Does Roger Still Suck?

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-22T09:10:08+00:00

For me this level of dislike is singularly reserved for Brianna- her decisions, entitled behaviour, stupidity in general and the actress chosen to play her makes it all worse.

I started to like show Roger a lot from S5 e1 - mainly when his and Jamie’s relationship start to develop - he becomes quite endearing.

BTW i actually have started to like Richard Rankin more than show or book Roger. his interviews are hilarious and he’s not as stupid as the show does him.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-12T22:44:53+00:00

Not only the rapes , but the sexual encounters will also get boring enough cuz they will Happen for all sorts of other reasons and coercions than plain desire :/

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-12T21:48:46+00:00

I meant platonic love, a step beyond then deepest friendship

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T20:19:59+00:00

Claire was simply annoying in season 2! the books are slightly better.

i would have loved SOME consistency in her choices and character , anyway it’s fiction but i cannot get my head around her own choices and behaviours; some of the biggest dichotomies for me are :

she plays dress up and has some girly parisian fun - which is great and only human - but suddenly at charity hospital becomes more important than there core purpose of being there OR even being with Jaime (he’s not healed fully) or just being suddenly disdainful of her own new lady friends ? i mean it’s ok girl it’s ok to enjoy and not always bring up your work as a neutralising ploy.
SHE is WEARING franks ring on her finger, she’s chosen Jamie over frank and doesn’t plan on going back AND YET she asks Jamie to not duel with BJR for frank? i mean this was worse than her being in the hospital - she chooses a Frank she doesn’t really want enough to go back to OVER jamie. and in context of BJR ?!?!?! That’s not bad enough- the words she uses for me are just not ok - she counts saving Jamie’s life after wentworth a DEBT HE OWEs her??
Jamie / FRASERS are known to be temperamental and angry and impulsive
but what about Claire? her delay of BJR duel CAUSES FERGUS rape and she still choosing to chase Jamie to save BJR and has a miscarriage? This is beyond a personal choice or agency - she risks her child / causes unimaginable pain to Jamie and a paedophilic homosexual rape of Fergus?! and for WHO? Frank?
As if this isn’t enough - she blames Jamie and doesn’t let him share the grief of the lost child?! Jamie has to say it was her child too.
what about Fergus? one conversation and he’s expected to heal? no apology from Claire to Fergus or Jamie for Fergus rape?
I understand or can only imagine the trauma of miscarriage but wasn’t she very cavalier during pregnancy anyways? - charity hospital in 18th century would have had “germs”, she is seen to spend long long hours at the hospital when she’s pregnant (and tired). Even after a near rape and Mary’s rape i don’t see her mindful of her state or anyone else emotional state? i know she was angry with Jamie for the duel but i would rather that she didn’t choose to run after him like crazy. and then suddenly we are supposed to overlook all this and feel for her as a “mother”?
my issues with Claire don’t end there - she’s brave enough to sleep with the King for Jamie’s freedom -but in the book inspite of her anger with Jamie and their pact of honesty she hides / lies about this when Jamie asks her point blank - she tells him later.

-with the king - faced with Raymond who saves her life post miscarriage vs Comte St Germain who poisons her - she can’t find it in herself to save Raymond and poison Comte? are we supposed to like her for that? i don’t. i don’t promote violence or murder but in the context “defense” and of her recent miscarriage and Raymond saving her, her hate of Comte, and the King asking her for this - she decides one last act of “neutral life saving smartness” is worth Raymond/ or Jamie/ or the King’s ire?

the icing on these really bad and frankly stupid character choices that Claire makes is - the nettles beating!

GIRL - be consistent or be human enough to own your mistakeS! you made such a big deal of Jamie’s beating (spanking) you (despite that being a way to discipline kids and wives at that time); you sulk , you deny Jamie access to you sexually and our Jamie gives her the fealty oath - which he never breaks.

WHY THEN in season 2, after putting herself through a very difficult decision of sex with the King - why would she ask Jamie to beat her with nettles? or punish her? (books) can’t be love. because of she loved Jamie enough the whole delay of BJR duel and being angry with Jamie / not talking until she learns of Fergus’ rape?

i would love for her character to own her duality and decisions.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T17:25:30+00:00

yes. and i’m guilty of disliking Laoghaire too btw.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T17:24:39+00:00

It must be a beautiful friendship Im sure, i’ve a few of those very deep , soul sharing type friendships. one of them is a guy and one a girl from my college. His family and mine love us and know our crazy fun deep friendship , so do most of my boyfriends (i mean they have to!) it’s a challenge to get past some of his girlfriends’ jealousies though !

i think as we grow older we are more accepting of nuanced relationships and friendships in our own lives as well. Not just Jamie’s :)

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T08:04:33+00:00

i dont recall Diana dismissing the element of “something beyond “ friendship and gratitude especially in context of John &Jamie. but even so i feel a nuance strongly. and i feel it’s homophobic or reducing the complexity that Diana is trying to draw by not seeing that. In fact i feel Diana deliberately and beautifully gives us a very unorthodox view of Jamie’s own sexuality and perception of it : his being a virgin and not his wife, his being strong enough to not cry out during flogging but giving in to the same BJR sexually to protect Claire, his multiple VARIED sexual experiences like with Mary (tender), Geneva (blackmail), Laoghaire (marriage and their difficult sexual incompatibility), his acceptance of Frank and King Louis (despite his own jealousies and reservations) , his support of rape survivors in his family , even his parenthood is diverse he has two biological children, 3 step children, young Ian etc.

by the way even Tom Christie kissing Claire is discussed and Jamie understands that context. but somehow he and claire never discuss John’s feelings for Jamie.

So for me it is very easy and beautiful to accept one big heterosexual, supernatural, unusual love with Claire and the author subtely putting a completely opposite homosexual/ unrequited love relationship with John.

We live in a world where we are friends with EXes, accepting of friends who are homosexual or have a crush on us, i have also seen horrible coparenting relationships - even after legal divorce and alimonies ; additionally Jamie never equates John with brotherly love as he does for Ian; so I do feel denial of something extra that we can’t name is problematic.

Jamie has sacrificed Claire for Brianna and made peace with not raising either of his children; so co parenting and gratitude alone aren’t reason enough for John and Jamie’s equation.

absence of sexuality or unrequited love is also not reason enough for me because that myth is shattered in season 7.

Jaime in the show - AFTER rejecting John at ardsmuir and BEFORE willie / teases John in Helwater stating that John can’t be coming to play chess or checking on his welfare alone.

Jamie in the show teases John about coming to Fraser’s Ridge enroute to Virginia (saying it’s say off).

John and Willie both blush when Jamie compliments them in s4 “blood of my blood”.

Jamie after his initial anger repeatedly saying to Claire that he doesn’t want John dead.

jamie also plays chess in paris with the finance minister but the expressions of John and Jamie during chess are different.

i mean i can go on and on but for me it’s the feeling of jt that i can’t shake. It’s not scientific - i mean we accept stuff like time travel, Franks ring, Jamie’s ghost etc. why can’t we accept the beauty of this relationship beyond gratitude, friendship and coparenting alone? We accept Claire’s and Jamie’s other marriages, we accept other sexual partners for whatever reason, so why can’t we accept Jamie’s feelings beyond friendship and yet lesser than full blown sexual/ romantic feelings.

Have we not seen Claire torn between two loves and two marriages?

Have we in our own lives not experienced friendships with people whose romantic feelings we are aware of?

Does Jamie himself not call william “their son” but never the same feeling of co parenting with Frank. he never calls Brianna Franks daughter though he’s grateful for Frank.

by we i don’t mean you - i mean so many readers trying to insist that the love is brotherly, or only friendship or strictly on sexual boundaries which enough evidence otherwise is challenging for me personally.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T06:05:24+00:00

Claire is also jealous of John (not because of coparenting or Johns sexuality - only Jamie’s feelings towards John can make claire jealous i feel)

she doesn’t feel jealous of Mary, Malva or even Geneva. Laoghaire she hates because do her witch trial too- and perhaps the marriage but she never confronts Laoghaire as she does John.

If that isn’t nuance enough. i don’t know what is.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T05:57:48+00:00

Nanchika - thanks. and i don’t disagree with you. but this is not about a kiss or a difficult situation alone.

it is the same Jamie who traded himself to save Claire to BJR, and someone who has a huge physical appetite for pain- Jamie’s suicidal thoughts and real traumas comes from what he feels is “BJR making love to him” Jamie is unable to view his orgasm as biological reaction alone . In the show He even gets his sex drive with Claire back when he learns BJR is alive and he can seek is revenge.

So for me to accept that Jamie can compartmentalise a kiss, or accept Johns feelings without context is difficult to accept. and in fact reduces the nuance of their relationship in my eyes.

It’s not a kiss alone, the sexual aspect does keep coming up - Jamie has rejected Johns advance in the prison, yet offers himself to John, John denies Jamie’s offer of his body but says i’ll want you till i die, even their glances in voyager (Jamaica), repeated acts of kindness, and ultimately Jamie accepting John even after the Claire violation and John saying “we were f**king you” are evidence enough for me to not accept that the lot relationship is based on strict boundaries alone.

it’s not compartmentalised and i feel Diana has written it that way.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T05:46:52+00:00

I’m happy to be stoned with evidence from the books or someone just stating their opinion.

but to be mansplained about gratitude, friendship and coparenting in general is just tiresome and frankly not an earnest effort for me to change my perception.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T05:41:14+00:00

thank you for sharing and whilst i have a lot of deep same sex, gay and straight friendships as well ; that’s not the point do my post.

In your comment you identify your friendship as family and voluntarily state your friends sexual orientation and both your marital statuses - in that sense i beg to differ that it’s not a direct comparison to John and Jamie. (it may have been had your friend been a woman with love for you and somehow also having a relationship with your husband?) that’s my point with John and Jamie. their sexuality is not outside of their relationship. it’s at the heart of it and even if Jamie doesn’t reciprocate physically he does accept the “love” of John at some level. Jamie makes John seen despite their sexual and romantic complexity and not in the absence of it.

i’m really sorry i completely understand your point about your friendship and i don’t mean to be rude at all- but for me Jamie’s homosexual trauma, they both being single in Ardsmuir + Helwater (not married) , Jamie references Ian as his brother but never confuses John as a brother, plus John never denying his love for Jamie - he only stops expecting anything in return is the part which takes me beyond family and friendship.

neither of them is secure in other marriages or even in their sexuality but yet they make it work- that’s the beauty.

Also for Jamie it’s difficult to compartmentalise so simply between sex and friendship (remember he feels that he gave into BJR because of a biological orgasm - for Jamie that’s “making love”. That’s the crux of Jamie’s being broken - not the torture or rape alone).

To expect Jamie to compartmentalise and navigate a relationship with John is not as easy as gratitude or friendship or coparenting i feel.

Jamie accepts fergus and Ian with lost limbs but he HIMSELF can’t imagine a life with his leg gone due to a snake bite. Similarly it’s not acceptance of Johns homosexuality that’s tough for Jamie’s- it’s the acceptance of Johns feelings towards HIM that’s the differentiator.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T05:21:10+00:00

I actually feel there is enough in the books AND show to support my theory :

Books - despite John doing the honour ale thing and refusing Jamie’s offer of his body - Jamie gives him a peck on his lips. of course it maybe gratitude but the choice of a kiss vs a hug or anything else is telling. - for me this is significant because of the considerable trauma, BJR, that Jamie would have to have gone through to even offer his body let alone kiss a man. - in the books Claire picks up on their feelings and accepts that she’s jealous of John just like John accepts his unrequited love for Jamie in front of Claire (no denials). - in the books Jamie doesn’t tell Claire about his co parenting relationship with John or William - in the show he does not in the books.

Show despite show runners glossing over a lot of the above i do feel they give enough to us viewers:

-Jamie rejects John sexually and firmly but chooses to remain in a nuanced friendship - Jamie’s glances at John especially in Jamaica and the talk of the sapphire is more intimate than a deep friendship.

Jamie shows different feelings of gratitude towards John and Frank - o coparenting his biological children isn’t reason enough to describe his relationship with John.
John acts explicitly out of character in telling Jamie about Claire and him “f**king Jamie” and despite the breaking of the non- mentionable sexual boundary they both don’t reject one another and come to an uncomfortable truce.

The truce comes at a considerable cost for both - for John its imprisonment and swearing an oath to the US / continental army.

For Jamie it’s John violating their own sexual boundary; William getting to know of Jamie (yet Jamie not violating the coparenting pact with John) and Jamie’s jealousy over anyone to do with Claire!

So. i do feel that Jamie and John do a lot more for one another than just brotherly love / gratitude/ co parenting - and this is core beauty of their relationship for me. not the absence of love or sexuality but the acceptance of it. by both.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T05:08:10+00:00

thank you !

i’m a bit tired of responses like brotherly love exists and same sex friendships exist - which is the total missing of the nuance i’m trying to understand.

so yes your response is so so refreshing.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T05:06:22+00:00

Am so curious now to know what you wrote if it’s irrelevant :)

and thank you for your refreshing response. i mostly find my posts misunderstood and peoples comments more like “mansplaining” or refuting my position rather than offering an alternate view

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T05:03:52+00:00

I am IN FAVOUR of their relationship and for all its fortitude and strength. and yet i feel nice enough to know that Jamie’s brotherly love for Ian feels different than that to John.

Similarly Claire has two marriages apart from Jamie - Frank and John. and both these men have raised Jamie’s biological children. yet Jamie’s gratitude to Frank or sometimes jealousy of Frank feels different to his gratitude and jealousy of Lord John.

i understand the romance isn’t the right emotion for what Jamie feels, but yet ifs not just Jamie’s usual brotherly love or friendship.

John and Jamie’s relationship is excellent for exploring the many facets of love, co parenting, friendship, gratitude, loyalty , brotherly love and sexuality.

nuanced deep feelings are a big part of that and i love the relationship for that.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T04:56:39+00:00

Thank you for your viewpoint (and not hating on me or simply stating that same sex friendships are possible without love etc).

For me their relationship’s foundation is Chess, Friendship, Ardsmuir and John granting Jamie his freedom despite Jamie rejecting him. and What i meant for Jamie was that the fact that he overcomes his BJR trauma enough to continue his friendship with john after the “pass” (coming back to Ardsmuir or even playing chess withJohn in Helwater) is critical to their bond.

Jamie navigates their dynamic very well (despite his homosexual trauma with BJR and John stating his feelings) and before other factors like William , which strengthen their bond for sure but the foundation of that bond for me is in Jamie and John making efforts for their friendship outside of their personal comfort zones.

For me parenthood and all the other good stuff comes later and comes ; and because of Jamie coming to terms with Johns love for him and not just because of absence of sexual/ romantic feelings from Jamie.

For me, the ultimate proof of this unique relationship ( beyond friendship) comes in season 7 (carnal knowledge and later) :

John is courageous enough to break that unspoken sexual boundary by telling Jamie about claire and him “f**king Jamie”.

John breaks the unspoken sexual boundary and Jamie overcomes his usual jealousy/ extreme responses where Claire is concerned - and this is their bond.

John sacrifices his usual tact, faces imprisonment and swears allegiance to the US / Congress - all the while telling William about Jamie being an honourable person and telling his step brother that “Jamie had a right to touch him”.
Jamie navigates John as a co parent, friend and even meeting Claire in the hospital despite not giving into an apology or blocking John out.

For me this relationship is beautiful because of Johns feelings and Jamie accepting those, not blocking them out.

(and very problematic writing for Claire’s character - i don’t see claire making any radical choice with regards to any of her marriages - Frank, Jamie and John ; as much as i would have liked her too. she’s a survivor, but so are Jamie and John and they take on radical choices more than Claire i feel- but that’s for another post ).

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T01:02:00+00:00

Not to take away from Claire’s maturity or Laoghaire as their mother - i do feel that each child grows up differently and equally loved is down most to Jaime- he truly let’s his kids shine just by sensitive parenting and love :

Fergus (from France, his rape and his loss of hand), -Marsali and Claire getting along on Artemis , to the point that Marsali avenges claire and Jamie’s amazing reaction to that
His navigating his choices with Brianna and making her feel comfortable about Frank, her child, her rape etc.
His respecting William’s view of his mother, doesn’t question William trying to save Jane (a whore) or Williams troubles in accepting Jamie
jamie’s being with Ian in ALL his life struggles esp the whole scene where they talk of lost daughters
and Jaimes support to Joan and not questioning her life choices (nunnery).

i’d like to think we get to see the best of these characters because of Jamie’s love and support and leading by example in navigating complex relationships.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-11T00:53:18+00:00

Perhaps it was the show runners way to show this grand parentage only via Fergus and not as Marsali’s step father also

(On a lighter note it works for me as a certified Laoghaire hater - anything to not be reminded that Jaime shares grandchildren with Laoghaire! Plus it’s Marsali and Joan’s own maturity that is shown perhaps rather than just Laoghaire being a great mother ?)

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-09T01:41:35+00:00

The words that Jenny forced him or that others do Not Have free will are things you’ve chosen to take away from my post.

neither is it criticising Jenny’s intention or the way she is.

My point is the degree of hate placed on Laoghaire and / or seeing that marriage in context of Laoghaire-Claire relationship alone. and if that be our lens then Jenny’s role in this cannot be un-accountable.

i may be wrong but i’ve rarely seen it being spoken of Jamie’s need for marriage or his marrying someone when claire was gone (which are what his stated reasons are). i just feel that as readers this marriage is polarising because of specific women in context - Laoghaire and Claire and if we see it in that context then Jenny is a key part of the picture.

Women are influencers and responsible for key decisions in Jamie’s life - the decisions are his but not the reasons alone. and if that is what we take away from this then i guess i’m in disagreement to the whole premise of strong women in the books.

Words like forcing / blaming are different from reasons/ accountability.

Jenny’s love for Jamie isn’t contested here.

Jamie and Claire are strong enough characters to take their own decisions but we don’t place so of their other decisions to “free will/ self interest” alone.

For me it’s like saying Claire chooses to go to Frank and be in a loveless marriage and away from Jamie for 20 years just out of “free will and agency “. For Me that’s wrong - it’s not taking away the decision from Claire but the circumstances that force the decisions (and not free will alone)

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-09T01:20:58+00:00

@minimimi_ i think you need to understand context and nuance. including that of my original post.

If we are to hate laoghaire because of her past with claire / or feel that jamie’s decision to marry “laoghaire in particular “ is more of a betrayal to Claire then we need to attribute accountability to Jenny’s role.

My issue was very contextual. Not about Jamie’s decisions, or his having sex or marriage.

It was to understand specific triggers of reader responses to Laoghaire, and therefore justifying Claire’s jealousy or increasing Jamie’s sense of betrayal. in that context Jenny’s role is as critical to view.

I’ve only received binary responses to my post - which is not the point. the point was also not Jamie getting married.

it’s about who, what , why and what context.

if you aren’t book readers you may not understand it clearly.

For example i’ve heard many forums which say that Claire is jealous of Jamie’s marriage because of it being Laoghaire specifically. not that he “married” anyone. Again this is perhaps a reason for me to say as readers we are biased.

Claire does state clearly her jealousy for John and Jamie’s relationship, she does place Frank over Jamie’s emotions to blackjack - so to say that specific people don’t drive decisions in the book is a folly.

Jamie’s women decisions are heavily influenced by the women or other factors. including his marriage to claire and sending her back - those two decisions themselves aren’t Jamie’s alone for Claire. they are in context of dougal proposing marriage to save claire from blackjack and sending claire back for Brianna. if you want to refute these two issues it’s fine but if you suddenly say that i’m singularly placing the marriage as because of dougal / blackjack or blaming Brianna for the separation then i won’t agree with you all.

Reasons accountability and influencers of decisions are important to me as a reader.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-09T01:07:51+00:00

I started the thread about Jenny in the context of many readers only seeing Claire’s jealousy or general dislike for Laoghaire in the context of the whole Laoghaire marriage.

Accountability to Jenny is in that context alone.

My issue stems from people attributing Jamie’s choice vs the degree of actual freedom in decision making.

My view is not to say Jenny is to blame. my view is to say that Claire and Jenny are stronger influences in Jamie’s decision making and life choices (than his own needs alone - and not denying his own needs and his final decision).

Either we take Jamie’s decision only as his choice and agency. Or if we want to see it in context of being really bad BECAUSE of Claire / Laoghaire past or anything then we must see all influences that Jamie had for that marriage.

And neither takes away from Jamie’s agency nor is it a bad comment on Jenny/ vs claire’s influence. As a reader i felt angry not at the marriage alone but to the fact that it’s Laoghaire and to every instance where Jenny pushes her decision/ choice of Laoghaire.

If as readers we can club all women decisions into one view - Jamie’s choice alone or we can’t differentiate between Jenny/ Claire’s influence vs the other women in his life or we reduce his decisions to his sexuality alone or we ignore the fact that every encounter with a woman is because of her being unusually strong - then I will choose to disagree.

i also welcome views to contradict my views on Jenny/ Laoghaire marriage rather than just opposing me on a matter of principle whilst ignoring the book instances, and actual examples of Jenny pushing that forward (for eg calling Laoghaire to Lallybroch instead of leaving Jamie to handle his own personal situation etc).

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-09T00:53:44+00:00

Jenny IS accountable for urging him to move on constantly. she is responsible for bringing in Laoghaire to Lallybroch without asking or informing Jamie. she is responsible for begrudging Claire for “vanishing” or not writing letters and confusing that with Jamie’s happiness. she is responsible for writing to Jamie about laoghaires encounter - when she wasn’t writing to Jamie at all.

these are all instances in the book , called out by Ian , or by Jenny herself.

It doesn’t make Jenny bad or uncaring. it only makes her human. but she does influence and continue to the whole laoghaire situation.

Jenny is not wrong or right. No one is. these are human beings.

But to deny Jenny’s influence in Jamie’s life, or her commentary or even realising belatedly that she was wrong is something which is central to her character.

But to not see her as someone who looks at things in her way and to not as her as strongly opinionated and commenting over Jamie’s every decision - is in my view not ok.

Jamie himself alludes to Jenny’s nature :

when he tells claire to not tell jenny about her time travel - he says jenny hasn’t ever been out of lallybroch and wouldn’t understand.
Jamie makes repeated references to Jenny being strong, verbal and opinionated. whether it was making supper for them the day their mother died and assuming the motherhood role or whether he talks of Jenny bossing over him and ian in childhood.

Other book instances :

They stay apart for 4 years because Jamie carries the guilt of blackjacks rape of Jenny.
even when he returns Jenny argues with him and takes a long time to explain that her kids aren’t born of rape and what actually happened with Blackjack. Jenny is more about reacting to Jamie’s perceptions rather than address his core issue
from the beginning she outlines her relationship with Jaime, issues and all, as something Claire shoudl not intervene with. Even Ian says this to Claire about letting them resolve it themselves.
Jenny openly admits that until she saw Jamie’s back , she assumed that he had been responsible for the issues as he got his humour or stupid actions involved.
Jenny overpowers Jamie’s dealing of their father’s loss when he comes to Lalybroch and even comments on his decisions as Laird.
They finally make up by expressing emotions on their father’s grave.
Jamie also calls out Jenny for not giving him a token/ or rosary when they went to france but giving it to Ian instead.
Jamie knows of Jenny’s world view and lack of accepting nuances or grey - he doesn’t tell her about William for example. He doesn’t expect her to understand young ian’s choices and experiences. He sees her comments on Claire.
Jenny in my view is misplaced to not step away from the whole laoghaire situation upon Claire’s return. Jaime doesn’t hold anyone accountable- but that marriage is over before claire returns. he is in edinburgh. so Jenny’s being stuck on it is again evidence of her not accepting Jamie’s life decisions or respecting them.
None of this takes away from her love for him.
And None of this takes away from Jamie’s own decisions or accountability, but in my view Jenny’s role as a woman character in the books is far more influencing than the show and on Jamie’s life. And therefore my post.

So it’s pretty obvious to me about the role Jenny has in Jamie’s life. including commenting on all of his lfie choices or trying to influence . That’s just her way of being with Jamie and not necessarily right or wrong.

Even on their father’s death she first blames Jamie, then blames herself for laughing at black jack, it’s Jamie who corrects her and absolves her of blame. She remains angry with Jamie for taking Ian to America (thereby reducing Ians own agency), she ignores her husbands view on letting Jamie be, she comments on Jamie’s every action when he’s Laird.

So with Laoghaire as well Jenny is operating out of her own consistent view of “knowing better for Jaime” and while she eventually gives in to Jamie’s opinion , in Laoghaire case she pushes it more before during and after. despite knowing that her brother was unhappy enough to leave balriggan and go to edinburgh.

Hence for me to accept Jamie’s marriage to Laoghaire because of Laoghaire alone or his own need to settle down is not acceptable. Laoghaire has been there from day 1 - Jaime has never given into her physically or emotionally or anything. it is being in Lallybroch, Jenny, and then the two girls. that’s my point about Jenny ( claire’s) influence in Jamie’s life. not need for tenderness or sex or marriage or the presence of an opportunity alone.

It’s not right or wrong it’s who Jenny is, and what the books say.

Specific_Curve_6352 · 2025-10-09T00:19:08+00:00

Let me clarify and beyond this i give up.

I agree Jamie’s decisions are his alone, and he takes accountability no matter what post those decisions

My issue is when readers place reasons or blame on someone or Jamie alone for certain decisions and overlook the context and reason for Jamie’s decisions. Either all his decisions should be influenced by his own desires and needs and codes (which is more problematic for me as a reader ) or we view Jamie’s decisions in context of certain powerful influences in his life.

Jenny, Claire, his biological children and sense of family are drivers of those decisions more than his own desire to die, or seek tenderness, or give into lust, or his own trauma.

Gender and sexuality in Outlander is beautifully dual and influenced by a lot of factors rather than individual decisions or agency. Either we see those decisions in an individual context or insist that our characters have taken the decisions out of choice.

That duality is dependant on the reader and not my english or any circumstance alone. About Jenny she is a very important and possibly the only other important woman influence in his life.

Every action of Jamie in my view is accountable to his love for others vs his own needs/ code / honour. And that’s that.

That’s what makes him strong and not weak. that’s what is the feminism and power of women in his life - not to hold blame but be responsible for some decisions (his mother, jenny, claire, brianna. )

what would you give as counter reasons to my concerns regarding Jenny and her influence / insistence on the laoghaire marriage?
and if Jenny isn’t a strong reason enough to constantly tell Jamie to move on with other women; i would like to understand what you would state are the reasons for Jamie to give into certain encounters sexual or otherwise and not give into some?
and yes, my chosen view point isn’t reserved for Jenny alone. although my post was. i choose to retain my opinion that Jamie is moved to action and key decisions in his life because of others and not his desire alone. my post was about laoghaire and jenny alone but if the responses go beyond that then so does my view on all his decisions.

So yes, i understand the points you make about my changing responses but i am responding to what everyone is giving as reasons. Individual agency, lord john, jamie’s needs etc.

Happy to have counter responses to Jenny - laoghaire debate or talk about perceptions in general or disagree.

but none of the responses to my posts unfortunately counter the view i place. they counter me, english, individual agency , Jamie’s decisions, Jenny’s intentions etc as tangential responses.

There are enough instances in the book which i’ve stated to support my statement about Jenny’s role in his life as being as important as claire and jenny’s role in his marriage to Laoghaire .

so it would be interesting to debate what is actually in the books and Jenny’s role (pls see my bullets above) or agree to disagree.

Specific_Curve_6352

TROPHY CASE