S03.E04: Of Lost Things

[toolazy]

I find the idea that Jamie would deflower the young daughter of his employer/jailer far more implausible than that young daughter being a conniving schemer.   I could see Jamie seeking comfort with another of the servants, maybe, but not a young girl  Never.  

[FnkyChkn34]

2 minutes ago, Grashka said:

I've been also thinking about it, how William could have came to being without setting the whole Geneva - blackmail - crazy cuckolden husband thing into motion. I assume DG wanted Jamie's son to be born and raised in aristocratic British family, a total opposite of Jamie's own upbringing, and eventually put them on the opposite sides of Revolutionary War. I understand why, it's great for dramatic purposes and I have to admit that I'm really interested in Jamie - William - Claire -  Lord John outcome in book 9.

. . .

You give DG a lot of credit for thinking that far in advance when she wrote the Geneva/Jamie story and created Willie.  Considering this is an author who has no character outlines and can't keep simple dates straight, I don't have any faith that she plans her stories that well.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Maybe I'm projecting, but it seems to me, from the comments I'm reading that a 21st Century lens is being used when talking about Geneva, and to a lesser extent, Jamie's choices, or lack thereof. Shit like this happened in the 18th, 19th centuries. Hell, it still happens in India in the more poverty stricken areas--girls essentially being sold off to be married to old geezers. This is how Gabaldon wanted to write it, and she used some dramatic license, as was her right to do so.

That said, though it happened, Geneva having no choice, saying that was the norm doesn't mean that I condone it. I was painted with that brush back in season one when the controversial spanking was discussed before it even happened. I don't have to like it, and I don't. But neither do I care, because that whole subplot was used, as others have stated, to give Jamie a son/child in his time. One that he could sort of raise for awhile. I mean it didn't seem as if the Dunsanys were in financial trouble and needed the money marrying her off to Ellsmere would give them. So I just wave it all off as "plot! plot!"

23 minutes ago, Grashka said:

cuckolden husband thing into motion.

I read this elsewhere, but she wasn't Cuckolding Ellsmere--they weren't married yet. Unless it also counted as cuckolding if you were engaged?

21 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

You give DG a lot of credit for thinking that far in advance when she wrote the Geneva/Jamie story and created Willie.  Considering this is an author who has no character outlines and can't keep simple dates straight, I don't have any faith that she plans her stories that well.

Yeah. This was buik three, part of a three buik deal she got and didn't know if the publisher would want more. I think I read that somewhere. Unless it was something she wanted to do IF the publisher wanted more?

[Summer]

Just caught the episode again on replay and have I have to admit, I crack up at how much is made of Willie potentially starting to resemble Jamie and how he must leave before people start putting two and two together, when the little actor who plays Willie looks nothing like Sam Heughan, even remotely.  I understand that they didn't want to hire a red head, but his features aren't even similar to Sam's.  

I have no idea what is involved with casting actors, but they've been so successful in the past from the actors playing Alex Randall and Marsali looking so similar to Tobias and Nell,  maybe this little boy was the only one who could hold his own in scenes with Sam, who knows...but he doesn't look a thing like him.  

Edited October 5, 2017 by Summer

[DittyDotDot]

51 minutes ago, Grashka said:

I've been also thinking about it, how William could have came to being without setting the whole Geneva - blackmail - crazy cuckolden husband thing into motion. I assume DG wanted Jamie's son to be born and raised in aristocratic British family, a total opposite of Jamie's own upbringing, and eventually put them on the opposite sides of Revolutionary War.

I don't know if Diana had thought that far ahead, but I always thought Diana maybe wanted to give Jamie a son, for drama, but didn't want Jamie to be tied down to the raising of that son or to a family. I think it's the same reason almost all the Lord John novellas take place before he marries Isobel and takes on the responsibility of Willie. I think she just prefers her leading men and women to be unchained to those responsibilities so she can easily send them off to some little corner of the world footloose and fancy-free, so to speak.

[Ziggy]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:50 AM, WatchrTina said:

They skipped right past the grueling, near-death recovery from that wound at Lallybroch ...

I'm pretty sure that was something they (Jenny & Ian?) told Claire.  No reason they have to do that in the show, but they might choose to show it as a flashback.

[mrsjoe]

On 10/4/2017 at 1:08 PM, Atlanta said:

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.

 

I think the money would have been the other way around. Ellsmere would have received a large dowry as part of the marriage contract. In exchange, the Dunsaneys got a step up in society by having an Earl as a son-in-law. Many nobility, especially lower nobility, throughout history have married "beneath them" when they found themselves in need of funds. But I'm basing this on weak recollection, so it's possible this specific situation was reversed.

[WatchrTina]

11 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

 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. 

Wait, we AGREE on that.  I think Geneva is a rapist (statutory rape -- the coercion of a prisoner).  But I think Jamie had a startling moment of realizing a slight similarity between the situation he is in and the situation CLAIRE was in on her wedding night.  Both were coerced.  The difference is in WHO did the coercion.  Geneva's motives are selfish and she created the situation.  Jamie's motives with Claire were partially altruistic (he genuinely does want to save her from Black Jack) but they are also somewhat self-serving (he's wanted her from the first night they met).  He in no way coerced Claire (Black Jack gets all the credit for creating the situation) but when he agreed to marry Claire, on a certain level he was also "doing it for me". 

He's also seen Geneva's betrothed and he I can imagine him feeling a wee pang of sympathy for her situation -- especially in contrast to the luck he had in getting to marry the woman he wanted.  

I in no way let Geneva off the hook for her actions.  I just speculate that Jamie could see enough similarity in those two situations to forgive Geneva -- a bit -- a wee bit.

I've also been thinking about Jamie and his experience with "fillies."  I suspect that part of Jamie went into horse-breaking mode while he was with Geneva (i.e.,  be gentle but be confident, act with authority but don't make any sudden moves that might scare the filly.)  I like that analogy because it explains that while Jamie was good at the task at hand, it was -- in the end -- just a task he needed to complete.  

 

10 hours ago, AD55 said:

I don't find it believable that there wasn't someone who was both desirable and willing.

I think it is entirely believable that TV!Geneva expected Jamie to be willing.  I suspect she was quite surprised that he got angry at the suggestion.  But having made her choice, she wasn't the sort to take no for an answer.  Now in the book her plan to coerce Jamie is more involved -- including stolen letters and even more blatant threats against his family.  So I guess the question is -- why go to all that trouble when, as you rightly point out, there were probably grooms who would be happy to comply?  I'm going to fan-wank that she choose Jamie because, in addition to being a fine specimen of a man, and somewhat older than her (so he was sure to have a fair amount of experience) she knew him to be someone who kept to himself.  Book!Jamie is quite the loner at Helwater and while Geneva may have wanted her first time to be with a man of her choosing I'm fairly certain she didn't want the event becoming common knowledge among her parent's servants.  So by choosing Jamie, who she knows to be taciturn and who she can actually blackmail into both compliance AND keeping silent afterward -- well that suits her purposes better than some young welp of a groom who might show her a good time but who would be equally likely to brag about it afterward.

 

9 hours ago, MaggieG said:

The "shoveling shit, M'Lady" also cracked me up.

It was funny and Sam delivered it well but I think they took a really good line from the book and ruined it.

In the book Jamie is spreading manure across an entire field using a huge roller contraption and a team of horses.  It is entirely plausible to me that spoiled, pampered, 17-year-old Book!Geneva would not know a manure spreader when she saw one.  She was probably seldom around servants when they were doing agricultural work.  As such, the question "What are you doing?" made sense in the book.  But Geneva the horse-woman would certainly be acquainted with the practice of mucking-out the stables.  So that same question seemed silly in the context shown in the show and her discomfiture at his reply seemed ridiculous.

Edited October 6, 2017 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

26 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Wait, we AGREE on that.  I think Geneva is a rapist (statutory rape -- the coercion of a prisoner).  But I think Jamie had a startling moment of realizing a slight similarity between the situation he is in and the situation CLAIRE was in on her wedding night.  Both were coerced.  The difference is in WHO did the coercion.  Geneva's motives are selfish and she created the situation.  Jamie's motives with Claire were partially altruistic (he genuinely does want to save her from Black Jack) but they are also somewhat self-serving (he's wanted her from the first night they met).  He in no way coerced Claire (Black Jack gets all the credit for creating the situation) but when he agreed to marry Claire, on a certain level he was also "doing it for me". 

He's also seen Geneva's betrothed and he I can imagine him feeling a wee pang of sympathy for her situation -- especially in contrast to the luck he had in getting to marry the woman he wanted.  

I in no way let Geneva off the hook for her actions.  I just speculate that Jamie could see enough similarity in those two situations to forgive Geneva -- a bit -- a wee bit.

I've also been thinking about Jamie and his experience with "fillies."  I suspect that part of Jamie went into horse-breaking mode while he was with Geneva (i.e.,  be gentle but be confident, act with authority but don't make any sudden moves that might scare the filly.)  I like that analogy because it explains that while Jamie was good at the task at hand, it was -- in the end -- just a task he needed to complete.  

 

I think it is entirely believable that TV!Geneva expected Jamie to be willing.  I suspect she was quite surprised that he got angry at the suggestion.  But having made her choice, she wasn't the sort to take no for an answer.  Now in the book her plan to coerce Jamie is more involved -- including stolen letters and even more blatant threats against his family.  So I guess the question is -- why go to all that trouble when, as you rightly point out, there were probably grooms who would be happy to comply?  I'm going to fan-wank that she choose Jamie because, in addition to being a fine specimen of a man, and somewhat older than her (so he was sure to have a fair amount of experience) she knew him to be someone who kept to himself.  Book!Jamie is quite the loner at Helwater and while Geneva may have wanted her first time to be with a man of her choosing I'm fairly certain she didn't want the event becoming common knowledge among her parent's servants.  So by choosing Jamie, who she knows to be taciturn and who she can actually blackmail into both compliance AND keeping silent afterward -- well that suits her purposes better than some young welp of a groom who might show her a good time but who would be equally likely to brag about it afterward.

 

It was funny and Sam delivered it well but I think they took a really good line from the book and ruined it.

In the book Jamie is spreading manure across an entire field using a huge roller contraption and a team of horses.  It is entirely plausible to me that spoiled, pampered, 17-year-old Book!Geneva would not know a manure spreader when she saw one.  She was probably seldom around servants when they were doing agricultural work.  As such, the question "What are you doing?" made sense in the book.  But Geneva the horse-woman would certainly be acquainted with the practice of mucking-out the stables.  So that same question seemed silly in the context shown in the show and her discomfiture at his reply seemed ridiculous.

Oh. Oopsie.☺️

[mledawn]

On 10/1/2017 at 5:11 PM, WatchrTina said:

The song over the closing credits just KILLED me and then when I watched with closed captions it was identified as being the work of one of my favorite bands – Walk Off the Earth. (The song is “A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall”, which I will be purchasing momentarily.)

Thanks for this - I watched the credits but didn't see who it was. They did a fantastic job of that cover!

[WatchrTina]

7 hours ago, Summer said:

maybe this little boy was the only one who could hold his own in scenes with Sam, who knows...but he doesn't look a thing like him.  

Well it's an easy thing to write about how Willie and Jamie looked so much alike but MUCH harder to bring that vision to fruition on screen.  I thought they were clever to have John note that he can see the resemblance in the way Willie cocks his head and carries his shoulders and that "He has your eyes."  I can fan-wank that someone who sees a lot of them together could notice a resemblance that I, a casual viewer who only gets to see Willie for a few moments, cannot see.  I think they got away with it.

You also brought up Alex Randall and that case offers a counter-example.  In the book, Alex looks so much like his brother Jack that when Jamie first glimpses him in the gardens of Versailles, Jamie comes very close to attacking Alex right there in the presence of the King (which would have meant death).  Only Claire fainting (for real) snaps Jamie out of his murderous rage and allows him the moment he needs to realize the mistake he has made.  That's a great dramatic moment in the book but they skipped it completely in the show because even though the actor they cast as Alex could plausibly pass as Tobias' brother, there is just no way anyone would mistake one for the other.  You can easily write about look-alikes in a book (hello "A Tale of Two Cities") but it's a lot harder to carry off of a plot point like that in a visual medium.  

So . . . with all that being said . . . what on earth are they going to do when it comes time to cast adult William?  There are at least two moments in future books where the startling resemblance between Jamie and William is key to the plot.  I look forward to seeing how they are going to manage THAT.

Edited October 6, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Dejana]

1 hour ago, mrsjoe said:

 

I think the money would have been the other way around. Ellsmere would have received a large dowry as part of the marriage contract. In exchange, the Dunsaneys got a step up in society by having an Earl as a son-in-law. Many nobility, especially lower nobility, throughout history have married "beneath them" when they found themselves in need of funds. But I'm basing this on weak recollection, so it's possible this specific situation was reversed.

Ellesmere paid the Dunsanys 30,000 pounds before marrying Geneva, but after the wedding, the servants describe how he lavished her with gifts and attention, up until the pregnancy became obvious. 

[WatchrTina]

Ellesmere's interest in Geneva IS confusing.  In "Donwton Abbey" and the Edith Wharton novel "The Buccaneers" it's made clear that it was a common practice for wealthy girls (particularly American girls) to "marry up" into the landed gentry of Britain, with their generous dowries providing a desperately needed cash infusion.

But Geneva isn't American, she is a high-born British Lady (capital L) and apparently her parents are in some (slight) financial difficulties.  According to one of the Outlander websites, Lord Dunsany's title is Viscount Ashness and Baron Derwent (though if that's in the books I'll eat my hat).  His being a Viscount suggests that he is the son and heir of a Duke but perhaps he a second son or perhaps his father is a land-rich/cash-poor Duke.  Anyway, it's clear Ellesmere doesn't want Geneva for any dowry she might bring with her.  Quite the contrary it's clear that he "buys" himself a beautiful young bride with an impeccable pedigree. I think he did it because he could, because having a young wife to look after him in his old age sounded congenial, because she was decorative, and because her rank was suitably lofty so as to embellish his already-high standing in society. He bought her in the same way he might buy a comfortable carriage and an excellent matched set of horses to pull it. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by WatchrTina

[LadyAmalthea]

11 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

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.

I would have preferred this too.  Geneva attempts to seduce him and he refuses, but instead of launching into the blackmail she shows her vulnerable side and explains her reasoning; he takes pity on her so the act is one of compassion, not as the result of coercion.

[AD55]

11 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Well it's an easy thing to write about how Willie and Jamie looked so much alike but MUCH harder to bring that vision to fruition on screen.  I thought they were clever to have John note that he can see the resemblance in the way Willie cocks his head and carries his shoulders and that "He has your eyes."  I can fan-wank that someone who sees a lot of them together could notice a resemblance that I, a casual viewer who only gets to see Willie for a few moments, cannot see.  I think they got away with it.

You also brought up Alex Randall and that case offers a counter-example.  In the book, Alex looks so much like his brother Jack that when Jamie first glimpses him in the gardens of Versailles, Jamie comes very close to attacking Alex right there in the presence of the King (which would have meant death).  Only Claire fainting (for real) snaps Jamie out of his murderous rage and allows him the moment he needs to realize the mistake he has made.  That's a great dramatic moment in the book but they skipped it completely in the show because even though the actor they cast as Alex could plausibly pass as Tobias' brother, there is just no way anyone would mistake one for the other.  You can easily write about look-alikes in a book (hello "A Tale of Two Cities") but it's a lot harder to carry off of a plot point like that in a visual medium.  

So . . . with all that being said . . . what on earth are they going to do when it comes time to cast adult William?  There are at least two moments in future books where the startling resemblance between Jamie and William is key to the plot.  I look forward to seeing how they are going to manage THAT.

WatchrTina, I was just thinking about adult William yesterday. I'm not hung up on whether John is blond or brunette or whether Cat has whiskey-colored eyes, but adult William has to look so much like Jamie that even people who don't know either or both of them (e.g., Fanny) see it right away.

I took a look at the conversation between Willie's grandmother and her friend. After Lady Dunsany makes the joking remark about how Willie spends so much time with Mac that he's beginning to look like him, her friend replies, "Why, you're right! Just look; Willie's got just that same cock to his head, and the same set to his shoulders! How funny!"

This for me puts LD's joke in a different light. I don't think she's being an idiot for making the observation but has noticed Willie is taking on Mac's gestures just as later he acquires John's turns of phrase. It's quite innocent. But when Jamie hears this, he realizes it's only a matter of time until the Dunsanys' recognition of these superficial resemblances triggers a realization of Willie's genetic inheritance.

When someone mentioned that the woman who plays Geneva was in the running for Bree, I thought what a missed opportunity that was. In one episode, she convincingly portrays petulance, a sense of humor, conniving wickedness, and vulnerability. I wonder how much Sophie's red hair (am I correct that she is a natural redhead?) tipped the scales in her favor. We hear a lot about what a big pain it is to keep dyeing Sam's hair and perming Catriona's. Casting directors probably don't take the frustrations of the hair and makeup people into account, but they may be inclined to think about continuity issues in terms of an actor's appearance from episode to episode. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by AD55

[GHScorpiosRule]

9 minutes ago, AD55 said:

After Lady Ellsmere makes the joking remark about how Willie spends so much time with Mac that he's beginning to look like him, her friend replies, "Why, you're right! Just look; Willie's got just that same cock to his head, and the same set to his shoulders! How funny!"

This for me puts LE's joke in a different light. I don't think she's being an idiot for making the observation but has noticed Willie is taking on Mac's gestures just as later he acquires John's turns of phrase. It's quite innocent. But when Jamie hears this, he realizes it's only a matter of time until the Ellsmeres' recognition of these superficial resemblances triggers a realization of Willie's genetic inheritance.

It's Lady Dunsany. Lady Ellsmere would have been Geneva had she lived.

The casting directors should start looking for actors who resemble Sam Heughan right now, if they want the audience to see visually, yes, no wonder Jamie left, Willie is his carbon copy!

[Nidratime]

Quote

When someone mentioned that the woman who plays Geneva was in the running for Bree, I thought what a missed opportunity that was. In one episode, she convincingly portrays petulance, a sense of humor, conniving wickedness, and vulnerability. I wonder how much Sophie's red hair (am I correct that she is a natural redhead?) tipped the scales in her favor. We hear a lot about what a big pain it is to keep dyeing Sam's hair and perming Catriona's.

I think Sophie is a natural brunette, not a redhead. The actress who played Geneva is very good, but she seemed even more petite than Sophie is, so -- in terms of not looking like book Brianna -- I'm sure people would be complaining over that.

[AD55]

10 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

It's Lady Dunsany. Lady Ellsmere would have been Geneva had she lived.

The casting directors should start looking for actors who resemble Sam Heughan right now, if they want the audience to see visually, yes, no wonder Jamie left, Willie is his carbon copy!

Just carelessness on my part, but thanks for pointing it out.

[Atlanta]

The actress who played Geneva also has blue eyes like book Bree.

[AD55]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

I think Sophie is a natural brunette, not a redhead. The actress who played Geneva is very good, but she seemed even more petite than Sophie is, so -- in terms of not looking like book Brianna -- I'm sure people would be complaining over that.

Oh well, that kills my hair theory. I think it's kind of a shame, since Hannah James grew up in Virginia and wouldn't have had to struggle with the American accent.

Edited October 6, 2017 by AD55

[FnkyChkn34]

I rewatched this episode last night, and I've changed my mind that the actor who played Willie could be 11. Just a kid who is a late bloomer and hasn't had a growth spurt yet. I say this because he was so well spoken and articulate, where many 6-8 year olds still might not be. I don't know, but I could see it. 

[morgan]

I was thinking the same thing.  Also wondered if he was 10 when he was acting? My kids tend to trend young and with the hair/clothes he was given I could see it being possible.  I’m also not concerned about whether he looks a ton like Sam.  He did a good job with his role and had the right swagger so I will whistle past any lack of likeness.

[Juliegirlj]

Jamie may have held appeal to Geneva because he is the Red Jamie, and she could have been rebelling against her Mother's strong dislike for any and all Jacobite rebels. 

If they had highlighted Geneva as more of a rebel with an independent nature ( similar to Claire), and developed an empathetic friendship between she and Jamie, the sex between them would have been more believable and less offensive to those viewers loyal to Claire. 

I so agree that Willy looked nothing at all like Jamie. Poor casting again. 

[ElsieH]

I just noticed something funny. In the podcast, Toni specifically called out the fact that someone pointed out that Isobel should say "Make haste" instead of "Hurry" because no one said that word back in the 18th century. But that was after Geneva told Jamie to "Hurry up you useless Scotchman". Not that I care, because I wouldn't have known but that made me chuckle.

[koboldin]

40 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

I just noticed something funny. In the podcast, Toni specifically called out the fact that someone pointed out that Isobel should say "Make haste" instead of "Hurry" because no one said that word back in the 18th century. But that was after Geneva told Jamie to "Hurry up you useless Scotchman". Not that I care, because I wouldn't have known but that made me chuckle.

Wasn't there also an instance recently of someone saying OK? I chuckled a little, but I don't remember exactly when it occured. 

[Nidratime]

Quote

I so agree that Willy looked nothing at all like Jamie. Poor casting again.

Well, will never see the boy again, so  ... one and done. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

Well, will never see the boy again, so  ... one and done. 

Don't be so sure - Willie should show up at Fraser's Ridge in season 4. Assuming that actor is actually 11 and has a normal adolescent growth spurt in the meantime, he might appear to be the perfect age.  Willie was what? 12?

[WatchrTina]

Just a couple of minutiae from an obsessed fan.

I just watched the episode again and I noticed, for the first time, that they put up subtitles on the screen twice at Helwater to let us know what year it is.  (I probably never saw them before because I usually watch with closed captions turned on and those probably obscured the date stamp.)  Geneva's betrothal (and the later deflowering scene with Jamie) take place in 1757.  The scene with Willie on his pony and Jamie's subsequent departure happen in 1764.  So Willie is supposed to be, at most, 7 years old when Mac rides away.

I also have a theory about Jamie's hair in this episode.  Remember in the scene with Mary McNab in 302 -- how after she gives him a shave and a haircut "feral" Jamie was suddenly transformed into wedding-night Jamie?  I think that was to set the mood so that we the viewers would feel the pang of mixed feelings at seeing "our" Jamie again (Yay!) with someone other than Claire (Boo!)  I also think they needed some pick-up shots of wedding-night-Jamie that could be dropped into Claire's masturbatory bedroom reverie, so they needed him to have the wedding-night look for those moments as well.  I think that's why Sam has that particular haircut (the "classic Jamie") for both 302 (at the end) and 303.  But for 304 I think they wanted him to look different and, quite frankly, a bit less attractive -- not quite our Jamie.  He's rocked a pony-tail before (Paris Jamie looked GOOD in that hair-do) but Helwater Jamie is a groom, not a well-to-do wine merchant, and he should look a bit scruffier.  I also think that they had Sam keep that look -- the groom look  (pony-tail and shaggy bangs) in the bedroom scene as a visual reminder that this was groom Jamie, -- indentured servant /prisoner Jamie -- who had been manipulated into the bedroom.  His hair is still in his groom's uniform (even after Jamie has shed the rest of his kit) to signal that he is still "bound" by his circumstances.  I've seen a VERY nice photo of what looks to me to be print-shop Jamie and his hair is back to its loose, classic look.  It's unbound because he's no longer a prisoner.  So what do you think?  Am I over-thinking this?  Is a bad hair day just a bad hair day?

Edited October 11, 2017 by WatchrTina

[LadyBrochTuarach]

4 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I also have a theory about Jamie's hair in this episode.  Remember in the scene with Mary McNab in 302 -- how after she gives him a shave and a haircut "feral" Jamie was suddenly transformed into wedding-night Jamie?  I think that was to set the mood so that we the viewers would feel the pang of mixed feelings at seeing "our" Jamie again (Yay!) with someone other than Claire (Boo!)  I also think they needed some pick-up shots of wedding-night-Jamie that could be dropped into Claire's masturbatory bedroom reverie, so they needed him to have the wedding-night look for those moments as well.  I think that's why Sam has that particular haircut (the "classic Jamie") for both 302 (at the end) and 303.  But for 304 I think they wanted him to look different and, quite frankly, a bit less attractive -- not quite our Jamie.  He's rocked a pony-tail before (Paris Jamie looked GOOD in that hair-do) but Helwater Jamie is a groom, not a well-to-do wine merchant, and he should look a bit scruffier.  I also think that they had Sam keep that look -- the groom look  (pony-tail and shaggy bangs) in the bedroom scene as a visual reminder that this was groom Jamie, -- indentured servant /prisoner Jamie -- who had been manipulated into the bedroom.  His hair is still in his groom's uniform (even after Jamie has shed the rest of his kit) to signal that he is still "bound" by his circumstances.  I've seen a VERY nice photo of what looks to me to be print-shop Jamie and his hair is back to it's loose, classic look.  It's unbound because he's no longer a prisoner.  So what do you think?  Am I over-thinking this?  Is a bad hair day just a bad hair day?

I agree with you completely on this. I don't think you're over-thinking it at all. The symbolism of Jamie's hair seems to be a bit recurring for me too. I think they've invested so much thought into all the little things of each episode (quickest example I can think of, the bird Claire sees in I believe is episode 301?) that I feel Sam wouldn't be in front of the camera with a "bad hair day" look, unless it was on purpose. 

 

As as you mention the Wedding episode, when Jamie cleaned up and had his hair brushed back (*swoon*), to me it symbolized a new beginning, and also that Jamie has come back into his true self, but with a fresh start in his marriage to Claire. He's shed his McTavish identity, and states his full name for Claire before they wed. 

Also, again as you said, this hairstyle is repeated in the scene with Mary McNab. For me this symbolizes once again, Jamie starting a new path of his life, as Jamie Fraser, and shedding the Dunbonnet identity. 

Lastly, your idea/thought again, this is repeated once more in the Print Shop. Jamie is no longer a prisoner. 

I love that you brought up his hair remaining tied back when he was in Geneva's room. Maybe I'm over-thinking this now (thank you English University professors for teaching me to look at every bloody ounce of symbolism in everything, ugh) but his hair being tied back could potentially relate to him being tied to Geneva forever, throughout Willie.

Maybe?  

[LadyBrochTuarach]

8 hours ago, toolazy said:

Don't be so sure - Willie should show up at Fraser's Ridge in season 4. Assuming that actor is actually 11 and has a normal adolescent growth spurt in the meantime, he might appear to be the perfect age.  Willie was what? 12?

Yes, I believe Willie was 12 when he was at Fraser's Ridge with LJG.

[Nidratime]

Well, if this kid is supposed to be playing a six or seven year old in season three, and Willie supposedly begins to look more and more like Jamie, this is their chance to recast a kid who looks older, is older, and looks more like Sam.

[Pestilentia]

Quote

I had speculated that Sam would alter his workout regime between seasons 2 and 3 and go back to the leaner, tri-athlete body he had when he was first cast (he bulked up quite a bit to play season 1 Jamie ye ken.)  I thought they’d do that to signal the passage of time and to give a hint at the impact of his years of imprisonment.  Nope.  Apparently shoveling shit gives you a good upper-body workout because nekkid “Alex” is just as buff and braw as he was in the wedding episode.  Not that I’m complaining.

See- I thought he had lost quite a bit of bulk, especially around his neck. I enjoyed his face so much during this episode only because he looked more hollow around the cheeks, not the overfed face of someone bulking to the degree he had been.

For me the ridiculously overdeveloped traps he had in the earlier seasons were so distracting and I was happy to see that apparently they had finally decided to back off the bulking a bit. Especially when seen in contrast with his still slim legs, that Ferdinand the Bull physique they forced on him was laughable- he looks so much better and more balanced now although "never skip leg day" should be enforced in his regimen. Could be that his trainer got a clue as far as needing to back off the upper body a bit but IMO his face reflected less of the forced bulking diet than before. Yeah, I'm shallow this way, it's an interest and hobby I enjoy. Just thought that his face looked so much better than before- I remember a scene or two in the past where he could barely look back over his shoulder because of the humongous traps and was just thrilled to see them less overdeveloped.

This was one of my most favorite episodes ever- I don't give a crap about the physics of time travel and can overlook casting a child that doesn't look like Jamie. I do wish Lord John had remained blonde as he is probably my favorite character of the entire series aside from Raymond.

I also haven't seen mentioned that Jamie's explanation about what love is to Geneva turned out to be as much about Willie as it was about Claire- giving your heart and soul and having theirs given in return.

[WatchrTina]

Random Outlander-related thought of the day.  Jamie seemed shocked to discover that Geneva was pregnant.  For a moment I thought, "Well, that's not realistic.  Her pregnancy would be constantly spoken of by the Dunsany family so of course eventually all the servants would know of it.  Why does Jamie look surprised?"

But now I've fan-wanked that Jamie did know she was pregnant -- he just didn't realize how far along she was.  When she gets out of that carriage she is HUGE.  Jamie has had a pregnant wife and he's been around Jenny for the culmination of at least two pregnancies (and probably more during his 6 years in the cave) so he has a good idea of just how far along Geneva is when he sees her.  And then of course, she gives him that pointed look.  So my fan-wank is that Jamie knew Geneva was pregnant but didn't hear about it until perhaps 3-4 months after the wedding and just presumed it was Lord Ellesmere's.  (In the book, he actually coaches Geneva as to how to pick the date for their tryst so as to minimize the possibility of conception -- but apparently Book! Geneva can't do math.  TV!Geneva didn't have that flexibility -- she'd left things until just a few days before her wedding.)  So anyway, I think the way Sam played it is that Jamie knew Geneva was pregnant but didn't realize HOW pregnant she was and that's why you see that glazed look on his face after she shoots him that look.  He's thinking back to what Claire & Jenny looked like during their pregnancies and doing mental math.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

On 2017-10-08 at 6:49 AM, Nidratime said:

Well, if this kid is supposed to be playing a six or seven year old in season three, and Willie supposedly begins to look more and more like Jamie, this is their chance to recast a kid who looks older, is older, and looks more like Sam.

I agree, hopefully they'll be mindful when casting for season 4. 

 

38 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Random Outlander-related thought of the day.  Jamie seemed shocked to discover that Geneva was pregnant.  For a moment I thought, "Well, that's not realistic.  Her pregnancy would be constantly spoken of by the Dunsany family so of course eventually all the servants would know of it.  Why does Jamie look surprised?"

But now I've fan-wanked that Jamie did know she was pregnant -- he just didn't realize how far along she was.  When she gets out of that carriage she is HUGE.  Jamie has had a pregnant wife and he's been around Jenny for the culmination of at least two pregnancies (and probably more during his 6 years in the cave) so he has a good idea of just how far along Geneva is when he sees her.  And then of course, she gives him that pointed look.  So my fan-wank is that Jamie knew Geneva was pregnant but didn't hear about it until perhaps 3-4 months after the wedding and just presumed it was Lord Ellesmere's.  (In the book, he actually coaches Geneva as to how to pick the date for their tryst so as to minimize the possibility of conception -- but apparently Book! Geneva can't do math.  TV!Geneva didn't have that flexibility -- she'd left things until just a few days before her wedding.)  So anyway, I think the way Sam played it is that Jamie knew Geneva was pregnant but didn't realize HOW pregnant she was and that's why you see that glazed look on his face after she shoots him that look.  He's thinking back to what Claire & Jenny looked like during their pregnancies and doing mental math.

 Smart conclusion of yours. I couldn't stop thinking why he was so shocked she was pregnant. This makes more sense :) 

[Clawdette]

You know, when I read the book, I assumed that Lord Ellesmere's estate was a distance from Hellwater and Geneva had not been back home since she married. The family would have news of her pregnancy but it wouldn't be much of a topic beyond the house. 

In my mental scenario, Jamie might begin to be suspicious when summoned for the trip for Geneva's delivery but would be gobsmacked when he heard the staff gossiping. 

Did she return home in the book during her pregnancy and I missed it?

[DittyDotDot]

9 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Random Outlander-related thought of the day.  Jamie seemed shocked to discover that Geneva was pregnant.  For a moment I thought, "Well, that's not realistic.  Her pregnancy would be constantly spoken of by the Dunsany family so of course eventually all the servants would know of it.  Why does Jamie look surprised?"

But now I've fan-wanked that Jamie did know she was pregnant -- he just didn't realize how far along she was.  When she gets out of that carriage she is HUGE.  Jamie has had a pregnant wife and he's been around Jenny for the culmination of at least two pregnancies (and probably more during his 6 years in the cave) so he has a good idea of just how far along Geneva is when he sees her.  And then of course, she gives him that pointed look.  So my fan-wank is that Jamie knew Geneva was pregnant but didn't hear about it until perhaps 3-4 months after the wedding and just presumed it was Lord Ellesmere's.  (In the book, he actually coaches Geneva as to how to pick the date for their tryst so as to minimize the possibility of conception -- but apparently Book! Geneva can't do math.  TV!Geneva didn't have that flexibility -- she'd left things until just a few days before her wedding.)  So anyway, I think the way Sam played it is that Jamie knew Geneva was pregnant but didn't realize HOW pregnant she was and that's why you see that glazed look on his face after she shoots him that look.  He's thinking back to what Claire & Jenny looked like during their pregnancies and doing mental math.

As I recall, Jamie didn't know she was pregnant in the book either and was quite shocked to learn she'd given birth. In fact, wasn't he trying to elicit more information about the situation from the cook when his fellow groomsman came in and kinda derailed the conversation, much to Jamie's irritation?

What I remember was that, Jamie wasn't really a part of the Dunsany household and tended to keep to himself anyway, so he wasn't privy to the household gossip. And, once Geneva was married, she was gone, so there would've been no chance for Jamie to see her. I can't remember, but, did Jamie even know why they were rushing to see Geneva on such a inhospitable night was because she was gravely ill?

22 minutes ago, Clawdette said:

Did she return home in the book during her pregnancy and I missed it?

Not that I remember.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[LadyBrochTuarach]

11 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

As I recall, Jamie didn't know she was pregnant in the book either and was quite shocked to learn she'd given birth. In fact, wasn't he trying to elicit more information about the situation from the cook when his fellow groomsman came in and kinda derailed the conversation, much to Jamie's irritation?

What I remember was that, Jamie wasn't really a part of the Dunsany household and tended to keep to himself anyway, so he wasn't privy to the household gossip. And, once Geneva was married, she was gone, so there would've been no chance for Jamie to see her. I can't remember, but, did Jamie even know why they were rushing to see Geneva on such a inhospitable night was because she was gravely ill?

Not that I remember.

I don't think he knew she was pregnant in the books. And I don't remember her returning to Hewater either. 

Yes, pretty sure he was trying the find out from the cook/kitchen staff what the heck was happening when they arrived at Ellesmere.

[WatchrTina]

Okay fine.  Make me go look at the book.

When Jamie is rousted from his bed to drive the Dunsany's to Lord Ellesmere's house he observes that:

Quote

"There couldn't be many matters of such urgency as to force an old man like Lord Dunsany outside on a day like this, let alone over the rutted road to Ellesmere.  Some word had come from Ellesmere, and it could only concern the Lady Geneva or her child.

Hearing through the servants' gossip that Lady Geneva was due to be delivered in January, he had counted quickly backward, cursed Geneva Dunsany once more, and then said a hasty prayer for her safe delivery.  Since then, he had done is best not to think about it.  He had been with her only three days before her wedding:  He couldn't be sure."

So yes, Book!Jamie knew that he might be the father, but tried hard not to think about it.  When he gets to Ellesmere, however, he learns from the cook that Lord Ellesmere had declared that the child isn't his and she notes, "There's one sure way 'e'd know it wasn't 'is, now isn't there?"  She goes on to say, "The chambermaid did say as the sheets she took off the weddin' bed was as white when they'd gone on, to be sure."  After that Book!Jamie has no doubts.

The scene of pregnant Geneva's visit to Helwater that we saw in the show is invented -- Book!Jamie never laid eyes on Geneva after their one night together -- so I like my interpretation that TV!Jamie had heard she was pregnant but DIDN'T hear when she was due and so (like Book!Jamie) lived in denial.  I posit that he clung to the belief that she got pregnant during the early months of her marriage, but when faced with her huge pregnant belly and that look she shot him, the truth came crashing down on his head.  If he still wasn't certain, Ellesmere's calling the child a bastard would serve to remove all doubts.

Edited October 12, 2017 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

22 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

I agree, hopefully they'll be mindful when casting for season 4. 

 

 Smart conclusion of yours. I couldn't stop thinking why he was so shocked she was pregnant. This makes more sense :) 

Was he shocked to see that she was pregnant or was he shocked after she turned around and gave him that knowing look, basically telling him that the baby was his?

[LadyBrochTuarach]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Okay fine.  Make me go look at the book.

When Jamie is rousted from his bed to drive the Dunsany's to Lord Ellesmere's house he observes that:

So yes, Book!Jamie knew that he might be the father, but tried hard not to think about it.  When he gets to Ellesmere, however, he learns from the cook that Lord Ellesmere had declared that the child isn't his and she notes, "There's one sure way 'e'd know it wasn't 'is, now isn't there?"  She goes on to say, "The chambermaid did say as the sheets she took off the weddin' bed was as white when they'd gone on, to be sure."  After that Book!Jamie has no doubts.

The scene of pregnant Geneva's visit to Helwater that we saw in the show is invented -- Book!Jamie never laid eyes on Geneva after their one night together -- so I like my interpretation that TV!Jamie had heard she was pregnant but DIDN'T hear when she was due and so (like Book!Jamie) lived in denial.  I posit that he clung to the belief that she got pregnant during the early months of her marriage, but when faced with her huge pregnant belly and that look she shot him, the truth came crashing down on his head.  If he still wasn't certain, Ellesmere's calling the child a bastard would serve to remove all doubts.

Haha, sorry that you had to go back! I couldn't remember clearly, and must have adapted Jamie's denial into my own.

 

Yeah I figured she never returned to Helwater pregnant. It was a smart move I think, in order to save time for the episode, that they skipped the kitchen scene. Also since the counting backwards was in Jamie's head, they had to show something which not only gives him, but TV watchers as well, assurance that the child is Jamie's. 

 I know his was discussed in depth earlier, but regardless I still mentally smack Geneva upside the head a few times, for not having the deceny to sleep with her husband at least once ?

 

2 hours ago, toolazy said:

Was he shocked to see that she was pregnant or was he shocked after she turned around and gave him that knowing look, basically telling him that the baby was his?

Probably the finding out the baby was his: WatchrTina just clarified the whole scenario pretty well. Book Jamie knew she was pregnant, but didn't know when she was do. We don't get that shot of her belly in the book. He never sees her again after she leaves to marrying Ellesmere. 

I think he was probably shocked as well to see how far along she was, and put the pieces together. Someone mentioned that he saw Claire and Jenny pregnant, so he had a good idea of how far along Geneva was, and figured it out. 

[toolazy]

He had sex with Geneva three days before her wedding.  Assuming she had sex with her new husband on their wedding night, there really isn't anything for him to figure out.  There's no way he could look at her and know that the baby was his and not Ellesmere just from her belly. No way.   It was the look she gave him that clued him in.  

[nodorothyparker]

Until everybody heads to Ellesmere and we get the book servants talking/show Isobel saying that Geneva and the old coot hadn't done the deed, Jamie's got nothing more than a suspicion based on basic math that he's in the fatherhood sweepstakes.  The look show Geneva throws him certainly could be read as confirmation, depending on how he chooses to read it.

In the book, there's this sense of "well maybe" followed by "I can't do anything about it anyway and it not's in my face everyday so best not dwell on it" because it's not an unreasonable assumption that she probably had sex with her new husband at some point in there until the gloriously overwrought scene of everyone shouting about bastards and pointing guns at each other and the old coot threatening to chuck the aforementioned unseen baby out of a high window.  That's the moment William stops being a hypothetical and becomes real to him.  Then of course in killing Ellesmere he unwittingly assures that William will be raised at Helwater where he'll see him regularly and there's no longer any getting around it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

After watching this again the other night, I realized I had an issue with Isobel's line to Jamie when she sees him in the park, while pushing the pram with Willie. She apologized, which was fine, but her line "My sister was a difficult woman" just rubbed me wrong. She wasn't a woman; she was a girl. A spoiled, self-centered, bratty girl, and marriage to Ellesmere or being pregnant didn't change that.

[cheriemac]

Catching up today by watching Ep4 and right off the bat I feel as though I went through some stones myself! In the "previously" segment, Brianna and Claire have gone to Scotland and Claire has told Brianna about her father. When the episode begins, the two of them are sitting in a room with Roger! I know Ep3 ended with Frank's death...what's going on here????? 

[Scarlett45]

44 minutes ago, cheriemac said:

Catching up today by watching Ep4 and right off the bat I feel as though I went through some stones myself! In the "previously" segment, Brianna and Claire have gone to Scotland and Claire has told Brianna about her father. When the episode begins, the two of them are sitting in a room with Roger! I know Ep3 ended with Frank's death...what's going on here????? 

The earlier episodes of the season were "flash back" episodes for both Jamie and Claire- filling in what happened when they were apart . Episode 4 takes us to where we left off at the end of Season 2 with Claire realizing she can go back through the stones- 1968. 

[aliferous85]

Geneva reminded me of a younger, evil Claire. 

Could Jamie have made more noise with those doors? Pretty sure someone somewhere in that house must have heard that.

I skipped the sex scene because it bored me. Really, just no. 

This episode could have done with being a full time Jamie story, because the 1960's stuff didn't intrigue me either. 

[Cdh20]

On 2017-10-01 at 5:52 AM, morgan said:

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!!!

I binge watched all 3 seasons when I discovered it, and then wouldn’t stop talking about it so my hubby decided he would like to watch it. He really liked it & is looking forward to next season, but I think I will have to watch them alone on first view as he makes funny & ridiculous comments & sometimes ruins the tender, sexy, sad moments. Is yours the same? 

[morgan]

On 7/2/2018 at 10:15 AM, Cdh20 said:

I binge watched all 3 seasons when I discovered it, and then wouldn’t stop talking about it so my hubby decided he would like to watch it. He really liked it & is looking forward to next season, but I think I will have to watch them alone on first view as he makes funny & ridiculous comments & sometimes ruins the tender, sexy, sad moments. Is yours the same? 

YES!!!

Although to be honest he is not really looking forward to next season.  He will watch, but says it is too much of them losing each other/finding each other/losing each other (or being torn apart from each other).  Which honestly is in the books but there is so much more to the books.  Condensing them into the show really highlights this.  

Edited July 4, 2018 by morgan

[Kirsty]

I'm watching and enjoying Season 3, having not seen the show for a few years when I watched half a dozen episodes of Season 1. And it's hard not to notice that in Scotland, Jamie has been hit on by a different person in three of the four episodes so far. Meanwhile in Boston, Frank has been shit on in every episode so far!

Jamie is hot and people find him attractive. Message received. It's a romantic drama and he's the male lead, so no complaints.

But in Boston...  Why kill off Frank just when he was finally getting his chance to be happy with someone else? Is it not enough that Claire can't have sex with him without imagining Jamie? Is it not enough that their marriage never recovered and they only stayed together for their daughter? Frank is obviously no threat to Jamie so it just seems like overkill. I won't be surprised if in the next episode, Frank's girlfriend tells us that he was impotent -- even though the show has already killed him off! Stop shitting on Frank, show.

[Cdh20]

17 hours ago, Kirsty said:

I'm watching and enjoying Season 3, having not seen the show for a few years when I watched half a dozen episodes of Season 1. And it's hard not to notice that in Scotland, Jamie has been hit on by a different person in three of the four episodes so far. Meanwhile in Boston, Frank has been shit on in every episode so far!

Jamie is hot and people find him attractive. Message received. It's a romantic drama and he's the male lead, so no complaints.

But in Boston...  Why kill off Frank just when he was finally getting his chance to be happy with someone else? Is it not enough that Claire can't have sex with him without imagining Jamie? Is it not enough that their marriage never recovered and they only stayed together for their daughter? Frank is obviously no threat to Jamie so it just seems like overkill. I won't be surprised if in the next episode, Frank's girlfriend tells us that he was impotent -- even though the show has already killed him off! Stop shitting on Frank, show.

Since this is the book thread, I think it's safe to say that the book killed Frank first!