S03.E04: Of Lost Things

[Hyla]

Jamie's face throughout this whole episode! Most notably when Lady Dansury said he could go back to Scotland and the scene when he was saying goodbye to his son - excellent expressions and acting!

I expected the time spent at a place called Helwater to be a whole lot darker and more miserable than it was. Jamie seemed to have it pretty good, master of horse, comraderie with the other grooms, the respect and trust of the family. Lord Dansury diffused all sense of danger right away telling Jamie he knew exactly who he was and had already reconciled with losing his son in the rebellion. Major John Grey had not lied about his prisoner's identity to save him from transport as I thought from the end of last episode. Lady Dansury wasn't around enough to be a threat, Lady Isabelle was sweet, and Grey was a regular visitor and chess partner.

The darkest aspect was Lady Geneva. I felt bad for her. She seemed miserably unhappy and that unhappiness seemed to drive her behavior. She wasn't even trying to fight being married off to someone she described as vile and old enough to be her grandsire. Instead taking it out on the one groom who her fiancee had expressed particular revulsion towards and one she probably suspected her parents didn't know was a notorious Jacobite. And one she could blackmail by threatening his family. He was the perfect target to punish all of them (including Jamie who she might blame for the death of her brother too.)

It was of course awful for Jamie, as previous posters have already said, to be forced yet again to bargain himself sexually to protect the people he loves. And rather decent of him, as Lady Isabelle said, to be kind and gentle with Geneva when he could instead have been angry or indifferent. I didn't mind that it was a call back to the wedding episode of the first season, it gave a good indication of what Jaime was thinking and his motivations for behaving as he did. It was sad at the end of that scene when he dismissed Geneva's feelings for him as only lust. She maybe really did love him in a twisted way, or else he'd be the closest she would ever come.

Geneva's revenge plans really backfired on her and it was a bit tragic about the price being her death. I wonder if her old husband purposely didn't sleep with her, was incapable, or if his new bride showed some sign of having sexual experience since she had Jamie to compare him to. Another reason for insisting on sexually innocent brides is a new husband gets to define normal. Maybe Geneva was bitter enough to laugh at Ellesmere or else maybe she tried to make the best of things and took some of Jamie's advice instead of being inert and he wouldn't touch her after that.

How perfect the baby was named William since that probably the exact name Jamie would have picked out (hoping to have a Brien/na out there already). The kid playing him was so adorable and so convincingly a fan of "Mac" that I didn't care he didn't look much like Jamie (though I wonder if they could have done something with CGI - yikes!). My favorite scenes this episode were the ones where they stole time together - and they remembered Sawny the snake! (What happened to the real one?) and Jamie could have gone home! But, instead he chose to remain near the only child of three he had been able to lay eyes - but still would not have been able to touch until the boy came of riding age.

The 20th century part story did feel like filler as someone above said. I do buy Claire being ambiguous about going back due to the uncertainties and having to leave Brienna and her Boston friends and the life she's worked so hard to build. Her hesitation is a little odd since so many of her first years back were lost mourning for her 18th century life. What I really wish we were seeing was a dynamic Claire who had thrown herself into her work and the issues of the time - Vietnam, the sexual revolution, civil rights! - and thought nothing of going out to eat alone with a black, male collegue in that era. How much Joe must have loved her fire and take no prisoners attitude with all the adversity they must have faced together! And how many people the viewers missed out on Claire telling off! How much more interesting if she's shown committed to this rich life and still decides to give it all up for the chance of taking up with Jamie again, because she loved him that much. Instead, we're shown a Claire who lost her one true love, felt empty about her life despite her achievements, was unable to even connect with her own daughter, and who won't be complete until she finds that one man who is her other half. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Overall excellent post @Hyla!

4 hours ago, Hyla said:

I didn't mind that it was a call back to the wedding episode of the first season, it gave a good indication of what Jaime was thinking and his motivations for behaving as he did. It was sad at the end of that scene when he dismissed Geneva's feelings for him as only lust. She maybe really did love him in a twisted way, or else he'd be the closest she would ever come.

I didn't even think about it being a call back to Jamie's wedding night until someone else mentioned it.  Then I started looking at it that way more critically.  I wonder if Jamie himself recognized the similarities and that's why he decided to be as gentle as possible with Geneva?

On the lust vs. love - imagine how different it would have been for Jamie if Claire had given him the same speech, as she probably very well could have at the point when he gave her the pearls.  

[piequinn35]

On 10/2/2017 at 6:45 AM, Adira said:

Also, why do Claire & company think that time is moving at the same speed in the past as it is in the present?  And even if it is, why do they think that when Claire goes through the stones again, she'll arrive 20 years after she left (assuming 20 years have passed)?  They just witnessed Geillis go through the stones in 1968 and they know she ended up further in the past than when Claire originally arrived after going through the stones in 1945!  What makes them think Claire won't also end up further in the past, just like Geillis?

I agree, I don't get it what's the point of looking for records, they couldn't ask the stones to bring her back to a specific year, she might arrive in any year ex. even before Jamie was born. I was also uncomfy when Jamie offered himself to Lord John. :/

[Hyla]

Thanks! @RulerofallIsurvey

12 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

On the lust vs. love - imagine how different it would have been for Jamie if Claire had given him the same speech, as she probably very well could have at the point when he gave her the pearls.  

She really could have! I'm now wondering that too. If Claire had been less generous with Jamie or less willing to admit she had feelings for him out of loyalty to Frank that first night it would changed their whole meant for each other dynamic. 

Their initial arranged/coerced encounter was different from this episode's in that both parties were pawns in it, but similar in that Jamie had feelings for Claire beforehand and was invested in that first time leading to something deeper. And in both cases that was an odd expectation as both Geneva and Jamie must have been aware their partner was only there because they wanted to protect family and/or to avoid imprisonment.

Claire had promised to be honest and admitted to there being something special between them afterwards. If the show had been trying to imply Jamie had some attraction to Geneva in their first riding scene together but was in deep denial about it - that could add another layer to the lust vs love conversation. Also, the circumstances with Geneva deciding to blackmail him were of course incredibly icky.

10 hours ago, piequinn35 said:

I agree, I don't get it what's the point of looking for records, they couldn't ask the stones to bring her back to a specific year, she might arrive in any year ex. even before Jamie was born. I was also uncomfy when Jamie offered himself to Lord John. :/

I hope there is more doubt cast on when she'll end up if she dares to pass through the stones again. Especially since they must realize Gillian doesn't end up when Claire wants to go to - was that factored into on Roger's timeline calculation? None of them know how it works, it's a huge risk. Unless the stones are magical.

I think the kind of time travel that occurs in Outlander is less science fiction and more magic based. It seems like Claire's ability to cross through the stones is more due to destiny, and as hers is tied to Jamie's, she'll of course be transported where she needs to be to reconnect with him.

It was sad that Jamie thought he had to make that offer to Lord John and didn't understand how highly his old prison warden regarded him or how insulting that offer was. Jamie's had a really difficult life, full of traumas. It's no wonder he holds on so tightly to Claire's memory. His time with her was probably the happiest of his adult life and she was someone he could fully trust as an ally.

[ganesh]

6 hours ago, Hyla said:

I think the kind of time travel that occurs in Outlander is less science fiction and more magic based.

Oh no, it's clearly not sci-fi. That's why it bugged me that the show even bothered to have Roger say that when they clearly have evidence to the contrary, and then have no one bring up Gellis. 

[Juliegirlj]

I hate that Claire gave away the pearl necklace that belonged to Jamie's mother. She kept her wedding ring, why would she give away her pearls?! Wouldn't she want to give them to her daughter some day ( even without full disclosure of their origin?!) 

The cheesy strip tease of Jamie removing his clothing, and wadding it up and chucking it on the floor was ......weird. 

[Juliegirlj]

I liked the way they handled the sex scene with Jamie and Geneva, except for the cheesy strip tease by Jamie. Horseback riding could have ruptured her hymen, but, the way Jamie took his time and was gentle with her ( until being gentle wasn't required) made it enjoyable for Geneva. Jamie's sensitivity and intuition about Geneva's feelings of " love" for him after they made love was so sweet. 

Will Willy inherit Ellesmere? 

[ganesh]

They ruled the shooting an "accident" or whatever, and there's no one to dispute Willie's heritage, so I wouldn't see why not. Neither of his adopted parents are going to say anything, and they clearly seemed settled in to live there at the end of the episode. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just by virtue of being born while Geneva was wed to Ellsmere, Willie is recognized as the legal heir. And since the old coot is dead, then yes, Willie will inherit the title.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

10 hours ago, Hyla said:

Their initial arranged/coerced encounter was different from this episode's in that both parties were pawns in it, but similar in that Jamie had feelings for Claire beforehand and was invested in that first time leading to something deeper.

I'm confused about this line.  Did you mean the opposite or am I just misunderstanding?  It seems to me that both the Jamie/Geneva encounter and the Jamie/Claire first encounter are similar in that both parties were pawns in them.  In Jamie and Claire's marriage, Jamie was a pawn of Dougal's political scheming in marrying him off to a Sassenach so that he (allegedly) wouldn't be eligible for Laird upon Collum's death.  Claire, of course was a pawn of Dougal for the same reason and to avoid BJR.  In the tryst between Jamie and Geneva, Jamie is clearly a pawn of Geneva's to have one final say over her own body and destiny while she herself is a pawn in her parent's marriage scheme to the Earl.  

That Jamie had feelings for Claire before their wedding night is not something we find out until later - at Lallybroch, I believe.  I mean, sure, it was easy to speculate that he did, and that was obvious (to me at least) that was where the story was going from their first meeting, but if it tilt my head and look at it another way, the same could probably be said about Geneva.  She admitted afterward to having feelings for Jamie - at which he scoffed and wrote off as lust vs. love.  And yet, later in the ep, Isobel says tells Jamie that she really did love him.  So...there but for the grace of Claire could have been Jamie.  

10 hours ago, Hyla said:

And in both cases that was an odd expectation as both Geneva and Jamie must have been aware their partner was only there because they wanted to protect family and/or to avoid imprisonment.

I got the sense that Geneva was very aware of this - and Jamie maybe not quite so much.  Yes, he took his time with Claire and charmed her, but he was also just a horny young man on his wedding night and also had the belief that, well, Claire was his wife now and it was inevitable.  Whereas on his wedding night, Jamie pretty much held all the power.  With Geneva, she pretty much held all the power as far as the blackmail over Jamie, but nothing else to bind him to her as Jamie had with Claire.  If that makes sense. 

That's why I wonder - especially when Geneva said that she didn't know what to do - if Jamie recognized a bit of himself in that moment, and realized, like he'd maybe never thought about before, just how trapped Claire must have felt on their wedding night.  

10 hours ago, Hyla said:

I hope there is more doubt cast on when she'll end up if she dares to pass through the stones again. Especially since they must realize Gillian doesn't end up when Claire wants to go to - was that factored into on Roger's timeline calculation? None of them know how it works, it's a huge risk. Unless the stones are magical.

I agree.  I hope that they discuss Gellis/Gillian more next episode since they haven't even mentioned her this season yet, have they?  They need to do more research on how the stones work (which it seems Gillian might have done) rather than only concentrating on finding Jamie.

[Hyla]

4 hours ago, ganesh said:

Oh no, it's clearly not sci-fi. That's why it bugged me that the show even bothered to have Roger say that when they clearly have evidence to the contrary, and then have no one bring up Gellis. 

Definitely a logic gap there - more for the viewers than internal coherence. 

I've loved time travel stories since forever so it's actually refreshing to see one based more in folk lore/fairy tale than anything else. 

3 hours ago, Juliegirlj said:

I hate that Claire gave away the pearl necklace that belonged to Jamie's mother. She kept her wedding ring, why would she give away her pearls?! Wouldn't she want to give them to her daughter some day ( even without full disclosure of their origin?!)

I think Frank gave her permission to hold onto the ring until she was ready to take it off - he just didn't realize she never would be! But, everything else, from the period clothes he burned to the pearl necklace, had to go as part of the promise to leave that past life behind. Claire would have wanted to keep them I'm sure - but she'd also agreed Brianna was going to be Frank's daughter. She couldn't pass on Jamie's pearls to someone who could never know he existed.

3 hours ago, Juliegirlj said:

I liked the way they handled the sex scene with Jamie and Geneva, except for the cheesy strip tease by Jamie. Horseback riding could have ruptured her hymen, but, the way Jamie took his time and was gentle with her ( until being gentle wasn't required) made it enjoyable for Geneva. Jamie's sensitivity and intuition about Geneva's feelings of " love" for him after they made love was so sweet. 

A previous poster, RulerofallIsurvey on page 1 of this thread, posted a link: https://youngwomenshealth.org/2013/07/31/hymen_break/ - horseback riding and doing splits won't stretch hymen tissue. Also, the idea of rupturing is a myth:  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DfBQnQTkhsq4&ved=0ahUKEwj75N6eztfWAhUJ7iYKHeqKA3YQtwIIKDAA&usg=AOvVaw1FlFOyRsfW1fSyyHzcalL5

While Jamie was kind and sensitive to Geneva he'd have been a heck of a lot kinder if he'd used his knowledge and experience to please her but not get her pregnant. I wonder if that even occurred to him?

2 hours ago, ganesh said:

They ruled the shooting an "accident" or whatever, and there's no one to dispute Willie's heritage, so I wouldn't see why not. Neither of his adopted parents are going to say anything, and they clearly seemed settled in to live there at the end of the episode. 

We're they at Ellesmere because of Willie at the end? I didn't pick up on that. Those big houses and rambling grounds all looked the same to me. I just assumed he'd gone back to Helwater to live with his grandparents and aunt. Or do you mean Lord John and Lady Isabelle would live there after adopting him?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, Hyla said:

While Jamie was kind and sensitive to Geneva he'd have been a heck of a lot kinder if he'd used his knowledge and experience to please her but not get her pregnant. I wonder if that even occurred to him?

Probably not.  Would Jamie even know about pulling out?  He was a virgin on his wedding night - and then his only sexual partner was his wife, whom I suppose he was trying to get pregnant.  What other experience has he had with women except with the whores in France (but not copulation with them) and Mary McNab?  Also, his Catholicism might have something to do with not pulling out - if he did know about it.  There's something about 'spilling the seed' being a sin in the Bible, if I recall.  

[Hyla]

6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I'm confused about this line.  Did you mean the opposite or am I just misunderstanding?  It seems to me that both the Jamie/Geneva encounter and the Jamie/Claire first encounter are similar in that both parties were pawns in them.  In Jamie and Claire's marriage, Jamie was a pawn of Dougal's political scheming in marrying him off to a Sassenach so that he (allegedly) wouldn't be eligible for Laird upon Collum's death.  Claire, of course was a pawn of Dougal for the same reason and to avoid BJR.  In the tryst between Jamie and Geneva, Jamie is clearly a pawn of Geneva's to have one final say over her own body and destiny while she herself is a pawn in her parent's marriage scheme to the Earl.

I was trying to say just considering the encounters themselves. Who was in the room by choice and who by coercion. In the greater scheme of things Geneva's whole life is being lived as a pawn. But, in the one instance of arranging the tryst with Jamie, I wasn't considering her a pawn because she was the one doing the manipulating and making someone else powerless.

6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

That Jamie had feelings for Claire before their wedding night is not something we find out until later - at Lallybroch, I believe.  I mean, sure, it was easy to speculate that he did, and that was obvious (to me at least) that was where the story was going from their first meeting, but if it tilt my head and look at it another way, the same could probably be said about Geneva.  She admitted afterward to having feelings for Jamie - at which he scoffed and wrote off as lust vs. love.  And yet, later in the ep, Isobel says tells Jamie that she really did love him.  So...there but for the grace of Claire could have been Jamie.  

That's so true! Claire could have just dismissed his feelings for her just as he did Geneva's. Jamie was fortunate that Claire was more willing to be open with him despite her being conflicted about Frank and getting home. There's no reason to believe that Geneva didn't really love him to the same degree he did Claire on their wedding night.

6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I got the sense that Geneva was very aware of this - and Jamie maybe not quite so much.  Yes, he took his time with Claire and charmed her, but he was also just a horny young man on his wedding night and also had the belief that, well, Claire was his wife now and it was inevitable.  Whereas on his wedding night, Jamie pretty much held all the power.  With Geneva, she pretty much held all the power as far as the blackmail over Jamie, but nothing else to bind him to her as Jamie had with Claire.  If that makes sense. 

Once Jamie and Geneva were done with their one-off encounter Geneva's hold on him was over and she couldn't compel Jamie to act like they had shared something special if he didn't feel that way or else want to admit there was something there. I don't think Jamie was at all aware of what was really going on during his wedding night. Or that it ever occurred to him that Claire would have been motivated to pretend she had feelings she didn't. Being overwhelmed by his own emotions he would have assumed Claire's were similar. He didn't at all suspect that Claire was just waiting for an opportunity to escape in the beginning.

6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

That's why I wonder - especially when Geneva said that she didn't know what to do - if Jamie recognized a bit of himself in that moment, and realized, like he'd maybe never thought about before, just how trapped Claire must have felt on their wedding night.  

I hope this comes up again when Claire and Jamie reunite - since he must now have a new understanding of what that night must have been like for her. 

3 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Probably not.  Would Jamie even know about pulling out?  He was a virgin on his wedding night - and then his only sexual partner was his wife, whom I suppose he was trying to get pregnant.  What other experience has he had with women except with the whores in France (but not copulation with them) and Mary McNab?  Also, his Catholicism might have something to do with not pulling out - if he did know about it.  There's something about 'spilling the seed' being a sin in the Bible, if I recall.  

He probably wouldn't. Claire wouldn't have been likely to mention it, first thinking she couldn't conceive and later wanting a pregnancy. I would think with all the time spent in brothels and learning new vocabulary the concept would have come up in talk at least. But, not in his own experiences.

Jamie must know the connection between ejaculation and pregnancy. He could have chosen to satisfy Geneva and ended early himself since she wouldn't have known the difference. But, maybe he really didn't know that was an option.

If he was aware of the idea of spilling seed, he should have done that since it couldn't have compounded the sin of being with Geneva in the first place all that much. Spilling seed in the bible is sinful in the specific context of a man disobeying God's command to impregnate his brother's widow. It would not have been disobeying God to not impregnate Geneva! But, I don't know what Jamie's beliefs around that would have been.

6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I agree.  I hope that they discuss Gellis/Gillian more next episode since they haven't even mentioned her this season yet, have they?  They need to do more research on how the stones work (which it seems Gillian might have done) rather than only concentrating on finding Jamie.

They should at least be mentioning her notebook if not the fact she's gone back earlier than Claire wants to go. (And mentioning her fate of being burned as a witch should be something that makes Brianna and Roger concerned about Claire's safety going back.)

I'm okay with them researching Jamie's whereabouts first. They should compile a list of where he is each year of his life. If the stones don't work the way they want them to they'll at least know what happened to him. If they do then Claire can match the year she ends up in to the list and know where to go!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

11 hours ago, Hyla said:

I was trying to say just considering the encounters themselves. Who was in the room by choice and who by coercion. In the greater scheme of things Geneva's whole life is being lived as a pawn. But, in the one instance of arranging the tryst with Jamie, I wasn't considering her a pawn because she was the one doing the manipulating and making someone else powerless.

Oh, okay.  Thanks for clarifying!  I did get confused earlier.  :)

11 hours ago, Hyla said:

Once Jamie and Geneva were done with their one-off encounter Geneva's hold on him was over and she couldn't compel Jamie to act like they had shared something special if he didn't feel that way or else want to admit there was something there. I don't think Jamie was at all aware of what was really going on during his wedding night. Or that it ever occurred to him that Claire would have been motivated to pretend she had feelings she didn't. Being overwhelmed by his own emotions he would have assumed Claire's were similar. He didn't at all suspect that Claire was just waiting for an opportunity to escape in the beginning.

Exactly!  Especially since on his wedding night, Jamie didn't know that Frank was still 'alive' and that Claire still wanted to get back to him.  He thought her husband had lived and died in the 18th century and that she was a true widow.  But I agree that Jamie was definitely overwhelmed by his own emotions and assumed that, eventually at least, Claire would come to feel the same.

I watched the scene again last night - and I think there was definitely a shift in Jamie's attitude at the point when Geneva said she was doing this for her and she wanted her first time to be with someone like Jamie.  Up until then, he manner had been brusque and all -business.  'Let's get this done'.  But then Geneva said she didn't know what to do and Jamie offered her an out, 'We don't have to do this.'.  Then she said about doing it for her, and I could see Jamie's demeanor change.  Even what he said in response gives us a clue as to his thoughts, I think: "Yes, the first time can often be....vexing."  Imo, he was clearly thinking about his first time on his wedding night, and how nervous he was. It was at that point that Jamie became gentler with Geneva.  

11 hours ago, Hyla said:

I hope this comes up again when Claire and Jamie reunite - since he must now have a new understanding of what that night must have been like for her. 

Hm...on the one hand, I don't know how it would come up again.  When they reunite, they would both (presumably!) be there of their own free will and desire.  On the other hand, it's an interesting concept to wonder how it would come up again.  

11 hours ago, Hyla said:

If he was aware of the idea of spilling seed, he should have done that since it couldn't have compounded the sin of being with Geneva in the first place all that much. Spilling seed in the bible is sinful in the specific context of a man disobeying God's command to impregnate his brother's widow. It would not have been disobeying God to not impregnate Geneva! But, I don't know what Jamie's beliefs around that would have been.

Ah, thank you.  I knew there was something I was missing about that.  Good point about Jamie probably having learned the concept of pulling out in the brothels in Paris, even if he'd never actually practiced the execution.  Still, that was years ago, so I'm not sure he would have remembered in time for him to even try.  

11 hours ago, Hyla said:

They should at least be mentioning her notebook if not the fact she's gone back earlier than Claire wants to go. (And mentioning her fate of being burned as a witch should be something that makes Brianna and Roger concerned about Claire's safety going back.)

Putting this here, although I really think it should be in an All Eps thread (though I don't see one of those.  There is a Season 1 thread, but not a Season 2 thread.  I'll have to ask the mods about renaming that perhaps, as I think it would be nice to have a thread to discuss all arcs that, especially on this show, span seasons).  But I digress.  :)  I rewatched part of the last ep of S2 last night also: skipping the 18th century parts this time and concentrating on the 'present day' 1968 parts, so I could remind my self of what happened with Gellis/Gillan.  Alas, I fell asleep so I'll have to finish tonight.  But I think the way the scenes were interspersed with the 18th century scenes - while it made sense the first time I watched it - really took away a lot of the punch of Brianna finding out who her real father was and about Gillian traveling through the stones.  

[Ziggy]

On 10/2/2017 at 8:21 AM, RulerofallIsurvey said:

ETA2: Geneva's first time played out totally unrealistic to me.  And I was rather disappointed by that after how realistically Jamie's first time was shown.  (Wham bam done!)  Geneva had practically no pain and then completely enjoyed herself, even reaching orgasm?  Sure she did.  But then, this is Perfect Jamie who had sex with her, so of course she did! //snark.  

Really?  I had no pain and an orgasm my first time.  I always thought the reason some women had pain was because they were frightened or didn't know what to expect (and were therefore dry).  If you are excited, your body produces moisture, so there would be no pain.  Geneva was definitely excited, so I fully expected her not to have any pain.

On 10/2/2017 at 1:29 PM, terrymct said:

I still have trouble believing that Bree (and Frank) would have believed the whole time travel story with such relative ease.

Bree only believed her after she saw Geillis Duncan go through the stones.  So she had "proof" that her mom was telling the truth.

[toolazy]

1 minute ago, Ziggy said:

 If you are excited, your body produces moisture, so there would be no pain. 

I suspect that one's first sexual experience is highly idiosyncratic so it's probably not the case where we can make sweeping generalizations based on our own personal experiences.

 

However, she did say that there was pain but then it started feeling good.  I don't think that's especially unrealistic at all.  

[Juliegirlj]

Jamie's clansmen liked nothing more than to talk about their sexual activity, so it makes sense that he understood the mechanisms of conception and ways to prevent it. As far as being Catholic, he was having extramarital sexual relations, so it is doubtful that had any influence over his decision to not pull out. 

Women's hymens are not all the same- some are very thick and prominent and others are very thin with wider openings. It is possible to tear one's hymen during athletic activity ( such as horseback riding), despite what random websites say. It is also possible to have intercourse for the first time with very little or no discomfort . Just depends on the woman's individual anatomy and the circumstances. 

Yes, Claire agreed to move forward with Frank, and leave Jamie behind, but I still think it was out of character for her to give away the pearl necklace. All she had to do is pack it away in her suitcase and not bring it up again. It would have had the same sentiment to her as her wedding ring, and Claire was headstrong and independent minded, no matter what Frank said. ( It was probably written that way because Mrs Graham's Granddaughter needed a segway into the time travel storyline) 

[Camera One]

I was glad Jaime's indentured servitude at the upper class manor was pretty easy.  The whole Jaime gets a son subplot was awfully convenient, but it provided some nice scenes between Jaime and the kid who looked nothing like him.  

I was glad Geneva was conveniently written out.  It was really vile of her to threaten Jaime not only with revealing his identity as a Jacobite prisoner, but also threatening him about Lallybroch.  John Grey's brother spilled all, eh?  Which was pretty stupid considering word could get out that he would let Red Jaime go.  I'm surprised he wasn't set up to marry Geneva.  

I kept on thinking Geneva was setting a trap for Jaime and she arranged to have her father walk in on them in bed, and Jaime would be accused of rape and sent to prison.  Again.

The scenes in the 1960s were clearly after the Geillis incident, given the previously's and Breanna wasn't on side until they saw Geillis go through the stones.  But Claire really should have been studying Geillis's diary as well as searching for Jaime in the historical records.  This could have been a fun investigation but then Claire had to inhabit the role of a sad sack, so it made the subplot less interesting.  What's the purpose of her going back to America?   I expected Breanna to stay, at least.

I was really disappointed Claire didn't point out Murtagh's name was listed in the prisoner list too.  She could have told Breanna about Jaime's best friend.

[Beeyago]

12 hours ago, Camera One said:

I was glad Jaime's indentured servitude at the upper class manor was pretty easy.  The whole Jaime gets a son subplot was awfully convenient, but it provided some nice scenes between Jaime and the kid who looked nothing like him.  

I was glad Geneva was conveniently written out.  It was really vile of her to threaten Jaime not only with revealing his identity as a Jacobite prisoner, but also threatening him about Lallybroch.  John Grey's brother spilled all, eh?  Which was pretty stupid considering word could get out that he would let Red Jaime go.  I'm surprised he wasn't set up to marry Geneva.  

I kept on thinking Geneva was setting a trap for Jaime and she arranged to have her father walk in on them in bed, and Jaime would be accused of rape and sent to prison.  Again.

The scenes in the 1960s were clearly after the Geillis incident, given the previously's and Breanna wasn't on side until they saw Geillis go through the stones.  But Claire really should have been studying Geillis's diary as well as searching for Jaime in the historical records.  This could have been a fun investigation but then Claire had to inhabit the role of a sad sack, so it made the subplot less interesting.  What's the purpose of her going back to America?   I expected Breanna to stay, at least.

I was really disappointed Claire didn't point out Murtagh's name was listed in the prisoner list too.  She could have told Breanna about Jaime's best friend.

I don’t understand why they didn’t get a kid who looks like him more either, he was a good actor, but looked nothing like him. And I too thought it was going to be a set up when Jamie came to her room!!  I was holding my breath!!

And that’s a great point about seeing Murtagh’s name on the prison list. Never thought about that!  Yes it really bothered me too that Claire suddenly had no interest in historical records of Jamie and all the others she knew. Very irritating!

[Anothermi]

This episode's story is heavy on the side of Jamie's experiences. I guess it balances out the extra time Claire was given in S02 to portray her return to 1948 and how that played out. Jamie's experience in that Season was flashbacks to bring us up to date on the opening episode. 

Claire's bits:

It seemed like Claire galloped through 20 yrs last episode and is pretty much treading water. (mixed metaphor, I know).

Roger tells us that time passes at a parallel rate within eras, but not parallel time frames. And the math does seem to bear that out. Claire went through the Stones in *November 1945 her era and arrived in 1743 in Jamie's era. Three years later in April of 1746—during the Battle of Culloden—Claire returns through the Stones to 1948 her era. November 1945 to Dec 1948 (to cover all bases) is 3 years. 

I congratulate the small research crew for not just waving goodbye to Claire after she declared—at the Stones, no less, and after the first, tentative, evidence that Jamie didn't die AT Culloden—that she had to return to Jamie. Must have been Roger's level head. When planning a time-travel trip?—Make sure your destination (person, place or thing) actually still exists! (next? Dress appropriately—but that is still unknown to us IF Claire manages to return.)

So... The Claire era crew spend a lot of time chasing elusive clues to Jamie's past-whereabouts and Claire get's Jamie's mother's pearls back—from Fiona—and realizes that she is chasing ghosts. Resulting in Claire and Brianna's rather abrupt return to the US and leaving a very sad Roger behind—ruminating on the aeroplane that was his favourite toy back when he'd had interactions with Frank and Claire. 

Claire was Claire in what little we got to see in this episode. Roger was thoughtful and levelheaded and starting to open up. Brianna was flirty and a bit of a mean girl. We'd seen the mean side before, so it was a change to see her having both fun; and getting along with her mother. I'm still reserving my opinion on her due to lack of enough information to form one. Roger's already proven to have a bit of complexity—if lacking in worldly experience.

Jamie's story:

Jamie spent 6 years post-Claire-leaving—and post-Culloden—evading capture (2nd time in his life) by living as a hermit in a cave. Then 4 plus years in Andsmuir Prison—3 before Major John Grey and 1 plus before the prison closed. That makes 10 years so far (more or less). This episode we get another 7 (ish) years working as a groom in an English Lord's home. It seems that reasonably early on into his new job he is coerced—by threat of harm to his Lallybroch family—into a sexual interaction with one daughter of this household so she will have had at least one “normal” sexual experience before she marries a man old enough to be her grandsire. Resulting in Jamie's 3rd child and first son. Conveniently, the mother of this child dies in childbirth and Jamie shoots the husband who appears to have lost his wits and threatens to stab Jamie's son to death. Oddly enough this all ends well (Not what I expected). Jamie is offered—through Lady Dunsany—to be released from the conditions of his parole any time he wants; he postpones this in order to get to be around his son for 6 years; and he gets to choose the father substitute for his son before he leaves for Lallybroch. He claims John Grey (the aforesaid preferred father substitute) as his friend forever. Then he rides off to Scotland. I just can't figure out why. 

All in all, once again, Jamie's portion of the show is the one that shows growth, depth of feeling—and awareness of all he's lost. Claire's? Not much.

This approach to story telling leaves me feeling oddly unbalanced. 

Claire had a brief interaction on the phone with Joe Abernathy—and it sounded like they have developed quite a close friendship—but we aren't let into what that means to Claire. Is it that no one in the 20th century is real to her except her daughter? 

We heard Jamie speak to little Willie of remembering all those he has lost and Claire is one of those, but not the only one. It is a very poignant moment because he had just recently told Willie that he would be leaving to go back to Scotland—and therefore, most likely, losing his third child (which he doesn't say).

Claire seems to only have lost Jamie from the way she acts. Perhaps her time will come to prove that she, too, has developed as a person in the 20 years since she was separated from Jamie. Just not this—or last—episode.

But we end with the parallel of this episode: 

Claire makes what seems to be an abrupt decision to go back to Boston. 

Jamie makes an unexplained decision to go back to Lallybroch. 

There's got to be something that connects those two decisions.

 

* Dates: Claire & Frank sign in to Mrs. Baird's B&B on Oct 30, 1945 per the hotel register—which we were shown. They toured about Inverness, visiting a crumbling Castle Leoch and a bit later Rev Wakefield, Frank and Claire are together discussing Frank's ancestor Black Jack Randal and it was mentioned that they have been there for a week. That would put Claire's passage through the Stones in November. They only had 1 more week of vacation left before Frank was to take on his new university post.

[gingerella]

In a life where everything has been going wrong for Jamie - aside from falling in love with Claire - things finally went right for our guy, and yet, the pace of this episode was giving me whiplash! And again, WHAT THE FUCK is up with Jamie's terrible, awful, no good wig?! How someone can make him UNattractive on purpose is mind boggling! What the hell with those weird wavy bangs?!?

First things first, thank you showrunners for tying in our visual amuse bouche at the top of the episode, instead of leaving us wondering WTF like we did last episode with the big Newfie under the table that we never saw in the episode. As soon as I saw the snake I knew it had to be Jamie but my mind assumed he'd lost his own snake, which would have been sad because his dead brother made if for him, yes?

Scotland 1968

I was confused as to why they were scouring ship's manifests and then I realized that they must have known that the prisoners from Ardsmuir were shipping to the Colonies, which I assume is America, yes? I had no idea that England shipped their own prisoners over for forced labor, was I asleep when we learned that in grade school or did everyone else here also not realize that?

Any mention of Mrs. Graham makes me sad we cannae have more of her, ye ken? She was a gem, truly. When her granddaughter gave Claire back the pearls that was the kindest thing she could have done because god knows that girl isn't rich and those pearls could have meant money to her, but she did the right thing, and I like Fiona a whole lot more now than when we first met her at the Rev's wake, where she came across as a wee bit creepy. I think she's just a old gal in a young woman's body and she taking care of Roger the way she saw her grandmother take care of him. She seems like a good egg and not a creepy Leery type now. AND we can remove the Pearls from the Milk Carton Gang now, so yeah!

I got confused about the manifests in terms of dates. Obviously they were looking at passenger lists for the 1600's so where were the lists for the 1700's or did the library just not have them at hand?

At the end of Claire's portion of the story, I felt so annoyed that she was removing all the hard work they'd done from the wall. I mean, at least leave it up there just in case something turns up! But I guess she was trying to heed Mrs. Graham's advice to not waste her life chasing down a ghost. It's funny though, that she hasn't made the connection between Jamie and the unidentified Highlander who set off Frank when they were in Inverness the first time. It was about 200 years after Culloden and Jamie said he'd wait in Purgatory for 200 years if it meant he could come find her again. It's curious that she hasn't connected those two things, and Franks insistence that it was a Highlander AND he disappeared instantly. Hello??? Spirit ghost!

Lastly, I feel like we're getting set up for Roger and Brianna to be the next generation (well Claire's next gen at least) 'meant to be' couple...Roger is so cute and clearly inexperienced, just like Jamie was at first with Claire. Roger indicated there are no girlfriends, ditto Jamie when he met Claire. And Brianna seems much more experienced with men, probably not a virgin at this point in college during the 60's, so again, more like Claire was when she met Jamie. The parallels are there - Claire/Brianna are more outspoken and headstrong, and Jamie/Roger are quieter but sensible, think things through, balance out Claire/Brianna when they're getting angry or frustrated. There are probably a lot more parallels that are escaping my mind at the moment!

Helwater, England 1756

Interestingly, when I looked at my notes for this episode there was nary a note about Claire's portion, it was mostly about Jamie's, and with good reason I reckon.

So to begin with, the entire Geneva story line was so unrealistic in terms of pacing. This bitchy woman never gives Jamie the time of day and suddenly she zeros in on him and demands he take her virginity and teach her how to fuck, basically.  I mean, I guess she's a very progressive woman in the sense that she's taking control of her body, but she does so at the expense of another person.  I appreciated Jamie dumping her in the mud puddle, but what I struck me most is that when he rode away his feet were pointing downward and his heels were up, bad form for a man who is an accomplished rider! @Pallas, did you notice that too my fellow equestrian? Also, horses have a much better life in Outlander than they do in GoTs, just wanted to give a shout out to the magnificent array of equines on this show!

The whole John Gray coming to play chess quarterly, and then his bro shows up and has no knowledge of this arrangement, that also felt untrue to the story. I realize that Lord Melton was embarrassed that his little bro was gay, but there is nothing really between Jamie and John so why not give his brother a heads up FFS! The ensuing nasty conversation between Jamie and Geneva just showed what a bitch she was. Unwanted transactional sex is just disgusting no matter how it's portrayed and no matter which gender is in control. But I found it so odd that Jamie was so repulsed by her demand and sexual blackmail, yet it seemed like he was making love to her, not just breaking her in, so to speak. I realize he thinks he will never see Claire again, and he's broken over that, and he's likely horny as hell at times, and Geneva is a pretty woman, but when they started kissing in my head I was screaming NOOOOOO!!!! I find myself oddly protective over the Jamie/Claire relationship that it makes me cringe to see either of them with anyone else. I loved how he explained to her that what they did wasn't love, and that "love is when you give another your heart and soul and they give theirs to you" and that what she was feeling she could feel with any man. I'm surprised he didn't know about pulling out though so he wouldn't get her pregnant, and I assume men dinna ken about that back then? I also felt the sneaking into her bedroom was absurd, how could he do that and not get caught out, it's ridiculous, she should have met him elsewhere for this act. And I didn't trust her either and I kept hoping she wasn't going to turn him in and he'd go to prison again for raping her even though it more the other way around. So when she died I was like, too bad so sad, girl bye! I hardly knew ye, and didn't want to anyway!

Poor Jamie Fraser. He has buried his first child without ever laying eyes on her (RIP Faith). He has sent away his second child (Brianna) for the safety of it and its mother, and he knows not if it is a boy or a girl, and how they are doing, and he assumes he will never know about them. And now he finally has a child (Willie) that he can lay eyes and hands on, and he cannot claim him as his own. How utterly heartbreaking for him. Why he has this luck I just cannot fathom. I mean, did everyone have such shitty lives back then? It seems like he has had more than his fair share of strife and heartache and I'm ready for him to have some goodness again! I so appreciated that the Lord and Lady and even Isobel, all were genuinely sympathetic to Jamie's plight, and when Lady D - a lady with power - said she would use her power and connections to get him his freedom I thought HALLELUJAH! Finally Jamie has someone helpful and true to their word on his side, it's been a long time since he's had that. I also appreciated the inquest's verdict, "death by misadventure", way to secure the money and land rights for Willie, huzzah to Family D!

The Willie story was also rushed, just like the Geneva story was, but that kid was adorable, though he did NOT look anything like Jamie, sorry Lady D... The pony scene stole my heart too, a horseman in the making, just like Daddy. When Jamie makes Mac a 'bloody Papal' or whatever it was, that was such a sweet scene, and when Jamie gave him the carved snake, my heart melted. "I haven't got anything for you to remember me by..." Oy. And Jamie riding off was just heartbreaking. He has been more or less forced to say goodbye to all three of his children and his wife, it's just too much.

Lastly, Willie/Jamie = Snake, Roger = plane                I like this parallel between kinfolk...

Edited May 22, 2021 by gingerella

[Anothermi]

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

But I found it so odd that Jamie was so repulsed by her demand and sexual blackmail, yet it seemed like he was making love to her, not just breaking her in, so to speak.

I've had time to read through the prior discussions and there were some replies relevant to your point, so I'm posting them to save myself trying to say it better (not possible me thinks).

On 10/3/2017 at 1:24 AM, Hyla said:

It was of course awful for Jamie, as previous posters have already said, to be forced yet again to bargain himself sexually to protect the people he loves. And rather decent of him, as Lady Isabelle said, to be kind and gentle with Geneva when he could instead have been angry or indifferent. I didn't mind that it was a call back to the wedding episode of the first season, it gave a good indication of what Jaime was thinking and his motivations for behaving as he did.

 

On 10/5/2017 at 5:53 AM, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I think there was definitely a shift in Jamie's attitude at the point when Geneva said she was doing this for her and she wanted her first time to be with someone like Jamie.  Up until then, he manner had been brusque and all -business.  'Let's get this done'.  But then Geneva said she didn't know what to do and Jamie offered her an out, 'We don't have to do this.'.  Then she said about doing it for her, and I could see Jamie's demeanor change.  Even what he said in response gives us a clue as to his thoughts, I think: "Yes, the first time can often be....vexing."  Imo, he was clearly thinking about his first time on his wedding night, and how nervous he was. It was at that point that Jamie became gentler with Geneva.  

This exchange gave me a new perspective on that scene.

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

It's funny though, that she hasn't made the connection between Jamie and the unidentified Highlander who set off Frank when they were in Inverness the first time. It was about 200 years after Culloden and Jamie said he'd wait in Purgatory for 200 years if it meant he could come find her again. It's curious that she hasn't connected those two things, and Franks insistence that it was a Highlander AND he disappeared instantly. Hello??? Spirit ghost!

Good Point! I briefly reviewed the 1st episode where we see this spirit (I was searching for dates, heh, heh.) So, I got reminded that this was the time of Samhain (which was described as the origin of Halloween), and the lady who owned the place where Frank and Claire stayed said they would be  welcomed at the Festival—but warned that this was a time when spirits were "freed" and wander about doing good or ill as they please. So I think you've hit the nail on the head. It would be just like Jamie to do neither good nor ill, but to stand there—transfixed by Claire in the window.  (And plodding old pedant Frank was totally sensitive to the vibe spirit-Jamie was sending out!)

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

Interestingly, when I looked at my notes for this episode there was nary a note about Claire's portion,

Yeah. That was my main complaint about this Episode (and last one too, I guess). Just feels unbalanced.  I can understand why they might have done it, but I still don't like it. 

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

When Jamie makes Mac a 'bloody Papal' or whatever it was, that was such a sweet scene, and when Jamie gave him the carved snake, my heart melted.

"Stinking Papist". Loved that little interaction—not least because it illustrated how a child parrots the words he's heard without any idea of the meaning. The rest of the scene was equally fine. Passing on a family tradition—carving a snake for his young never-to-be-acknowledged-son the way his beloved bother carved one for him.  This was just one of many scenes in Jamie's era that added to his character. I can't remember anything like that for Claire this episode. 

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

Jamie riding off was just heartbreaking. He has been more or less forced to say goodbye to all three of his children and his wife, it's just too much.

I agree with you about it being heartbreaking, and about the 1st two children, but what is it that "forced" him to leave Willie? Just that he couldn't be his father in name? He was certainly being a father by his actions. And all I got from the show was that he decided it was time to go home—knowing full well that he was leaving Willie without expectation of seeing him again. That's choice in my books, not being forced. He could have said he's leaving temporarily—just to check in on his family—but as far as we know there is nothing to keep him from staying near Willie.

I suspect all will be revealed—at some point.  Both Jamie and Claire make the decision to "go home" without any recognizable reason being given. (well, Claire had Mrs. Graham's warning to not spend her life chasing ghosts, but it was both abrupt and arbitrary—as was Jamie's decision.) I expect a bit more complexity from this show. 

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

Lastly, Willie/Jamie = Snake, Roger = plane

Do we know who gave Roger the plane? Rev Wakefield?  And does the above mean the snake is a symbol of the connection between Jamie and Willie and may—in his future—bring back the fond memories for Willie the way the plane did for Roger?

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, Anothermi said:

I agree with you about it being heartbreaking, and about the 1st two children, but what is it that "forced" him to leave Willie? Just that he couldn't be his father in name? He was certainly being a father by his actions. And all I got from the show was that he decided it was time to go home—knowing full well that he was leaving Willie without expectation of seeing him again. That's choice in my books, not being forced. He could have said he's leaving temporarily—just to check in on his family—but as far as we know there is nothing to keep him from staying near Willie.

I didn't understand that either.  Now, for the first time since Claire's disappearance, he did have something to live for (though I personally thought in a previous episode that his sister and her children should be reason aplenty for living).  He got his pardon, so he could leave, but he didn't have to leave.  Or did he leave because it would be too painful living close to his son and knowing the truth but not being able to tell him, but overall, the episode gave the sense that he just had to leave, because.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Camera One

[gingerella]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

2 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I agree with you about it being heartbreaking, and about the 1st two children, but what is it that "forced" him to leave Willie? Just that he couldn't be his father in name? He was certainly being a father by his actions. And all I got from the show was that he decided it was time to go home—knowing full well that he was leaving Willie without expectation of seeing him again. That's choice in my books, not being forced. He could have said he's leaving temporarily—just to check in on his family—but as far as we know there is nothing to keep him from staying near Willie.

I didn't understand that either.  Now, for the first time since Claire's disappearance, he did have something to live for (though I personally thought in a previous episode that his sister and her children should be reason aplenty for living).  He got his pardon, so he could leave, but he didn't have to leave.  Or did he leave because it would be too painful living close to his son and knowing the truth but not being able to tell him, but overall, the episode gave the sense that he just had to leave, because.

Edited 20 minutes ago by Camera One

What I got from this was that yes, Jamie felt he had to leave because:

A. John and Isobel were marrying and would be raising Willie as their son now, so it might get awkward and very painful to have Jamie stick around ad infinitum, watching the boy grow up without being able to claim him as his own son.

and

B. We were told ad nauseum that Willie was starting to look and act just like Jamie. Lady D even went so far as to preemptively mention to her lady friend that they spent so much time together that they (I assume 'they' was the family) were saying that Willie and Jamie were starting to look alike (nevermind they didn't, but they said it several times) and they also mentioned how Willie had the same cock to his head, and one other thing I think.

So yes, I think Jamie, who always tries to do the right and noble thing, felt like the right thing, the best thing for his son, was to go back to Scotland now, before Willie became even more attached to him, and he knows he's leaving the boy in a secure and well off family with a friend whom he trusts to raise and look after Willie as he, Jamie, would.

2 hours ago, Anothermi said:

4 hours ago, gingerella said:

Lastly, Willie/Jamie = Snake, Roger = plane

Do we know who gave Roger the plane? Rev Wakefield?  And does the above mean the snake is a symbol of the connection between Jamie and Willie and may—in his future—bring back the fond memories for Willie the way the plane did for Roger?

We don't know who gave Roger the plane, whether it was the Rev. or Roger's parents, but yes, I thought the above and felt it was a nice note to end what was a frenetically paced episode on. Thoughtful, quite contemplation of a man, recollecting his childhood whilst holding his favorite childhood toy. Perhaps the snake will make Willie recall 'Mac' in the future...? BTW, I do love me some Roger at this point, he's fabulous!

2 hours ago, Anothermi said:

Good Point! I briefly reviewed the 1st episode where we see this spirit (I was searching for dates, heh, heh.) So, I got reminded that this was the time of Samhain (which was described as the origin of Halloween), and the lady who owned the place where Frank and Claire stayed said they would be  welcomed at the Festival—but warned that this was a time when spirits were "freed" and wander about doing good or ill as they please. So I think you've hit the nail on the head. It would be just like Jamie to do neither good nor ill, but to stand there—transfixed by Claire in the window.  (And plodding old pedant Frank was totally sensitive to the vibe spirit-Jamie was sending out!)

I forgot about it being Samhain, you're right! And even more so strange that Claire hasn't made the connection since that was the night that the Stones became alive for her, sort of...

On 5/20/2021 at 7:35 PM, Anothermi said:

But we end with the parallel of this episode: 

Claire makes what seems to be an abrupt decision to go back to Boston. 

Jamie makes an unexplained decision to go back to Lallybroch. 

There's got to be something that connects those two decisions.

I see this as both are giving up on something that was bringing them hope. Willie brought hope and joy to Jamie when he was able to be with the boy, which seemed like often enough. But in the end he realizes that it'll get messier if he sticks around and questions will arise about their likeness, so he decides to do what he feels is the right thing, and leave the boy in the best of hands and go back home to Scotland and I assume Lallybroch.

Claire is filled with hope and renewed energy and yes, joy, to find that Jamie is alive and then she finds his name on the rosters for Ardsmuir Prison and she is elated once again that she's found him alive in the years since she left him. Then his trail runs cold and when Fiona gives her Jamie's pearls she remembers Mrs. Graham's warning, and she tells herself that she is living in the past and she ends the search and goes back home to Boston.

Both of them had a light rekindled within their souls and then they felt their hopes dashed again, and they both retreated to their respective homes, I guess hoping to pick up where they left off and just continue on...

Last but not least, when I heard John was depositing Jamie at a place called Helwater, all I could think of was the GoTs Harrenhell, and I thought 'Oh no, not another horrible, terrible, depressing place!" I'm so glad I was proved wrong on that one!

Edited May 22, 2021 by gingerella

[QuinnM]

I have searched to where I read the comment about Jamie riding off and was not ‘heels down’ on the horse.  I do have a horse friend that I watch and talk with.  Her note was that it must have been some odd substitution because his feet were not in stirrups at all.  I did a rewatch and I think she’s right.  Whoever noted that take a look and let me know what you think.

[Camera One]

39 minutes ago, gingerella said:

B. We were told ad nauseum that Willie was starting to look and act just like Jamie. Lady D even went so far as to preemptively mention to her lady friend that they spent so much time together that they (I assume 'they' was the family) were saying that Willie and Jamie were starting to look alike

I think this must have been the main reason.  I think it would have been more convincing if the child was better cast, so it was just a little hard to buy, but this would be a problem if people started connecting the dots.  

Edited May 22, 2021 by Camera One

[gingerella]

36 minutes ago, QuinnM said:

I have searched to where I read the comment about Jamie riding off and was not ‘heels down’ on the horse.  I do have a horse friend that I watch and talk with.  Her note was that it must have been some odd substitution because his feet were not in stirrups at all.  I did a rewatch and I think she’s right.  Whoever noted that take a look and let me know what you think.

Twas me who said that, and there have been other times when I swear Jamie wasn't wearing stirrups, like when they are approaching BPC's camp for the first time, right after Jamie sends Dougal ahead to announce their presence, Jamie and Claire start walking forward on their mounts and Jamie looks like he's got no stirrups there.

[Anothermi]

12 hours ago, gingerella said:

Twas me who said that, and there have been other times when I swear Jamie wasn't wearing stirrups, like when they are approaching BPC's camp for the first time, right after Jamie sends Dougal ahead to announce their presence, Jamie and Claire start walking forward on their mounts and Jamie looks like he's got no stirrups there.

But in this case—when I was looking for any sign of Jamie overhearing Lady Dunsany and friend discussing how Willie is beginning to look like Jamie—I also rewatched that scene and Jamie did have stirrups riding out with Geneva. (continuity error?)

I also found what I was looking for:

Jamie gave Lady Dunsany a "look" after her comment and when he had Willie inside the coach helping him wipe the windows he took a long look at the boy and then at his own reflection. Next scene he tells Willie that he is going home. Willie is still dressed in the same clothes he'd been riding and cleaning in.

 I didn't think Jamie could hear Lady Dunsany—who was deliberately speaking sotto voce. But the clues were present (the two of them)—following on the heels of each other. Cause>effect.  Jamie asked John Grey to watch over Willie for him before he knew John was going to marry Isobel. That was why he offered his body in payment. This was also when John Grey confirmed that he 1) knew that Jamie was leaving, and 2) that he knew he had to leave because—although everyone has secrets—Jamie's was walking around for everyone to see. John said he had seen it already in the way Willie cocked his head and set his shoulders. 

I was caught off guard because far from the resemblance being repeated often, it was just Lady Dunsany noticing it the made up Jamie's mind and I didn't see his "look" because I was focused on the boy. John Grey's comment was just confirmation. That's my story anyway. 😉

And just for you, @gingerella, the translation of what Jamie said to Willie after he'd called him a wee bastard and then apologized was: Don’t cry, my lad. It’ll be quite (i.e. all) right. (from the same site I told you of before).

Edited May 22, 2021 by Anothermi

[SassAndSnacks]

I think it is important that I start by saying that I absolutely HATE the Helwater/Geneva/Jamie/Willie storyline.  Like, Frank Randall-level hatred.  I've gone off on this a few times on these boards and @Cdh20 always intervenes and makes me see reason.  (Not to call you out specifically, but you do usually make me see reason).  But then time passes, and I'll stumble across this episode once more, and I get all fired up about it again.  

As a rule, I try to be introspective and to be self-aware, but for the life of me, I could never QUITE put my finger of why I have such a visceral, adverse reaction to the Helwater business, and then I saw this - 

20 hours ago, gingerella said:

I find myself oddly protective over the Jamie/Claire relationship that it makes me cringe to see either of them with anyone else.

And major light bulb!  Yes!  This is what it is.

On top of that, I agree, it is absolutely absurd for him to sneak into her room.  The whole storyline is freaking absurd, and it paints Jamie as not that intelligent or as not having situational awareness, which we know he is and does.  Geneva isn't trustworthy.  To sleep with her, let alone sleep with her as a virgin, is the height of stupidity, no matter what she would foreseeably do.  And I freaking call her bluff on anything that she would foreseeably do...other than claiming he tried to or did rape her.  He needed to stay away, far far away from her.  

I also find it unbelievable that young(ish) grooms would be permitted to go riding alone with her.  

Finally, it absolutely annoys me...no...stronger...it pisses me off that Jamie just had to have a son.  I understand that sons were more valued because of primogeniture, but c'mon Diana Gabaldon.  Why was it necessary? And if having a son is so valued, why did a one night stand with that spoiled bitch have to result in the son?  If he needed a son, why couldn't it have been Claire?  Because Frank couldn't raise his son?  Because John Gray raising his son is better?  (Ok, yes on that one.)  

Ok, anyway...

20 hours ago, gingerella said:

did the library just not have them at hand?

No, the manifests they had were mislabeled.  The library did not have the records they were looking for.  

On 5/20/2021 at 10:35 PM, Anothermi said:

This approach to story telling leaves me feeling oddly unbalanced. 

Absolutely.  Another major gripe of mine about this episode.  It also annoys me that Claire is taking a back seat in researching Jamie's story.  When has Claire ever taken a back seat in anything?  

16 hours ago, gingerella said:

B. We were told ad nauseum that Willie was starting to look and act just like Jamie. Lady D even went so far as to preemptively mention to her lady friend that they spent so much time together that they (I assume 'they' was the family) were saying that Willie and Jamie were starting to look alike (nevermind they didn't, but they said it several times) and they also mentioned how Willie had the same cock to his head, and one other thing I think.

So yes, I think Jamie, who always tries to do the right and noble thing, felt like the right thing, the best thing for his son, was to go back to Scotland now, before Willie became even more attached to him, and he knows he's leaving the boy in a secure and well off family with a friend whom he trusts to raise and look after Willie as he, Jamie, would.

Yes, the show actually didn't do a great job of making this clear.  Jamie and Willie were spending a lot of time together, and people were starting to talk.  Jamie was concerned that if people began to ask questions, they would come to the conclusion that Willie was his son and he didn't want Willie to suffer any ramifications, such as losing his inherited lands and titles.  He would never want his child to be labeled a bastard.  

[gingerella]

5 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Yes, the show actually didn't do a great job of making this clear.  Jamie and Willie were spending a lot of time together, and people were starting to talk.  Jamie was concerned that if people began to ask questions, they would come to the conclusion that Willie was his son and he didn't want Willie to suffer any ramifications, such as losing his inherited lands and titles.  He would never want his child to be labeled a bastard.  

Bingo! This why he recoiled after he called Willie a wee little bastard and Willie looked crestfallen and retorted back, "I am NOT a bastard, take it back!" He actually IS a bastard and that's why Jamie couldn't allow his own happiness take front seat to his child's happiness. But I agree with you, I disliked this episode and all it contained as much as you I think! It's painful to see a character that we grow to love and root for, experience so many hardships, but by far the hardest of them all has been losing Claire and his children, in that order I think. And I guess that this "great love that most people never experience" wouldn't include additional sexual partners once Claire left...silly me! Och, and oy! I wonder if in the books, this story line between Jamie, Geneva, and Willie was handled or unpacked in more detail and we're just getting the top notes of it all in a Show? I would hope that's the case because if it's this thinly written in the books then it's just a cheap plot device and I should think this story is better than that.

11 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

21 hours ago, gingerella said:

did the library just not have them at hand?

No, the manifests they had were mislabeled.  The library did not have the records they were looking for.  

Ah, okay, that's what I initially thought. The outside was labeled 1700s but inside the manifests were all from the 1600s. There must be other places they could have looked though, as Roger said, there are several other ports and if they were looking for ship's manifests that took prisoners from Ardsmuir to the Colonies, and Ardsmuir was in England, then why were they looking at manifests from Scotland/in Scotland? Those documents looked authentic so I would assume that ship's documents from English ports would be housed in libraries and historical societies nearby or in those specific port cities, no?

13 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

On 5/20/2021 at 7:35 PM, Anothermi said:

This approach to story telling leaves me feeling oddly unbalanced. 

Absolutely.  Another major gripe of mine about this episode.  It also annoys me that Claire is taking a back seat in researching Jamie's story.  When has Claire ever taken a back seat in anything?  

Thritto me in on this too! It felt like Roger and Brianna were going full tilt on this search and Claire was sort of passive, at least that's how she came across to me. I wonder if it was because she didn't want to get her hopes up too much? It just seemed odd, you're both right on that.

 

15 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

On top of that, I agree, it is absolutely absurd for him to sneak into her room.  The whole storyline is freaking absurd, and it paints Jamie as not that intelligent or as not having situational awareness, which we know he is and does.  Geneva isn't trustworthy.  To sleep with her, let alone sleep with her as a virgin, is the height of stupidity, no matter what she would foreseeably do.  And I freaking call her bluff on anything that she would foreseeably do...other than claiming he tried to or did rape her.  He needed to stay away, far far away from her.  

I also find it unbelievable that young(ish) grooms would be permitted to go riding alone with her.  

Yes to all this too. BUT...As street smart, as intelligent, and as able to read a room as Jamie is/can, he DOES do some idiotic things from time to time and those things have gotten him into trouble probably an equal number of times.

1. Making out with Leery, then allowing her to touch him in the riverside scene. He should have told her in the Leoch hallway that there was nothing to talk about, that he never loved her, was sorry if she had that impression, and that he was in love with Claire. Full stop. Instead he acted like there was something more between them by agreeing that they 'needed to talk' and he allowed her to spill her guts to him at the river when he should have stopped her and told her to go back to Leoch, or he himself should have walked away from her. But no, he allows her to come close enough to touch him and bare her self emotionally and physically, stupid mistake.

2. He walks around with his Dun Bonnet and red hair fanning about whilst being wanted as the Dun Bonnet and/or Red Jamie. Really James Alexander Malcomb MacKenzie Fraser? Stu.Pid.

3. He allows that French trollup to cling to him like pre-paid French whore at that ball, when he should have greeted her more coolly and without so much enthusiasm. If that would have happened then I doubt Claire would have been strolling the gardens about to have it out with her, and thus would not have seen BJR and thus the duel would not have been presented, and perhaps Faith would not have died. A lot maybes there but...they all connect in my mind.

4. He insists on going to see Horrocks even though it seems like a very bad idea, and yes, it IS a very bad idea.

I'm sure there are other instances where Jamie makes a bad mistake, but my point is, he DOES make mistakes and they are usually fairly sizeable in their fallout.

[Camera One]

3 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

On top of that, I agree, it is absolutely absurd for him to sneak into her room.  The whole storyline is freaking absurd, and it paints Jamie as not that intelligent or as not having situational awareness, which we know he is and does.  Geneva isn't trustworthy.  To sleep with her, let alone sleep with her as a virgin, is the height of stupidity, no matter what she would foreseeably do.  And I freaking call her bluff on anything that she would foreseeably do...other than claiming he tried to or did rape her.  He needed to stay away, far far away from her.  

I was expecting the worst when he sneaked in and that scene began.  It felt like a trap and I'm surprised it wasn't one.

I think if Jaime had gone to Geneva's father and explained what Geneva wanted and what Geneva threatened to do, her father would have handled the situation and wouldn't have blamed Jaime.  

I feel like the show was trying to have Jaime sympathesize with Geneva wanting her first time to be great (as he thought about his own first time), and Jaime wanted her to have a good experience.  That sort of made the whole thing even more repulsive to me.  The fact that Geneva threatened the well-being of Jaime's family at Lallybroch made her despicable and irredeemable.  

Edited May 22, 2021 by Camera One

[Cdh20]

@ gingerella 

I think I can safely say it was handled better in the show than the book! 
 

@SassAndSnacks

I love this episode, because I only see the good things, Jamie has a job he likes, a friend he trusts in John, a child to enjoy ( if only for a bit). It was the best part of his life without Claire. 
 

Did he need a son? No! Even if he had a son with Claire - that son would have been raised as a Randall, not a Fraser. So now he has one without his name as well. I do hope they have a real relationship later in life? 
 

I am also protective of Jamie & Claire’s love ( it’s something special) and didn’t want to see Jamie sleep with any other women. However in both instances we’ve seen, Jamie is thinking of Claire, & the show made that quite clear. It’s the best he can do under the circumstances. If this was real life, or worse a soap opera Jamie would have had a lot more lovers than these 2!

 

Also Sam’s acting was spot on in this one- so much subtlety, with expressions, & body acting! 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Cdh20
Adding a thought!

[gingerella]

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

I feel like the show was trying to have Jaime sympathesize with Geneva wanting her first time to be great (as he thought about his own first time), and Jaime wanted her to have a good experience.  That sort of made the whole thing even more repulsive to me.  The fact that Geneva threatened the well-being of Jaime's family at Lallybroch made her despicable and irredeemable.  

This explains my visceral reaction to that scene perfectly. His wanting this woman, who has been an unmitigated bitch to him and is blackmailing him with unwanted sex, and he still wants to give her a good experience. Just, NO.

2 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

@ gingerella 

I think I can safely say it was handled better in the show than the book! 

This is even more discouraging then.

2 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I am also protective of Jamie & Claire’s love ( it’s something special) and didn’t want to see Jamie sleep with any other women. However in both instances we’ve seen, Jamie is thinking of Claire, & the show made that quite clear. It’s the best he can do under the circumstances. If this was real life, or worse a soap opera Jamie would have had a lot more lovers than these 2!

Okay, like @SassAndSnacks has said of me before, I am going to think about what you've said because I can see, in the smallest of ways, how this might be so. I didn't feel as badly about Mary MacNabb because she was looking for human comfort and understood that Jamie might need the same but not know how to go about getting it. She was kind and loving and decent to him. But Geneva is a blackmailing bitch who forces him into her bed so she can be deflowered by someone 'like him', whatever that means. But yes, I can see  that he's probably thinking of Claire the whole time in both instances, or getting lost in his head that he's with Claire. I canna imagine Jamie having sex with any other woman, ever, and NOT pretending it was Claire, to be quite frank (hehe, see what I did there?!?).

[SassAndSnacks]

6 hours ago, gingerella said:

BUT...As street smart, as intelligent, and as able to read a room as Jamie is/can, he DOES do some idiotic things from time to time and those things have gotten him into trouble probably an equal number of times.

Ugh, yes.  You're right.  I try to pretend these things didn't happen.  Alas...

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

I feel like the show was trying to have Jaime sympathesize with Geneva wanting her first time to be great (as he thought about his own first time), and Jaime wanted her to have a good experience.  That sort of made the whole thing even more repulsive to me.  The fact that Geneva threatened the well-being of Jaime's family at Lallybroch made her despicable and irredeemable. 

 

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

His wanting this woman, who has been an unmitigated bitch to him and is blackmailing him with unwanted sex, and he still wants to give her a good experience. Just, NO.

YEEEESSSSS!!!  WHY should he sympathize with her?  She's wretched and manipulative.  She threatened and sexually coerced her hired help.  She's a special kind of low.

3 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I am also protective of Jamie & Claire’s love ( it’s something special) and didn’t want to see Jamie sleep with any other women. However in both instances we’ve seen, Jamie is thinking of Claire, & the show made that quite clear.

Ha!  You almost pulled your rational thinking trickery on me again, but not this time, my friend. Not. This. Time.  :-)

The parallels between his time with Geneva and his first time with Claire actually make it worse.  I don't like that the show took something that was sacred to the story of J&C, their wedding night, and paralleled with Geneva.  It was wrong.  The scene of him untying her nightdress just about sent me through the roof. No, you don't do that to me, Show.  Those images, that motion, those touches.  Those are for Claire.  

 

[gingerella]

17 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

21 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I am also protective of Jamie & Claire’s love ( it’s something special) and didn’t want to see Jamie sleep with any other women. However in both instances we’ve seen, Jamie is thinking of Claire, & the show made that quite clear.

Ha!  You almost pulled your rational thinking trickery on me again, but not this time, my friend. Not. This. Time.  :-)

The parallels between his time with Geneva and his first time with Claire actually make it worse.  I don't like that the show took something that was sacred to the story of J&C, their wedding night, and paralleled with Geneva.  It was wrong.  The scene of him untying her nightdress just about sent me through the roof. No, you don't do that to me, Show.  Those images, that motion, those touches.  Those are for Claire.  

Ha! Seriously though, I must have had a massive bout of disassociate because I.never even thought of the Wedding episode when he was with that wretched bitch. All I thought was that he was being too caring with someone who was human shit. But I still hated it...  As far as I'll go is this, he needed human connection with anyone at that point and he pretended she was Claire as best he could. That's as much as I can concede, sorry @Cdh20, I am with @SassAndSnacks on this one!

Edited May 23, 2021 by gingerella

[Anothermi]

45 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

YEEEESSSSS!!!  WHY should he sympathize with her?  She's wretched and manipulative.  She threatened and sexually coerced her hired help.  She's a special kind of low.

Even though I am one who is not as taken with Jamie and Claire's love story as you folks—I can't say Jamie should sympathize with Geneva. But what makes him Jamie; what made him so special to Claire; is that he is someone who can and does find it within himself to feel empathy. Not so much sympathy—empathy. He can imagine how others might feel. It was one of his main personality traits that won Claire over. When his did something that was perfectly normal in his world and she got really angry and upset with him, he worked through it by using his empathy and found the way to let her know he understood and would make changes. He wasn't doing it just for her. It was Jamie being Jamie. We've seen him do it for others—like John Grey—and we've seen John go from hating him to being his BFF.  This quality is rare and totally unusual in any one, but it's what makes Jamie compelling. He always tries to do the right thing.

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, SassAndSnacks said:

 

Ha!  You almost pulled your rational thinking trickery on me again, but not this time, my friend. Not. This. Time.  :-)

The parallels between his time with Geneva and his first time with Claire actually make it worse.  I don't like that the show took something that was sacred to the story of J&C, their wedding night, and paralleled with Geneva.  It was wrong.  The scene of him untying her nightdress just about sent me through the roof. No, you don't do that to me, Show.  Those images, that motion, those touches.  Those are for Claire.  

 

We shall agree to disagree, my friend! This episode is a love it Or hate it! 

 

 

42 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

Even though I am one who is not as taken with Jamie and Claire's love story as you folks—I can't say Jamie should sympathize with Geneva. But what makes him Jamie; what made him so special to Claire; is that he is someone who can and does find it within himself to feel empathy. Not so much sympathy—empathy. He can imagine how others might feel. It was one of his main personality traits that won Claire over. When his did something that was perfectly normal in his world and she got really angry and upset with him, he worked through it by using his empathy and found the way to let her know he understood and would make changes. He wasn't doing it just for her. It was Jamie being Jamie. We've seen him do it for others—like John Grey—and we've seen John go from hating him to being his BFF.  This quality is rare and totally unusual in any one, but it's what makes Jamie compelling. He always tries to do the right thing.

Yup, this is my Jamie! 

[SassAndSnacks]

14 hours ago, Anothermi said:

Not so much sympathy—empathy. He can imagine how others might feel. It was one of his main personality traits that won Claire over. When his did something that was perfectly normal in his world and she got really angry and upset with him, he worked through it by using his empathy and found the way to let her know he understood and would make changes. He wasn't doing it just for her. It was Jamie being Jamie. We've seen him do it for others—like John Grey—and we've seen John go from hating him to being his BFF.  This quality is rare and totally unusual in any one, but it's what makes Jamie compelling. He always tries to do the right thing.

Ah, right you are.  He says something in Paris (and you are so much better with the quotes than I am) when he is arguing with Claire, something to the effect of "Must I bear everyone's burdens?"  That's empathy, though, sharing and understanding other people's emotional burdens.  He does always try to understand and do the right thing. 

But doing right by Geneva didn't have to mean sleeping with her.  I'm not saying that you are implying that.  It's really just me yelling in vain at the Outlander gods, ie. DG.  

And actually, I don't even care SO much that he slept with her.  It isn't as though there was emotion behind it, and in that regard, it is similar to Mary McNabb.  It is the child that bothers me.  Children are forever and connecting.  He will forever be connected to this stupid chit.  

[Cdh20]

2 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Ah, right you are.  He says something in Paris (and you are so much better with the quotes than I am) when he is arguing with Claire, something to the effect of "Must I bear everyone's burdens?"  That's empathy, though, sharing and understanding other people's emotional burdens.  He does always try to understand and do the right thing. 

But doing right by Geneva didn't have to mean sleeping with her.  I'm not saying that you are implying that.  It's really just me yelling in vain at the Outlander gods, ie. DG.  

And actually, I don't even care SO much that he slept with her.  It isn't as though there was emotion behind it, and in that regard, it is similar to Mary McNabb.  It is the child that bothers me.  Children are forever and connecting.  He will forever be connected to this stupid chit.  

You go ahead & have a word with that author you love!
 

At least she died! 
 

I cannot say more because we all going to be here 4 episodes from now having another conversation about Jamie’s choices!