Most people agree that John should move on with his life, let go of Jamie and find happiness in a real relationship. But there are some takes on this subject that really piss me off.
I’m sorry but “oh I know John will never love someone like/more than he loves Jamie, but I really wish he could find a great guy and have a nice relationship with him!!” is not the good argument that you think it is.
That’s not getting over Jamie, that’s settling for second best. Well, he can’t have Jamie, poor thing! So he will have to take someone else who he won’t love as much as he loves Jamie but at least he will have someone to cuddle with at night 🥺
Why can’t John actually get over Jamie?? Why should he settle for the second best? Worse, why should his partner accept being the second choice??
I damn well don’t want John loving someone else like he loves Jamie because that shit is completely unhealthy imo, but I know that’s not what people mean.
Jamie being the superior god-like man that everyone is in love with/is attracted to/wants to fuck is kinda ridiculous imho, but I understand the appeal that a character like that has for the audience of a romance book/show. But to put Jamie so high up in a pedestal and to think that John should be forever in love with him and not ever get over him because oh lord nothing is comparable to King-of-Men-Jamie is… a choice.
Listen. I know that’s on Diana. She is the one who wrote John like this. But I wish people would be more critical of Diana’s writing of him instead of swallowing that shit up like it’s chocolate. Everyone knows how problematic the books can be regarding certain topics, this is just another one of these things.
Instead of accepting that John won’t ever get over Jamie/won’t ever love someone as much as he loves Jamie, you should be asking yourself: why is that Diana writes him like this? Why does she insist in the stereotypical cliché of the gay man having unrequited feelings for his straight best friend? Why can’t John truly move on and stop having romantic feelings for Jamie? Why should Jamie be John’s greatest love?
Outlander is essentially a romance (idgaf about what DG says). Love of all types is a running theme: not only romantic love, but the love that exists within family and friendship. And yes, there’s a lot of platonic/friendship kind of love between J/J.
But romantic love specifically has a huge role in this story. We have straight couples left and right in this series: Claire and Jamie, Bree and Roger, Fergus and Marsali, Ian and Rachel, Dottie and Denzell, Hal and Minnie, Jenny and Ian, hell, even Brian and Ellen are getting a spin-off.
So I’m sorry but it’s really freaking weird that, in the middle of all this, people say that John (the character with his own book series and one of the main POV characters in the main series, mind you) won’t ever be able to love someone like he loves Jamie, or more than he loves Jamie. It’s really freaking weird that people say that John has to settle with second best — because that’s essentially what’s being said every time someone says that John won’t ever love someone like he loves Jamie but he should find someone else to be in a relationship with anyway.
All of that for what? Keep the cliché of the gay dude in love with his straight best friend and who never moves on? C’mon now. Don’t piss me off.
38 notes
·
View notes