Episode 304 General Discussion ***SPOILERS***

[jo]

***WARNING: This post and discussion may contain spoilers for anyone who is not current with the Starz series Outlander (including seasons 1 and 2) or who has not read the first three books in the series.***

This thread is for discussing episode 304 of Outlander. Please limit your comments to what happened in the episode. There weren't any major deviations from the book, so not sure there's a need for a second thread.

Episode 304 (October 01, 2017) -- "Of Lost Things" written by Toni Graphia, directed by Brendan Maher

Synopsis: While serving as a groomsman at Helwater, Jamie is pulled into the intrigue of the British family he now serves. In 1968, Claire, Brianna and Roger struggle to trace Jamie's whereabouts, leaving Clarie to wonder if they will ever find him.

Have at it, people! Did you like the episode? Thoughts, impressions, quibbles, highlights and lowlights?

Comments

[jo]

This is a bit odd... I don't know that I really have much to say about this episode. It was probably one of the best episodes of this series (all seasons to date). Yes, they had to compress time somewhat, but everything in Jamie's storyline that was necessary to the storyline was in there. Yes, they changed a few little things, but nothing that bothered me or that might affect the plot going forward, and in some instances, I think the changes made more sense. One in particular, and this really isn't much of a spoiler for non-readers, is that in the book, rather than a carved snake, Jamie gives Willie his carved wooden rosary beads, telling him to keep them a secret. It never made sense to me that a child that young would have successfully kept such an item secret, and if they'd been found, there would have been all hell to pay. It was an incredibly risky (and frankly stupid) thing for book Jamie to do. But by giving Willie a carved snake, no harm in that -- it's not something he'd have to hide or keep secret.

Hannah James was spot-on perfect as Geneva. I've seen some really weird comments from "fans" on Twitter about not watching this particular episode because they can't stand Geneva (or more precisely, they can't stand that Jamie has sex with her), or that they will watch, but skip that part -- I don't understand this mentality at all. It is such a critical plot point for the rest of the entire series (not just Voyager -- all the books), I don't see how you can refuse to watch. I don't understand this Jamie-Claire exclusively mentality. It is so bizarre.

The casting of young William was quite amazing. I've not seen any photos of Sam Heughan as a child, but the young actor did manage to make me think that Jamie might be the father. I am really dying to see who they cast as William in his young adult years, assuming the series continues that long.

Am I the only one who would totally love an "Adventures of Jamie and Lord John Grey" spin-off series? I just adore the chemistry between Sam Heughan and David Berry. I've always been somewhat indifferent to LJG in the books, but I LOVE Berry's portrayal of him.

I really with they hadn't forced Sophie Skelton to do a stupid American accent. I think it mutes her talent somewhat.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about the use of the Bob Dylan song at the end of the episode. It was fine for the 1960s scenes, but felt really out of place over the 1750s scenes.

[suzy]

I feel you are a voice of reason and it's so nice to read your comments. I also saw some grumble about the snake on tumblr. I didn't understand what the fuss was about. Now I do.

I don't understand this Jamie-Claire exclusively mentality. It is so bizarre.

This! Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course but I don't understand that mentality either. Although, many seem to be angry that they made the scene so graphic. Only Jamie/Claire sex is allowed to be graphic it seems. And again, if they feel that way who am I to say they are wrong but for me... well, what can I say, that Jamie was able to show such tender care for someone that is blackmailing him into sex? I think those somewhat graphic scenes (it wasn't the most graphic they've been!) speak volumes to what kind of person Jamie is. And I loved that. Not one second did I mistake his care for love. He simply didn't want to hurt the girl. And also, maybe he needed some sex too. It's been awhile! Simple as that. And as he said, you can have sex with anybody, that doesn't make it love. In fact he seemed pretty blank once the deed was done. A masking of his pain perhaps because he thinks of Claire and what he's lost? I felt so much sadness for him here.

Seeing Jamie with Willie was just adorable. What a great father he could have been. *sad sigh*

I'd love an adventure spin off! Sam and David are so great together.

Oh, I thought Sophie was American? *lol* I simply don't hear anything wrong with her accent. Didn't think it'd be a blessing to be a Non English. :P

[jo]

They actually toned down the Jamie-Geneva sex in one way. In the book, at one point, it seems like Geneva sort of changes her mind about doing the deed, and tells Jamie to stop, but Jamie's at a point where he can't (or else doesn't care -- it's not clear) and goes ahead. Geneva doesn't mind by the end of it -- and if I recall correctly, they do the deed more than once that night. But many consider the scene to be a rape scene, that Jamie raped her because she said stop and he didn't, so for some, it's very controversial.

Yes, Sophie Skelton is British, and I never thought Brianna would have an American accent because she was raised by two people with British accents. As a child, that is how she would have learned to speak. The British-ness might have become more muted over time from going to American schools, but in my mind, she would never have ended up sounding totally American. There isn't anything WRONG with Sophie's accent on the show, I just think that because she has to work harder at doing it, it takes away from her naturalness. I've seen her in interviews and she's just different, freer. This is not a criticism of her -- I really like Sophie as Brianna.

One thing they left out that I wish they'd kept in... When Jamie is asking LJG to watch over Willie for him, and in exchange, hints that he'd be willing to *ahem* give himself to LJG, in the book, LJG just bursts out laughing at that -- so hard he falls on his ass. Then he explains to Jamie about marrying Isabel etc., just like on the show. But at the very end of that scene, in the book, Jamie takes LJG's face in his hands and plants a great big kiss on his lips. I was really, really wanting to see that... :)

[suzy]

Hmm, I can see how that would be controversial. Not sure what I would have thought had they filmed it like that. I probably wouldn't have felt that would be something Jamie would do but I don't know. Glad they didn't go there! However, it is still not a fully consensual thing. Jamie was blackmailed after all and he didn't want to do it, but resigned to it.

Wait a minute. They kissed?! Oh I'd love to have seen that actually. I could totally ship them. Ok, maybe I already do. In an alternative universe of course. :P

[jo]

However, it is still not a fully consensual thing. Jamie was blackmailed after all and he didn't want to do it, but resigned to it.

That's the thing for me -- she was essentially forcing him to do this, so he (in the book) maybe was not inclined to let her off the hook.

One thing that never made sense to me in the book or in the episode... Lord Ellesmere claims that the child is not his because he never took Geneva to his bed -- so why did he not try to get rid of her as soon as it would have become clear that she was pregnant? Why would he wait to get all upset about it only after the baby is born??

[suzy]

OMG YES! That was a huge plot hole. I've been trying to come up with an explanation. The only one I can think of is that she hid her pregnancy for a long time. But of course he would have noticed it eventually... so... maybe... he kept quiet about it because he was embarrassed for not having his marriage consummated? And only when they arrived at her family home and she died could he go berserk? He did not want a bastard child that was not his? Ah, I don't know. It's very weird indeed. I thought for sure it was different in the book and they had just skipped that for time in the show.

[jo]

After I posted that, I decided to go back to check the book to make sure I was remembering things correctly. In the book, Lord Ellesmere marries Geneva Dunsany in an arranged marriage. He pays Lord Dunsany 30,000 pounds in exchange for marrying a virgin of good name. Lord Ellesmere is extremely kind to Geneva until her pregnancy starts to show. He knows the baby is not his as he is impotent.

In January 1758, Geneva gives birth to a healthy baby boy, but a few hours later she starts hemorrhaging and dies. Lord Ellesmere has a lot to drink and is in a belligerent mood when Lord and Lady Dunsany arrive. The Dunsanys want to take the baby to Helwater, but Lord Ellesmere tells them that the boy is his heir even if his mother was a whore. Lord Dunsany is outraged at the slur on his daughter's reputation and attacks Lord Ellesmere.

Jamie leaps in, separates them, and prevents Lord Ellesmere from ringing for his servants. Dunsany's footman, Jeffries, arrives with two drawn pistols. Jamie tries to lead Lord Dunsany out of the study, but just as he does Lady Dunsany enters carrying the baby. Lord Ellesmere rushes at Lady Dunsany, knocking her aside and grabbing the baby from her. He moves towards the window and Lord Dunsany tries to grab the baby back. Lord Ellesmere opens the window and threatens to drop the baby out if the Dunsanys do not leave, thrusting the baby towards the windowsill. Jamie grabs a pistol from Jeffries and fires at Lord Ellesmere. Ellesmere staggers and drops dead as Jamie catches the baby.

So the book version has it that Lord Ellesmere was willing to overlook the fact that the baby wasn't his because he wanted an heir. But some of that still doesn't make much sense. For example, how can Jamie fire a gun at someone and still manage to catch the baby before the baby hits the floor or falls out the window -- was he firing from point-blank range? And if Ellesmere knew he was impotent, why the insistence on marrying a virgin? It's just odd. A lot of things in the early books in particular are odd like that.

[suzy]

Book version do explain it a bit better then even if there's still some technicalities missing. Diana can't think of everything either I suppose! And sometimes it seems to me she adds twists for no reason at all. But again, not read it so only know what others talk about and when comparing book/show. All the changes the show has made seem better to me. Not all, but most.

And this scene... that is way too much info to put into the show. They'd have to proberly establish Geneva and the Lord as a couple and in their household etc...

I really don't envy the film makers to try to navigate so much story in such a short time. It's natural they will fail on some points. I honestly didn't think much of this scene when I watched it, all my attention was on OMG the baby! But once you contemplate it yeah, not the smoothest scene but they had to kill him off somehow.

I have only managed to see this episode once so far. I get such a better feel and understanding of the episode on my second (or third) viewing because there's just so much to take in! And then once you've seen the full season and start all over again you notice yet new things. It's wonderful!

[jo]

All the changes the show has made seem better to me. Not all, but most.

I completely agree with that 100%. I really think series 1 is far superior to the book. Season 2 did a great job with what is probably the most complicated and convoluted of all of the books, and while not perfect, did improve on some things a lot. However, season 2 also includes the only major plot change that I 100% disagree with and that really pissed me off. But I just ignore episode 208 and pretend it doesn't exist!

Season 3 thus far has been absolutely magnificent. And you are also 100% right that each episode/season requires multiple viewings to fully absorb everything.

[anoyo]

I don't understand this Jamie-Claire exclusively mentality.

They were apart for 20 years. I mean. That's a long time to be celibate if you like sex. Just saying, weirdo Twitter people.

Sophie Skelton - I probably would have been annoyed if she had a British accent. Maybe some British-isms from her parents, but she grew up in Boston. An American (or even Boston) accent just makes more sense to be. She's still doing a phenomenal job.

I haven't read the LJG books, but I've been told I should. maybe when I actually get through the rest of the main series I feel like an "Adventures" spin-off would be more fun live-action than in the books. Too much agonizing over morality would happen.

[jo]

I've read some (2?) of the LJG books/novellas, but as I said, I'm rather indifferent to the character in the novels, so am not a big enough LJG fan to really care much about the LJG stories. There's only one that includes Jamie (The Scottish Prisoner), the others it's just LJG. I am just totally envisioning a completely separate, independent-of-any-book TV series featuring Jamie and LJG because Sam and David are just way too good together to let that chemistry go to waste.

[anoyo]

...I'd watch it. :D (Then again, I might watch Sam Heughan watching paint dry, so my partiality is clear.)

[jo]

I almost signed up for his My Peak Challenge thing just so that I could get access to all of the videos of him doing the various workouts. Because shirtless, sweaty Sam...

[anoyo]

RIGHT? Oh, man.

[jo]

I know. I haven't reacted to a celebrity this way since John Taylor of Duran Duran back in the 1980s...

[anoyo]

...um. I cannot say that and not be lying.

Chris Pine is my love. He really, really is. His eyes just freaking kill me.

Also, I will never not be in love with Michael Shanks. 20 years in, I have accepted this.

[jo]

I had to google that last guy -- have never heard of him. But not surprising -- I've never watched any of the Stargate shows.

Pine's cute, but I dunno... maybe because to me he's the new Captain Kirk, and Kirk is not my fave Trek character... I'm more of a Spock girl. Although actually, I had a mad crush on Chakotay when Voyager was a thing. And -- this is the weirdest -- Gul Dukat. I always found Gul Dukat rather sexy, in a really repulsive way... Not the actor, just Gul Dukat.

[anoyo]

Daniel Jackson (Michael Shanks) was my first crush. I wanted to be Kirk. So, you know, when he was hot (sorry Shatner), I was so excited. Plus, AOS Kirk emotionally resonates with me, too. Kirk for life, man.

As for Chris Pine, he's just, you know, my type. I love him. Maybe it's the Minnesota in me, but I don't really find anyone attractive who, when playing hockey, would probably break in half. >_> Comfortably muscled is my thing. Pine leans more toward lean-muscled, sure, but close enough. And the eyes. That's also my love for Sam Heughan: the eyes. Oh, man. (Also, he would be an excellent hockey player. At least in costume.)

[jo]

Also, he would be an excellent hockey player.

https://youtu.be/dBnxgKlx5ig

[anoyo]

Real hockey, man.

/shot

[jo]

Shinty is the mother of hockey. Hockey started in Nova Scotia, when a bunch of Scots decided to move shinty onto ice.

I am one of those rare Canadians who doesn't actually like hockey much. I like international stuff, like the Olympics, but hate the NHL.

[anoyo]

I know it is...I'm still a crazy hockey fan.

I'm stereotypical for a Minnesotan: I adore hockey. I love the NHL. GO WILD. Rural Minnesota in winter: why hello, all you frozen bodies of water! You either learn to like hockey or ice fishing (or both). One of these is less cold than the other (at least if you get into it).

(Or you spend all your time at Wal-Mart or Perkins with your friends, because that's literally all that's open past 8pm.)

[jo]

I was born and raised in Northern Ontario, so yeah, hockey was everywhere. I used to like the NHL stuff, but totally lost interest in the 1980s after spending a year in the UK with no news about hockey at all. Just never got back into it. I hate the goonery. I think the league expanded way too much, which allows those sorts of players (not that skilled, but they are big and can fight) to be part of teams when they shouldn't be drafted at all... I really like the women's game more than anything else. But when it comes to ice sports, CURLING baby!!

[anoyo]

I am not nearly so choosy. I mean, I miss the days of Gretzky and when Minnesota had North Stars, but I still enjoy it way more than I probably should. (I am not, however, into hockey RPF, because I've not managed to be into any RPF, so there's that.)

FUN FACT: My 10th grade English teacher played professional hockey in Europe. :D