Book 2: Dragonfly in Amber

[Firebunny]

I wonder if Claire and Jamie's attempts in Paris to stop the war from ever happening condemned the Scots.  If they hadn't stopped that booze shipment Prince Charles was going to make so much money on, perhaps he would have been able to get other supporters and been better able to equip his army.

[Tif]

Well considering actual events occurring, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Claire and Jamie did not condemn the Scots. Unless, Diana is revising history.

However, all kidding aside, I've often wondered about things like that. How something seemingly small might affect it.

[Firebunny]

Well considering actual events occurring, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Claire and Jamie did not condemn the Scots. Unless, Diana is revising history.

To get really scifi nerdy for a minute...

 

If I suddenly found myself inexplicably 200 years in the past the first thing I would do is try to ascertain the nature of Time.  I'd want to know if this was an closed loop or open loop kind of situation. 

 

Closed loop - Time isn't changeable.  I always went back in time and my "present" has already been affected by it.  There's nothing I can do to change the future, because I will have always done what I will do not matter what it is I will do.  So I can't stop horrible things from happening, but also I can't inadvertantly do something that will evenutally let the Nazi's win WW2.

 

Open loop - Time is changeable.  I didn't necessarily go back in time originally, so now that I'm in the past I'm basically a free radical.  Who knows what I'll do or what mayhem I'll cause?  I can prevent Colloden, but I might also get my future husband's ancestor killed and thus prevent him from ever existing.  Since he didn't exist to take me to Scotland on our second honeymoon I never went back in time, so Colloden did happen and my husband did exist and we did go to Scotland and I did go back in time to prevent Colloden and get his ancestor killed, so I didn't go to Scotland...

 

I think it's pretty clear that Outlander and all its sequels are a closed loop situation, but Claire seems to be under the impression it's an open loop.  So I'm going to blame her for every shitty thing that's happened since.

[Tif]

Your last sentence made me snork my water.  

[absnow54]

Didn't Claire also have the scar from the blood vow on her wrist when she has her palm read in the first book? I thought that meant that Claire had in some way existed in the 18th century first. So yes, Colloden is her fault. ;-)

[Glaze Crazy]

Firebunny, so your "open" loop is really an extended "closed" loop?  This is why I don't generally read or watch pure scifi, I guess.  Too much for my poor brain cells.  I do fall into some things, but more dystopian stuff (The Walking Dead).

 

I always figured it was Claire's destiny to go back in time.  But, not here but in future books, it does get discussed among some characters and I know of one example where something very small and relatively unimportant in the big picture gets slightly changed.

 

Edit: switch open and closed. See, scifi hurts my head.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Glaze Crazy

[Firebunny]

 This is why I don't generally read or watch pure scifi, I guess.  Too much for my poor brain cells.

The implications of Time Travel are too much for everyone's brain cells.  Most shows that dabble in Time Travel will evenutally screw up and it'll become a confusing mess.  Even Doctor Who can't handle it well if the story arch lasts more than one episode (See River Song).

[Rekilt]

Since there are a ton of stories about people traveling through the stones, MAYBE one of them screwed everything up and the universe sent Claire to right all their wrongs thus making Claire the saver of all history from 1740 something forward. And to thank her for all she did for the planet, the universe gave her (us) Hot Jamie to commiserate (consummate) with.

ETA: stupid autocorrect.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Rekilt

[Tif]

Didn't Claire also have the scar from the blood vow on her wrist when she has her palm read in the first book? I thought that meant that Claire had in some way existed in the 18th century first. So yes, Colloden is her fault. ;-)

 

Well, I when I read your comment, I said, "WHAT?!?!?!  It was there???"  So I went back and re-read and sure enough, Claire is thinking to herself, "I was going to ask whether the deep lines across the base of my wrist meant anything (a potential for suicide?), but we were interrupted..."

How on earth have I missed that little nugget in all the times I've read this book?

It's vague enough that it could just be lines or Culloden IS all Claire's fault!  ;)

[bluebonnet]

Wow, I didn't notice that at all.  Hmm.  

 

The question of the time loop in Diana's world was muddled when it was determined that Alex Randall was actually Jack's biological ancestor.  

Though later she made it even more eyebrow raising when Roger and Bree found out that the document citing the fire at the Big House had changed.  Was it always going to change because Bree and Roger were always going to go back or did they really change history?  

Guess this belongs in another thread but I need to remember which book it was.  They start to blend together.  

[peacefrog]

Ooh time travel! That is why I read this series. No other reason except time travel and there were a lot of books, which I had assumed lots of characters and a chance to know them. It's also the reason I love them.

Can we start a time travel thread? I think it would have to have spoilers in it though?

[bluebonnet]

Can we start a time travel thread? I think it would have to have spoilers in it though?

I went ahead and started one because yeah, sometimes I just really want to talk about that aspect of the books but it's difficult when needing to go from thread to thread to avoid spoilers for others who haven't finished reading yet.  

[Kiwi]

The scifi nerd in me scribes to the closed loop idea, that no matter what Claire does history will course correct itself so that what is meant to happen will happen.

[auntlada]

I went ahead and started one because yeah, sometimes I just really want to talk about that aspect of the books but it's difficult when needing to go from thread to thread to avoid spoilers for others who haven't finished reading yet.  

 

I threw my thoughts in that thread since they relate to Book 3 as well.

[Tif]

Wow, I didn't notice that at all.  Hmm.  

 

The question of the time loop in Diana's world was muddled when it was determined that Alex Randall was actually Jack's biological ancestor.  

I'm not at all being facetious when asking this, but What? When was this?

[peacefrog]

Well, I when I read your comment, I said, "WHAT?!?!?!  It was there???"  So I went back and re-read and sure enough, Claire is thinking to herself, "I was going to ask whether the deep lines across the base of my wrist meant anything (a potential for suicide?), but we were interrupted..."

How on earth have I missed that little nugget in all the times I've read this book?

It's vague enough that it could just be lines or Culloden IS all Claire's fault!  ;)

That's foreshadowing of (Echo in the Bone)

where Claire contemplates slitting her wrists after thinking Jamie died when the ship went down. [/spoiler]

[nodorothyparker]

Alex Randall was actually Frank's ancestor because he's the one who knocked up Mary Hawkins.  Black Jack married her to legitimize the child to fulfill Alex's dying request and thus appears as the father in the family record.  I always wondered if Claire happened to mention that little factoid to Frank since he was so enamored with the bastard.

 

Black Jack wasn't fathering anybody after Jamie apparently gelded him in the Paris duel.

[bluebonnet]

I'm not at all being facetious when asking this, but What? When was this?

Haha.  Oops.  Meant Frank.  Alex was Frank's ancestor since he's the one who impregnated Mary.  

[Tif]

Haha.  Oops.  Meant Frank.  Alex was Frank's ancestor since he's the one who impregnated Mary.

I was seriously questioning my reading comprehension. Hahaha!

[bluebonnet]

I always felt very conflicted about Claire being so adamant that Jamie do nothing to Jack.  She knew that Mary Hawkins was the required ingredient to the Frank mix but she never really scrutinized what it would mean to subject someone like Mary to someone like Jack.  Of course, it eventually became a moot point, but still until it became moot, Claire was certain that Mary would have to marry Jack and she was also certain of what type of creature Jack was.  There's a self-protection element in there.  If Frank didn't exist, what happens to Claire?  Yet Claire's thoughts never went beyond just thinking about Frank's existence somewhere in time.  I think the Mary/Jack thing was the first time I really experienced a dislike for Claire.  

[ohhellsyeah]

It didn't cause me to dislike Claire, but it did make me side eye her choices. Maybe since Jack loved his brother so much he wasn't a bastard to Mary, but I really doubt it. Even though he couldn't have sex with her, there were plenty of other torture options available to him. Asking Jamie not to go after Jack was a hell of a thing to do, especially since Jack could have done the same thing to anyone else. And then he did. Poor Fergus.

There is so much rape/sexual assault in these books. I really wouldn't mind if some of it gets cut in the show. The attack on Mary and Claire, for example, is not particularly important to the plot.

At this point, I think if I made a list of characters who haven't been raped, it would be a short list.

[WatchrTina]

Well Claire does know that it will be a very short marriage since she knows the date of Jack's death.

[nodorothyparker]

I always felt very conflicted about Claire being so adamant that Jamie do nothing to Jack.  She knew that Mary Hawkins was the required ingredient to the Frank mix but she never really scrutinized what it would mean to subject someone like Mary to someone like Jack.  Of course, it eventually became a moot point, but still until it became moot, Claire was certain that Mary would have to marry Jack and she was also certain of what type of creature Jack was.  There's a self-protection element in there.  If Frank didn't exist, what happens to Claire?  Yet Claire's thoughts never went beyond just thinking about Frank's existence somewhere in time.  I think the Mary/Jack thing was the first time I really experienced a dislike for Claire.

 

I don't know if I'd call it an outright dislike, but yeah, her singlemindedness that Black Jack had to be allowed to live to marry Mary really grated at times.  I get that at that point she couldn't really reconcile what Frank's nonexistence would mean as far as her being in Scotland to go through the stones in the first place and she had a lot of guilt about not choosing to go back to him, but knowing what Black Jack was, what he had done to Jamie, and what he still might be capable of doing to Mary, she just came off as incredibly callous.  She kept harping on the idea of "would you let a good man die?" to Jamie.  Well, it's not like they would have been actually killing Frank.  He just never would have existed in the first place.

 

The scene where Claire meets up with Black Jack in Edinburgh for the first time, ostensibly to reach a deal to trade military secrets for medical care for Alex, where all he wants to talk about is what it's like to have sex with Jamie remains one of the more disturbing things I've ever read.

Edited October 2, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[absnow54]

Claire's quest to protect Black Jack and Black Jack's half-assed redemption arc really turned me off to the story. I understood she felt guilty about the whole Frank situation (I never got the impression that any of it involved whether or not she'd cease to exist in the 1740's if Frank was never there to take her to Scotland, but I've only read it once) but Black Jack was a very real and immediate danger to the people she cared about in the present, and she seemed to be not only blind to it, but smug about the fact that she believed that she was right. I felt so bad for Jamie during that time period because he was constantly thrust into his rapists orbit and was powerless to do anything because Claire had granted BJR immunity until he could father an offspring. 

[Athena]

Claire's quest to protect Black Jack and Black Jack's half-assed redemption arc really turned me off to the story... I felt so bad for Jamie during that time period because he was constantly thrust into his rapists orbit and was powerless to do anything because Claire had granted BJR immunity until he could father an offspring. 

 

This is one of my favourite books from the series, but I hated this aspect of the plot the most. The idea of Jamie being in his rapist's orbit like that bothered me a lot and I felt very annoyed with Claire. The whole predestination complex factored in, but I really don't know how she could have stood it to allow herself and Jamie be near the bastard. BJR is a threat to many people, not just them, and I was so glad when Jamie gelded him and he died at Culloden. 

[absnow54]

I couldn't deal with the fact that Claire began to sympathize with Randall while she was estranged from Jamie. I don't recall if she knew about Fergus at this point, but the way she viewed Jamie's actions as entirely selfish when her actions were just as selfish drove me crazy. Her single minded focus on ensuring Frank's birth while ignoring Jamie, who was obviously suffering from his rape, made her seem so cold.

[WatchrTina]

Claire's need/desire for vengeance is considerably lower than that of Jamie or the typical Highlander.  This is played out in later books.  

In the book where Claire is gang-raped she is offered the opportunity to kill her rapists and declines. Jamie explains to his men that it's because she's taken a vow as a healer to "do no harm" so it falls to him to do it for her. In MOBY Claire struggles to "forgive" the rapist she runs into at the trading post -- the one that got away. As soon as Jamie learns he is alive, Jamie sets out to finish the vengeance he started several books earlier.

Edited October 2, 2014 by WatchrTina

[ohhellsyeah]

This is nobody's fault but mine, but I really wish I hadn't clicked on that spoiler.

[Athena]

Claire's need/desire for vengeance is considerably lower than that of Jamie or the typical Highlander.  This is played out in later books....

 

True and I'm not a vengeful person. I'll take my response about the MOBY spoiler elsewhere, but I do feel BJR was a bigger threat to people around them. I just can't imagine being around that man. Watching the show with Tobias acting as the character is hard enough.  

[Cliomuse]

Gah.... I just read Rupert's death and I can very clearly see and hear the actors playing that scene. Who knows how it will play out in the show, but I am gutted. I read it out loud to my DH and he had to stop and absorb it for a bit too. He hasn't touched the books, but really enjoys the show.

[peacefrog]

Yeah the second book is like Outlander's version of the Red Wedding. How many character's deaths? 5?

[Tif]

I love Grant O'rourke and his potrayal of Rupert. That scene in DiA is one I think of that will break my heart to watch. I love that they expanded Angus and Rupert in the show.

[Cliomuse]

Yes, and I deeply appreciate Diana's ability to make the deaths count. (GRRM too, for that matter.) Character death and genuine peril help make the books more real and more relatable. Losing the characters we care about keeps me reading to find out what happens to everyone else. There is no "happily ever after", there is just more life. (That thing that happens while we are making other plans.)

[ohhellsyeah]

I guess I don't really see it in the same light. It was a real historical event, so if all the characters magically survived that would have bugged me.

The red wedding was so effective because it was shocking. I'm not saying Culloden won't be incredibly devastating, but it won't really be a surprise, either.

I also think this is the type of storytelling Ron Moore excels at, so I can really see him hitting this stuff out of the park.

[Tif]

I'm ok with all the deaths really, especially because of the historical settings. But for Rupert, it's just because I really liked the character and his interactions with Claire. Even the scene with his death, he's still making ribald comments to Claire.

[ohhellsyeah]

Yeah, and I love show Rupert way more than book Rupert. Also, I think Murtaugh's death was really hard on Jamie. He was such a constant in Jamie's life and one of the few people Jamie really trusted.

[peacefrog]

Well those guys weren't so much of a surprise, it was Frank that was for me.

[Cliomuse]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Death is essential to the historical accuracy of Outlander, but a less effective storyteller would have killed off "redshirts" and we might not have felt it as much. The Red Wedding was a huge shock, but at that point I had a feeling those characters were not long for this world. But again, a different author would have had Robb die doing something brave and it would have been less impactful than the sheer shock and waste of it all. It is one of my selling points when I am trying to "convert" folks who don't think they will like these series. At the heart, the stories are about people and what happens to them. The fact Claire and Jamie know Culloden is coming (unless they can prevent it and WE know they can't) is nauseating. It makes DiA feel a bit like a train headed for a cliff. Very effective.

[islagirl]

Gah.... I just read Rupert's death and I can very clearly see and hear the actors playing that scene. Who knows how it will play out in the show, but I am gutted. I read it out loud to my DH and he had to stop and absorb it for a bit too. He hasn't touched the books, but really enjoys the show.

 

I've been terribly upset about this since the end of Rent, when Claire looked around at all the men and realized what was coming for them.  I'm much more attached to the secondary characters in the show than I was in the books.  And while I was fascinated by the Dougal character in the books, I will be absolutely gutted when his final day comes on the show, much more so than in the book.  Graham McTavish is amazing.

 

Now that I think about it, there will be mutiny when we get to that point of the show.  Viewers love the Dougal, Rupert, Angus and Murtagh characters and actors on the show...it will be devastating to lose them.  Way worse than the Red Wedding, which was shocking but not heart-breaking to me.  

[WatchrTina]

 

Viewers love the Dougal, Rupert, Angus and Murtagh characters and actors on the show...it will be devastating to lose them.

I wonder if we will lose them all.  So far the show has been pretty faithful to the books but they could change things.  Show!Angus is not the same as Book!Angus and Willie isn't even in the books.  So they could actually keep some of our favorites alive the way True Blood kept Lafayette alive.  Not Dougal, of course.  But maybe Murtagh.  Or Rupert.  Oh heck -- who do you choose?

[Petunia846]

I would love to keep Murtagh. Angus and Rupert are hilarious, but Murtagh is my favorite.

[Pestilentia]

Please, if they do keep someone let it be Murtagh. He has such a rich backstory!!

I so want to see and/or hear some flashback memories of his times with Jamie's mother and, to a lesser degree, father. Didn't he court Ellen before she chose Brian?

Spoilerized because I can't remember doody when it comes to which book gave us which info.

[Nidratime]

Well, considering all the comparisons the show has had to deal with regarding Game of Thrones and that Outlander is the version of that show for women ... won't they be surprised when we lose half the cast in one battle.

[islagirl]

Please, if they do keep someone let it be Murtagh. He has such a rich backstory!!

I so want to see and/or hear some flashback memories of his times with Jamie's mother and, to a lesser degree, father. Didn't he court Ellen before she chose Brian?

Spoilerized because I can't remember doody when it comes to which book gave us which info.

 

Please yes!  It would be wonderful if they let him survive.  

Since the story moves away from the Leoch crowd after Culloden, it would make the most sense to have Murtagh carry forward. He could be a big part of the Frasers' story in the twenty years before Claire returns.

[mitzy]

and Willie isn't even in the books.  

 

But he is.   Willie Coulter Mackenzie is with Dougal when he meets his demise.  He seemed to be Dougal's right hand man, or has DG says below, one of his henchmen.  So perhaps they have expanded the character in prequel fashion.  

 

And a snippet from DG on the CompuServe Forum:

 

 

The young man called Willie (who helps Dougal with the priest) is--Willie.  (Probably Willie Coulter, though we don't hear his last name in the books until the end of DRAGONFLY, and he isn't mentioned specifically before then.)  He's one of Dougal's MacKenzie henchmen--he has a number of them, though it's mostly Rupert who's mentioned in the books (and Angus, in the show).

[Firebunny]

I love all the highlanders on the show, but, as much as it's going to hurt, I think they should all die at Culloden.  That way Jamie's survivial is more special.

 

But I will morn them all, especially Rupert.  He's my favorite

[Cliomuse]

I love all the highlanders on the show, but, as much as it's going to hurt, I think they should all die at Culloden.  That way Jamie's survivial is more special.

 

Losing all these friends shapes Jamie and helps make him the man he becomes.

 

[tcay]

I would love Murtagh to survive, especially seeing him on the show. But unless they rewrite a later character for him (which I suppose is possible), I can't really see it happening given all of the ...events. 

 

Spoilery speculation on stuff from Voyager:

I don't think we've ever found out what really happened at Culloden, but I'm guessing Murtagh sacrificed himself for Jamie?

[absnow54]

I think they should all die at Culloden

Isn't Murtagh the only one that actually dies at Culloden? I thought pretty much everyone else bites it before the battle.

[Tif]

Isn't Murtagh the only one that actually dies at Culloden? I thought pretty much everyone else bites it before the battle.

Murtaugh is the only one at Culloden for sure. I'm not sure that we know what happens to Willie and Angus in the book. Willie is the one that finds Jamie and Claire and Dougal the night before.

Rupert is before that even, at Falkirk,