a similar time period - maybe that time period had been warmed up in the stones by Geillis doing it on purpose.  I also could buy that the stones are not exact and so while they throw people back to the 1700s, don't always get the year exact.  

Geillis was doing some complex spell to get to 1948 intentionally, since if she just went back, like Claire, the number of years could have passed and she end up in the 1980s since she'd spent about 20 years in the 18th century.  Though I guess she could attack Brianna then, too.  

On 4/11/2015 at 6:37 PM, nodorothyparker said:

I've always found the setup for Jamie and Geneva ridiculous to the point that I can't bring myself to care about the blackmail or dubious consent issues that go into the making of it.  Look, I get it.  Gabaldon apparently can't write an epic love story without demonizing every single person who comes near either of our heroes (see Frank and Laoghaire) and so she couldn't just write Geneva as a lonely girl trying to make the best of entering into an unwanted arranged marriage on her own terms.  Jamie's not allowed to just want one night of warmth with another person to not feel so damn alone in all those years.  No, it has to be a ridiculous blackmail scheme so Jamie can later claim with a straight face that he spent most of those 20 years honorably pining away for a wife that as far as he knew was never coming back.

A great romance wouldn't have been believable either, given their situations, but it didn't need to be.  I actually liked that Geneva was trying to exert some small control over one small aspect of a life that was being arranged for her without any consideration for her as a person at all.  Even Jamie was able to see the courage in that, as he thinks to himself at the time and later tells William.  I wish Gabaldon had just let it be one brief moment of unlikely friendship between two people and left it at that.  It wouldn't have diminished his great love or longing for Claire, who he hadn't seen for I think about 12 years at that point and never expected to see again.

And did the book have her look so much like Claire as she did in the show?  That was an "excuse" for being willing to be with her too.  

On 4/11/2015 at 10:12 PM, lianau said:

To be honest I think Jamie is pretty much stuck in no man's land regarding other women , he can't move on because to him Claire isn't really  dead , so it probably feels like cheating to him. 

That's a good point.  At the beginning where he appeared to be visiting the brothel, I thought that was what he did as falling in love with a different woman wasn't doable for him.

On 5/29/2015 at 9:09 PM, Starla said:

I knew going in that Jamie had married Laoghaire, and kept holding my breath waiting for him to tell Claire. The longer it went on and he didn't tell her, the more anxious I got and knew there would be hell to pay. I don't know what he was thinking because she was bound to find out sooner or later and he had to know it wouldn't be good. I was thankful when they made it past that hurtle relatively intact, though I'm still wondering where he's going to get the money to pay Laoghaire. I hope the Lallybroch crew aren't stuck with that bill.

I don't know what the law provided for at that time - the marriage was invalid, so she might not have had a claim to anything.  It was a while before the law saw the injustice in a thing like that.  Having Jamie arrested for bigamy was possible, too.  

On 6/5/2015 at 12:00 PM, nodorothyparker said:

that Claire had the right of it in the section after everything's calmed down where she's able to rationally think it all through and acknowledge that she had months to plan and divest herself of her old life before dropping back in on Jamie.  He didn't get any warning or time to deal at all.  He also doesn't have her "luxury" of the clean break between the different parts of his life where he could neatly tie up all the loose ends and leave them behind.  So I tend to give him a bit of a pass too, even if he was a bit boneheaded about some of it.

Just like in Poldark, where Demelza worked with Captain Blamey to reunite him with Verity, who resisted so much at first, and it occurred to Demelza that Verity had no warning she would be seeing Blamey while Blamey did.  And this is sort of even bigger since it involves time traveling.

On 6/5/2015 at 12:31 PM, basil said:

I don't blame him for wanting to wait, I blame him for waiting. I'm surprised so many seem to be giving him a pass on this. I'm not sure what the laws were then, but Claire's been gone long enough to have been declared legally dead or to have at the very least to have abandoned the marriage. Laoghaire certainly considers herself married. Jamie was in a legally binding marriage, regardless of whether he loved her or was living with her. He should have told Claire asap.

At least before getting to Lallybroch where Claire could end up learning it by accident.  DG just wanted maximum impact reveal at the worst possible time and in the worst possible way (the girls yelling for Daddy).

On 11/19/2015 at 1:14 PM, Athena said:

 

You can store books, PDFs, and reference material. There are a lot of apps that don't require an active internet connection either e.g. some games don't require it. For entertainment, photos and music don't need wifi either.

If a military historian had gone back, they might have been of use in winning at Culloden.  If you went back specifically for that, you could take a lot of information.  Geillis should have studied more so she could have been more helpful than she was!  She'd been there a few years and only helped raise funds, and got herself burned as a witch before the battle.   (Or just locked up as it turns out). For such a fanatic, she really lacked a good plan!

 

[SassAndSnacks]

I mentioned in a few other threads that I'm re-reading all of the books in an effort to find some joy during the quarantine.  I'm on to Book 3 (actually have been for a week or so).  During my first time through this one, I read it at a blistering speed just to get the the reunion.  By the end of the book, I wasn't a fan of it.  The second time through didn't put this one in a better light.  Prior to this voyage through Voyager, I would have placed this one as my least favorite of all the books.

But, third time's a charm apparently!  I'm enjoying it much more this time through.  Some full disclosure things -

- I hate Frank...like a lot.  And I know it's petty, but Ron Moore making Frank more likable on the show makes me hate Frank even more.  

- I will never read the Helwater sections ever again.  It's actually a hill on which I'm willing to die.  The Geneva subplot is absolutely my least favorite of the entire series.  I hate it more than the Christie family and the Hosebeast marriage.  I hate it more than the Dismal Swamp and the Great Misunderstanding.  The Christie family goes away and the Hosebeast gets what is coming to her.  The Dismal Swamp eventually ends and the Great Misunderstanding leads to Mohawk Ian.  But the Geneva storyline stays forever and I fucking hate it.  P.S. It wasn't rape.  

- Yeah, the reason it stays forever - Willie.  Bah.  I'll comment on him when I get to the later books.  Initially, I hated Jamie telling Claire the way he did in the show.  But, I realized this time through that I kinda missed it.  Yes, I wish his reaction to Bree would have mirrored the book more, but I like how he got it out there.

- The reunion.  I could read it over and over and over.  Pairing that with the fight at Lallybroch.  It's just damn fine writing.  So, I can almost forgive Herself for Helwater after giving us the gems that are A. Malcolm and the marriage fight.  Almost...

I've just reached Outlanders of the Caribbean, which I'm kind of digging right now.  This part doesn't seem to be dragging on as long as it seemed to previously.  The show did a much better job with Willoughby.  It's so cringey to read this stuff.  Like, I read a racial slur in reference to his character, and then I looked furtively, as if to make sure no one saw me read it (Spoiler Alert - I'm in quarantine so no one did, but I know I have a look of incredulity on my face, questioning how something written in the 90's could be said as such).  

My feelings may change, but definitely more positive on this one this time through.  

[SassAndSnacks]

On 5/17/2020 at 10:33 PM, SassAndSnacks said:

I've just reached Outlanders of the Caribbean, which I'm kind of digging right now.

Quoting myself to say that this feeling was short-lived.  As soon as the plague ship arrived and absconded with Claire, I sighed deeply, rolled my eyes, and trudged on through the book.  They are with Father Fogden now, and I feel sunburnt, sandy, and hung-over, and I didn't have any fun getting that way.  

[SassAndSnacks]

Ugh, ok...  This one is over, and I'm glad for it.  Pirates, shipwrecks, voodoo witchcraft, not my scene.  

The back third of this book is just bananas.  Nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, and then EVERYTHING happens.  Meh.  Not my fave.  In a trend that I find to be very typical of DG (and I say this with love because I do think she's brilliant and inspiring) the things that annoy me about this story really freaking annoy me, but the moments she gets right are so beautiful, funny, amazing, and make it so worthwhile.  

This part of the book also reminded me why LJG completely annoys me until Book 8.  I hate the Willie reveal as it's done here.  I could actually feel Claire's panic and insecurity, and I didn't like it.  Claire and Jamie are better than that.  Their trust and security in each other are better than that, and I hate how revealing Willie to Claire in this way tries to compromise that.  

It took me three times through to realize they weren't on the Artemis when they hit the hurricane.  I actually found that part to be really exciting this time.  

I read on the Kindle app on my phone, and I never caught it before, but there is an Outlander timeline at the very end of this book, detailing in chronological order all of the major events of the whole story through Book 8.  That was fascinating, putting events into context with each other, with several events happening prior to Claire going through the stones and meeting Jamie.  

And because I wanted to end on a high note, I went back through and read A. Malcolm up through the print shop fire again.  So good, and the high point of this book for me.  

On to Book 4, bring on the colonies!!!

[WatchrTina]

On 5/17/2020 at 9:33 PM, SassAndSnacks said:

the Geneva storyline stays forever and I fucking hate it.  P.S. It wasn't rape.  

- Yeah, the reason it stays forever - Willie.  Bah.  I'll comment on him when I get to the later books. 

 

On 5/26/2020 at 8:56 AM, SassAndSnacks said:

This part of the book also reminded me why LJG completely annoys me until Book 8.  I hate the Willie reveal as it's done here. 

 

I think William is a real blessing in the overall story because Jamie is the kind of man who CRAVES a son.  He adopts one foster-son (Fergus) and frequently acts in a parental role to wee Ian.  So I love what the Jamie/William relationship brings to the saga, both in this book and in later books.

As for Lord John, I ADORE him.  I think this series is infinitely better for having Lord John in the mix.  Watching the relationship between John and Jamie develop over time from "Remove you hand or I'll kill you" to the true friendship we see in the later books (and, actually, by the end of THIS book) is one of the joys of the series.  John shows his true colors in this book when he decline's Jamie's "offer" -- is actually offended by it -- and promises to look after William without requiring any "compensation". 

I'm going to stop writing because this thread is for book 3 and it would be easy for me to slip into future developments if I keep writing about the Jamie/John and Jamie/William relationships.  

And yeah, it wasn't rape. 

[Cdh20]

I am going to agree that I like that Jamie got a son, even if most people hate how he got one! I look forward to reading about their relationship in future books, & I kinda love that John got to raise him ( since it couldn’t be Jamie). 

[SassAndSnacks]

Yay!!!  What a fun surprise to pop in and see comments to something I posted in a long-dead book thread!  Woo!!

4 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I think William is a real blessing in the overall story because Jamie is the kind of man who CRAVES a son.  He adopts one foster-son (Fergus) and frequently acts in a parental role to wee Ian.  So I love what the Jamie/William relationship brings to the saga, both in this book and in later books.

Parental Jamie is one of my favorite Jamies.  He was clearly born to do a great many things and one of those was to be a father.  I have three sons, so I think sometimes I gloss over the need that some people have for a son, or really either of the genders, as I know some women that absolutely need to have a daughter.  I don't have that feeling for a daughter, and I think that because I have the boys perhaps I take for granted that I have sons and that they add a pretty distinct dynamic to our lives (you know, pee on the floor, constant wrestling, and grunted responses aside). 

Carrying on a name isn't important to me, but I recognize that is IS critically important to a lot of people and certainly more so in a historical context.  I think DG puts a great deal of emphasis on Willie's name for that reason.  No mistake that he is William, same as beloved brother, and that the length of his last name and family connections is often brought up...Ellesmere, Ransom, etc.  

To this point, through the books that have been written, he does nothing for me.  In truth, neither does Bree.  However, I read a few of the Daily Lines for Book 9 that relate to William, and I'm cautiously optimistic that he will mean something to me by the time this all ends.  

3 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I am going to agree that I like that Jamie got a son, even if most people hate how he got one!

I hate how he got one.  I do.  But, I will admit that in terms of scenarios, this was probably one of the better ways to go about getting Jamie a son.  I would change this part of the story, but to what I don't know.  Nor do I know to what end.  I would actually change several major things about the story, but that isn't fair and seems silly, really, because I love the story.  I'm hooked on it, obviously, so why would I want to change it?

5 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

As for Lord John, I ADORE him.  I think this series is infinitely better for having Lord John in the mix.  Watching the relationship between John and Jamie develop over time from "Remove you hand or I'll kill you" to the true friendship we see in the later books (and, actually, by the end of THIS book) is one of the joys of the series.  John shows his true colors in this book when he decline's Jamie's "offer" -- is actually offended by it -- and promises to look after William without requiring any "compensation". 

Lord John is a stand-up guy.  Truly, a Good guy in a saga with some awful people.  For me, he comes across as sanctimonious sometimes, and it irks. Admittedly, I haven't read any of the LJG series, and perhaps those would develop additional context and his character for me.  I find the Greys as a family to be rather boring, which is another reason I haven't read the other series.  And I think it makes sense that he raised Willie and actually a great part of the story is their relationship and that he is such a loving, doting father to him. I really intensely dislike how he told Claire about Willie, though.  No one messes with my girl.  

Summary Comments - 

I really liked David Berry as Lord John.  I was stunned and bummed that he announced he was finished with the show, but I'm hoping that was a miscommunication of some sort.  He has a pretty big part of the story line coming up.

I sincerely hope they re-cast William from the kid that played him Season 4.  They can do better.  

[Cdh20]

11 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Yay!!!  What a fun surprise to pop in and see comments to something I posted in a long-dead book thread!  Woo!!

Parental Jamie is one of my favorite Jamies.  He was clearly born to do a great many things and one of those was to be a father.  I have three sons, so I think sometimes I gloss over the need that some people have for a son, or really either of the genders, as I know some women that absolutely need to have a daughter.  I don't have that feeling for a daughter, and I think that because I have the boys perhaps I take for granted that I have sons and that they add a pretty distinct dynamic to our lives (you know, pee on the floor, constant wrestling, and grunted responses aside). 

Carrying on a name isn't important to me, but I recognize that is IS critically important to a lot of people and certainly more so in a historical context.  I think DG puts a great deal of emphasis on Willie's name for that reason.  No mistake that he is William, same as beloved brother, and that the length of his last name and family connections is often brought up...Ellesmere, Ransom, etc.  

To this point, through the books that have been written, he does nothing for me.  In truth, neither does Bree.  However, I read a few of the Daily Lines for Book 9 that relate to William, and I'm cautiously optimistic that he will mean something to me by the time this all ends.  

I hate how he got one.  I do.  But, I will admit that in terms of scenarios, this was probably one of the better ways to go about getting Jamie a son.  I would change this part of the story, but to what I don't know.  Nor do I know to what end.  I would actually change several major things about the story, but that isn't fair and seems silly, really, because I love the story.  I'm hooked on it, obviously, so why would I want to change it?

Lord John is a stand-up guy.  Truly, a Good guy in a saga with some awful people.  For me, he comes across as sanctimonious sometimes, and it irks. Admittedly, I haven't read any of the LJG series, and perhaps those would develop additional context and his character for me.  I find the Greys as a family to be rather boring, which is another reason I haven't read the other series.  And I think it makes sense that he raised Willie and actually a great part of the story is their relationship and that he is such a loving, doting father to him. I really intensely dislike how he told Claire about Willie, though.  No one messes with my girl.  

Summary Comments - 

I really liked David Berry as Lord John.  I was stunned and bummed that he announced he was finished with the show, but I'm hoping that was a miscommunication of some sort.  He has a pretty big part of the story line coming up.

I sincerely hope they re-cast William from the kid that played him Season 4.  They can do better.  

So many thoughts!

I love Jamie with a baby, more than with his grown ups kids. I remember that my hubby was a baby whisperer & it's very sexy. I'd like to see more Jamie with grandbabies (I am talking about the show now, lol).

I think in past times, having a son to carry on your name was indeed important, not sure if men care so much about that now?  I think that is exactly why Willie didn't get Jamie's name as you said. My son is the only boy in my hubby's family, so if he doesn't have a son this line of the name will end. Was there any other way for Jamie to get a son? He was grabbing them left & right-Fergus & Ian, just to be a dad. 

I saw so many complaints about Jamie telling Claire about Willie in the show(306), but it was better than the book. Perhaps his timing sucked, but it was his job to do it! And TvJamie knew it!

Casting on this show has been so great with the exception of Jamie's biological children looking like him. I was watching a show with" Baby " Sam recently-Islands at War, & his character has parents, & he looks exactly like them. Check it out! Obviously no one that looked remotely like Sam auditioned for those roles as Willie Or Bree. 

[SassAndSnacks]

3 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

So many thoughts!

I love Jamie with a baby, more than with his grown ups kids. I remember that my hubby was a baby whisperer & it's very sexy. I'd like to see more Jamie with grandbabies (I am talking about the show now, lol).

I think in past times, having a son to carry on your name was indeed important, not sure if men care so much about that now?  I think that is exactly why Willie didn't get Jamie's name as you said. My son is the only boy in my hubby's family, so if he doesn't have a son this line of the name will end. Was there any other way for Jamie to get a son? He was grabbing them left & right-Fergus & Ian, just to be a dad. 

I saw so many complaints about Jamie telling Claire about Willie in the show(306), but it was better than the book. Perhaps his timing sucked, but it was his job to do it! And TvJamie knew it!

Casting on this show has been so great with the exception of Jamie's biological children looking like him. I was watching a show with" Baby " Sam recently-Islands at War, & his character has parents, & he looks exactly like them. Check it out! Obviously no one that looked remotely like Sam auditioned for those roles as Willie Or Bree. 

Agree with so many things you said here!

Men holding babies, oh my heart!  Especially, when it was my baby and he had made said child stop screaming.  

I don't know how Jamie would have gotten a son a different way.  I admit it happened in the best way it could have, I guess.  Was Fergus not enough? Maybe Claire could have had the son and not Bree? (I kid! Sort of...) Absolutely agree that Claire finding out in the show the way she did was better than how it went down in the book.  I'm sure I was one of the initial haters of it, but after I read through the book again, it was definitely for the best.  

Casting Willie will be tough.  I wasn't a Sophie fan at first, either, but I've come to terms with it.  Really hope they at least find someone with blue eyes to play Willie.

[Cdh20]

18 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Agree with so many things you said here!

Men holding babies, oh my heart!  Especially, when it was my baby and he had made said child stop screaming.  

I don't know how Jamie would have gotten a son a different way.  I admit it happened in the best way it could have, I guess.  Was Fergus not enough? Maybe Claire could have had the son and not Bree? (I kid! Sort of...) Absolutely agree that Claire finding out in the show the way she did was better than how it went down in the book.  I'm sure I was one of the initial haters of it, but after I read through the book again, it was definitely for the best.  

Casting Willie will be tough.  I wasn't a Sophie fan at first, either, but I've come to terms with it.  Really hope they at least find someone with blue eyes to play Willie.

If Claire had the son, then he would have been raised by another man & had his name as well. The worst scenario is that Jamie had another wife & had kids with her, & she was nice. Diana wrote that the only way she could have. 

[WatchrTina]

7 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

Diana wrote that the only way she could have. 

I totally agree.  

If Jamie had married a good woman who was capable of loving him (like Mary McNab) I don't think he would have chosen to live apart from her, even if he could never bring himself to love her back.  If Jamie and Laoghaire had had children together I don't think Jamie would have chosen to live apart from them.  If Claire had come back through the stones, gone to Lallybroch, and arrived to find Jamie married to (and living with) a good woman or had found Jamie raising a child of his own with Laoghaire, I think Claire would have wished him joy and gone right back home after a brief visit.  Jamie would not have left a wife that loved him nor would he leave the mother of his children, even if she didn't love him, for Claire sake.  I don't think Claire would have wanted him to.  At least, that's what I want to believe.  If he did leave a woman who loved him or abandoned his own children to go back to his "first" love, I don't think I'd care to read about his life from that point on.  So yeah, Diana's only choices were for Jamie to have remained unmarried after losing Claire (which would have sucked a LOT of the drama out of the story) or for him to have a failed, childless marriage to someone the reader doesn't mind seeing humiliated.

[Cdh20]

2 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I totally agree.  

If Jamie had married a good woman who was capable of loving him (like Mary McNab) I don't think he would have chosen to live apart from her, even if he could never bring himself to love her back.  If Jamie and Laoghaire had had children together I don't think Jamie would have chosen to live apart from them.  If Claire had come back through the stones, gone to Lallybroch, and arrived to find Jamie married to (and living with) a good woman or had found Jamie raising a child of his own with Laoghaire, I think Claire would have wished him joy and gone right back home after a brief visit.  Jamie would not have left a wife that loved him nor would he leave the mother of his children, even if she didn't love him, for Claire sake.  I don't think Claire would have wanted him to.  At least, that's what I want to believe.  If he did leave a woman who loved him or abandoned his own children to go back to his "first" love, I don't think I'd care to read about his life from that point on.  So yeah, Diana's only choices were for Jamie to have remained unmarried after losing Claire (which would have sucked a LOT of the drama out of the story) or for him to have a failed, childless marriage to someone the reader doesn't mind seeing humiliated.

My thoughts exactly &  this is why we love Jamie!

[Scarlett45]

On 9/24/2020 at 7:18 AM, Cdh20 said:

Diana wrote that the only way she could have. 

I would have preferred if Diana had taken away the coercion forcing Jaime to father a child while he was on parole. They could've kept the "young noble woman wanting to lose her virginity to a hot guy" situation, but had Jaime be attracted to her and vice versa, and even have affection for her, but it not be based on coercion and the icky power dynamics. or they could've had Jaime remarried and widowed, but then the child would be very small and we have would've to deal with a minor child on Jaime/Claire's adventures- Jaime would not abandon his son to be raised by others after so many years in prison etc, away from his family by force.

 

On 9/24/2020 at 2:56 PM, WatchrTina said:

If Claire had come back through the stones, gone to Lallybroch, and arrived to find Jamie married to (and living with) a good woman or had found Jamie raising a child of his own with Laoghaire, I think Claire would have wished him joy and gone right back home after a brief visit.

I agree with that. And Claire was aware of that risk when she went through. She knew Jaime hadn't died, but he may have been married and committed to someone else, she was willing to take the chance.

 

On the show I did think it was funny when Claire found out about the Laoghaire marriage and said "two children, the little girl with the red hair.', and Jaime says "There are other red headed men in Scotland, Claire!" that was so funny!

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

I would have preferred if Diana had taken away the coercion forcing Jaime to father a child while he was on parole. They could've kept the "young noble woman wanting to lose her virginity to a hot guy" situation, but had Jaime be attracted to her and vice versa, and even have affection for her, but it not be based on coercion and the icky power dynamics. or they could've had Jaime remarried and widowed, but then the child would be very small and we have would've to deal with a minor child on Jaime/Claire's adventures- Jaime would not abandon his son to be raised by others after so many years in prison etc, away from his family by force.

 

I agree with that. And Claire was aware of that risk when she went through. She knew Jaime hadn't died, but he may have been married and committed to someone else, she was willing to take the chance.

 

On the show I did think it was funny when Claire found out about the Laoghaire marriage and said "two children, the little girl with the red hair.', and Jaime says "There are other red headed men in Scotland, Claire!" that was so funny!

I did not mean she wrote "that" (Jamie being blackmailed into sex) the only way she could, just that a resulting child without a mother, was convenient! For sure he could have bedded Geneva just as he did Mary McNabb, that would of been nicer. The fact that Jamie ties love & sex together is such a sweet notion but rather unrealistic (from our modern views anyway).

Edited October 16, 2020 by Cdh20

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

 

 

On the show I did think it was funny when Claire found out about the Laoghaire marriage and said "two children, the little girl with the red hair.', and Jaime says "There are other red headed men in Scotland, Claire!" that was so funny!

That particular episode(308) is Jamie gold  & that scene in particular a great adaptation! 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Cdh20

[Scarlett45]

2 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

I did not mean she wrote "that" (Jamie being blackmailed into sex) the only way she could, just that a resulting child without a mother, was convenient! For sure he could have bedded Geneva just as he did Mary McNabb, that would of been nicer.

Oh yes I understand! I do think it would've been interesting if Frank had not been infertile, and he/Claire had a child together, and that child had been a time traveler too, and followed their big sister through the stones......what an interesting dynamic that couldve brought to the story. 

[Cdh20]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Oh yes I understand! I do think it would've been interesting if Frank had not been infertile, and he/Claire had a child together, and that child had been a time traveler too, and followed their big sister through the stones......what an interesting dynamic that couldve brought to the story. 

Without a doubt though, the fact that Frank is infertile is also a must, so that he will indeed stay with Claire when she returns, as it is the only way for him to get a child. Again, Gabaldon did think this well through, Jamie trusts Frank to be as honorable as he would be! 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Cdh20

[Scarlett45]

4 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

Without a doubt though, the fact that Frank is infertile is also a must, so that he will indeed stay with Claire when she returns, as it is the only way for him to get a child.

Yes- Frank didnt just have a low sperm count he had NO sperm yes (like men who have CF), so it was stay with Claire, or marry another woman with an infant or marry a woman who was willing to adopt. Brianna being an only child also contributed to her story. Had she had a sibling at this point in the story different choices wouldve been made.

[SassAndSnacks]

On 10/16/2020 at 12:12 PM, Scarlett45 said:

On the show I did think it was funny when Claire found out about the Laoghaire marriage and said "two children, the little girl with the red hair.', and Jaime says "There are other red headed men in Scotland, Claire!" that was so funny!

I love how the bolded line above was delivered on the show.  So dry and matter-of-fact. 

My take on Claire's reaction to the little girl with red hair (Joan) was that it hit her especially hard, given that Faith and Brianna both were little red-headed girls.  I'm sure the imagery was hard, in particular, with her memories of Brianna as a girl of that age with long red hair.  Also recognizing her grief that Jamie never got to see Brianna at that age.  My belief is that Claire felt Jamie had replaced Brianna with another, similar looking girl, and in that instance, that knowledge was especially devastating for her.  My stomach dropped FOR her, first when I read it and then when I actually saw it.  I actually feel so bad about it even sitting here typing about it right now.  That's what Outlander does to you, I guess.  As a side note, I just watched this episode on Thursday, and it so unbelievably well done, improving on some book plot holes.

On 9/24/2020 at 8:18 AM, Cdh20 said:

Diana wrote that the only way she could have.

Ok ok ok....  You're making a convert out of me!  I'm coming around on this.  I still loathe the Geneva storyline, and I still loathe Frank, no matter how sympathetic people try to make the two of them (you can lump Laoghaire in there too, blech).  BUT...I just finished Book 8...again...and I'm turning the corner on this.  These particular plot points are growing on me, and I've made my peace with them thanks to later book points.  A little bit, anyway. I understand that we had to see Jamie completely broken, and that just when we thought he wouldn't possibly be more broken, he has to leave his child.  And just when we think he finds a little joy, he has it taken away.  And he had to be completely broken to ever agree to a marriage with Laoghaire.  And he had to be married to her to cause conflict when Claire inevitably returned to him. 

[Cdh20]

3 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I love how the bolded line above was delivered on the show.  So dry and matter-of-fact. 

My take on Claire's reaction to the little girl with red hair (Joan) was that it hit her especially hard, given that Faith and Brianna both were little red-headed girls.  I'm sure the imagery was hard, in particular, with her memories of Brianna as a girl of that age with long red hair.  Also recognizing her grief that Jamie never got to see Brianna at that age.  My belief is that Claire felt Jamie had replaced Brianna with another, similar looking girl, and in that instance, that knowledge was especially devastating for her.  My stomach dropped FOR her, first when I read it and then when I actually saw it.  I actually feel so bad about it even sitting here typing about it right now.  That's what Outlander does to you, I guess.  As a side note, I just watched this episode on Thursday, and it so unbelievably well done, improving on some book plot holes.

Ok ok ok....  You're making a convert out of me!  I'm coming around on this.  I still loathe the Geneva storyline, and I still loathe Frank, no matter how sympathetic people try to make the two of them (you can lump Laoghaire in there too, blech). BUT...I just finished Book 8 agai n...and I'm turning the corner on this.  These particular plot points are growing on me, and I've made my peace with them thanks to later book points.  A little bit, anyway. I understand that we had to see Jamie completely broken, and that just when we thought he wouldn't possibly be more broken, he has to leave his child.  And just when we think he finds a little joy, he has it taken away.  And he had to be completely broken to ever agree to a marriage with Laoghaire.  And he had to be married to her to cause conflict when Claire inevitably returned to him. 

Since you've finished reading them all, did you start rewatching from the beginning??? I am rewatching & currently on season 2 as I finally convinced another friend to start! ( She was already pretty upset by the violence, but already loves Jamie so is carrying on). I can't restart reading as I've leant some of my books out to friends.