S04.E06: Blood of My Blood

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, Ziggy said:

Did they show that in Season 3? 

Yes.

[Cdh20]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 9:42 AM, FnkyChkn34 said:

I'm pleasantly surprised to see comments here about liking this episode... because I did not. I was bored, and I'm not a fan of Lord John or Willie. It's bad when I find myself hoping for a Brianna scene...

Also, what was with Willie's facial expressions? I found it interesting to bring up and include some of the privy scene because he looked like he had to go the entire episode. 

Murtagh was the redeeming part of the episode for me.

The bathtub scene was so cheesy I think I laughed out loud. 

I thought the book readers wanted all those cheesy lines from the book?? (Haven't read the book yet-is it in the book?). 

7 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

 

Did they show that in Season 3? 

I did not reread Drums of Autumn, so it's all blurry.  Actually, Voyager is blurry, too.  If I remember correctly, this is one of those scenes that the readers learned of in a flashback.  I don't think we learned about it in Voyager, but I could definitely be wrong.

One thing that really fascinates me in these books is how so much is told in flashbacks.  There are just so many things that we are told about later, even though they happened during the time of Voyager or Drums of Autumn.  It messes with my brain!

Episode 304

[Nidratime]

Quote

I can't recall the specifics of the snake in the privy. But it was a hilarious moment in the buik.

I've been listening to DoA on CD just to refresh my memory and the snake in the privy thing was an actual drawn out scene. Remember, Murtagh died at Colluden, so he's not there to meet John and Willie. Instead, Young Ian is still on Fraser's Ridge and not off with the Cherokee. My memory is fuzzy, even though I'm "reading" the book now, but I believe Ian takes Willie out to see the farm or show him to the privy or something. But they find a snake in the privy. I believe they try and fish it out, and in the process, Willie falls in. (I'm guessing the privy hole was a bit bigger than what we saw on the show.) So, Willie is down there in all that muck *and* the snake. Now, *I think* Ian tries to shoot it, unsuccessfully. Eventually, the adults come to the rescue and manage to get both Willie and the snake out. Willie needs an urgent bath and the snake is let lose to someday find himself back in the privy again. (Please, someone, correct me or fill in the details if necessary.)

By the way, during the course of John and Willie's stay, Ian sees the resemblance between Jamie and Willie and figures out Willie is Jamie's son. 

[Atlanta]

Willie does find out in (IIRC) at the end of the second to most recent book. The funny thing is that everyone else sees the obvious similarity of Jamie and Willie, but he doesn't. 

[toolazy]

So the snake in the privy thing begins in the early morning.  Claire wakes up and needs to use the facilities but discovers a snake perched on the seat.  After a short standoff, during which Jamie shows up, the snake ends up falling into the privy pit of nastiness.  Later, Ian and Willie are outside amusing themselves when Willie falls in.  I'm not sure of all of the details but the whole thing is pretty funny, especially to Jamie & LJG.

Edited December 10, 2018 by toolazy

[toolazy]

11 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

Willie does find out in (IIRC) at the end of the second to most recent book. The funny thing is that everyone else sees the obvious similarity of Jamie and Willie, but he doesn't. 

This part of the book strains credulity, I'm afraid.  He sees Jamie for the first time in years in the dim hallway at LJG's house in Philadelphia.  That one brief glance is enough to reveal to william that Jamie is his father and so a freak out ensues.  

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't happen in real life.  No one looks so that much like their decades-older father that the recognize him based on a brief glance in a dim hallway.  

Still, that scene and the immediate aftermath with Claire & Jenny is one of my favorite parts of those later books. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by toolazy

[MV713]

22 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I wonder what the non-readers will think. I wonder if they will think the snake in the privy is a metaphor for hidden danger – some vague reference to the simmering animosity between Murtagh and Lord John and the fine line that Jamie is trying to tread between their opposing points of view.

Nope - my non-book reader boyfriend said "oh I bet they had a lot of snakes up their ass in the dark nights going out to the bathroom".  He didn't even think past that visual :)

[Emily Thrace]

I actually laughed at the scene where the Cherokee menace Jamie and the boy. You see as an Aboriginal myself I know "blood sacrifice" for us is usually a token sacrifice like the small cut William received. We never did any major sacrifice a limb or an actual person to the gods craziness that you see further south with the Aztecs and some of those other cultures. There are some pain sacrifices that were pretty intense but those were an honour for warriors not a punishment. The Cherokee were just trying to scare the stupid white people so they wouldn't mess with their stuff again.  Plus I wouldn't be surprised if they were hungry considering the time and place. Between the war and the move inland a lot of their food sources would have been disrupted. 

[CountryGirl]

18 minutes ago, Emily Thrace said:

I actually laughed at the scene where the Cherokee menace Jamie and the boy. You see as an Aboriginal myself I know "blood sacrifice" for us is usually a token sacrifice like the small cut William received. We never did any major sacrifice a limb or an actual person to the gods craziness that you see further south with the Aztecs and some of those other cultures. There are some pain sacrifices that were pretty intense but those were an honour for warriors not a punishment. The Cherokee were just trying to scare the stupid white people so they wouldn't mess with their stuff again.  Plus I wouldn't be surprised if they were hungry considering the time and place. Between the war and the move inland a lot of their food sources would have been disrupted. 

I chuckled as well, figuring it would be a tiny cut.

Not unlike Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Caribbean TCOTBP assuming the blood debt to be paid meant she'd be killed vs them getting just a bit of blood from her. 

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I thought the book readers wanted all those cheesy lines from the book?? (Haven't read the book yet-is it in the book?). 

I read the book a while ago and I can't remember. If it's the same, I probably laughed then too. Or at least in my head, the words didn't come out so completely ridiculous.  I didn't mind the bath itself, it was the dialogue about the rain that was so cringeworthy in my opinion. 

[toolazy]

Just now, FnkyChkn34 said:

I read the book a while ago and I can't remember. If it's the same, I probably laughed then too. Or at least in my head, the words didn't come out so completely ridiculous.  I didn't mind the bath itself, it was the dialogue about the rain that was so cringeworthy in my opinion. 

I don't think that was in the book. 

[Cdh20]

27 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I don't think that was in the book. 

 

28 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I read the book a while ago and I can't remember. If it's the same, I probably laughed then too. Or at least in my head, the words didn't come out so completely ridiculous.  I didn't mind the bath itself, it was the dialogue about the rain that was so cringeworthy in my opinion. 

I was sure it would come from there, since anytime I've thought the dialoque was indeed a bit cheesy -it usually came straight from the book! That scene could have been so much better-to start why was Jamie in his shirt still??? And the black out came long before 1000 kisses...

[Thalia]

On 12/9/2018 at 11:43 AM, nodorothyparker said:

As much as I normally don't notice wigs on TV I second the wig complaint.  Duncan Lacroix has joked about his "Gandalf" silver fox getup in interviews and it looks amazing on him.  Lord John's isn't bad either even if it was giving me shades of Brad Pitt in Interview With the Vampire in his sickbed scenes.  Yet our leading man consistently looks like he just pulled a slightly greasy bucket off of his head.

Through hard work and effort, I've learned to ignore the thatch on Jamie's head.  For the most part.  But John's wig also bugged me last season, and his wig, and Claire's, took me out of the story on more than one occasion last night.   Their hairlines are so perfect that it looks like someone drew them on.  Not even the most severe hairstyle results in that kind of perfection.  Think Veronica Hamel in Hill Street Blues, Pizza Man.  

It is 2018, can't they come up with a more natural hairline without resulting to a wig that any self-respecting poodle mix would shun?  It is particularly jarring when you combine today's large televisions, HD, and numerous closeups.  

Hair aside, I spent most of the first three episodes in fast forward mode, stopping only when Young Ian or Roger was on the screen.  These past two have been much more enjoyable, thanks to the presence of Murtagh and Lord John.  As a matter of fact, as much as I love Book!Jamie and Claire, I'd happily watch a television show revolving around Murtagh and Young Ian, with Lord John popping in now and then.  

[WatchrTina]

One thing I recollect from the book about the privy scene is that after trying to shoot the snake (I think it's the recoil of the gun that causes William to fall in but don't quote me on that), William drops the pistol in the muck.  So after William stalks off to the river to wash, Jamie orders Ian into the hole to find the gun.  Thus Ian ends up at the river in as bad a state as William.

I've never really thought about it before but I presume William and Ian must have moved the outhouse itself, so as to give them a better view of the muck pit where the snake was hiding.  Otherwise, it really makes no sense that William could fall in.

And now I think I will go look at pictures of puppies to clear those mental images from my brain.

Edited December 12, 2018 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

42 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

One thing I recollect from the book about the privy scene is that after trying to shoot the snake (I think it's the recoil of the gun that causes William to fall in but don't quote me on that), William drops the pistol in the muck.  So after William stalks off to the river to wash, Jamie orders Ian into the hole to find the gun.  Thus Ian ends up at the river in as bad a state as William.

I've never really thought about it before but I presume William and Ian must have moved the outhouse itself, so as to give them a better view of the muck pit where the snake was hiding.  Otherwise, it really makes no sense that William could fall in.

And now I think I will got look at pictures of puppies to clear those mental images from my brain.

So I looked it up.  Ian was poking at the snake with a stick and the snake took off up the stick towards Ian which startled him, causing him to bump into Willie and knock him into the pit. 

As to how there was an opening big enough, Ian explains it thusly: ".... it was too dark below [to see the snake]. So we lifted off the benchtop to get more light."  So apparently there's a big board or whatever that isn't attached to the outhouse proper. 

[Pingaponga]

7 hours ago, AEMom said:

Curious if anybody watched this episode on the W network? 

I didn't get any previouslies or the credits or anything with a privy scene that you are all talking about.  The first thing I saw was John outside Jamie's house and them talking.  I definitely watched from the beginning of the taping.

Did I miss anything really important?

This was my experience as well.  I was kind of surprised, and disappointed, as I love the song in the opening credits. 

[GeorgieNY]

Honestly, I enjoyed this episode more than any this season. DOA is the book that made me stop reading the series. Those of you saying it s a chore to get through the episodes...that’s how I felt about the book. 

[nodorothyparker]

2 hours ago, Thalia said:

But John's wig also bugged me last season, and his wig, and Claire's, took me out of the story on more than one occasion last night.   Their hairlines are so perfect that it looks like someone drew them on.  Not even the most severe hairstyle results in that kind of perfection. 

John's hairline is rather severe, but again, I'm not a big noticer of wigs anyway.  It has to be pretty bad for me to give it much thought or comment on it at all, so make what you will of the fact that I find Jamie's wig so distracting awful.  I could chalk John's very exact hair along with his comparatively fussy and well scrubbed look up to just being John and leave it at that.  It makes for a visual contrast to Jamie and Murtagh, who were both doing what passes on this show for rugged.

 

30 minutes ago, toolazy said:

As to how there was an opening big enough, Ian explains it thusly: ".... it was too dark below [to see the snake]. So we lifted off the benchtop to get more light."  So apparently there's a big board or whatever that isn't attached to the outhouse proper. 

Am I really the only one here who had grandparents who had outhouses?  The board with the seat hole usually either lifted off entirely or was hinged because country people sometimes threw their trash down the hole too or dumped the occasional bucket of lye or lime in to help with the smell.  Taking the top off would definitively give you a hole big enough for a kid to fall in.  Not that it really matters all that much since the show decided to skip it entirely.

[Biggie B]

Although I've read the books, I have no recollection of most of them (aside from the biggest moments), so when the snake was shown, I thought nothing more than, "Eh, just one more thing that happens when one lives in the forest," and also since I knew Lord John was arriving for this episode, I figured that it also highlighted the difference between Jamie's current environment and that which Lord John and William are used to. I'm glad they didn't show Ian and Willie falling into the privy. 

I enjoyed this episode because it was so visually gorgeous. The rich colors, the fur details on everyone's clothing, the landscape, the candlelight - all so beautifully filmed. I love the Cherokees' clothing as well. Autumn is my favorite season and this episode was such a visual orgy of everything I love about it. I could almost feel the cold snap in air, smell the smoke of the fire. Just a completely aesthetic treat.

I didn't much care for William. Although he was obedient and well-spoken most of the time, he still came across to me as a spoiled and possibly nasty little twit. I'm fine to never see him again. I know, I know, he's Jamie's son but eh, I'm not invested in the character. 

The ring was beautiful but I found the bathtub scene completely cheesy. If I weren't watching it live, I'd have fast forwarded through that.

The actor who plays Lord John is beyond pretty. I, too, thought he looked like a young Brad Pitt, and that's OK by me! I suspect that actor will age quite well and it would not surprise me if he's even more good looking in his 60's than he is now. 

Circling back to the blood scene for a moment, after William received the slight nick/cut, the Cherokee who did so then said a sentence or two that I was hoping would be translated by the one young man who knows English (was it the same person?). I wonder what he said, and although I suppose it doesn't really matter, I do wonder if they intended to perform the same symbolic gesture on Jamie, or, if they were truly "impressed" by William's action and made a split-second decision to dial it back. 

As a lifelong/current equestrian, I scrutinize the horses and Jamie's big grey is a stunner. However, it rankled me greatly that not once but twice was William hoisted onto his horse from the incorrect side. I'll give the first time a pass, when Jamie basically forced him on the horse in an effort to prevent William from running back into the cabin, but the second time, when William and Lord John were departing, that was a glaring goof. True, they're out in the middle of nowhere, not in a competition, but since the days of knights in armor, people have mounted their horses from the left side, not the right, and still do - everything happens from the left side. Can't help but notice but I know that's just my own personal "thing"! 

[WatchrTina]

On 12/10/2018 at 7:44 PM, Biggie B said:

since the days of knights in armor, people have mounted their horses from the left side, not the right, and still do - everything happens from the left side. 

I am decidedly NOT an equestrian and even I knew that (though, not being an  equestrian, I did NOT notice William being hoisted up on the wrong side, so good catch!)  I'm surprised the horses tolerated it.  I can remember being told that if you try to mount a horse from the wrong side, they'll just keep stepping away from you as if to say "What ARE you doing?"  

I wonder if horses that routinely work in show business are simply more tolerant of, well, everything.  I remember seeing the behind-the-scenes documentaries about the Lord of the Rings and those horses were desensitized to noise, flapping fabric, swords swinging around, men in masks -- the works.  So maybe the horses on Outlander are true show-biz horses who aren't fazed when humans do strange things.

This is slightly off-topic but one time in Rotterdam I saw mounted police ride in to break up a fight between soccer fans from opposing teams. They had invaded a pedestrian mall and we shoppers all retreated into the shops who then locked their doors.  Those horses were AMAZING -- they would shoulder right into the crowd (as means of separating the two groups) and you betcha those soccer hooligans got OUT of the way.

On 12/10/2018 at 7:44 PM, Biggie B said:

As a lifelong/current equestrian, I scrutinize the horses and Jamie's big grey is a stunner.

Is that Jamie's horse?  I speculated that it was actually Lord John's and Jamie just borrowed it when he took William into the woods.  It looked awfully fancy for a work horse and I'm guessing Jamie's horses are trained primarily to pull wagons (and possibly a plow).  I can't image that beautiful horse pulling a wagon but I CAN imagine it carrying Lord John (who can afford very nice things).

Edited December 12, 2018 by WatchrTina

[Biggie B]

9 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Is that Jamie's horse?  I speculated that it was actually John Grey's and Jamie just borrowed it when he took William into the woods.

Totally possible - I'm way more interested in the horses than who's riding them, most of the time! I do like that horse very much, he was completely the right size for Jamie. Actually, I think Lord John initially rode up to the house on a dark bay horse [edited to add that I went back to Page One of this thread and found the post with all the screen shots and the one in which Lord John and William are riding away, they are both on bay horses.]  Jamie and Claire do have a big grey horse. When Claire fell off the horse a few episodes back (when she later found the skull with the silver filling), it was a grey horse. He's quite nice, but upon reflection, he may not even be the same horse that Jamie rode out on with William. I'd have to see side-by-side pictures of both horses to tell, and I could be completely wrong! 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Biggie B

[Squirrely]

For those who missed it, the little opening scene showed a hand taking a small snake out of a privy hole. The snake was squeaky clean and the hand only went in a few inches. It added absolutely nothing but disappointment for those of us who really wanted to see that little story come to life. Usually those openers refer to something that actually happens in the episode! 

[luv2lurk]

9 hours ago, AEMom said:

Curious if anybody watched this episode on the W network? 

I didn't get any previouslies or the credits or anything with a privy scene that you are all talking about.  The first thing I saw was John outside Jamie's house and them talking.  I definitely watched from the beginning of the taping.

Did I miss anything really important?

Same thing happened here. Although PTV posters have basically filled in what we missed, I was able to find the episode On Demand (Rogers). W network does not post full episodes on their website.

Quote

2 hours ago, Pingaponga said:

This was my experience as well.  I was kind of surprised, and disappointed, as I love the song in the opening credits. 

 

Like you, I missed the opening song . . . if you can, catch it on demand.

[Ziggy]

10 minutes ago, Squirrely said:

For those who missed it, the little opening scene showed a hand taking a small snake out of a privy hole. The snake was squeaky clean and the hand only went in a few inches. It added absolutely nothing but disappointment for those of us who really wanted to see that little story come to life. Usually those openers refer to something that actually happens in the episode! 

Yes!!!  I got so excited when I saw that opening scene and then ... nothing.  It was a great episode.  I completely forgot about the snake by the end.  Still, I really wanted to see that story, so I was disappointed.

[Thalia]

Speaking of snakes, did they ever show that Willie still has the carving Jamie gave him?  I know he told Jamie he no longer had it, but I'm sure that's not true.  Book Willie kept the wooden rosary beads, but I can't remember if those were mentioned in this book or not.  

[tennisgurl]

Its nice to see that, no matter the century, any dinner can fall into into awkwardness and arguing the second politics gets brought up. Loved seeing Lord John again, and little William is starting to grow up. He and his bio dad even got to go on a male bonding camping trip! Granted, its interrupted by zoning disputes and the possible death of Williams other dad, but its still better than nothing. 

Lots of great acting from the whole ensemble this week, and the scenes between Lord John and Claire were especially good. The awkwardness of their relations was well done, and while they're both certainly both good people, they can both be petty and a bit possessive when it comes to Jaime, who they both love, but Jamie only loves Claire. I liked how it ended, and how Claire told John that she hoped that he could one day find someone as well who he can love and be loved in return the way Jaime and Claire do. Really good performances by both actors, it almost felt like the a two person play, mostly based around dialogue and acting. I really do feel awful for John, knowing that he can never have the perfect, open love that other people can have, at least, and still keep his position in society. You could say that he was being selfish going to see Jamie with William just to see how he felt about him, but I think its also a very human thing, and I do think he is happy for Jamie to have love, despite being heartbroken that he cant have that. 

The ring! Its so lovely, and I love how they worked it into the story! And that fur coat Jaime was rocking looked amazing on him. Very King in the North. And I liked that they kept William a bit of a bratty English Lord who is rather spoiled and privileged, but is still a basically good kid. 

Murtagh is Murtagh, and thats why we love him. I dont even care that he isnt in the books at this point, him being around is always a good thing. He and Claire hanging out and doing some chores was really sweet, I just live their relationship so much, its so warm and kind. Him being around should also make the revolutionary stuff more close to home, and I am enjoying his story already, and the conflict it leads to with the Fraisiers. They are still living on the Kings land, but no way will the dont be more sympathetic to the rebels, especially with Murtagh as their leader. The argument between Lord John and Murtagh was interesting as well. Its easy to see that both men really believe that their side is right, and I can understand both sides. Lord John genuinely believes that the British are making the world a more civilized and safe place, while Murtagh sees them as violent oppressors who are unfair to the people they are supposedly protecting. I can certainly see how they both got their views, and its certainly going to be interesting to see if anything comes from it. I dont know whats coming next with Murtagh and that story now, this is uncharted waters. 

I wish they would chill with the drama between the Native Americans and everyone else though. What, do people just sit around the river, waiting for dumb people to fish from their river, so they can scare the crap out of them? This story does NOT need more drama! And I missed Young Ian, and I dont know why they had him not be around. Not only does it cut out some fun stuff from the book, and possibly raise some issues in the future, but I just love having Young Ian around in general. He is just such a sweet kid, and I would have loved to see him and William interact. I dont think it will be all that hard to write around it later, but its a weird thing to cut. 

One of the hardest things for Claire in the past has to be how freaking awful and deadly illnesses were at this time, especially as a doctor. Yeah, sickness affected plenty of people in the 60s as well, as they still do, but they seemed so horrible and fast acting back then, and it seems like everything could kill you. One day your talking to someone and they're just fine, doing farm work, laughing and joking, and then you blink, and they've gotten sick and drooped dead of some illness that can be cured with one shot today, or even in Claire's time. Like with the Muellers or with Lord John here. Even a healthy active man in the prime of life like Lord John can go from perfectly healthy to almost on deaths door in just a day or two from the measles. It must be so awful for her. Or for anyone, but they dont know anything else at least. 

[cardigirl]

On 12/10/2018 at 1:31 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Jamie offered himself to Lord John in payment for Lord John raising Willie as his son. He did this knowing Lord John was attracted to him (he had made a pass at him at Ardsmuir). 

 

Didn't Jamie do this as a test, also, to see what type of person Lord John really was? I thought there was some sort of discussion, at the time of the episode last season, that Jamie had told Lord John he wouldn't have left William alone with him if Lord John had taken the offer.  Or am I remembering this incorrectly? 

[nodorothyparker]

That's a later book retelling and one that's always felt like Jamie retconning to cast the whole thing in a more favorable light.  Or it could just be yet another instance of Gabaldon rewriting the details of her own story to fit the chapter she was writing that particular day.  The reality was that Jamie never really had any say in where William ended up or who was going to raise him, all offers to throw John one aside or any rumors swirling around Helwater about it.  He can tell Claire years after the fact that if John had taken him up on it that he wouldn't have let him raise Willie or that he would have killed him if it makes him feel better about it, but in truth he had no rights there.  Upon his legal father's death, William was the ward of old Lord Dunsany, who then named John as his successor.  John already planned to marry Isobel and become Willie's stepfather.  Jamie doesn't know that though when he makes the offer.  He knows no one else at Helwater is going to drop him the occasional letter to let him know his kid's okay or keep an eye out that he doesn't turn out to be a completely useless little fop, so he offers the one person who might the only thing he has in trade.

[cardigirl]

Ah, thanks, nodorothyparker. I appreciate the update. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

That's a later book retelling and one that's always felt like Jamie retconning to cast the whole thing in a more favorable light. 

Exactly this.

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

That's a later book retelling and one that's always felt like Jamie retconning to cast the whole thing in a more favorable light.  Or it could just be yet another instance of Gabaldon rewriting the details of her own story to fit the chapter she was writing that particular day.  The reality was that Jamie never really had any say in where William ended up or who was going to raise him, all offers to throw John one aside or any rumors swirling around Helwater about it.  He can tell Claire years after the fact that if John had taken him up on it that he wouldn't have let him raise Willie or that he would have killed him if it makes him feel better about it, but in truth he had no rights there.  Upon his legal father's death, William was the ward of old Lord Dunsany, who then named John as his successor.  John already planned to marry Isobel and become Willie's stepfather.  Jamie doesn't know that though when he makes the offer.  He knows no one else at Helwater is going to drop him the occasional letter to let him know his kid's okay or keep an eye out that he doesn't turn out to be a completely useless little fop, so he offers the one person who might the only thing he has in trade.

As a watcher first I got exactly that out of the show- Jamie had nothing else to offer but himself, & he's obviously learned that THAT was a valuable trade item over the years! I think though when he offered it he hoped that John was honorable enough to say no, & he was right! 

[Atlanta]

I'm still distracted by David Berry as LJG. Book LJG is described as slight and blonde (DB is 6'1"). Apparently, his mother-in-law talked him into auditioning/taking the role. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, Atlanta said:

I'm still distracted by David Berry as LJG. Book LJG is described as slight and blonde (DB is 6'1"). Apparently, his mother-in-law talked him into auditioning/taking the role. 

LJG can get in line behind several characters whose actors do not match their descriptions in the books.  It really doesn't matter at all to me.  I have no trouble buying David Berry as Lord John.

[lianau]

4 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

That's a later book retelling and one that's always felt like Jamie retconning to cast the whole thing in a more favorable light.  Or it could just be yet another instance of Gabaldon rewriting the details of her own story to fit the chapter she was writing that particular day.  

I think it's a bit of both . Or better Gabaldon trying to please some Jamie-would-never-ever-do-that  fans.  As @Cdh20 wrote , Jamie had nothing to offer but himself  and he knew John was interested in him . It makes sense , especially if you know that Jamie doesn't believe that John loves men in the same way he loves women .

[theschnauzers]

Quote

Upon his legal father's death, William was the ward of old Lord Dunsany, who then named John as his successor.  John already planned to marry Isobel and become Willie's stepfather. 

Not quite right. Old Lord Dunsany was William’s legal father through marriage to William’s birth mother, Isobel’s sister. She died in childbirth, and old Lord Dunsany in the show was killed by Jamie when he threatened to kill just born baby William.

At that point, Isobel is the next closest legal relative to William, who is now the Earl as the legal successor to the old Lord, and that is how Lord John legally becomes William’s stepfather by marriage to Isobel. Now that Isobel has died, Lord John is William’s sole legal guardian. 

[nodorothyparker]

Loird Dunsany is Geneva's father.  The Earl was William's legal father and after Jamie killed him, as the closest male relative guardianship would have reverted to the boy's grandfather.  Isobel is acting as his mother, yes, but lacking any other male relatives and acknowledging that he's getting up there in years, Dunsany names John to be responsible for Wiliam and the considerable fortune he will inherit.  Had Isobel married someone else, that likely still wouldn't have changed but in marrying John it neatly ties up all those loose ends.  Marrying Isobel is a practical move as much as much as anything.

[Scarlett45]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

Loird Dunsany is Geneva's father.  The Earl was William's legal father and after Jamie killed him, as the closest male relative guardianship would have reverted to the boy's grandfather.  Isobel is acting as his mother, yes, but lacking any other male relatives and acknowledging that he's getting up there in years, Dunsany names John to be responsible for Wiliam and the considerable fortune he will inherit.  Had Isobel married someone else, that likely still wouldn't have changed but in marrying John it neatly ties up all those loose ends.  Marrying Isobel is a practical move as much as much as anything.

Yes I agree. Lord John was of an age to raise William and I do think he was fond of Isabel on a personal level. She needed a husband, he needed a wife. I have not read the books (although I enjoy your insights that’s why I post here), did Isobel know John was gay, or given they wouldn’t have used that language in the 18th century- that he was romantically and sexually attracted to men?

I didn’t mind William. He didn’t seem like a bad child, what young boy wouldn’t be wrapped by their privledge growing up as an aristoricat and then forced to camp in the woods (for the first time!). He was respectful to his elders and honest when confronted with stealing the fish. Never mind he’s just lost his mother (I know Isobel was his biological Aunt but she was the only mother he knew). It seems Isobel and John have done a good job with him. 

 

I dont think its a bad thing Jaime hasn’t told Claire that he offered Lord John sex in exchange for looking after William. What purpose would it serve to tell her?! I don’t think he and Claire expected to tell each other about every potential sexual encounter they had in the last 20 years. I didn’t see Claire’s interactions with Lord John as homophobic, I saw her as jealous (for the reasons people discussed above) and we cannot forget Jaime is a rape survivor. As a wife, Claire would be worried about an aristocratic man using his power to sexually assault underlings (whether they be male or female)- she wouldn’t want to think of Jaime in such a position (being sexually exploited). 

[nodorothyparker]

Much of the language in the books is a lot less gay friendly because as you might expect, it's reflective of the time period when homosexuality was regarded as a dishonorable perversion and could be a hanging offense in the British military.  The show is giving us a PC version of all of these characters, none of whom are really modern in any sense we might want consider.   John will tell Claire at some point that he doesn't believe Isobel ever suspected and of course we don't get her POV to confirm that as she's barely more than a placeholder in the books.   

As it is, there's probably a little attitude about John being gay mixed in there because of Jamie's history with another British officer exploiting his power over him, but yeah, basic jealousy is the bigger motivator.  John and Claire are on equal footing in each having raised a child of Jamie's, but John could continually dangle William in front of Jamie if he really wanted to maintain access to him and at this point Claire has no reason to expect that Brianna will ever figure into any of this beyond an ideal for Jamie.

[WatchrTina]

15 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

did Isobel know John was gay, or given they wouldn’t have used that language in the 18th century- that he was romantically and sexually attracted to men?

That is never made clear.  John indicates to Jamie that he is "capable" of being a husband to her.  In the book (if I recall correctly) he even went to a prostitute he trusted in London to make a trial of his capabilities with a woman.  So I assume that Isobel had a consummated marriage with John but I presume their sex-life was rather . . . sad. I'm afraid sex with John was probably infrequent, perfunctory, and not particularly satisfying but Isobel, being a virgin, would not know any better.  Nevertheless John was probably unfailingly kind and affectionate to her outside the bedroom and Isobel probably thought her marriage was, all things considered, a good one.  

Edited to add:  Remember that her sister, Geneva, NEVER had sex with her husband and Isobel knows it (remember that scene between her and Jamie last season, just after Geneva died, when Isobel slaps Jamie?)  So if John had sex with Isobel even just a handful of times during their brief marriage, she probably thought him to be a very attentive husband in the bedroom when compared to that jerk Geneva married.

15 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

he’s just lost his mother (I know Isobel was his biological Aunt but she was the only mother he knew). It seems Isobel and John have done a good job with him. 

Ditto!  William has been through some trauma at this point.  I hope there was a servant traveling with him and Isobel on that ship -- the one where she died -- so that there was a familiar adult on board to look after him.  If not -- well that's a horrible thing to contemplate: a child all alone on a ship full of strangers dealing with the death of his mother.  And now -- when Jamie takes him off into the woods -- he's terrified of losing his other parent.  He gets a pass from me for being difficult and looking surly.  I did love, however, how he immediately stops kicking when Jamie chastises him by saying "Stop kicking. It's ill-mannered!"  It's interesting that Jamie uses those words and its doubly interesting that those words work on William. It's a tiny insight into his young, aristocratic mind.

15 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I didn’t see Claire’s interactions with Lord John as homophobic, I saw her as jealous

Yep.  Here's a guy who lusts after her husband and who -- like Claire -- was entrusted with the raising of Jamie's child.  THAT parallel hits WAY too close to home for Claire.  She knows, she absolutely KNOWS that Jamie does not, CANnot return John's affections, and yet it makes perfect sense that Claire would feel some jealousy -- especially when she hears of the offer that Jamie made.  Those scenes between John and Claire were just crackling with tension.  I know some people have complained that nothing much happened in this episode (in the non-reader board mostly) but for me this episode was a real highlight of character interactions and subtle motivations playing out on screen.  I'll bet the actors LOVED it.

Edited December 13, 2018 by WatchrTina

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

Yes I agree. Lord John was of an age to raise William and I do think he was fond of Isabel on a personal level. She needed a husband, he needed a wife. I have not read the books (although I enjoy your insights that’s why I post here), did Isobel know John was gay, or given they wouldn’t have used that language in the 18th century- that he was romantically and sexually attracted to men?

I didn’t mind William. He didn’t seem like a bad child, what young boy wouldn’t be wrapped by their privledge growing up as an aristoricat and then forced to camp in the woods (for the first time!). He was respectful to his elders and honest when confronted with stealing the fish. Never mind he’s just lost his mother (I know Isobel was his biological Aunt but she was the only mother he knew). It seems Isobel and John have done a good job with him. 

 

I dont think its a bad thing Jaime hasn’t told Claire that he offered Lord John sex in exchange for looking after William. What purpose would it serve to tell her?! I don’t think he and Claire expected to tell each other about every potential sexual encounter they had in the last 20 years. I didn’t see Claire’s interactions with Lord John as homophobic, I saw her as jealous (for the reasons people discussed above) and we cannot forget Jaime is a rape survivor. As a wife, Claire would be worried about an aristocratic man using his power to sexually assault underlings (whether they be male or female)- she wouldn’t want to think of Jaime in such a position (being sexually exploited). 

I think it's unusual that Jamie hasn't talked to Claire about John, because they tell each other everything, I got that from the show! However when Claire first meets John in Jamaica you can tell from her face that she knows John is in love with Jamie, & now when he spills that info about Jamie offering himself you see she doesn't know that bit either. Maybe they are having difficulty discussing their relationships with other people with each other-because the other conversation they haven't had is that Frank had a girlfriend, & they lived a sexless marriage! I saw Claire as so insecure when she first returned, at least she has regained her confidence that Jamie loves her & only her!

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

that Frank had a girlfriend, & they lived a sexless marriage!

No, they didn't. 

[toolazy]

6 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No, they didn't. 

They did in the show, which is something I hate.

[Scarlett45]

2 minutes ago, toolazy said:

They did in the show, which is something I hate.

From the show I didn’t take it that Frank and Claire had a “sexless marriage”, after Claire had Brianna they were shown getting intimate. (Frank caught her fantasizing about Jaime)

 

We were shown through the years that they had an “agreement” to see other people- but that doesn’t mean they never ever had sex with each other. I would think that they would- proximity and all. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, toolazy said:

They did in the show, which is something I hate.

They had sex at least once after Brianna was born that was shown onscreen. I'm sure they stopped after Claire realized Frank had a girlfriend.

[Cdh20]

MY take on the show relationship was that, because they got those twin beds, & Frank had that meltdown by the fireplace, & then got himself a gf. I am speaking strickly about TvClaire, TvFrank, TvJamie. ( I do know I am in the book thread).

Question-in the books do Jamie & Claire have a convo about John's sexuality?

Edited December 12, 2018 by Cdh20

[Scarlett45]

6 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

They had sex at least once after Brianna was born that was shown onscreen. I'm sure they stopped after Claire realized Frank had a girlfriend.

From what I gathered they tried to have a “normal” marriage after Brianna was born but the combination of Frank not being Jaime, Claire missing Jaime, Frank wanting his “old” wife back etc lead to all sorts of emotional problems in their marriage. By the time Brianna was school age they had agreed they could see other people so long as they were discreet and both focused on raising Brianna- the scene where Frank tells Claire he’s got plans and cannot go to the movie that night.

I didn’t take that to mean they never ever had sex with each other again. 

[Cdh20]

Well the show often leaves us with  lots of interpertations!

[ruby24]

33 minutes ago, toolazy said:

They did in the show, which is something I hate.

I agree. I don't like that, and I feel like the show did that to reassure the audience that she was being "loyal" to Jamie or something, as if her sleeping with Frank would mean she wasn't unhappy with him. But since when does having sex with your spouse mean the marriage is happy? The books understood that much at least.

I appreciated that they could convey that Claire had a normal marriage with Frank (they did sleep in the same bed, they did have sex for those twenty years), yet they were still unhappy and Frank still had his affairs (which Claire knew about but pretended to ignore, which is a very true to the time, 1950's/60's attitude toward unfaithful husbands by a lot of wives).

On the show it was like this out in the open, modern, non-monogamous marriage where they were just living as roommates or something. But that's so unrealistic, that they would have lived like that for twenty years at that time. I never liked that change, I feel like the audience should have been trusted to understand what an unhappy marriage at the time would have really been like. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by ruby24

[Cdh20]

26 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I agree. I don't like that, and I feel like the show did that to reassure the audience that she was being "loyal" to Jamie or something, as if her sleeping with Frank would mean she wasn't unhappy with him. But since when does having sex with your spouse mean the marriage is happy? The books understood that much at least.

I appreciated that they could convey that Claire had a normal marriage with Frank (they did sleep in the same bed, they did have sex for those twenty years), yet they were still unhappy and Frank still had his affairs (which Claire knew about but pretended to ignore, which is a very true to the time, 1950's/60's attitude toward unfaithful husbands by a lot of wives).

On the show it was like this out in the open, modern, non-monogamous marriage where they were just living as roommates or something. But that's so unrealistic, that they would have lived like that for twenty years at that time. I never liked that change, I feel like the audience should have been trusted to understand what an unhappy marriage at the time would have really been like. 

I think they just tried to show us in  just a few episodes(301, 302), how Frank knew that Claire wasn't letting Jamie go, from her heart, her bed, & how they would never resume the marriage they had once had. Remember this show isn't always subtle! Isn't sex one of the first things to go in an unhappy marriage? (NO personal experience here, long time married, still having sex )

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

From the show I didn’t take it that Frank and Claire had a “sexless marriage”, after Claire had Brianna they were shown getting intimate. (Frank caught her fantasizing about Jaime)

 

And the end of that episode showed them sleeping in separate beds. Also, comments by the writers and producers more or less confirmed that C&F did not have sex.  Did they never ever have sex? I dunno. But they certainly weren't doing it on the regular.