S03.E04: Of Lost Things

[CountryGirl]

Just now, FnkyChkn34 said:

That's an interesting theory, actually.  But in my opinion, if they all knew, then why would Jamie have to leave?  In the books, not even Isobel knew, so I think the grandmother was not supposed to know.

I think it's one thing for them to know (or strongly suspect )in their heart of hearts but another for them to publicly acknowledge and let Jamie claim Willie as his child if that makes sense? Jamie loved his son and because he loved him, he left, rather than have time go on and the resemblance between them (Willie's lack of red hair notwithstanding) becoming unmistakable and people realizing he was a bastard. He didn't want that stigma and the burdens it would create for his son. 

[Ziggy]

On 10/1/2017 at 0:16 PM, 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!

I believe TOOLAZY meant that that exact clip may not have been in the Season 2 Finale, but that didn't really matter because Claire and Bree still had a conversation about Jamie.  Did you see the Season 2 Finale?  If you didn't, you really should.

[DittyDotDot]

11 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

That's an interesting theory, actually.  But in my opinion, if they all knew, then why would Jamie have to leave?  In the books, not even Isobel knew, so I think the grandmother was not supposed to know.

Oh, I always believed Lady Dunsay, if not knew, had some very strong suspicions that Jamie was Willie's father. I don't know about Isobel because we saw so very little of her in the books. One of the many, many reasons I hoped we'd seen more of John and Isobel's marriage. 

13 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I had that same thought.  I thought he wasn't capable, also.  Did they imply that in the books?  I think they did ... maybe in the scene in the kitchen where everyone is gossiping and Jamie just wants to know whether or not his child is alive.

Yeah, in fact, my understanding of why the Earl didn't make a fuss publicly about Geneva not being a virgin was because he didn't want that knowledge to get out. But, if Geneva was dead, then he could freely sully her reputation without sullying his own. I mean, Geneva would've been the only witness to whether or not the Earl was capable or not.

[toolazy]

31 minutes ago, qtpye said:

There is actuly a lot of theories in physics about time travel.  For instance you can not time travel to any period before you werre born.

 

That's not a theory in physics.  In physics, you can time travel to the future by taking advantage of time dilation (ie, the faster you're going, the slower time passes for you relative to people who are stuck on the planet, say.) It is the case that GPS satellites need to be periodically adjusted because their velocity in orbit causes them to to lose time, thus they regularly need to be synced to earth time. 

24 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

That's an interesting theory, actually.  But in my opinion, if they all knew, then why would Jamie have to leave?  In the books, not even Isobel knew, so I think the grandmother was not supposed to know.

For one thing, they wouldn't want Willie to figure it out. I think LJG says something about that at some point. Also, they don't want random visitors figuring it out, either.  They don't want Willie's inheritance coming under any scrutiny at all. 

[FnkyChkn34]

41 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

I think it's one thing for them to know (or strongly suspect )in their heart of hearts but another for them to publicly acknowledge and let Jamie claim Willie as his child if that makes sense? Jamie loved his son and because he loved him, he left, rather than have time go on and the resemblance between them (Willie's lack of red hair notwithstanding) becoming unmistakable and people realizing he was a bastard. He didn't want that stigma and the burdens it would create for his son. 

 

30 minutes ago, toolazy said:

For one thing, they wouldn't want Willie to figure it out. I think LJG says something about that at some point. Also, they don't want random visitors figuring it out, either.  They don't want Willie's inheritance coming under any scrutiny at all. 

Visitors and others figuring it out makes sense.  But I guess if it was well known within the family, then it wouldn't have been such a big deal?  I just still think it wasn't known within the family, either. 

[LadyBrochTuarach]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Actually, when Claire first comes back in S2 she's frantically looking for the stone that's missing. Claire doesn't realize it was burned out through the traveling yet. I don't remember her still having the ring, but if she does, I imagine at some point she'll remember and it will tie to Geillis' research about gemstones and precious metals protecting the traveler.

Jamie doesn't give Claire the ring in the books, they carved the other's initials into the palms of their hands on their parting in Dragonfly in Amber that leaves a scar each can stroke in their 20-year separation to remind themselves of each other..

Thanks for jogging my memory on these points! I think I'll have to do a re-read asap. 

[AD55]

It’s almost a non sequitur at this point, but I was rewatching the episode and was struck even more forcefully by how we lucked out with David Berry. He has Sam’s capacity to convey several emotions at once, without speaking. When I watch the two of them, I think of what it’s like hearing singers in perfect harmony, both with strong voices, neither trying to out-sing the other. Even someone with a gorgeous voice won’t sound nearly as good if s/he has to sing with someone who can’t carry a tune or doesn’t understand harmony. Jamie’s departure, when he gives the slightest of nods to John as he transfers Willie into John’s care just kills me. And John manages to convey sadness for his own loss and sorrow for Jamie’s at the same time.

Right now, Sophie is having a hard time harmonizing, but I’m going to fan wank that children with extraordinary parents often seem diminished in their company. They have to grow into themselves. I’m keeping a good thought that Sam and Catriona will help her elevate her performance. There are a couple of key players in Game of Thrones that I thought were pretty awful in the first couple of seasons, but they have grown into their parts. They often acted with one or more of the seasoned actors that GoT has brought on board over the years. Perhaps that helped?

[Athena]

52 minutes ago, AD55 said:

It’s almost a non sequitur at this point, but I was rewatching the episode and was struck even more forcefully by how we lucked out with David Berry. He has Sam’s capacity to convey several emotions at once, without speaking. When I watch the two of them, I think of what it’s like hearing singers in perfect harmony, both with strong voices, neither trying to out-sing the other. Even someone with a gorgeous voice won’t sound nearly as good if s/he has to sing with someone who can’t carry a tune or doesn’t understand harmony. Jamie’s departure, when he gives the slightest of nods to John as he transfers Willie into John’s care just kills me. And John manages to convey sadness for his own loss and sorrow for Jamie’s at the same time.

Agreed. The way Berry's eyes conveyed emotion when Jamie made his offer. Oof. 

I really liked Lord John in the books, but Berry is capturing the role beyond expectations. I love this John. I'm a bit sad we won't see more of him for the rest of this season. 

[Athena]

5 minutes ago, Grashka said:

Governor's ball on Jamaica and John meeting Claire for the first time when she was battling typhoid on his ship? I think we will see him in at least two more episodes. I recall the actor mentioning somewhere that it was great (albeit brief) to work with Caitriona this season.

This is true. It's been too many years since I read Voyager, but it'll be a few more arcs before he meets Bree and all the other adventures with Claire, John, and William in America. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

The other really good comment was someone speculating that Jamie's kindness and gentleness to Geneva may have stemmed from his remembering his own wedding night and his experience as a virgin groom with an experienced bride.  He had someone kind and thoughtful to guide him his first time.  His own "deflowering" is a precious memory to him.  So it makes sense that he would swallow his anger and try to make Geneva's first time as good as he could manage, as a way of honoring the gift Claire had given him all those years ago.  He paid it forward.  I LIKE that!  (Though, of course, I also cannot forget that if he did ANYTHING to upset her there was the risk of Geneva kicking up a fuss or crying out in fear or anger and if she did that and he was discovered in her room, Jamie's life would be in danger.  That's also a major motivation for him make it good and get away clean.)

Aw hell to the nay! I don't want any comparisons between Jamie and Claire's wedding night to what Geneva forced Jamie to do. I don't care that he was gentle with her or made it good for her. Though I am FOREVER grateful the "No! You're too big! Stop!" nonsense was cut out, Geneva is still a bratty, spoiled, scheming, self-centered, self-absorbed, blackmailing little twat. I would have liked to have seen some resentment on Jamie's part.

But that's just me.

[iMonrey]

Quote

For one thing, they wouldn't want Willie to figure it out. I think LJG says something about that at some point. Also, they don't want random visitors figuring it out, either.  They don't want Willie's inheritance coming under any scrutiny at all. 

One thing that rang hollow was the lack of speculation over who the child's father was. I mean, Geneva's parents had to wonder who it was. If they suspected but didn't want anyone to know, why would they stand there and say out loud "Oh, we have a little joke - Willie spends so much time with the groom he's even starting to look like him." "Why, you're right he does!" I mean, why point it out to people? It's hard to believe they were either that clueless or that careless.

[Nidratime]

Toni Graphia is answering some questions on twitter. I think I've seen this particular one come up a time or two around these parts:

[mrsjoe]

5 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

One thing that rang hollow was the lack of speculation over who the child's father was. I mean, Geneva's parents had to wonder who it was. If they suspected but didn't want anyone to know, why would they stand there and say out loud "Oh, we have a little joke - Willie spends so much time with the groom he's even starting to look like him." "Why, you're right he does!" I mean, why point it out to people? It's hard to believe they were either that clueless or that careless.

 

I agree.  If any hint of Willie's parentage got out, I'm sure there would have been some distant relative of the Earl ready to fight for the Earldom, especially if Willie was still a child at the time. Pointing out the resemblance was not likely a way to explain it away, but a sign of ignorance I think.  My guess is both Geneva's parents fooled themselves into believing the verdict that the Earl had gone insane at the death of his wife. The fact most people would have said something much sooner than the birth if the baby couldn't be his left them with the plausible deniability of Geneva's virgin status at her wedding. I seem to recall in the books the Earl was going to "keep" the baby, knowing it was his only chance at an heir, but really was a bit crazy when Geneva's parents got involved. I'm not sure either the show or the books explains why he went from saying nothing the entire pregnancy to threatening to kill the child so fast...

[lianau]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Aw hell to the nay! I don't want any comparisons between Jamie and Claire's wedding night to what Geneva forced Jamie to do. I don't care that he was gentle with her or made it good for her. Though I am FOREVER grateful the "No! You're too big! Stop!" nonsense was cut out, Geneva is still a bratty, spoiled, scheming, self-centered, self-absorbed, blackmailing little twat. I would have liked to have seen some resentment on Jamie's part.

But that's just me.

She was also a teenager being sold by her parents to a guy 50 years older than her without having any input . No wonder she wanted one moment of being in control of her own life and body .

31 minutes ago, mrsjoe said:

 I seem to recall in the books the Earl was going to "keep" the baby, knowing it was his only chance at an heir, but really was a bit crazy when Geneva's parents got involved. I'm not sure either the show or the books explains why he went from saying nothing the entire pregnancy to threatening to kill the child so fast...

Combination of factors I think . He wanted to keep the kid , the Dunsanys also wanted the baby as they had just lost their daughter and were grief stricken . Ellesmere then accused them  of having sold him  spoiled goods  and the situation escalated from there .

[Ziggy]

On 10/2/2017 at 1:31 PM, Eureka said:

The scene with the phone call with Joe seemed weird and awkward to me in the sense that it didn't serve a purpose to me, or else I didn't understand it if there was one. They have seriously underutilized him IMO. I was expecting that scene to segue into the story we get in the books about how Claire was involved in basically assisted suicide for one of her patients and was forced out of her department chair position. We didn't see that, which makes me wonder if they've cut that storyline altogther.

Claire told Jamie about the assisted suicide, so it was a flashback for the book reader rather than something we learned about before Claire went through the stones.  Most of what we know about Joe is via flashback.

But there was definitely something up with that scene.  Why was Claire so troubled?  What was she thinking about?  She did get off the phone very quickly (just a bit rude).  My guess is she was thinking about the assisted suicide, even if we aren't told about it yet.

[LadyAmalthea]

Having just posted about how much I hate Roger in the Drums of Autumn book thread, I contradict myself by saying that I found the  awkward "I don't have a girlfriend" stuff rather endearing in this episode.  More of that and less male posturing and I may actually like him in the show.  

I also found the Geneva plotline improved in the adaptation - the actress was rather compelling and I felt her vulnerability in the love scene (issues of consent notwithstanding).  I'm so glad they changed the progression of the scene as Jamie "raping her back" in the book really put me off. 

As for Lady Dunsanay's comment about Jamie and Willie, I got the impression that she did know, and perhaps was trying to get ahead of the gossip by coming up with an explanation for the resemblance.   

[lianau]

29 minutes ago, LadyAmalthea said:

 

As for Lady Dunsanay's comment about Jamie and Willie, I got the impression that she did know, and perhaps was trying to get ahead of the gossip by coming up with an explanation for the resemblance.   

I think she knows , or at least strongly suspects it , in the same way Hal knows that John is gay .  I don't remember which book , but isn't there a scene where John  basically answers a question into that direction with the comment that his mother in law would never admit it  or tell anyone  , Claire ( I think it's Claire but it could also be Jamie ) questions his certainty  and John asks her what she would choose , have her grandson be the heir of one of the richest estates in England or the poor bastard son of a Scottish criminal ?

[Dejana]

7 hours ago, lianau said:

I think she knows , or at least strongly suspects it , in the same way Hal knows that John is gay .  I don't remember which book , but isn't there a scene where John  basically answers a question into that direction with the comment that his mother in law would never admit it  or tell anyone  , Claire ( I think it's Claire but it could also be Jamie ) questions his certainty  and John asks her what she would choose , have her grandson be the heir of one of the richest estates in England or the poor bastard son of a Scottish criminal ?

This happens in Voyager when John first tells Claire about Willie--Chapter 59, "In Which Much Is Revealed". John thinks Lady Dunsany knows. OTOH, she is the one who casually brought up Willie's resemblance to Jamie with a friend, which seems like a subject best avoided if you don't want people talking about it. Though considering that the paternity gossip around Helwater was such that even young William had overheard it at 5 years old or so, how likely is it that his grandmother wasn't aware, too? Maybe she really was trying to preemptively deflect the speculation with that joke she made. Celebrities do this all the time in response to unflattering rumors that turn out to be totally true (a recent example being Kevin Hart).

The arguments and confrontation about Geneva's pregnancy/baby all happened in a private home and any discord only became a public matter once a gun went off and the lord of the manner died. Before then, servants merely witnessed emotionally-charged scenes between married aristocrats and gossiped about them; I doubt either was a rare occurrence in 18th century England. If Geneva had lived, I think she and Ellesmere would have just carried on together unhappily. Think about what it would have taken for him to end the marriage and contest paternity, with a living noblewoman for a wife. Would a man of his time/stature really have wanted it recorded in any official legal document that, say, the marriage should be annulled because he's been impotent for years? He was rich but not exactly a Henry VIII who could dispense with anyone who got in his way. His reputation would have taken a severe hit; gossip is far easier to ignore/deny. When Geneva died and her parents wanted to take the baby away, then all bets were off.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Dejana

[WatchrTina]

So I woke up thinking about Outlander (as you do) and I recalled another point that was made when I listened to the podcast about ep 304 last night (I already posted initial thoughts in the podcast thread).  Matt and Toni said that when the sex scene was filmed it was deliberately staged in a way to signal "this is sex, not love," in keeping with Jamie's lecture to Geneva when it was over.  They specifically mentioned the lighting, which was altered to make it less "romantic."  The funny thing is that watching that sex scene (for the 4th time) with the sound turned down and the podcast on really brings home that point.  The shots of actual coitus go on a lot longer than the wedding sex.  There are also a lot more close-up shots of bare body parts, entangled limbs, and thrusting.  It is much more sexually explicit than we have seen before and less romantic. There was even one shot, in the bed, when the camera lovingly lingered on Sam's bare arse and I felt a bit embarrassed for the actor (not the character).  That reaction signals (to me) a clear change in tone.  Believe me when I tell you that I absolutely love the lingering shot of "Jamie's" arse during the wedding episode when he takes off his clothes for the first time and Claire does that slow walk-around trailing her hand across his bum.  That never felt exploitative. But the sex-not-love scene in this episode IS less romantic, IS closer to pornography, and so made me a wee bit uncomfortable.  That (I suspect) exactly the reaction they were going for.  Jamie IS exploited in this scene and we should feel uncomfortable about that, even as we gaze at a couple of very very pretty people in their birthday suits.

Edited October 5, 2017 by WatchrTina

[ElsieH]

Did they remember to put a big scar on his leg from the wound he got at Culloden? I can't remember but it was supposed to be pretty gnarly, from the description in the book. Guess I'll have to rewatch (again) to confirm, heheh.

Edited October 4, 2017 by ElsieH

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, ElsieH said:

Did they remember to put a big scar on his leg from the wound he got at Culloden? I can't remember but it was supposed to be pretty gnarly, from the description in the book.

Well in order to see it, Sam would have had to go all full frontal, and the camera only showed us his entire body from behind. It's possible we might see it when he and Claire are canoodling after their REUNION!!!!!! next week.

[WatchrTina]

They skipped right past the grueling, near-death recovery from that wound at Lallybroch so I suspect they decided that gets them off the hook for having to show the scar.  I did not notice if the scar from having cut BJR's brand off was visible on Jamie's body or the gun-shot wound in his shoulder from episode 1. Oh well, I guess I'll have to look again.  No rest for the wicked.

So I have a question for the peanut gallery.  Was there ANY humor in the first four episodes?  I can't think of any.  That's the real contrast to season 1, where there is a lot of humor.  I look forward to the return of laughter when our one-true-pairing is reunited.

Edited October 5, 2017 by WatchrTina

[ElsieH]

4 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well in order to see it, Sam would have had to go all full frontal, and the camera only showed us his entire body from behind. It's possible we might see it when he and Claire are canoodling after their REUNION!!!!!! next week.

I was thinking of when he took his pants off but still had the shirt on and told her she could watch him. Can't remember how long it was, or where on his leg the wound was though.

2 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

So I have a question for the peanut gallery.  Was there ANY humor in the first four episodes?  I can't think of any.  That's the real contrast to season 1, where there is a lot of humor.  I look forward to the return of laughter when our one-true-pairing is reunited.

Well, I laughed when he dropped Geneva in the mud :) Can't remember any other times though.

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Was there ANY humor in the first four episodes? 

Yes. When Jamie dropped Geneva into the mud in this episode. I know I laughed.

2 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

I was thinking of when he took his pants off but still had the shirt on and told her she could watch him. Can't remember how long it was, or where on his leg the wound was though.

It covered him to just above mid-thigh. 

[WatchrTina]

Oooh you two are SO right.  But it's not just that he dropped her in the mud -- it's the way he stepped over her afterward and stalked away that is so funny.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, WatchrTina said:

Oooh you two are SO right.  But it's not just that he dropped her in the mud -- it's the way he stepped over her afterward and stalked away that is so funny.

Exactly! Like, I don't have time tae deal with this spoiled little brat when I have real work tae do.

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well in order to see it, Sam would have had to go all full frontal, and the camera only showed us his entire body from behind. It's possible we might see it when he and Claire are canoodling after their REUNION!!!!!! next week.

Is the reunion next week?  I thought it wasn't until episode 6, two and a half weeks from now. 

[AD55]

In addition to being amused by Geneva's belly flop into the mud, I laughed at John's WTF face when Jamie made his offer. And there was that chess scene where Jamie says something like "you wee bastard, where did you learn that?" Not exactly a howler but a brief moment of lightness before their friendship blows up. I also thought the scene with Hal, in which John looks for all the world like a guilty younger brother, was humorous.

Not exactly a laugh fest, though.

[Bort]

Well, we probably will never get a gut-buster like the "grind your corn" line again. That's hard to top.

[AheadofStraight]

1 hour ago, toolazy said:

Is the reunion next week?  I thought it wasn't until episode 6, two and a half weeks from now. 

Correct. Ron specifically said in one interview it was episode 6 and that episode is titled A. Malcolm.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

14 minutes ago, AheadofStraight said:

Correct. Ron specifically said in one interview it was episode 6 and that episode is titled A. Malcolm.  

PHOOEY!!!

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, toolazy said:

Is the reunion next week?  I thought it wasn't until episode 6, two and a half weeks from now. 

I'm with you.  I think in this week's episode, she'll get to Edinburgh and it'll fade to black as she's about to open the door.

[Atlanta]

I always wondered why Ellsmere would marry (and pay a large dowry) when he's impotent. With aristocrats, marriage was usually for the sake of carrying on the line and if you needed money (the Dunsaneys), you'd arranged a marriage. The Dunsaneys were the ones who needed the cash, right? Lord E knows he can't have children so why marry a girl young enough to be his granddaughter? They didn't have affection toward each other.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Atlanta

[Petunia846]

6 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

The skipped right past the grueling near death / recovery from that wound at Lallybroch so I suspect they decided that gets them off the hook for having to show the scar.  I did not notice if the scar from having cut BJR's brand off was visible on Jamie's body or the gun-shot wound in his shoulder from episode 1. Oh well, I guess I'll have to look again.  No rest for the wicked.

I noticed the spot from the brand. Not sure about the other things. I wasn't trying to check, but it looked like kind of a circular shadow and I though, "Oh...good job Outlander," and then shuddered remembering how terrible that was and the connection to what was happening in that scene. :(

[WatchrTina]

On 10/4/2017 at 0:01 PM, FnkyChkn34 said:

he'll get to Edinburgh and it'll fade to black as she's about to open the door.

I'm already getting pissed off at the prospect.  That being said, if that really is how Sunday's ep is going to end then that means that most of the episode is going to be off-book.  Because there is NO WAY we're going to spend an hour with the Scoobies doing research and Claire shopping for her trip back through the stones.  I'm rather tickled at the prospect of new content.

On 10/4/2017 at 0:08 PM, Atlanta said:

I always wondered why Ellsmere would marry (and pay a large dowry) when he's impotent.

In the book Ellesmere is fond of Geneva and treats her well at first -- like a decorative little doll he's purchased to enliven his waning years. That ends when she turns up pregnant.  Remember Anna Nicole Smith, that ex-playboy-bunny who married the really old dude?  We all know why she married him but why did he marry her?  He probably couldn't get it up either.  But she was sweet and pretty and very sexy and what the hell, he bought himself a hot wife to sweeten his old age.  I'm afraid that among the British aristocracy of the time, Geneva's marriage made perfect sense.  If she produced an heir, well and good.  If she didn't, she'd eventually be a wealthy widow (I'm sure there were generous terms for her in the marriage agreement even if she didn't produce an heir).  It's likely her parents thought they were doing her a huge favor by setting her up to be both a Countess and a financially independent widow at a relatively young stage of life. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

To be honest, Ellesmere didn't look too decrepit to me, but I didn't look down his drawers.

[FnkyChkn34]

16 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I'm already getting pissed off at the prospect.  That being said, if that really is how Sunday's ep is going to end then that means that most of the episode is going to be off-book.  Because there is NO WAY we're going to spend an hour with the Scoobies doing research and Claire shopping for her trip back through the stones.  I'm rather tickled at the prospect.

Ha, I don't know - it's just a guess.

[Nightshade]

Quote

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 1:44 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Aw hell to the nay! I don't want any comparisons between Jamie and Claire's wedding night to what Geneva forced Jamie to do. I don't care that he was gentle with her or made it good for her. Though I am FOREVER grateful the "No! You're too big! Stop!" nonsense was cut out, Geneva is still a bratty, spoiled, scheming, self-centered, self-absorbed, blackmailing little twat. I would have liked to have seen some resentment on Jamie's part.

But that's just me.

Agree. I enjoyed the episode despite Geneva. Sam's acting is right on target and has been through all the episodes.

[toolazy]

11 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I'm with you.  I think in this week's episode, she'll get to Edinburgh and it'll fade to black as she's about to open the door.

Yep.  The bell is going to ring and that will be that for two weeks.

 

I just re-watched this episode and for some reason, it kicked my ass way more than it did the first time.  Jesus, poor Jamie. 

[WatchrTina]

I'm careful not to quote what is said in the "No book talk" thread because I don't want to accidentally bring them into this thread.  But someone made a good observation there that Jamie's demeanor changes when Geneva declines his offer (in the bedroom) to stop and says "No, I'm doing this for me."  They thought it reminded Jamie of his own decision to marry Claire.  She was forced by circumstances to agree to the wedding so she was not in that honeymoon chamber of her own free will just as Jamie is not in Geneva's bedroom of his own free will.  But Jamie did marry Claire of his own free will.  Yes, we know he did it, in part, to save her from Black Jack but he admits later that he really did it because he wanted to.  He wanted HER -- and had from that first night spent riding with her "nice arse" wedged between his thighs on horseback. So Jamie in this episode is reminded that, on his wedding night, he was also doing something "for me" with a coerced sexual partner.  Nice symmetry that.  I like the suggestion that that realization, at that moment, helps temper Jamie's anger at his situation and helps motivate him to make Geneva's first time as good as his first time (okay, not AS good because Jamie's wedding night was EPIC but, you know, nice and not just "vexing")

Edited October 5, 2017 by WatchrTina

[AD55]

11 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I'm careful not to quote what is said in the "No book talk" thread because I don't want to accidentally bring them into this thread.  But someone made a good observation there that Jamie's demeanor changes when Geneva declines his offer (in the bedroom) to stop and says "No, I'm doing this for me."  They thought it reminded Jamie of his own decision to marry Claire.  She was forced by circumstances to agree to the wedding so she was not in that honeymoon chamber of her own free will just as Jamie is not in Geneva's bedroom of his own free will.  But Jamie did marry Claire of his own free will.  Yes, we know he did it, in part, to save her from Black Jack but he admits later that he really did it because he wanted to.  He wanted HER -- and had from that first night spent riding with her "nice arse" wedged between his thighs on horseback. So Jamie in this episode is reminded that, on his wedding night, he was also doing something "for me" with a coerced sexual partner.  Nice symmetry that.  I like the suggestion that that realization, at that moment, helps temper Jamie's anger at his situation and helps motivate him to make Geneva's first time as good as his first time (okay, not AS good because Jamie's wedding night was EPIC but, you know, nice and not just "vexing")

That's a smart observation. My feelings about Geneva are more complicated than they perhaps should be--what she does to Jamie is inexcusable--but it's hard for me to separate that completely from the fact that women had virtually no power during the period. Plus I find her behavior so unbelievable that I almost forgive her on the basis of narrative improbability. As I said in a different thread, she is primarily an ill-conceived (IMO, and pun intended) plot device to give Jamie a son.

The hotness factor is a significant complication in stories like Outlander. We'd feel quite differently about Claire's situation if Jamie had been a poxy simpleton.  Similarly, my son said of Geneva, only half jokingly, "I wish someone who looked like that would coerce me." This is why I loath Sleepless in Seattle, which is essentially a movie about a stalker who finds love with her victim.

[GHScorpiosRule]

@WatchrTina, I couldn’t disagree more with that comparison. Because Geneva, for me anyway, isn’t a nice person. I will never find the two situations comparable in any way. 

Apples and Oranges. 

And I know what I saw on my screen with Claire and Jamie-there was attraction on both sides, but Jamie didn’t confess he loved Claire from almost the first moment until later. The same CANNOT be said about that twat, Geneva.

Boo hoo. For someone so spoiled I’m surprised she wasn’t able to convince her farther she didn’t want to marry a man old enough to be her grandpapa. I know, I know, PLOT. But how long did she know she was to marry him? Before Jamie was put there? Why wait so long to get rid of her virginity? What if Jamie had never been put in Helwater?

So no. No sympathy or empathy from me. Geneva and Laoghaire are cut from the same cloth as far as I’m concerned.????

Edited October 5, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[DittyDotDot]

21 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I'm careful not to quote what is said in the "No book talk" thread because I don't want to accidentally bring them into this thread.  But someone made a good observation there that Jamie's demeanor changes when Geneva declines his offer (in the bedroom) to stop and says "No, I'm doing this for me."  They thought it reminded Jamie of his own decision to marry Claire.  She was forced by circumstances to agree to the wedding so she was not in that honeymoon chamber of her own free will just as Jamie is not in Geneva's bedroom of his own free will.  But Jamie did marry Claire of his own free will.  Yes, we know he did it, in part, to save her from Black Jack but he admits later that he really did it because he wanted to.  He wanted HER -- and had from that first night spent riding with her "nice arse" wedged between his thighs on horseback. So Jamie in this episode is reminded that, on his wedding night, he was also doing something "for me" with a coerced sexual partner.  Nice symmetry that.  I like the suggestion that that realization, at that moment, helps temper Jamie's anger at his situation and helps motivate him to make Geneva's first time as good as his first time (okay, not AS good because Jamie's wedding night was EPIC but, you know, nice and not just "vexing")

I remember when reading Voyager that I felt like there were a few bizarro scenes and characters further showing, not only that how much Jamie had changed over the years, but how everything changed with Culloden. As though to say, we're not in Scotland anymore and even when we are, Scotland isn't Scotland anymore. So, Geneva, in many ways, reminded me of Claire, but yet she clearly wasn't Claire. And, Lord John was a somewhat twisted version of Black Jack Randall--even though Black Jack was really the twisted one.  

I give Diana a lot of crap on her plotting and overwriting at times--and I don't know if I'm giving her too much credit on this or if it was an accident--but I like to think this is one of the subtle things Diana got right.

[toolazy]

15 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

@WatchrTina, I couldn’t disagree more with that comparison. Because Geneva, for me anyway, isn’t a nice person. I will never find the two situations comparable in any way. 

Apples and Oranges. 

And I know what I saw on my screen with Claire and Jamie-there was attraction on both sides, but Jamie didn’t confess he loved Claire from almost the first moment until later. The same CANNOT be said about that twat, Geneva.

Boo hoo. For someone so spoiled I’m surprised she wasn’t able to convince her farther she didn’t want to marry a man old enough to be her grandpapa. I know, I know, PLOT. But how long did she know she was to marry him? Before Jamie was put there? Why wait so long to get rid of her virginity? What if Jamie had never been put in Helwater?

So no. No sympathy or empathy from me. Geneva and Laoghaire are cut from the same cloth as far as I’m concerned.????

I feel like it was pretty clear that she knew she was going to marry Ellesmere the day that they met with him.  She was literally being sold by her father and she had NO power at all over the situation. While it was wrong of her to coerce Jamie, I am able to sympathize with her.  She was just trying to exert control over a situation in which she had no control.

[AD55]

38 minutes ago, Grashka said:

I also remember from the book that Geneva thought that people "do that" from behind. Sounds familiar? Yeah, to Jamie it did also and he barely contained bitter laughter. From what I recall, in that moment he softened a bit toward Geneva. So yes, I agree that some comparisons between his wedding night and that night with Geneva were drawn both in the show and in the book.

 

I agree that Geneva was a half baked plot device to deliver Jamie's son into aristocratic family but I don't find her motivations - regaining some control and spending her first time with someone she choosed, in spite of her parents and generations older husband to be - unbelievable. What's straining credulity was that man happened to be Jamie. As if the only man available was Scottish groom, attractive and handsome but still much older than her. And as if Jamie had not already been prepositioned more than once in the course of three books. Plus Geneva basically arrived treading on Lord John's heels as yet another person who wanted to bed Jamie (for different reasons, of course). All in all, more time should have been spent on this plot, Geneva character, and more thought put into its development. Just compare Geneva's plot to Malva and the stunt she pulled on the Ridge to turn the tide against Claire and Jamie. The former was half - baked. The latter chilling, believable, with much more nuances put into characters' connections, motivations and drama that followed.

Right. I don't find it believable that there wasn't someone who was both desirable and willing. I recall her as impulsive and headstrong, not monstrous.

[GHScorpiosRule]

35 minutes ago, AD55 said:

Right. I don't find it believable that there wasn't someone who was both desirable and willing. I recall her as impulsive and headstrong, not monstrous.

To each their own, I guess. Because snooping and stealing Jenny's letters and threatening to turn them (letters) and them--Jenny, Ian, Jamie to the British, if Jamie won't rid her of her virginity? I do find monstrous.

[MaggieG]

On 10/4/2017 at 11:09 AM, AD55 said:

In addition to being amused by Geneva's belly flop into the mud, I laughed at John's WTF face when Jamie made his offer. And there was that chess scene where Jamie says something like "you wee bastard, where did you learn that?" Not exactly a howler but a brief moment of lightness before their friendship blows up. I also thought the scene with Hal, in which John looks for all the world like a guilty younger brother, was humorous.

Not exactly a laugh fest, though.

I laughed at all these things as well. The "shoveling shit, M'Lady" also cracked me up.

[AD55]

40 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

To each their own, I guess. Because snooping and stealing Jenny's letters and threatening to turn them (letters) and them--Jenny, Ian, Jamie to the British, if Jamie won't rid her of her virginity? I do find monstrous.

What I meant is that I didn't find her doing those things necessarily believable. Don't get me wrong. I think what Geneva does is wrong. I just wish that DG had come up with a more believable way for Jamie to have a kid. For example, I'd have an easier time buying his being attracted to someone and giving into passion, but I'm not invested in his being physically faithful to someone who disappeared years ago. You only live once, etc.

[FnkyChkn34]

1 minute ago, AD55 said:

What I meant is that I didn't find her doing those things necessarily believable. Don't get me wrong. I think what Geneva does is wrong. I just wish that DG had come up with a more believable way for Jamie to have a kid. For example, I'd have an easier time buying his being attracted to someone and giving into passion, but I'm not invested in his being physically faithful to someone who disappeared years ago. You only live once, etc.

I think if I were writing the story, I probably would have made him realize that Claire is gone and he reluctantly moves on.  He finds a woman that will never truly takes Claire's place, but he cares enough for her that they get married and he attempts a new life.  Then they have a son, and he's just a wee bit like Frank (dare I say it) in that he loves his son and likes his wife.  Maybe she can even conveniently die (in childbirth as Geneva did, or some other way) and then he's free to raise his (non-bastard) son by himself.  Then maybe it's his son who is kidnapped instead of Ian?  I don't know, didn't think that far ahead...  But I don't think something along those lines would have been so bad.

[DittyDotDot]

27 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I think if I were writing the story, I probably would have made him realize that Claire is gone and he reluctantly moves on.  He finds a woman that will never truly takes Claire's place, but he cares enough for her that they get married and he attempts a new life.  Then they have a son, and he's just a wee bit like Frank (dare I say it) in that he loves his son and likes his wife.  Maybe she can even conveniently die (in childbirth as Geneva did, or some other way) and then he's free to raise his (non-bastard) son by himself.  Then maybe it's his son who is kidnapped instead of Ian?  I don't know, didn't think that far ahead...  But I don't think something along those lines would have been so bad.

See, I would've just written it that he and Geneva both find themselves in sad situations and seek comfort from each other that resulted in a child. It could've all turned out the same otherwise; Geneva married off and dying in childbirth and Willie could still be the son Jamie could never claim as his own. I just find the whole blackmail to be really weak because I didn't believe Geneva would've followed through on her threats. But, then again, I generally find blackmail a pretty weak motivator and usually more a set up for ridiculousness to happen.