Well, someone's echoing my thoughts on Jamie-Claire-Laoghaire fiasco

[Krish728]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/arts/television/outlander-recap-here-i-am.html

[dori]

What a spiteful article. 

[Redheid]

There isn't much in that article I could agree with; neither her Jamie opinion, nor how she "sees" the scenes. I agree with dori, a spiteful article.

I saw nothing out of character or wrong about Jamie giving advice to Jenny. Yes, he was wrong to lie to Ian about Young Ian's whereabouts, but he brought him back to his parents and apologized. Jamie isn't suddenly Wonder Parent, but he is able to see Young Ian in a way his parents cannot see their youngest child. Ian is their "baby" and his personality is similar to Jamie's. Jamie "gets" Young Ian and Young Ian gets Jamie-and Claire and the relationship between Jamie and Claire.

The sexualized rage was in the book and it is a recurring theme of the books, like it or not. The writer is apparently not a book reader. That had to be in there and was tamer than in the book.

Jamie did not marry Laoghaire "years ago." It was less than two years and they spent less than a year together. I do wish the show had not made it seem as if Jamie left because Laoghaire hated sex and was afraid of him. That was part of it, but there was more to him leaving than her fear of him sexually.

It's funny, but many of us who are book readers think Book Jamie has been minimalized in the show. This writer thinks Jamie is too perfect and hasn't been wrong, hasn't had to answer for his wrongs, and doesn't have to deal with problems he created by not telling the truth. I think, and hope more will come with that, but I disagree with most everything else. 

[broughps]

I also assume the writer has never had angry sex.

[Une Pensee]

👍👍

[Bunny]

Did this person actually watch the episode, because the points they're trying to make are inaccurate if the Ep was watched. Guess everyone's perspective is different...

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

The article echos my thoughts too.  Hahah!  Is there anything he can't do.  No!  He's the male equivalent of a Mary Sue.  Claire is a Mary Sue.  They were spot on that every woman wants Jamie.  Eww.  No one is that sexy nor desirable.  And I liked this line "(By the time Laoghaire is swinging a pistol, you get the sense that she and Claire are fighting over a man who’s just not worth it — not a great impression for your romantic lead.)" He really does have a lot of short comings that get glossed over and never deeply dealt with because it's Jamie!  Ugh......I wanted to really take to his character in season 1 and I did a bit, but he is no where near as honorable nor as good as people say.  He gets excused a lot.  I honestly don't see why people fight over him or want him so much.

[Laura1-07]

Someday, the show will make Jamie wrong about something. Not this time, though.

I thought that it did that.

[Laura1-07]

The sexualized rage was in the book and it is a recurring theme of the books, like it or not. The writer is apparently not a book reader. That had to be in there and was tamer than in the book.

You're right, it was much more an equal fight in the series.  In the book Jamie was much more the aggressor.  When Jenny takes Claire away she tells her not to be afraid and she won't let him at her again. 

[Krish728]

When I was reading the article, I was thinking in the same lines as you all: Spiteful! But NYT has given positive reviews to almost all Outlander episodes this season. And I've come to realization that.. it's happening. I'm getting into Jamie's defense.. Just as the article says. Just as I tried to make a point in Jenny thread. In Jenny thread, I tried to make a point that give Jamie his fair share of blame. 

But that's not how it's seen:

1) Jamie gets married Laoghaire. Fan reaction when reading that part in the book "JAMIE!! WHY DID YOU DO THAT?". After knowing the reason "JENNY!! YOU BITCHHHH!! YOU DIE!!". 

See the difference in response? The response to Jamie, it's just a question of WHY?. Giving him a benefit of doubt. But the response to Jenny is direct ATTACK! They don't want to give her a benefit of doubt.

2) Jamie didn't tell Claire about Laoghaire. And in comes Laoghaire. Fan reaction when reading that part in the book "JAMIE!! WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU TELL CLAIRE ABOUT HER?". Then Jamie says "Because I'm a coward!". Fans go "Awww! You are forgiven.". And then after knowing that it was Jenny who called upon Laoghaire "BITCH!!! HATEFUL BITCH!! DIE, ALREADY!!" 

Again, the difference in response.

Now, how do I know all of this? I've seen many a fan reaction on twitter and on many platforms on SM. Most fans reactions were somewhat like that. There are some who are understanding.. who gave everyone the benefit of the doubt. 

Now, how the article echoed my thoughts on this episode. The episode gave what the fans wanted. Everyone forgiving Jamie so easily. First Jenny and Ian. There should've been the thrashing, like in the books I've seen people here being disappointed that the thrashing didn't happen. I guess they're not so disappointed that Jenny and Ian forgave him so easily? The whole point of thrashing is Jenny and Ian forgiving Jamie. He wasn't let go easily. 

And then Claire too forgives Jamie so easily for Laoghaire. She went from 1000000 to 0 in a second.

The article also made this important point.. perhaps the most important of all. And this point made me realize that this article has a very good point and made read it again with an open mind (I mentioned above that even I felt the same way about the article as you all.. that the article is spiteful. I liked this episode so much that I was expecting to read a very positive review from NYT). That point is: Jamie was forgiven so easily, and he didn't even ask for it. That's right.

Great. So, what about Jamie?

Why should he expect Claire to forgive him for such a deliberate lie and such a cavalier response? Where is the depth of his character if he isn’t affected by the hurt he inflicted? Is Laoghaire’s anger meant to be an excuse for Jamie not to apologize? Are we meant to think “If you won’t stay with me, then I’d rather die” is romantic and not just a guilt trip? (By the time Laoghaire is swinging a pistol, you get the sense that she and Claire are fighting over a man who’s just not worth it — not a great impression for your romantic lead.)

And this:

Take Jamie’s bringing his nephew Ian back home to Lallybroch. Jamie lied about Ian’s whereabouts to parents who were worried for his life, but before the ten-minute mark, Jamie has been so thoroughly forgiven that he’s doling out arch parenting advice to Jenny (Laura Donnelly). He even knows the most effective way to punish young Ian without corporal violence!

 He was just literally standing trail for lying about Young Ian.. and then he gives parental advice to Jenny and Ian.

I so liked this episode.. and I didn't even realize about the points this article made. Now, these were the same points I'm trying to make on Jenny thread. Except instead of the show trying to let Jamie go easily for his mistakes, it's fans who want to do that. For once, in his life, let him take the blame (and for fans, give him the blame he deserves). 

Again, trying to make the point I've been trying to make on Jenny thread.. a quote from my post on that thread:

My problem here is, when someone says that Jamie is the perfect man.. that he has no flaws. Outlander fans reply with: He has flaws. And when someone points out a flaw, Outlander fans try to defend it, by blaming someone else. 

[Krish728]

I saw nothing out of character or wrong about Jamie giving advice to Jenny. Yes, he was wrong to lie to Ian about Young Ian's whereabouts, but he brought him back to his parents and apologized. 

He apologized to Ian when Young Ian is taking the punishment. And Ian had already forgiven Jamie for that. It would have be more believable if Jamie apologized to both Ian AND Jenny before he tried to give them the advice on what to do with Young Ian. 

[dori]

Laura1-07 wrote:

Someday, the show will make Jamie wrong about something. Not this time, though.

I thought that it did that. 

It definitely did. 

  But that should be the beginning of either atonement or Jamie’s being the bad guy. 

 

Unless either of this ideas is taken to the extreme, the author of the article won't be content. 

Yes, let's watch again how Jamie is flogged, sent to prison or a cave, humiliated, separated from his kids and love of his life, because we haven't had enough of that yet.

[Krish728]

And yet none of it was Jamie's fault. He's facing the consequences of things he had no control over. But when it came to his own wrong doing, he's forgiven easily. Of course, he got shot. But that only helped him in earning Claire's forgiveness without him even asking for it. So, that's a good thing, as far as Jamie's concerned.

[dori]

Firstly, the author is definitely biased. She is more interested in pushing her own agenda than in accuracy and objectivity. If she'd shown more respect for Jamie as a human being and weren't as one-sided in her rant, her article would only have benefited from it.

Not only she paints Jamie as a villain, discarding all that's been established about his disposition and personal history, but she also paints Claire as a victim, which is just ridiculous, she's never been one. In her own words, Claire had a fulfilling career, stability, comfort, motherhood during those 20 years. What did Jamie have? Right. And now she's coming back and all she cares about is whether Jamie has fallen in love with anyone else. It looks like she doesn't give a hoot about his suffering and what he had to endure during those 20 years. 

Regarding Jenny, she was just annoying in this episode. She was. If she minded her own business more and showed some respect for people around her, she'd be more tolerable. Maybe then, she wouldn't have had runaway kids and brothers stuck in a loveless marriage. 

[dori]

At least he admitted that he was a coward and explained that he lied to Claire because he was afraid of losing her again. And he knew her well, she did want to run away after learning the truth. That should be enough for a loving person to forgive him. I'm glad that Claire had more love in her heart than the author of the article. Claire's return is a transition and adjustment process for both of them, but it's even harder for Jamie because he wasn't prepared for her return. He had to rebuild his life in those twenty years and he did it to the best of his abilities and means available to him in the 18th century while being a war criminal on the run. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but in this case, I don't feel that Jamie did something that unthinkable and unforgivable that he should be painted as a villain. Jaime was written as a female fantasy but, imo, female fantasy isn't synonymous to a pushover. 

[Krish728]

Firstly, the author is definitely biased. She is more interested and pushing her own agenda than in accuracy and objectivity. If she'd shown more respect for Jamie as a human being and weren't as one-sided in her rant, her article would only have benefited from it.

Maybe so. But she made some very goods points in her attempt to pushing her own agenda. She made some points which still made me think "Eh?" when I read it again with an open mind.

Not only she paints Jamie as a villain, discarding all that's been established about his disposition and personal history, but she also paints Claire as a victim, which is just ridiculous, she's never been one.

I believe the author just wants Jamie to get his due share of blame. Maybe not forgiven so easily? 

And Claire is most definitely a victim in this case. I'll explain why. After I explain this:

Claire had a fulfilling career, stability, comfort, motherhood during those 20 years. And now she's coming back and all she cares about is whether Jamie has fallen in love with anyone else. It looks like she doesn't give a hoot about his suffering and what he had to endure during those 20 years. 

And a 20 years of Frank blaming her for loving another man. Sandy blamed her even. Also living in a loveless marriage. Forced to lie to her daughter of her true parentage. And none of it was Claire's fault. She definitely was a victim. 

And she comes back to Jamie after learning that he survived. She had built a defense mechanism all those years.. so, she before lets her defense mechanism drop forever, she wants to be sure what she's getting into. 

This bit from the books, after Claire learns of Laoghaire.. she makes a run for the stones (this should've happened.. and these are her thoughts:

 If she minded her own business more and showed some respect for people around her, she'd be more tolerable. Maybe then, she wouldn't have had runaway kids and brothers stuck in a loveless marriage. 

The runaway kid runs away because he idealizes Jamie. Nothing to do with Jenny not showing love or respect for him. And I'm sorry, maybe there's a bit of blame on Jenny's side, in the books, for pushing Jamie into marrying (make no mistake, it's still Jamie's decision to marry). But in the show, it's all Jamie. It looked like Jenny just asked if he would marry Laoghaire and he replied with a "YES!" right away. He had every right to not comply.

[Krish728]

 I don't feel that Jamie did something that unthinkable and unforgivable that he should be painted as a villain. 

I don't feel that Jamie did something unforgivable. But I don't think he shouldn't be forgiven so easily. He wasn't forgiven so easily in the books. And I didn't get the feeling that the author felt Jamie did something unforgivable. The author only asks the question: Why should he (Jamie) expect Claire to forgive him for such a deliberate lie and such a cavalier response (from the household.. from Jenny)? Where is the depth of his character if he isn’t affected by the hurt he inflicted?

[dori]

 

I believe the author just wants Jamie to get his due share of blame. Maybe not forgiven so easily? 

 

Maybe. But, imo, it was still handled well. Claire didn't forgive him right away and I'm glad that they talked it through on the cliff. 

 

 And a 20 years of Frank blaming her for loving another man. Sandy blamed her even. Also living in a loveless marriage. Forced to lie to her daughter of her true parentage. And none of it was Claire's fault. She definitely was a victim. 

 

On the show, Frank tried to reconnect with her during the first few years, and after not succeeding, he found another woman. I didn't get a feeling that he was blaming her all the time. Yes, people don't exist for the sole purpose of being convenient to Claire, what a shocker. She was forced to lie to Bree, but, on the other hand, Bree had a great father, and Claire had a husband who didn't mind her having a career and took care of Bree in the meantime. Claire's life wasn't as joyous as it could have been with Jamie, but she definitely suffered less. They are both victims. 

 

Claire had a great career but she wasn't entirely happy. Some part of her was missing. She sacrificed a lot for Jamie, but she clearly needed him.

 It looked like Jenny just asked if he would marry Laoghaire and he replied with a "YES!" right away. He had every right to not comply.

Well, she did push Mary in Jamie's arms. And she was probably more than happy when he decided to marry L, She was hovering over him with a concerned face all the time.   

[dori]

Where is the depth of his character if he isn’t affected by the hurt he inflicted?

Laoghaire and Claire would have been hurt either way, regardless of how they found out about each other. But none of that is Jamie's fault. He didn't know that Claire would return, and to be fair, he had waited for about 18 years before marrying someone else. Maybe he thought that he deserved his fair share of happiness.

The question we should ask is: Do we want Jamie to be a fleshed-out character or do we want him to be solely female fantasy? If the first, then he, as everybody else, is bound to have flaws, motives of his own and make controversial decisions without incessantly apologizing for them. 

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

If she'd shown more respect for Jamie as a human being and weren't as one-sided in her rant, her article would only have benefited from it.

Wow.  He's a fictional character.  He's not a human being, not even close.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 12:44:19 AM UTC-8, dori wrote:

I'm glad that Claire had more love in her heart than the author of the article.

Saint Jamie won you over.

 

Jaime was written as a female fantasy but, imo, female fantasy isn't synonymous to a pushover. 

He's not my fantasy.

[Krish728]

 It looked like Jenny just asked if he would marry Laoghaire and he replied with a "YES!" right away. He had every right to not comply.

Well, she did push Mary in Jamie's arms. And she was probably more than happy when he decided to marry L, She was hovering over him with a concerned face all the time.   

Umm.. have you looked at Jamie? There's a big "HELP ME!!" sign plastered on his face. And Jamie even said to Claire that he felt like a ghost. Of course, Jenny, his sister, would be concerned. She knows what he needs, even if he doesn't realize it yet. And btw, Jenny didn't force Mary on Jamie. She came to him on her own will. Jenny had no hand in it. All she did was ask Jamie to consider marrying her. You certainly can't expect him live his life without ever getting married. And of course Jenny would be happy that he finally decided to marry. He needed a purpose, a meaning to his life.. and that marriage, at least those children gave him that. People should be thanking Jenny for that, if you ask me. If she didn't show him the concern, he would've died a pitiful, sorrow death (Jenny and Jamie don't know Claire would return).

[dori]

A human being with his own reasons, motivations, and needs as opposed to a cardboard perfect guy. 

[dori]

Saint Jamie won you over.

Yep:) 

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

The question we should ask is: Do we want Jamie to be a fleshed-out character or do we want him to be solely female fantasy? If the first, then he, as everybody else, is bound to have flaws, motives of his own and make controversial decisions without incessantly apologizing for them. 

But that's the point, he's supposed to be so honorable, and when push comes to shove, he's not.  An honorable but flawed man would apologize.  However, like I've said in previous posts people seem to pile on and gloss over the character flaws in their favorite characters while also villainizing and ripping apart the characters they don't like or characters that are "hurting" or "criticizing" their favorite characters.  I just roll my eyes.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 2:21:00 AM UTC-8, dori wrote:

A human being with his own reasons, motivations, and needs as opposed to a cardboard perfect guy. 

Those reasons, motivations, and needs are whatever the writers need them to be.  Every decision, every thought, every motivation is there because the writers put them there and they are telling a story, so they would not put anything there that doesn't serve the needs of the story.  In reality, he's a puppet.

[Krish728]

It's not his fault he married someone else. It's his fault he didn't tell Claire about it. He needs her forgiveness for that. Claire was all honest with him. Telling whatever he needs to know.. even about Frank. How he pressed to know if she loved Frank.

[dori]

People should be thanking Jenny for that, if you ask me. If she didn't show him the concern, he would've died a pitiful, sorrow death (Jenny and Jamie don't know Claire would return).

I agree with that. Jamie is lucky to have Jenny in his life.

I respected Jenny from day one, I just disagree with her know-it-all attitude. Her intentions are good but she doesn't know everything, especially about Jamie, and his relationships with Claire.

 

[Une Pensee]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 2:20:27 AM UTC-8, Krish728 wrote:

And Jamie even said to Claire that he felt like a ghost. Of course, Jenny, his sister, would be concerned. She knows what he needs, even if he doesn't realize it yet.

Jenny has a very small view of the world compared to Jamie. A 10-mile radius by her own admission. She thinks she knows what he needs based on how she lives her life. Jenny clearly didn't understand Laoghaire's feelings about Jamie either.

I'm not saying Jenny wasn't concerned; just that she had a limited toolbox with which to fix things. One of the hardest things in the world to do is watch someone you love struggle through any kind of pain; emotional or physical. We want to help but they have to figure it out and sometimes that takes more time than we think it should. 

You certainly can't expect him live his life without ever getting married.

This is someone who waited 23 years to wed a woman. He married the woman he loved and "lost" her. Weren't you talking about how your mother hasn't remarried? She might change her mind if she meets someone else but then again maybe not.

She knows her heart.

And of course Jenny would be happy that he finally decided to marry. He needed a purpose, a meaning to his life.. and that marriage, at least those children gave him that.

Jamie married and moved to Balriggan. Jenny could be happy because she didn't see that his pain hadn't healed; just changed. The marriage lasted for one whole year and then it dissolved into a business arrangement of sorts. Laoghaire and the girls just became part of the larger family he and the other men were trying to support. There was no emotional home for him.

People should be thanking Jenny for that, if you ask me.

She meant well but it clearly didn't work.

 

If she didn't show him the concern, he would've died a pitiful, sorrow death (Jenny and Jamie don't know Claire would return).

Jamie and Fergus went to Edinburgh to find a way to support the family. That certainly wasn't Jenny's idea so why assume he would have died a pitiful death?

[dori]

We have to agree to disagree here. Maybe, Saint Jamie won me over, as unclaimed.treasure claims, but for me, it was enough that he admitted to being a coward and not wanting Claire to run away. Too much was at stake for him and he probably didn't have time think it all over. He really didn't, first, there was a shock of Claire's return, then shenanigans with Sir Percival and then they had to flee Edinburgh. And he tried to tell Claire all the time. He said in Edinburgh that he'd speak to Ned Gowan, he was thinking how to sort it all out.

I blame him for printing antigovernment pamphlets and smuggling, that's reckless, I blame him for bringing Claire to the brothel, I blame him for being Claire's pushover in season 2, I blame him for lying to Ian about young Ian and for involving young Ian in his illegal activities, and maybe smth else, but not for Laoghaire situation. 

[Krish728]

One of the hardest things in the world to do is watch someone you love struggle through any kind of pain; emotional or physical. We want to help but they have to figure it out and sometimes that takes more time than we think it should. 

And make them feel unwanted? I'm sorry, if I'm just a least bit down in my life, and my mother asked me to figure it out all by myself.. I would totally feel unwanted.

Weren't you talking about how your mother hasn't remarried? She might change her mind if she meets someone else but then again maybe not.

She knows her heart.

I think you didn't understand what I said in that post. This is going to be OT: The thought of remarriage would never cross her mind. And there is no meeting someone with her mother-in-law, my grandmother, who is also a widow for 20 years, still living with us. And that's how it is for most families in India. As I said, getting married in most Indian religions means not only you're getting married to your spouse, you are also getting married to their entire family. Remarriage means you are breaking ties with them all. And in a weird nonsensical way, it's also breaking the wedding vow I mentioned "We are married not only for this life.. but for all 7 lives". And I'm not joking, people take that vow pretty seriously. In my mother's case, of course there is love for my father.. (she still puts aside whatever she cooks every day for my father) but it's also about the family. Also, she is a very religious person. Unlike me (atheist, here). Which means she takes her vows pretty seriously.

You certainly can't expect him live his life without ever getting married.

This is someone who waited 23 years to wed a woman. He married the woman he loved and "lost" her.

He didn't marry the woman he loved. It was an arranged, forced marriage. He hardly knew her. And she was a complete stranger to him. At the very best, he married someone he had a huge crush on. So, no.. he didn't wait all those years for Claire.. she was forced upon him. But they fell in love.. so all is well.

For one whole year and then it dissolved into a business arrangement of support. Laoghaire and the girls just became part of the larger family he and the other men were trying to support. There was no emotional home for him.

But he found his spark there. He was almost lifeless.. after leaving Willie. But he found something meaningful there. And supporting for his family is one of the most satisfying things a man could do. And he doesn't need a home.. he lost it.. and he knows it. He wants something else that can make him feel.. alive. He found it.

Jamie and Fergus went to Edinburgh to find a way to support the family. That certainly wasn't Jenny's idea so why assume he would have died a pitiful death?

Because if not for his marriage with Laoghaire, he would've stayed at Lallybroch (where he felt like a ghost) drowning in his sorrows until he died a pitiful death. It's not like one day he would just decide that he's going to Edinburgh to be printer.. or a smuggler. Besides, Lallybroch is doing well on it's own without his support. The one who truly needs his support would be the woman he marries.. and their children. So.. that's where he found it. How to be a man, again. 

[Bunny]

In the interest of accuracy, in both book and show it is acknowledged that Jamie is sending money back to Lallybroch for support of Jenny and Ian and their family. If they didn't need the money, why would they take it? Lallybroch can't support all the folk that depend upon it.

[Krish728]

And with the same interest of accuracy, in the show, Lallybroch did fine without much of Jamie's involvement for more than 18 years (you could point out that the gold it received from the crown for ratting out Jamie as help he provided them.. but Lallybroch wasn't in need of it like in the books. He only did it so that the redcoats would stop harassing Jenny and family). And in the books, one of the reasons Jamie felt not needed, and like a ghost lurking, because everything at Lallybroch is running very smooth. Whatever he tries to do, it's already being taken care of by either Ian or Jenny.

[dori]

He didn't marry the woman he loved. It was an arranged, forced marriage. He hardly knew her. And she was a complete stranger to him. At the very best, he married someone he had a huge crush on. 

I think he was eager to marry. I doubt that he could be forced to marry a woman he wasn't in the least attracted to.  

[Bunny]

I would gently argue that the money paid was also for upkeep and how long do you think it would last with all the needs of the family and dependent folk and the farm itself. I might also gently argue that Jamie felt like a ghost because he had been gone so long that his nieces and nephews didn't remember him, he had no say in the running of the farm because it's not his any longer, all his male contemporaries, with the exception of Ian, are dead or transported...all that was him is gone.


But it's really too nice a day to argue, even gently. 🙂

[Krish728]

I would gently argue that the money paid was also for upkeep and how long do you think it would last with all the needs of the family and dependent folk and the farm itself.

I don't think Jenny and Ian would be banking on Jamie to come back and support Lallybroch. And as I said, in the show, they were doing fine without his help. Him getting arrested was also not because Lallybroch needed money to stand.  

 I might also gently argue that Jamie felt like a ghost because he had been gone so long that his nieces and nephews didn't remember him, he had no say in the running of the farm because it's not his any longer, all his male contemporaries, with the exception of Ian, are dead or transported...all that was him is gone. 

I said one of the reasons being. Not the reason. Jamie felt like a ghost for many reasons. And one of them being that Lallybroch didn't need his help, if I'm not wrong. And this is book conversation. Just to make sure we don't mix the the two arguments (one for the show.. and the other for the books) and confuse ourselves. lol

[Bunny]

Here I thought I was doing a good job of labeling which was which...alas! I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what doing just fine means. 🙂

[Krish728]

unclaimed.treasure.. I can't see what was posted in this post.. for some reason. There are few other posts that are like that. One of broughps post in another thread, yesterday, was also like this. When I checked in Gmail notification mails of these posts, it showed "Clipped Message".. and when I click that, I see what was posted but didn't appear here.

[Krish728]

This is another post I can't see what was posted. 

[broughps]

Jamie was eager to marry Claire. Remember he said he fell in love with her when he held her in his arms at Leoch when she was crying about Frank.

[broughps]

Something has gone goofy and I can't figure out what it was. I'd fix it if I knew.

Edit: I've notified Google so hopefully I'll hear from them soon.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

Jamie was eager to marry Claire. Remember he said he fell in love with her when he held her in his arms at Leoch when she was crying about Frank.

That I found creepy.  He falls in love with a woman that is crying over her dead but not dead husband.  I don't think that's really love.  Besides, in her mind she's still very much married so again creepy to be falling for a complete stranger and a married/supposedly very newly widowed woman.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

Yeah, those were 2 very short responses.  I remember one, I don't remember the other. :-P

Edit:  it looks like if I go back to edit than they reappear.  This is weird.

[dori]

Ok, I see the response now.

I know how fiction works. Fictional characters should be fleshed-out personalities, not one-note tools. 

[dori]

But that's the point, he's supposed to be so honorable, and when push comes to shove, he's not.  An honorable but flawed man would apologize.  

 It's fair to assume that years of suffering and loss took a toll on him, hardened and disillusioned him. 

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

True.  I just feel that's Jamie is inconsistent.  For one, he's a male version of a Mary Sue--a Gary Stu.  He also is wanted by every woman that comes across him.  I get so sick of fans and writers saying who wouldn't love him or want him.  I wouldn't.  He gets away with a lot of crap.  As pointed out in another thread, he's a horrible baby sitter.  He involves young Ian in smuggling and treasonous pamphlets, and then he has his partake in stealing the treasure which gets him kidnapped.  He gets forgiven by the characters in the show and by fans.  This article is ripping into Jamie, but it has valid points.  This isn't a fully fleshed out personality.  It's just piling on the inconsistencies to create more drama.  As an aside, no one should trust their kid with Jamie...Young Ian nearly got burn to death and he got kidnapped, because of Jamie and his schemes.  And he's forgiven!

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

But that's the point, he's supposed to be so honorable, and when push comes to shove, he's not.  An honorable but flawed man would apologize.  

 It's fair to assume that years of suffering and loss took a toll on him, hardened and disillusioned him. 

That's an excuse.  I don't buy it.  Why should fans have to make excuses to explain away bad behavior?  It's a yeah/but.  Yeah he doesn't act honorable all the time, but that's because he's hardened and disillusioned.  It's life, man.  Life's too hard to remain honorable and to really apologize when you screw up.  It comes off as silly because it is silly.

[broughps]

Young Ian nearly got burned because of his own foolishness. He should have escaped when he sent Brighid out the door. Then ran and got Jamie. And why did he leave the door unlocked when he came in. I'd think the first thing you'd do if you're planning on having sex in the building would be to lock the door after you.

Everyone (generic everyone) keeps harping on Jamie lying to Jenny and Ian about young Ian, but I've got to question their parenting when Ian admits that young Ian has been missing for weeks and he's only now out looking for him. Why weren't you Ian out looking for your son a day or two after he's missing? That is how it was in the books and made more sense when Jamie lied to Ian. He was going to bring young Ian home in the next day or two.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

Young Ian is at fault for his own recklessness.  However, Jamie is the catalyst for that to happen.  If it wasn't for Jamie's scheming that situation wouldn't have been created.

I don't know why it took them weeks to come and ask Jamie about Young Ian.  I would chalk that up to trying to keep the story line consistent and interesting at the expense of inconsistent characterizations.  It wouldn't make good drama or story telling if Young Ian shows up and a day or 2 later Ian shows up looking for his son.  It's the responsible thing to do and most parents would do it.  However, it screws the story up because Young Ian wouldn't have a chance to do much of anything.  It's all really messed up if you analyze it and credibility starts breaking down.

[Krish728]

I see them fine now. 

[dori]

I don't find Jamie's behavior in the situation with young Ian inconsistent. He always wanted to be a father and he's happy to be a mentor to his nephew and teach him the ways of the world, which none of his parents can do. But it was dangerous, yes, and I, for one, don't approve of it. Blaming Jamie for Ian's kidnapping is another extreme, he couldn't foresee it and he'll do everything to find him. 

[dori]

It's all really messed up if you analyze it and credibility starts breaking down.

The writers struggle to squeeze in all major events and character development into 13 episodes hence such inconsistencies.  

[dori]

I don't look for excuses, I just take into account character and plot development. 

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

I don't find Jamie's behavior in the situation with young Ian inconsistent. He always wanted to be a father and he's happy to be a mentor to his nephew and teach him the ways of the world, which none of his parents can do. But it was dangerous, yes, and I, for one, don't approve of it. Blaming Jamie for Ian's kidnapping is another extreme, he couldn't foresee it and he'll do everything to find him.

Jamie is teaching him criminal ways and short cuts.  Is that very parental and honorable?  Yeah, none of his parents are teaching him to be a criminal and stealing things that aren't his own.  Of course they aren't going to be the favorite parental figures in instilling good morals, values, and teaching truly honorable ways of dealing with responsibility can be so booorring.  But that's what a good parent does.  Nah blaming Jamie for the kidnapping is not extreme.  If you willingly set up a scenario for your nephew to go out and steal a treasure that is not your own and that everyone is looking for, including the British crown, and something happens to your nephew while doing it......the blame is on you.  It was entirely foreseeable.  Jamie is a walking disaster and anyone in his orbit gets caught up in it.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

The writers struggle to squeeze in all major events and character development into 13 episodes hence such inconsistencies.  

The story and the characters themselves are not consistent.  Oh well, it's just entertainment.

[Une Pensee]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:37:38 AM UTC-8, Krish728 wrote:

One of the hardest things in the world to do is watch someone you love struggle through any kind of pain; emotional or physical. We want to help but they have to figure it out and sometimes that takes more time than we think it should. 

And make them feel unwanted? I'm sorry, if I'm just a least bit down in my life, and my mother asked me to figure it out all by myself.. I would totally feel unwanted.

I didn't say anything about leaving them alone or making them feel unwanted or not helping/caring. If you didn't care about them, you could walk away and it wouldn't bother you. The hard part is standing beside them and being patient while they figure out how to go forward.

 

Weren't you talking about how your mother hasn't remarried? She might change her mind if she meets someone else but then again maybe not.

She knows her heart.

I think you didn't understand what I said in that post. This is going to be OT: The thought of remarriage would never cross her mind. And there is no meeting someone with her mother-in-law, my grandmother, who is also a widow for 20 years, still living with us. And that's how it is for most families in India. As I said, getting married in most Indian religions means not only you're getting married to your spouse, you are also getting married to their entire family. Remarriage means you are breaking ties with them all. And in a weird nonsensical way, it's also breaking the wedding vow I mentioned "We are married not only for this life.. but for all 7 lives". And I'm not joking, people take that vow pretty seriously. In my mother's case, of course there is love for my father.. (she still puts aside whatever she cooks every day for my father) but it's also about the family. Also, she is a very religious person. Unlike me (atheist, here). Which means she takes her vows pretty seriously.

Thanks for explaining that dimension of it. 

 

You certainly can't expect him live his life without ever getting married.

I can. I don't think I would re-marry if something happened to my husband.

 

This is someone who waited 23 years to wed a woman. He married the woman he loved and "lost" her.

He didn't marry the woman he loved. It was an arranged, forced marriage. He hardly knew her. And she was a complete stranger to him. At the very best, he married someone he had a huge crush on. So, no.. he didn't wait all those years for Claire.. she was forced upon him. But they fell in love.. so all is well.

So, Krish, I'm going to nudge and tease you a bit. It sounds like you're making excuses for your argument and using Jamie to do it. I said Jamie waited to wed a woman, not Claire. As you (and many other characters) said, no way Jenny could force him to marry Laoghire any more than Dougal could force him to wed Claire. (Dougal was willing to marry her to Rupert after all.) There were clues in the book about Jamie's feelings for Claire before they wed. He fought for a church, a dress and time for them to be together. He gave her the pearls; even Dougal commented on that. By Jamie's own words he wanted her when she appeared at the cottage with Murtagh and loved her when he held her on the hearth at Leoch. Claire fell in love with him later.

For one whole year and then it dissolved into a business arrangement of support. Laoghaire and the girls just became part of the larger family he and the other men were trying to support. There was no emotional home for him.

But he found his spark there. He was almost lifeless.. after leaving Willie. But he found something meaningful there. And supporting for his family is one of the most satisfying things a man could do. And he doesn't need a home.. he lost it.. and he knows it. He wants something else that can make him feel.. alive. He found it.

Are you talking about the show? That's not the way he described it in the book. He hated being there. Even in the show he moves away, right? It might have been a change he welcomed at first but it didn't last, did it? 

 

Jamie and Fergus went to Edinburgh to find a way to support the family. That certainly wasn't Jenny's idea so why assume he would have died a pitiful death?

Because if not for his marriage with Laoghaire, he would've stayed at Lallybroch (where he felt like a ghost) drowning in his sorrows until he died a pitiful death. It's not like one day he would just decide that he's going to Edinburgh to be printer.. or a smuggler. Besides, Lallybroch is doing well on it's own without his support. The one who truly needs his support would be the woman he marries.. and their children. So.. that's where he found it. How to be a man, again.

Again, in the book, when Jenny scolds Jamie for smuggling 

“D’ye ken where the money comes from, Jenny, that keeps you and your bairns and everyone here

in food, and the roof from fallin’ in over your head? It’s not from me printing up copies o’ the

Psalms in Edinburgh!”

“And did I think it was?” she flared at him. “Did I ask ye what ye did?”

“No, ye didn’t,” he flashed back. “I think ye’d rather not know—but ye do know, don’t you?”

“And will ye blame me for what ye do? It’s my fault that I’ve children, and that they must eat?” She

didn’t flush red like Jamie did; when Jenny lost her temper, she went dead white with fury.

I could see him struggling to keep his own temper. “Blame ye? No, of course I dinna blame ye—

but is it right for you to blame me, that Ian and I canna keep ye all just working the land?”

Jenny too was making an effort to subdue her rising temper. “No,” she said. “Ye do what ye must,

Jamie. Ye ken verra well I didna mean you when I said ‘criminals,’ but—”

“So ye mean the men who work for me? I do the same things, Jenny. If they’re criminals, what am

I, then?” He glared at her, eyes hot with resentment.

“You’re my brother,” she said shortly, “little pleased as I am to say so, sometimes. Damn your eyes,

Jamie Fraser! Ye ken quite well I dinna mean to quarrel wi’ whatever ye see fit to do! If ye robbed

folk on the highway, or kept a whorehouse in Edinburgh, ’twould be because there was no help for it. 

I can't speak for the show. Lallybroch was NOT doing okay. Jamie was forced to find additional sources of income to support the extended family. There was nothing to keep him at Balriggan so he went away from Laoghaire's sadness and distance to make money in Edinburgh. 

[Bunny]

Did not tv Jamie remark how L'heery wouldn't speak to him for weeks at a time and he didn't mind it? Book Jamie says the same thing, but I don't recall if he mentioned not minding. One would think that if you cared for someone and they stopped talking to you, you would mind. In a later book, young Ian mentions this to Claire when they're all on a journey (people, you know when I mean) and not speaking to one another because each thinks the other is angry...and both are miserable.

TV Jenny understands about doing something out of need for survival...when Claire mentions that she was married and it was a matter of survival, her face changes from aloofness to understanding, even though she goes on to say she doesn't trust Claire...the empathy is there.

[Krish728]

Jamie is a man of duty more than he ever is a man of love. In that moment, Jamie lost both duty and love. We know that he could never find love again like he did with Claire. The next best thing: Duty. That he can find. And he found with Laoghaire and her children. Yes, that marriage was a disaster. It didn't work out.. but it did give Jamie that spark. 

I'm talking about the show. And yes, Lallybroch was doing fine. I mean, Jamie got arrested not for the gold, but for the redcoats to stay away from Lallybroch and stop harassing Jenny and family. And he certainly didn't write them letters about the gemstones. So.. it was doing fine without him.

Are you talking about the show? That's not the way he described it in the book. He hated being there. Even in the show he moves away, right? It might have been a change he welcomed at first but it didn't last, did it? 

I'm not saying their marriage was a successful one. In-fact, it's a disaster. But hey, it's normal in those times for a man to leave their family at home and do business elsewhere (anyone remember Dougal?). It's normal to be in a loveless marriage. It's normal to be in a disastrous marriage. Which is why I'm not making it my job to point out that their marriage was a disaster. I'm saying it did it's job.. to give Jamie a purpose.

This is someone who waited 23 years to wed a woman. He married the woman he loved and "lost" her.

He didn't marry the woman he loved. It was an arranged, forced marriage. He hardly knew her. And she was a complete stranger to him. At the very best, he married someone he had a huge crush on. So, no.. he didn't wait all those years for Claire.. she was forced upon him. But they fell in love.. so all is well.

So, Krish, I'm going to nudge and tease you a bit. It sounds like you're making excuses for your argument and using Jamie to do it. I said Jamie waited to wed a woman, not Claire. As you (and many other characters) said, no way Jenny could force him to marry Laoghire any more than Dougal could force him to wed Claire. (Dougal was willing to marry her to Rupert after all.) There were clues in the book about Jamie's feelings for Claire before they wed. He fought for a church, a dress and time for them to be together. He gave her the pearls; even Dougal commented on that. By Jamie's own words he wanted her when she appeared at the cottage with Murtagh and loved her when he held her on the hearth at Leoch. Claire fell in love with him later.

In Claire's own words, wanting and loving are not the same. But yeah, Jamie had feelings for Claire. But that is a forced marriage. Lets say that I like a certain lady. I may have some strong feelings for her. And out of nowhere we are to be wed.. now, as much as I like her (or may have thoughts of marrying her), it doesn't mean I want to marry her right away. Surely, I would like to know more about her. But if the situation demands me to marry her because she's in trouble.. I would marry her to keep her out of trouble.. but not because I want to marry her just now. That is a forced marriage, is it not?

Simply put: If a wedding happened in a do or die situation.. that is forced marriage. Doesn't matter if both parties have feelings for each other.

[Krish728]

I can't speak for the show. Lallybroch was NOT doing okay. Jamie was forced to find additional sources of income to support the extended family. There was nothing to keep him at Balriggan so he went away from Laoghaire's sadness and distance to make money in Edinburgh.

Also, I just realized. If Lallybroch needed Jamie's help that much.. it should've crumbled with him gone to the Colonies, shouldn't it? Just to make it clear, Jamie wasn't sending any money for Lallybroch.

[dori]

Jamie is teaching him criminal ways and short cuts.  Is that very parental and honorable?  Yeah, none of his parents are teaching him to be a criminal and stealing things that aren't his own.  Of course they aren't going to be the favorite parental figures in instilling good morals, values, and teaching truly honorable ways of dealing with responsibility can be so booorring.  But that's what a good parent does. 

Shortcuts and street smarts might be a useful thing to know if you want to survive in the bigger world. Young Ian clearly wasn't keen to settle in Lallybroch, at least not now, and who better can mentor him about the ways of the world if not his uncle. Not a very honorable thing to teach, but it wasn't inconsistent, imo. It was controversial and writers put all these events in the script to show that Jamie changed. 

[Laura1-07]

He didn't marry the woman he loved. It was an arranged, forced marriage. He hardly knew her. And she was a complete stranger to him. At the very best, he married someone he had a huge crush on. So, no.. he didn't wait all those years for Claire.. she was forced upon him. But they fell in love.. so all is well.

He told Claire that he loved her from the moment she cried in his arms at Leoch.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 10:24:40 PM UTC-8, dori wrote:

Shortcuts and street smarts might be a useful thing to know if you want to survive in the bigger world. Young Ian clearly wasn't keen to settle in Lallybroch, at least not now, and who better can mentor him about the ways of the world if not his uncle. Not a very honorable thing to teach, but it wasn't inconsistent, imo. It was controversial and writers put all these events in the script to show that Jamie changed.

Wow.  There were literally millions of people that didn't need to do that to survive in the bigger world.  Excused and forgiven.  Unbelievable.

[Andorra97]

I never agree with any of the reviews of the nytimes. To me they're nitpickers. They must watch a completely different show than I do. 

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

He told Claire that he loved her from the moment she cried in his arms at Leoch.

That's not love.  At that point they were complete strangers.  He basically only knew 2 things about her at that point.  She know something about healing people and that she was a widow, which he just found a second before.  You really can't love someone that you don't know.  Real love means knowing and accepting the good and the bad in someone no matter what.  You can't do that with a stranger.  Also, lets not forget why she was crying.  He literally found out that she was a widow at that very moment.  Yeah, that's a very creepy time to say he fell in love.  Eww. 

[broughps]

I'm going to assume you don't believe in love at first sight. Doesn't of course mean that it doesn't happen for some people.

Jamie saw a woman who wasn't afraid to show her vulnerability/feelings. Obviously he admired her for it and fell in love with her. And while you may not believe Jamie loved her,  he believed/knew it and it's his story.

[Newguise]

But once you have fallen in love with someone maybe you look back at a moment and want to say 'that was special'. That was the first time she sat on his lap and he comforted her, and until then, they'd been stuck on a horse in the freezing cold, or she'd been sorting out his wounds.  It was their first moment of intimacy and emotional connection, and looking back, that meant something to Jamie.  She didn't push him away, and wasn't scared of him or the consequences for her reputation, because she isn't an 18th century woman.  So he calls it the moment he fell in love with her. Maybe it was when he realised she was special to him, more so than anyone else he'd met....

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

But he didn't love her at first sight.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

For being a widow.  That's a special moment.  That so makes me want to laugh. How do you think a person is supposed to react when she's talking about her supposedly and recently dead husband.  It's a ridiculous set up.

[broughps]

Ok second/third/fourth/etc. sight. Regardless it's up to Jamie to decide when he fell in love with Claire not the viewer/reader.

If you remember from the books when Jamie asked Brian his father when he'd know if he met the right woman, Brian said he'd just know. Jamie "just knew" with Claire.

[broughps]

Personally I don't go around crying in front of strangers. Maybe you do. She didn't have to let Jamie see her crying, nor take comfort from him. Claire could have sent him away if she felt she was going to get emotional. She was done working on him at that point.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

I didn't read the books, and don't really want to.  With everything that's been said about that books, I think I would hate them with the contrived and lazy plot devices and the stereotyping.  Anyway, it's not up to Jamie about anything because he's a fictitious character that is completely made up, which leaves everything up to the writer to decide.  People can and will argue about the writers believably/unbelievably, reasons, and motivations.  I will never refer to a fictitious character as a real person because they just aren't.

[broughps]

Well show and book Jamie says he fell in love with Claire at Leoch when he comforted her. So guess what, that's when he fell in love with her. Doesn't matter whether you buy into it or not. That's what the writers book and script wrote.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

You're talking to someone that works at a suicide hotline and that talks to people on the worst day of their lives.  I talk to tons of people all across the US and even foreign countries.  I've never felt romantic or even attracted to anyone while supporting them and comforting them.  And yes, I have cried in public and in front of people, when you go threw something devastating like heartbreak and/or the death of a family member, you cry a lot.  I remember crying a lot in college when my cousin committed suicide and I had to go every day to the same college that both he and I attended.  So yeah, the situation of this fictitious character is beyond creepy and unbelievable.

[broughps]

So yeah, the situation of this fictitious character is beyond creepy and unbelievable.

To you. 

[dori]

unclaimed.treasure1492 wrote:

I didn't read the books, and don't really want to.  With everything that's been said about that books, I think I would hate them with the contrived and lazy plot devices and the stereotyping.  Anyway, it's not up to Jamie about anything because he's a fictitious character that is completely made up, which leaves everything up to the writer to decide.  People can and will argue about the writers believably/unbelievably, reasons, and motivations.  I will never refer to a fictitious character as a real person because they just aren't.

Yet, people love and need fictional stories, they've been created, analyzed, discussed since forever. Are you saying, that you don't believe or see no point in literature, theatre, cinema? 

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

And that's where we have to agree to disagree.  I don't see the world in romantic terms like that and because of my experience in working with people in crises, mental health, and bereavement, none of that situation is romantic.  I do know if that happened at my work that would be unethical and immoral.  I know that there are people that haunt bereavement and loss support groups just to pick up people because its easier to pick up someone that's looking for comfort.  It's creepy and sick.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

Yet, people love and need fictional stories, they've been created, analyzed, discussed since forever. Are you saying, that you don't believe or see no point in literature, theatre, cinema? 

I never said that.  I just don't treat something fictional as real.  I see the point in having entertainment, but I don't treat anything within it as real.  Real life is real.  Fiction is fiction.

[broughps]

So you're projecting on to Jamie what you've seen happen in some bereavement and support groups assigning their motives to him. Good to know.

[Lucy9596]

Falling in love at this point isn't creepy. Taking advantage would have - what he didn't. He comforted her, that's all.

[dori]

Real life is real.  Fiction is fiction.

 

Who questions that? And if fiction were purely entertainment, it wouldn't have been studied at schools and universities. 

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 11:04:50 AM UTC-8, broughps wrote:

So you're projecting on to Jamie what you've seen happen in some bereavement and support groups assigning their motives to him. Good to know.

No.  I don't project.  Didn't I just get finish saying I don't treat fictional people like real life.  Real is real. Fictional is fictional.  I said it's unbelievable.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

 

Who questions that? And if fiction were purely entertainment, it wouldn't have been studied at schools and universities. 

True, but as I said before in another thread, there is a difference between great writing and pop culture writing.  It's like comparing Shakespeare to this.  Who do you think will be remembered in 100 years and will still be studied in high school and college?   It's not this.

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 11:13:01 AM UTC-8, Lucy9596 wrote:

Falling in love at this point isn't creepy. Taking advantage would have - what he didn't. He comforted her, that's all.

I get your point about taking advantages.  That would have been despicable.  I still find it creepy and unbelievable to fall in love with a woman that just a second ago told you she was a widow and it's a very raw wound.

[broughps]

Can't remember where I read it but it's already been studied in colleges and Shakespeare was the pop culture for his day. And no I'm not comparing the two, just sayin'.

[Bunny]

I wonder how many of us played "make believe" as children, created our own characters, had make believe adventures as these characters...for the hours that we played, we were those characters, made up their lives as we went along, had conversations as the characters, made up their problems and solved them (and argued about how your character would or wouldn't do something because...), and when the call for dinner came, we were ourselves again and put that character away like a coat in a closet, to be put on again the next day when the story continued...show of hands?

✋🏻

[broughps]

I didn't make up stories like that, but I lived in the books I read. Though mind you there was plenty of imagination let lose on the world.

[Lucy9596]

I didn't make up stories like that, but I lived in the books I read.

Me too. 

[Bunny]

Yes indeed, imagination at work..with books you're never bored. How wonderful to Be anchored in the real world and a go swimming in the world of imagination, aware of the difference, and enjoying every minute. See the path I'm going down?

[broughps]

*nods head*

[Bunny]

🙂

[unclaimed.treasure1492]

Hahaha....I own a personal library of well over 1,000 books and that's not counting my digital books.  I have wall to wall bookcases.  I enjoy the stories while reading them but that's it.  I don't get fandoms and mania about it.  I've read and owned many books that have strong fandoms but I never do what they do nor what you guys do.  I guess my real life is just too busy and grounding to be pulled into such things too deeply. *shrug*

[Bunny]

🤐

[Krish728]

People have fallen in love in weirder circumstances. And I don't think it's creepy for Jamie to develop feelings for Claire in that moment. It happens. No control over it. 

But I personally don't think a person could fall in love with someone who is a complete stranger to them. Attraction? Infatuation? Yes! And then starting to feel something as they get to know each other a bit.. but that isn't love yet. Not until that stranger is no more a stranger.

Well show and book Jamie says he fell in love with Claire at Leoch when he comforted her. So guess what, that's when he fell in love with her. Doesn't matter whether you buy into it or not. That's what the writers book and script wrote.

Book Jamie doesn't even know what love is. He says he wanted her badly. And Claire points out something like "Wanting is not loving". And Jamie goes something like "What's the difference?"

[broughps]

And yet there are plenty of people who will swear that it was love at first sight for them, though it may not have been the same for their spouse. Iirc Mary and Blake from Outlandercast were that way. Blake said it was love at first sight for him, Mary, not so much.

Jamie also remembered his father telling him he'd know the right person when he met her. Jamie knew right away with Claire. That conversation also was about wanting her when he first saw her and then falling in love with her when he held her iirc.

And I would say that yes Jamie does know what love it. He grew up in a loving home. He may have been young when his mother died but he still would have seen the loving relationship that his parents had and heard stories from his father about his mother and their marriage. He would also have seen Dougal and Colum's marriages to see what loveless marriages looked like. 

[dori]

Yet, all the stories at their core are the same. Through them, we can expand our minds and learn more about human nature and ourselves. People will always be drawn to stories about love.

[dori]

I haven't read the books and don't know Jamie's musings, but it seems to me, Claire's figure was huge for him from the start: mysterious, beautiful, brave, smart, skilled. Not like anybody he knew. 

Book Jamie doesn't even know what love is. He says he wanted her badly. And Claire points out something like "Wanting is not loving". And Jamie goes something like "What's the difference?"

I think for Jamie it was the same at that point. He had all the spectrum of feelings for her.  

[ljfav]

So now Jamie is an unreliable narrator of his own emotions?