S03.E04: Of Lost Things

[Athena]

Quote

While serving as groomsman at the aristocratic estate of Helwater, Jamie is reluctantly pulled into the intrigue of a noble British family. In 1968 Scotland, Claire, Brianna and Roger struggle to trace Jamie's whereabouts in history, leaving Claire to wonder if they will ever find him again.

Reminder: The is the book talk thread. This can include spoilers for ALL the books. If you wish to remain unspoiled for any of the books, please leave now and head to the No Book Talk episode thread.

[Quickbeam]

Terrific consolidation of a ton of material. Sam was fantastic. I thought the Claire scenes were a little flat. 

[toolazy]

Sam's  face when he was riding away from Willie.  Christ almighty but he's good.  

Edited October 1, 2017 by toolazy

[Hybiscus]

OMG, that was a massive sob-fest!  Wonderful, but heart-breaking on so many levels.  More thoughts after I sleep on it and get my eyes & sinuses under control.

[lianau]

On a scale from 1 to 10 how much irrational hate is Geneva going to get ?

[unlfan03]

Another episode where the Scottish part was just so much better than the "present". I liked that they took away the revoking of consent on Lady Geneva's part, but her blackmailing was almost too subtle to the point I almost thought they had taken it out until Jamie said she threatened his family. As a book reader I actually like that didn't soften Geneva so much as took away the most objectionable part of her story, the rape-y vibe to their encounter, and just made her a witch. I wish the costumes were not so much like Claire's but at least they didn't have her turn into Claire during the sex scene. I loved Lady Isabel, in her few scenes you could see her as being a good stepmother for Willie. Plus I thought that Lord Melton's double take at seeing Jamie alive and well was good, though why he was in Helwater is a mystery.

Spoiler

And why in the world would he allow a slip of a girl to get him drunk? Where was Millie? I guess at home getting ready to have a kid, not sure which one, but since Diana G can't keep the second generation straight I guess we don't have to either.

I did not like the fast time jumps between past and present. I guess they were trying to be arty and maybe it is to show how quickly the two time periods are merging but it was distracting. Plus I didn't like that Claire gave up on finding Jamie like that. I know it isn't the book (I tell myself that on a fairly consistent basis) but if she was willing to let his ghost sit between her and Frank for 18 years TV Claire should not have given up so quickly. Yes they gave her "reasons" but it still didn't make sense. Nor did her brushing off of Joe. I wish they would give us some back ground on why she seems to be giving up something that meant so much to her. We've seen a few hints that being a surgeon had lost its luster ala why she was already drinking when Frank dropped the bombshell of moving back to England on her. But if the time line works out it was still 2 years before she and Brianna showed up on Roger's door step. Would she really stayed that upset that long?

Will we get answers next episode or will it be saved for a flashback during a future episode. Something with Claire loosing her nerve and remember back to a bad surgery in Boston. Or is next episode the last episode in the "present" and will we not see Joe, Brim and Roger for the rest of the season? Well same bat time same bat channel.

Edited October 1, 2017 by unlfan03
Proper grammer is a friend.

[Dust Bunny]

That was perfect. I have been waiting for this episode for a year, probably even more than the print shop. Jamie as father figure is one of my favorite forms of Jamie.

Loved the title card. I squealed so loud, when I figured out what was being carved. Better choice than the book's horse.

"The Scottish Prisoner" shout-out.

And Hal and John on the same screen together! Definitely a treat for book readers.

David Berry is a gift to this show. His Lord John Grey is better than anything I imagined in my head. And now, when I reread the books, I can imagine him. His chemistry with Sam is great. You can really see a camaraderie forming there.

"Stinking papist" scene. So glad that was included. It needs to be introduced now, to pay off in season 7. :) And TWO "dinna fash"es. This makes me excited for book 9. I'm craving Jamie and William bonding.

Sam's acting all the way through was spot-on. This episode is an emotional roller coaster for Jamie, and Sam brought his A+++ game.

For me, this is easily top 5 episode material, maybe top 3.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Dust Bunny

[theschnauzers]

Some may have feared that these episodes of the period Jamie and Claire would be separated wouldn’t hold up, but they have spectacularly. Dust Bunny, I mostly agree with you, but I understand what the writers are going for with Claire, and I think Sophie and Richard more fully emerged as their characters in this episode.

 

There is nothing more I can add about Sam and David as Jamie and Lord John.  How long will it be before “The Lord John Mysteries” goes into development at Starz?

 

Interesting choice of song for the end and the end titles of the episode. Was it released in 1968? 

Edited October 1, 2017 by theschnauzers

[Petunia846]

I still don't understand why Claire would have given the pearls to Mrs. Graham. I kind of get it in concept, like I can see how it could be thrown out as an idea in the writer's room, but then the reality of Fiona getting Ellen MacKenzie's pearls kind of made my blood boil. After everything, Claire? Really? I can see not wearing them or taking them out, but you just give them away? No. That rang false to me. Of course I won't even get into how they're not the right pearls anyway, but goodness. That really pulled me out of an otherwise great and very engrossing episode. That, and Jamie's crazy hair. Not a great look for him this week. Those flyaway curls in the front were worse than the caveman look.

Am I the only one not feeling Lord John? I mean, he's not a favorite of mine from the books either, but the actor looks and feels pretty meh to me. Both the girls were fantastic actresses. Good casting there.

I don't understand what they're doing with the "modern" day search for Jamie. Am I crazy or have they jumbled things up? That's not how it goes in the book, right? I can't remember. I thought it was that once they found Jamie, Claire went back to Boston and set things right while Bree stayed in Scotland with Roger? Am I imagining that? It's not "messed up" or a problem, but I just don't see where they're going with that storyline...how it's going to come back around to where it needs to end up. Oh well, we'll find out next week, I guess.

[morgan]

Just finished and loved it!!!!  Loved the 1968 stuff, loved the Helwater stuff.  Beautifully done especially considering how much they needed to consolidate.  They hit the major parts wonderfully.  The only weak part for me still is Sophie but I am still hopeful that by the time she has a larger role she will have grown and gotten stronger.  Rik continues to be an awesome Roger.  Love him!!!!

At first I was afraid they were going to make finding Jamie a wee too easy, so I really loved that they showed just how hard it was.  

They did a nice job with Geneva, making her who she is but also since she was only in one episode not too grating.  And yes the took out Jamie rapes her back stuff, but I don't mind that.  And as obnoxious as she is, she is pathetic too. 

Willie!  Sigh.  Oh Jamie, you are never stronger than you leave someone you love.  Loved seeing the change of how he left helwater vs how he arrived.  Now ready to start that new chapter...bring on the printshop!!!!!

So much good to like, cannot wait for my "real" watch with my husband later!!!

Edited October 1, 2017 by morgan

[morgan]

More thoughts and responses.  I miss Lord John being blond, but continue to love the actor and his and Jamie's scenes together were perfect.

Petunia, it has been so long since I read the book and am trying not to reread till after the season finishes.  I thought there was some back and forth stuff though, she went back to Boston and got the call "found him!"  But I could be wrong there.

As for the pearls, I guess they were going for "Frank made her get rid of everything" so how could she have kept them?  But the only way to keep them in the mix was through Mrs Graham.  Worked well enough for me.  

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

33 minutes ago, morgan said:

but knowing he was the right James Fraser seemed a bit of a leap.

It said of Broch Tuarach next to his name.

 

I'm glad they changed the Geneva scene. I was dreading it a little if they were keeping it the same, but then I had heard they would change it up a little so I figured they would make it less controversial. It's better for it.  I liked Isobel and I'm glad she got a little bit more in show.

I don't love or hate Bree and Roger, but hopefully it just gets better with them when they get actual story lines. I just don't care I guess or it's all cheese with them.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Rilla-my-Rilla

[morgan]

Oh thanks I missed that about Broch Turach.  That makes more sense.

[areca]

Can I *please* have an episode that doesn't end up with my face all wet?  Thanks.

Well done given the condensation of timelines and whatnot.  Sophie continues to drag everyone around her down - I tend to find Cat a fine actor, but she just doesn't work well with Sophie.  Interestingly, when she's not talking, she's much better.  So maybe the people up above saying that she's concentrating so hard on being American that it's destroying any ability she has to act are onto something.  David Berry is a shining gift to this cast.  And wee Willie!  In all forms!  Awwww. 

Sam needs many, many awards and a very long career. That will be all.

[IntrovertGal]

I just watched it and loved it, especially the Helwater scenes. Seeing Jamie being a father to Willie was so bittersweet and the ending broke my heart and made me tear up. So happy they kept the stinking Papist scene, I loved that in the book and they brought it to the screen brilliantly. Sam was just fantastic in all of his scenes with Willie.

I'm very glad that they changed the sex scene between Jamie and Geneva and left out the rape-y undertones. Geneva was well cast, the actress did a good job of showing the character's spoilt and bratty side. I also liked that they showed Isobel knowing that Willie was Jamie's son and telling him so, as far as I remember she didn't in the book.

However, I'm extremely disappointed that TPTB chose to leave out the kiss between Jamie and Lord John, I was so looking forward to that, especially with the crazy hot chemistry between Sam Heughan and David Berry. I don't really understand why they chose to leave it out either, they have never been prudish before. :(  Other than that, all the Jamie and Lord John scenes were perfect, often with dialogue taken word for word from Voyager. I also loved that we got to see Lord John and Hal and Jamie on screen together, that was great.

[AD55]

Loved this episode, mainly for the scenes in Scotland. I’ve been thinking about why I find the C20th story line so much less compelling, but I believe it’s a discussion that’s better suited to the show/book comparison thread.

[Future Cat Lady]

I liked it.

I'm glad they cut the rapey stuff with Geneva. And that scene was kind of hot. I really liked their interaction. 

I also loved Isobel. I'm disappointed that we will never see her again. I've always been curious about her marriage to John. I want details.

I was really surprised and happy to see Hal. Is it just me, or TV Hal knows about John being gay? The way he was looking at John and Jamie, I thought that he was thinking there was something between them. And speaking of that, I wished the kiss had not been cut. I thought it was a sweet gesture of Jamie's part. I wanted to see Sam & David kiss. 

And returning to Hal, he looked like he was a bachelor entertaining the ladies there. However, he was married to Minnie by then.

I'm still loving David Berry. Please let him have his own mini-series!

Unfortunately, the 60s stuff was not as interesting. 

I wonder what we will see next episode. Is Jamie going to be in it? That would suck. I know the show is all about Claire, but Voyager is all about Jamie's story. I'm liking this season, but I wish there was more time for the Jamie parts.

[areca]

3 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

Is it just me, or TV Hal knows about John being gay?

Book Hal knows as well I do believe.  The kiss would have been good, but I love that they left Jamie's horrified reaction that John was going to marry Isobel and sentence her to a fully sexless marriage.

[Future Cat Lady]

2 minutes ago, areca said:

Book Hal knows as well I do believe.  The kiss would have been good, but I love that they left Jamie's horrified reaction that John was going to marry Isobel and sentence her to a fully sexless marriage.

Well, I do think Book Hal knows too. He's not an idiot. However, it's not as obvious like on the show. In fact, there's absolutely no hint of it. 

Actually, here is DG answer about it :

http://forums.compuserve.com/discussions/Books_and_Writers_Community/Diana_Gabaldon/The_Custom_of_the_Army_SPOILERS/ws-books/66876.109?redirCnt=1&nav=messages

[areca]

When John is telling Jamie about Hector's death he makes mention that Hal drags him away out of embarrassment at John's display of more than friendly grief.  It seemed obvious to me, but perhaps that's due to the fact that I have read the books.

[DittyDotDot]

Yeah, I always figured Hal knew. I don't imagine they've ever spoken about it, but I always had the impression Hal was aware of John's sexual preference. 

[Future Cat Lady]

19 minutes ago, areca said:

When John is telling Jamie about Hector's death he makes mention that Hal drags him away out of embarrassment at John's display of more than friendly grief.  It seemed obvious to me, but perhaps that's due to the fact that I have read the books.

In the books, Hal doesn't drag John away at all.

 

Quote

“He made me go and look at the body—Hal did, my brother,” Grey blurted. He looked down at his hand, where the deep blue of Hector’s sapphire burned against his skin, a smaller version of the one Fraser had reluctantly given him. “He said that I must; that unless I saw him dead, I should never really believe it. That unless I knew Hector—my friend—was really gone, I would grieve forever. If I saw, and knew, I would grieve, but then I should heal—and forget.” He looked up, with a painful attempt at a smile. “Hal is generally right, but not always.

[WatchrTina]

I'm posting without reading what any of you have said.  The closing credits are still rolling and the singer is singing "It's hard, it's hard, it's hard  . . . . my blue-eyed son."  

Oh.  My.  God.  This shows just KILLS me.

More coherent thoughts later.

[areca]

2 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

In the books, Hal doesn't drag John away at all.

 

Yes, but the point being that the writers of the TV show had to somehow give the same bit of hint that you got in the books.  Precisely because I have read the books, I was able to identify the hint.

[WatchrTina]

One more random thought.  I have read all the books. I have read some of them multiple times.  And yet it was only this morning, seeing Sam play Jamie's reaction to the news that the baby had been named William, that I made the connection with Jamie's older brother -- the one who gave him the wooden snake.  Willie.  How on EARTH did I miss that all these years?

Thanks Sam.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I really enjoyed it and since they left out the controversial scene/actions of that spoiled brat, I’m okay with the changes they made in how Geneva learned about who Jamie was-if I recall correctly, she snooped and found Jenny’s letters to Jamie. And no Ron, the way you depicted that little twat did NOT humanize her and nor did I feel sorry for her.

Also, thanks be to Jesus that the scene of Jamie unlacing who I now believe to be Claire, wasn’t Geneva. I recall reading how some people posted that the fandom was clutching their pearls as it was a slap in the face to Jamie and Claire in “The Wedding.” Or maybe it’s just the scene from their wedding night they put in this season’s credits.

This may be nitpicking, but I thought that Isobel was supposed to be blonde? And though not as beautiful as Geneva, I seem to recall she wasn’t a plain Jane either, as she was depicted here.?

I don’t mind the kiss was left out and of course the reason Jamie offered himself to Lord John was a test-something we don’t learn until years and buiks later.

Sam has just been beyond great this season so far. And now I can’t wait until next episode! ❤️?????❤️PRINT SHOP!!!❤️?????❤️

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

This may be nitpicking, but I thought that Isobel was supposed to be blonde? And though not as beautiful as Geneva, I seem to recall she wasn’t a plain Jane either, as she was depicted here.?

It's been a while, but my recollection is that Isobel was considered a plain Jane in comparison to Geneva. On her own though, I don't think she was as bland as all that, it was just the comparison to Geneva who was considered quite beautiful and quite spirited. But, I do believe she wasn't blonde. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[dustoffmom]

Wait...wait!  In the previouslies, there is a clip of Claire and Bree and Claire telling her she needs to tell her about her real father.  HUH?  When was that scene?  What episode please.  I've watched them all and I have no memory of that show scene.  How could I have not seen nor recalled such a pivotal mother/daughter chat taking place?  Plus I read the posts here, how was something like not discussed?  I'm baffled!

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 minutes ago, dustoffmom said:

Wait...wait!  In the previouslies, there is a clip of Claire and Bree and Claire telling her she needs to tell her about her real father.  HUH?  When was that scene?  What episode please.  I've watched them all and I have no memory of that show scene.  How could I have not seen nor recalled such a pivotal mother/daughter chat taking place?  Plus I read the posts here, how was something like not discussed?  I'm baffled!

I think it was from last season.

[Squirrely]

I cried from the moment Jamie first looked at his son until well after the credits rolled. I think sometimes knowing what's to come is a curse (right, Claire?)! God, that was rough. 

All of the Helwater scenes were amazingly done. Though I do find myself missing the nuances of the books vs. the way characters blurt out everything in the show (e.g. Isobel knowing Willie's paternity, and some scenes last week with Jamie and John). But I get that this is TV and we're not privy to their thoughts as we are in the book unless they want to narrate the whole thing. 

I really hope Sophie gets better. I find myself not giving two shits about Brie because the actress sucks. She's the only casting choice I can't stand in 3 seasons, and I'm trying so hard to get over it, knowing we're stuck with her for the long haul. 

[toolazy]

51 minutes ago, dustoffmom said:

Wait...wait!  In the previouslies, there is a clip of Claire and Bree and Claire telling her she needs to tell her about her real father.  HUH?  When was that scene?  What episode please.  I've watched them all and I have no memory of that show scene.  How could I have not seen nor recalled such a pivotal mother/daughter chat taking place?  Plus I read the posts here, how was something like not discussed?  I'm baffled!

Because it doesn't matter, in the scheme of things.  Even if that exact 5 seconds wasn't shown last season, it doesn't matter because Claire DID tell Bree about her real father. It wouldn't be the first show that snuck things into the previoiuslies that weren't, strictly speaking, previouslies.

.

.

Also, I was just reading the non-book readers' thread and two people commented on how stupid Geneva was to not have sex with Ellesmere at least once or twice.  Was it made clear in the show that the problem was that Ellesmere wasn't "capable."  I honestly don't remember.

Edited October 1, 2017 by toolazy

[Starla]

I'm glad we’re past the The Geneva Situation. I never liked this plot line in the book and didn’t care for it in the show either. It always seemed like a convenient way for Jamie to have a son without the responsibility of choice in the matter. I think it would be okay for Jamie to have a periodic fling without betraying his love for Claire in any way.

That being said, I think the actress who played Geneva did a great job. She does a perfect “brat face.” I totally bought that she would blackmail a guy into having sex with her. Sweet Isabel was even better, and a great contrast to Geneva. She won me over with her concern about the horses being caged. Anyone who has compassion for animals is high on my list of favorite people.

The two scenes at the end between Jamie and Lord John, then Jamie and Willie, were absolutely perfect. That kid is adorable. I wish his hair had been slightly red, but otherwise he did a great job acting for such a young boy. Those scenes had me in tears.

Like others, I’m a little confused on how the Claire story will play out from here. I’m guessing Roger will keep looking for Jamie, and will call her with the news that he has found Jamie during the print shop years. Claire will proceed to prepare by selling her house, wrapping up the job at the hospital, and spending some time with Joe. I wonder if we’ll get the “bones” scene. It seems important to tie into the events near the end of the season.

As for the Scotland parts, I assume we’ll go straight to Jamie in Edinburgh, with all the Laoghaire events being revealed later when Claire finds out about it. I feel like we would have seen Laoghaire in the preview if she was going to be in the next episode. Either way, I look forward to seeing how it plays out!

[WatchrTina]

9 hours ago, morgan said:

As for the pearls, I guess they were going for "Frank made her get rid of everything" so how could she have kept them?  

I found the pearls being given away and given back extremely odd as well -- especially since we saw that Claire kept the ring Jamie gave her at the stones (you see her put it in the suitcase before she and Frank leave Scotland.)  But it's clear to me that that was just a bit of plot necessity.  The writers had to remind the viewers that the pearls exist and who has them so that they are available for pivotal scene in season 4 (when Brianna slams them down on a table to verify that she IS Jamie's daughter by Claire.)

7 hours ago, IntrovertGal said:

So happy they kept the stinking Papist scene

Yes!  Another moment that I hope we get to see paid off in a future season (as it is in a future book.)

7 hours ago, IntrovertGal said:

I'm extremely disappointed that TPTB chose to leave out the kiss between Jamie and Lord John

Hmmm.  I didn't even miss it.  I always thought that moment was bit of a miss in the books because John's no fool.  He KNOWS how Jamie feels about homosexuality.  He KNOWS  that that kiss was (at best) an act of charity and at worse, something distasteful that Jamie just had to force himself to get through.  I think we're better off without it, especially since there are some fringe elements in the fandom who've been trying to claim that Jamie is bi-sexual.  Best not to give them any fuel for that particular speculation.

4 hours ago, toolazy said:

Was it made clear in the show that the problem was that Ellesmere wasn't "capable."

Isobel slaps Jamie because she KNOWS he's the baby's father.  And she knows that because Geneva told her that Ellesmere had never lain with her.  So yes it was made clear that their marriage was chaste but not why.  We don't actually know that Ellesmere WAS incapable.  It's possible he had a mistress and simply had no desire for his young wife nor did he wish to sire a child on her.  It's unlikely but since I hate the character I've speculated that he left Geneva untouched in order to cheat her family out of inheriting his estates.  I assumed they'd pass to a distant relative if his marriage to Geneva produced no heir and that that was his intention.  That's me projecting a lot of malice on him but he married a woman under false pretenses (never intending to consummate it) and then attempted the murder of an infant so I think it's fair to say he was a colossal wanker.

Edited October 1, 2017 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

Another really very solid episode even it it did have moments of feeling like it was speed reading through plot points.  But I've pretty much resigned myself by now to this show always being a mess of pacing in that some episodes will feel like a leisurely stroll through the country and others, like this one and last week's could have easily been given more room to breathe and linger on some of those quiet emotional character beats that make the first half of Voyager before the reunion so engrossing on their own.

That said, I'm feeling pretty much okay with how the show chose to handle Jamie and Geneva.  And I actually came away thinking that her superficial physical and "spirited" resemblance to Claire was a deliberate choice that mostly worked in showing how differently Claire and Jamie could have gone had the circumstances been different, culminating with the "first time" parallels and in Jamie explaining the difference between lust and love.  I've said before in book discussions and I'll say it again here that the whole setup getting them there is so contrived that I have a hard time getting worked up over it, but I did like randomly throwing Hal into the mix as a straighter line for how Geneva found out who Jamie really was and what buttons to push.  Bonus that we also get the wonderfully awkward outdoor scene of so much going unsaid of exactly how John, Hal, and Jamie all know each other and what we know that Hal at least very strongly suspects.  While I couldn't quit eyerolling that Geneva would make her big pitch in what was essentially a public place for anyone walking by to overhear (she tracked him down to isolated field work in the book), I appreciated Jamie getting the same thing I've always gotten about Geneva: that while she may have been going about it in completely the wrong way in taking advantage of someone with even less agency than she had, she was trying to exert some small amount of control over a life that was basically being sold away like a horse to a man she most emphatically did not want.

The success of the Willie stuff, like most of this story that featured none of the other recurring characters, rested entirely on Sam's ability to sell it and for the most part he did a really bang up job of it.  The look on his face at the end riding away just killed me as did the stinking papist scene.  Isobel being a more active participant in the story by knowing as opposed to just sort of being there as an substitute mother and marriage object worked surprisingly well, although I still think that if they wanted to play up Willie's emerging resemblance to Jamie, they might have cast a little actor who looked a little more like him.

Most of the 1968 story in comparison felt underdeveloped and fell disappointingly flat.  Part of that, I think, is the way that Claire has been written this season to be seemingly defined by the presence or absence of her husbands instead of someone who was trying her damnedest to carve out a meaningful life that she had never wanted.  Her earlier apparent haphazard care of the peals felt clunky.  I know they apparently needed the stories to parallel walking away at the end, but that didn't really work either.  Book Bree stayed behind to keep looking and while Claire did go back to Boston, it was more of an open-ended thing of not wanting to completely abandon everything there without tying up loose ends or before she knew she really had cause to walk away from it.  The idea of not wanting to waste a life chasing a ghost is certainly a valid one, but it's not making Claire look any better.

[toolazy]

7 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

 I think we're better off without it, especially since there are some fringe elements in the fandom who've been trying to claim that Jamie is bi-sexual.  Best not to give them any fuel for that particular speculation.

That is an excellent point. I actually did miss the kiss because I like Jamie saying that he maybe wasn't poisoned, but you're right.  It would have been blown out of proportion in certain quarters of the internet. 

[Squirrely]

Diana Gabaldon commented on a FB thread that there is a method to their madness re: the pearls, and that it will pay off in some way. I sure hope she's right because I agree with everyone else. I don't love that change in the story. A woman can hide a strand of pearls from her husband, easily.

[dustoffmom]

Quote

24 minutes ago, toolazy said:

1 hour ago, dustoffmom said:

Wait...wait!  In the previouslies, there is a clip of Claire and Bree and Claire telling her she needs to tell her about her real father.  HUH?  When was that scene?  What episode please.  I've watched them all and I have no memory of that show scene.  How could I have not seen nor recalled such a pivotal mother/daughter chat taking place?  Plus I read the posts here, how was something like not discussed?  I'm baffled!

Because it doesn't matter, in the scheme of things.  Even if that exact 5 seconds wasn't shown last season, it doesn't matter becaus

 

 

Doesn't matter!!  Surely you're kidding.  Relaying that bit of information matters a great deal to their relationship for a goodly amount of time.  It has a huge influence on choices Bree, and Roger, make later in this book and in the next couple as well!

[lianau]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Yeah, I always figured Hal knew. I don't imagine they've ever spoken about it, but I always had the impression Hal was aware of John's sexual preference. 

I think so too . Book Hal made 16 year old John look at dead Hector , that for me made it clear that Hal knew Hector was more than a friend to John . He was responsible for calming the looming scandal by getting him out of the way and into Ardsmuir .  And I think by book 8 he's also aware that John is in love with Jamie .

[Future Cat Lady]

19 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I found the pearls being given away and given back extremely odd as well -- especially since we saw that Claire kept the ring Jamie gave her at the stones (you see her put it in the suitcase before she and Frank leave Scotland.  But it's clear to me that that was just a bit of plot necessity.  The writers had to remind the viewers that the pearls exist and who has them so that they are available for pivotal scene in season 4 (when Brianna slams them down on a table to verify that she IS Jamie's daughter by Claire.)

Yes!  Another moment that I hope we get to see paid off in a future season (as it is in a future book.)

Hmmm.  I didn't even miss it.  I always thought that moment was bit of a miss in the books because John's no fool.  He KNOWS how Jamie feels about homosexuality.  He KNOWS  that that kiss was (at best) an act of charity and at worse, something distasteful that Jamie just had to force himself to get through.  I think we're better off without it, especially since there are some fringe elements in the fandom who've been trying to claim that Jamie is bi-sexual.  Best not to give them any fuel for that particular speculation.

Isobel slaps Jamie because she KNOWS he's the baby's father.  And she knows that because Geneva told her that Ellesmere had never lain with her.  So yes it was made clear that their marriage was chaste but not why.  We don't actually know that Ellesmere WAS incapable.  It's possible he had a mistress and simply had no desire for his young wife nor did he wish to sire a child on her.  It's unlikely but since I hate the character I've speculated that he left Geneva untouched in order to cheat her family out of inheriting his estates.  I assumed they'd pass to a distant relative if his marriage to Geneva produced no heir and that that was his intention.  That's me projecting a lot of malice on him but he married a woman under false pretenses (never intending to consummate it) and then attempted the murder of an infant so I think it's fair to say he was a colossal wanker.

I've always thought that she refused to sleep with him. And since, he was not a total sleaze, he didn't force the issue. It makes no sense for him to marry at this stage in life if he wants no sex or no heir. His reaction after the birth always bothered me. He knew for months that the kid was not his. If he wanted to keep it, he should've kept his mouth shut.

[nodorothyparker]

4 minutes ago, lianau said:

And I think by book 8 he's also aware that John is in love with Jamie .

I've always thought that too the way he acts about the whole realizing that Willie is Jamie's and John raising him for him all those years.  He manages to be somewhat dryly amused by that and how John and Jamie ended up at least briefly married to the same woman, but it's obvious he realizes those are very deliberate choices John has made at least in part to keep Jamie in his orbit.

[Future Cat Lady]

21 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

 Bonus that we also get the wonderfully awkward outdoor scene of so much going unsaid of exactly how John, Hal, and Jamie all know each other and what we know that Hal at least very strongly suspects.  While I couldn't quit eyerolling that Geneva would make her big pitch in what was essentially a public place for anyone walking by to overhear (she tracked him down to isolated field work in the book), I appreciated Jamie getting the same thing I've always gotten about Geneva: that while she may have been going about it in completely the wrong way in taking advantage of someone with even less agency than she had, she was trying to exert some small amount of control over a life that was basically being sold away like a horse to a man she most emphatically did not want.

 

 

I loved how John and Jamie looked liked they had been caught with their pants down. 

Ans yes, Geneva propositioning Jamie in a very busy area was bit ridiculous. Everyone could've overheard. 

[FnkyChkn34]

8 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

Am I the only one not feeling Lord John? I mean, he's not a favorite of mine from the books either, but the actor looks and feels pretty meh to me. Both the girls were fantastic actresses. Good casting there.

I'm still not a huge fan either.  As with you, he's not a favorite of mine from the books either, and while the actor is definitely good, he's not "all that."

4 hours ago, AD55 said:

Loved this episode, mainly for the scenes in Scotland. I’ve been thinking about why I find the C20th story line so much less compelling, but I believe it’s a discussion that’s better suited to the show/book comparison thread.

In the first 3 episodes, it was Frank.  That's why I hated the 20th century scenes.  In this episode, Roger helped. ;-)

 

I am glad that they removed the two most controversial parts of these scenes.  I never thought the kiss between John and Jamie was anything, but as already mentioned, we don't need to hear it from the small fraction of fans who think Jamie is bisexual.  Also, we don't need to confuse non-book readers.  Same for Geneva saying to stop; I'm glad there's no ambiguity for showJamie, and also glad that they didn't show them do it a second time.  It appeared that Jamie got dressed again fairly quickly, so I'm also glad they left out the "cuddling" scenes.

Although I was looking forward to him climbing up the rose trellis.  :-) 

Oh, one question - in the books, did Isobel know that Jamie is Willie's father?  I can't remember.

Edited October 1, 2017 by FnkyChkn34
typo

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Oh, one question - in the books, did Isobel know that Jamie is Willie's father?  I can't remember.

No, she didn’t. I had no problem with Willie’s hair color-in the buiks it was stated he got that from his mother-though in sunlight some red could be seen. And I willna lie-I ??when Jamie called Willie a “wee bastard.” Hell, I love all the lines that have Sam/Jamie saying “wee.”

Wot?

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, dustoffmom said:

Doesn't matter!!  Surely you're kidding.  Relaying that bit of information matters a great deal to their relationship for a goodly amount of time.  It has a huge influence on choices Bree, and Roger, make later in this book and in the next couple as well!

WHat is the difference between saying, "I have to tell you about your real father" and (as actually occurred) her actually telling her about her real father?   The thing that I said didn't matter wasn't the imparting of the information because obviously that was critical.  What doesn't matter is whether or not Claire telling Bree "I have to tell you about your real father" was actually in the show or not because Claire did tell Bree about her real father.

 

1 hour ago, lianau said:

I think so too . Book Hal made 16 year old John look at dead Hector , that for me made it clear that Hal knew Hector was more than a friend to John . He was responsible for calming the looming scandal by getting him out of the way and into Ardsmuir .  And I think by book 8 he's also aware that John is in love with Jamie .

 

For what it's worth Diana has said that Hal doesn't know know, but that she thinks that he eventually suspects.  That suspicion had nothing to do with Hector, however. Nor did the later scandal involve Hector. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by toolazy

[AD55]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

One more random thought.  I have read all the books. I have read some of them multiple times.  And yet it was only this morning, seeing Sam play Jamie's reaction to the news that the baby had been named William, that I made the connection with Jamie's older brother -- the one who gave him the wooden snake.  Willie.  How on EARTH did I miss that all these years?

Thanks Sam.

I totally missed that too. Or if I did catch it, I forgot to remember. ;)

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don’t mind the kiss was left out and of course the reason Jamie offered himself to Lord John was a test-something we don’t learn until years and buiks later.

Sam has just been beyond great this season so far. And now I can’t wait until next episode! ❤️?????❤️PRINT SHOP!!!❤️?????❤️

Would you remind me of what we learn later? Is it that Jamie was making sure John isn't a sexual predator?

[toolazy]

6 minutes ago, AD55 said:

I totally missed that too. Or if I did catch it, I forgot to remember. ;)

Would you remind me of what we learn later? Is it that Jamie was making sure John isn't a sexual predator?

Yes. Jamie was testing John's character. If John had taken him up on his offer, Jamie planned to kill him.  He was making sure he was fit to raise a child. 

[AD55]

Just now, toolazy said:

Yes. Jamie was testing John's character. If John had taken him up on his offer, Jamie planned to kill him.  He was making sure he was fit to raise a child. 

Thanks!

[cardigirl]

Truly loved this episode.  Perfect.

[AheadofStraight]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Sam has just been beyond great this season so far. And now I can’t wait until next episode! ❤️?????❤️PRINT SHOP!!!❤️?????❤️

Don't think that's actually happening until episode 6 and we have to wait extra time in between the episodes. ??

[ElsieH]

Finally, an episode I really liked. I won't even complain about the pearls because it was such a small thing. I liked the other changes. Still think Sophie needs acting lessons though it's really not going to be a huge deal until season 4. I can't wait to see adult Fergus! I hope it's next week but it won't surprise me if they leave that until episode 6.