Book 2: Dragonfly in Amber

[peacefrog]

Willie, if it is indeed that Willie,

shows up in ECHO threatening Jamie with revealing Dougal's death for money. Young Ian ends up killing him.

We still have no idea what went on at Culloden with Murtagh, BJR and Jamie. That is the big mystery that I want to know!

Edited October 15, 2014 by peacefrog

[WatchrTina]

Peacefrog the spoiler from Echo you mention above isn't about Willie.

 It's about someone who meets Willie after Culloden in a prison and hears a certain story from him.  He then tries to extort money from Jamie with that info.

Edited October 16, 2014 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

Ahh thanks! I still can't remember!

[ohhellsyeah]

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

Show Rupert is definitely my favorite as well, but agree that they should all die during Culloden (or the lead up to it).  I don't mind deviating from the book to an extent, but that would feel like a betrayal of history.  Culloden wouldn't seem like a devastating historical event if all the main characters miraculous survive.  Jamie manages to save Lallybroach (and Ian, Jenny, Claire and Brianna).  Besides, what would they even do with them after that? It wasn't exactly good times in the days after Culloden, so even if they survived the battle they would have been imprisoned/died of starvation.  Plus,  there is really no place for them in the story with all the other characters roaming around. Voyager is pretty heavy plotwise, but the subsequent books are pretty heavy character wise.

 

I personally found the Red Wedding pretty heart-breaking.  I knew there would be consequences after Robb broke his oath and married Thalia (who I hated) but I wasn't expecting THAT.  Cat and Ned were my favorites and Ned had already died. Plus, Robb's dumb behavior was not Cat's fault!  I was not expecting Cat to get killed off too.  And Robb was too pretty to die! I knew Thalia was a goner as soon as she talked about being pregnant and naming the baby Ned.  Sorry.  I would have brought this over to the Outlander vs. other shows thread but couldn't because of book spoilers.

[WatchrTina]

The release of the trailer for the season 1, part 2 has got me wondering about something and I think this is the right place to post it (especially since, like ohhellsyeah I'm having a Game of Thrones crossover moment.  (If you haven't seen the trailer, hurry over to the media thread, find the link, and watch it  I'll wait.)

 

So I believe that trailer gives us our first glimpse of Simon Callow as the Duke of Sandringham.  That has me wondering about him yet again.  We know the Duke is the puppet-master behind Black Jack Randall.  We learn in DIA that it was the Duke who set those thugs on Claire and causes poor Mary (his own niece!) to be raped. The question I've never been completely clear on is why?  Was the Duke really a Jacobite?  Did he support the restoration of the Stuarts to the throne of Great Britain because he genuinely thought he would be personally better off under a Stuart king?  I do not for one minute think he was doing it out of religious fervor (wanting to put a Catholic back on the throne) or out of some sense of duty, honor, and loyalty to the rightful king.  No I'm sure the Duke only acts in the best interests of the Duke without regard to others.  That seems clear since he was willing to set his dog, Black Jack Randall, loose in the Highlands for the purpose of stirring up Scottish resentment against the English.  That's some seriously twisted political shit there.  And as mentioned before, he goes after Claire when he catches on that Jamie is working against the cause, believing that raping and/or killing Claire would distract Jaime (what a sick MoFo.) 

 

But does he really want a Stuart on the throne?  Or does he just want a rebellion?  Is the Duke our answer to Game of Thrones' Littlefinger, author of the saying "Chaos is a ladder"?  Is the Duke just a shit-stirrer who thinks he can capitalize on the ensuring chaos?  If that's it then I'm doubly glad he got his head handed to him (or rather to Hugh's widow.)  Because he's already a freaking Duke.  How much more can one person want?  It really doesn't make sense to me if he is just stirring things up to create chaos.  So he must really want a Stuart on the throne.  But if that is true I cannot for the life of me understand what is in it for him.

[Quickbeam]

I'm new to the series, read book# 1 and thought it was excellent. I an not liking book #2 at all. Too much political intrigue which I find dull. And I don't care about the 1960's parts of the book at all. I'm trying gut gut my way through this one as I hear the following books are more focused on Scotland.

[Petunia846]

I felt the same way the first time I read it, and I still skip over anything too political when I reread. Just keep pushing through and don't feel bad about skipping things. If you get confused later you can go back or you can come here and ask us. The middle of this book is kind of slow, but I really like the end.

[Nidratime]

I'm the complete opposite. I really loved Dragonfly in Amber, although I haven't read it in years. I can't remember all the political machinations, but I love that sort of thing. Politics is one of the things I follow as part of my job, so I guess I'm "programmed" to get a little extra kick out of it.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Nidratime

[justmehere]

I loved the historical aspect with the lead up to Culloden. The one thing I couldn't take (and would skip on re-read) was the very detailed description of the traitor's death. Nauseated just thinking about it.

[chocolatetruffle]

DIA wasn't my favorite mostly because of the political stuff, but it does get really good in the final 3rd.  So stick with it if you can, because the final third of it is gut-wrenching (in a good way :-)).  Also, the next book, Voyager, is probably my favorite so far (I'm on book 5 now).  It's definitely a wild ride, emotionally and plot-wise, so it kinda makes up for DIA's slow pacing.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Hey y'all.

 

I think this is the place to post this...

 

Finished Outlander yesterday, and got Dragonfly In Amber today...and I know in other threads I've stated that reading this was the most tortuous and teeth pulling experience I had. Of course, I read it about 12 years ago. Frankly, I think because originally I read them back-to-back, I can't remember any of the stuff I read in this book. I mean, I have vague recollections of Claire meeting the King and having sex with him? Did that happen or did she just let him feel her up?

 

I remember thinking I liked Roger, and not liking Brianna. I can't remember why, because now? Now? I want to smack Roger upside the head for being a judgmental douche, when he learns Claire returned after nearly three years, pregnant. I'm sure the historian in him couldn't let the discrepancy regarding Bree's birthday go, so he calculated that Bree couldn't be Frank's child.

 

I'm just at the point where Claire is explaining how Jamie is Bree's father and how she went back in time. No, scratch that.  I just started the chapter where Jamie and Claire are in La Havre, and she's experiencing morning sickness.

 

Truth to tell, I'm skipping over a lot--like when Gabaldon went into detail how a baby has no bones and what their faces feel like when nursing....how the bones start to develop during the second year....blah, blah, blah. All that shit, I'm skipping over, and just reading dialogue. Gah. Or just her use of some words that make me think okay, who talks that way? And no, I'm no' talkin' aboot Jamie!

 

Please tell me that her writing gets better, because I don't see it here.

[Nidratime]

Finished Outlander yesterday, and got Dragonfly In Amber today...and I know in other threads I've stated that reading this was the most tortuous and teeth pulling experience I had. Of course, I read it about 12 years ago. Frankly, I think because originally I read them back-to-back, I can't remember any of the stuff I read in this book. I mean, I have vague recollections of Claire meeting the King and having sex with him? Did that happen or did she just let him feel her up?

 

 

I think she does sleep with him but I can't remember what the reason was.

 

Please tell me that her writing gets better, because I don't see it here.

 

 

I honestly don't recall whether the writing drove me nuts, but I do remember liking the book a lot because I'm into politics and there was a lot of it DiA.

[Athena]

I mean, I have vague recollections of Claire meeting the King and having sex with him? Did that happen or did she just let him feel her up? (...)

Please tell me that her writing gets better, because I don't see it here.

 

Yes, she does have sex with the King to get Jamie pardoned/out of jail. It's very quick and Claire, hilariously, notes his size. Understandably, I think Claire had a lot of anxiety about it, but in the end, it wasn't that bad. She realized for him, it was a transaction and something to say "I did a witch. Cool."

 

I remember this book well because I really enjoyed the Paris characters and setting. I found Voyager harder going so YMMV.

[bluebonnet]

 

 

Please tell me that her writing gets better, because I don't see it here.

I think it really depends on your taste.  The story gets better and better and a lot of great characters get introduced.  The writing does get a lot wordier.  What seems like 250 pages devoted to a single day (the gathering, weddings and baptisms)  is something of an acquired taste.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Thanks Nidratime and Athena (Boy, do I miss that @ feature).

 

Maybe I'll like it better this time, because I've found that I like political intrigue, especially 18th century intrigue.  I developed a love for it, when I started working at Barnes & Noble shortly after giving up on this series. I was in the history section a lot, and when shelving the French History section, got caught up with The Terror, the conspiracy theories of whether Prince Charles was really dead...and then there were the Templars...Romanovs, Rasputin...

 

So I'm thinking this time around, it won't be torture. Hopefully.

Edited May 8, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[Nidratime]

I remember this book well because I really enjoyed the Paris characters and setting. I found Voyager harder going so YMMV.

 

I'm like you. Loved the Paris settings, the Court, the politics and all the mysticism around Master Raymond, etc. in DiA. Voyager, on the other hand, was a little less to my liking because I'm not into long ocean voyages and the Caribbean. I did like the Scottish and American parts.

[CatMack]

Yes, she does have sex with the King to get Jamie pardoned/out of jail. It's very quick and Claire, hilariously, notes his size. Understandably, I think Claire had a lot of anxiety about it, but in the end, it wasn't that bad. She realized for him, it was a transaction and something to say "I did a witch. Cool."

 

I replied to this in the book 8 thread, because spoiler for future book.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I will say that I LOVED Claire's "I TOLD YOU!!!" to Black Randall's headstone, when she, Roger and Bree were at St. Kilda, regarding when she told him the day he would die. The rage, satisfaction, emotion. I could totally feel it.

[Petunia846]

I love that scene. I actually really hope they do that cold open in the 1960s for the TV show. It certainly threw me, but I enjoyed the ride and all the tension it built. The last line of that book also still gives me chills. I love that framing device.

 

I don't mind Diana's big words, or wordiness, but it does bug me when she uses the same big word over and over again. Of course that usually prompts me to look it up and then I learn a new word, but still.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Petunia846

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't mind Diana's big words, or wordiness, but it does bug me when she uses the same big word over and over again. Of course that usually prompts me to look it up and then I learn a new word, but still.

 

I'm the opposite. I can't stand her wordiness, or even words that I don't know, where I have to Google to look up what they mean, and I'm not talking about the Scottish or Gaelic words, either. And that takes me out of the story.  It's not a good sign when I don't understand what the author or the characters are talking about--assuming the reader knows what those words mean. And then there's the, I guess I would call it "filler" descriptions that have nothing to do with the story and just make me skip/skim right over them. Like the whole explanation of how a baby doesn't have bones and are all squishy their first year, then continue onto describing when the bones knit and form, and I'm like and what's this got to do with anything? And this is coming from someone who loves babies.

 

One would think by the time at least the second book came out, she would learn to pare down, or maybe her copy editor would have known to do it.

 

But I've already admitted that I was spoiled by better writers, even if those writers didn't have such a compelling story as Gabaldon does.  It's one of the reasons I'm grateful for e-books--easier to just skip over the superfluous and parts I don't care for that don't move the story forward.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, I guess I'll just be talkin' tae m'self here....

 

Just got to the part where Claire and Jamie see Alexander Randall for the first time and how it affects them both.  Also, I'm glad that Jamie is shown to still struggle with his rape. I was afraid that after Claire brought him back from the brink of death, and he healed physically, and mostly emotionally as well, that it wasn't going to be revisited.

 

See? That's a positive post about Gabaldon!

Edited May 11, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[bluebonnet]

Oh, it gets revisited quite a lot.  PTSD is never overlooked.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

This is how anal retentive I am.

 

Read the scene where Claire asks Jaime what La Dame Blanche means or rather, that's what she's been called, and he admits that he started it.  

 

First, she is pouring hot chocolate to drink.  Then after he tells her why he made it up, she's taking a sip of tea.

 

Aand, since Gabaldon made a point, at least in the first book to have Claire always say "Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ!" a lot, here...after Jamie explains why (that Claire would shrivel up his man parts if he dallied with prostitutes), she just says "Jesus H. Christ."

 

Yeah, yeah, it's a nitpick. I mention that I was anal retentive, didn't ? Just like for most of Geillis' parts in the first book, she had gray eyes, then all of a sudden right around the time she murdered her husband, witch trial, her eyes were suddenly green. Maybe she was a witch after all?

 

At this second read of this book, I'm finding Jamie is finally a full fleshed out character, whereas in Outlander I never really got a sense of who he was until after he and Claire married.

 

And I noticed a couple of times in Dragonfly that we slipped into Jamie's POV, and then suddenly shifting back to Claire's.

 

And I love Bouton (sp?).

[WatchrTina]

 

whereas in Outlander I never really got a sense of who he was until after he and Claire married.

But that's the point, isn't it?  People (Ron I think) have noted that one of the really unusual things about Outlander is that the main couple falls in love AFTER they marry (which, come to think of it, is one of the things I love about Lord and Lady Grantham in Downton Abbey).  Jamie is supposed to be a bit of an enigma when he marries Claire -- a side character who we have become familiar with but someone we don't know well enough to out-and-out celebrate the forced marriage.  We're supposed to go into that wedding as uncertain and reluctant as Claire and then we fall in love with him too as his character is revealed.  That's one thing I think Diana got right.

 

As for Jamie & Claire in Paris -- can I just say I appreciated the sojourn they took in the lap of luxury.  After all that rough treatment in book 1 I was grateful for a few hundred pages of soft beds and good food and being clean on a regular basis.

[GHScorpiosRule]

EWWWW!!!!

I had totally bleached from my brain how Bastard Black Jack said "Jaime..." When both Claire and Jamie discover he wasn't dead after all.

{SHUDDER}.

[AD55]

But that's the point, isn't it?  People (Ron I think) have noted that one of the really unusual things about Outlander is that the main couple falls in love AFTER they marry (which, come to think of it, is one of the things I love about Lord and Lady Grantham in Downton Abbey).  

 

The forced/arranged marriage in which the couple falls in love after the wedding is a common trope of historical romance fiction. Over the course of the novel, the couple gradually comes to know each other and fall in love. Ron Moore probably isn't aware of this, so I doubt he's being intentionally misleading.

[peacefrog]

I've been inspired by GHScorpiosRule to re-read my least favorite book in the series. I have to say I may rethink that. Jamie is so funny in this and oh what a drama queen! I pretty much see the actors in certain scenes now. Dougal will forever be Graham MacTavish even though he is described so differently. 

 

Anyway I just want to scream at Bree and Roger to look through every.freaking.box in the manse.

 

Oh and one passage describing Mother Hildegarde, DG describes her as "grotesquely beautiful". 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I've been inspired by GHScorpiosRule to re-read my least favorite book in the series. I have to say I may rethink that. Jamie is so funny in this and oh what a drama queen! I pretty much see the actors in certain scenes now.

Awww, what a nice compliment! Because this book of the three I've read was the most tortuous for me to read; yet, like you mentioned, I'd forgotten how funny Jamie is here, and how much I'm angry with Claire; making Jamie to promise not to kill that fucking sadist, Black Jack, because Frank "has to live" and is "an innocent man!" considering just what that ratbastard did to Jamie. And her anger over Jamie breaking his promise. I just wanted to throttle her.

 

And I don't know if it's just me, or if it wasn't caught in editing (which wouldn't surprise me) that when Jamie finally comes to see Claire after being released from the Bastille, there's a passage, where he says he "saw" her with King Louis, with his "short stump" or whatever, to later, when they're naked and lying next to each other outside, that he tells her that she's flinching from his touch, and so by that he realized that she did have sex with the king, and Claire's like "how did you know?!" It makes for a very confusing read.  And I blame Gabaldon's copy editors, or whoever was in charge of reading this to tell her to fix it or make suggestions to make it more clear.

 

And then the whole description of her miscarriage. I certainly didn't need to read how Mother Hildegarde stuck her fingers up Claire's vagina and pressed or squeezed the lymph nodes.

 

And I won't lie. I fucking snickered and pointed the figurative finger at Claire when she learns why Jamie challenged Randall to a duel and gelded him. But poor, poor Fergus. What I'd forgotten was that he'd had this done to him before; that it wasn't the first time when Randall was raping him.

 

I'm about at 65% in the Kindle right now. Culloden coming to a head, after getting that notice from Jared and Charles Stuart.

[WatchrTina]

Unless I'm mistaken Claire tells Jamie that she went to the King intending to beg for his life and expecting to pay the going rate for a regal favor, which was to allow him to have sex with her, but that she was instead called into that spooky room to play the role of "La Dame Blanche."  She allows Jamie to think that because she did that, she was not called upon to pay the other price.  Jamie figures out that she's lying about that (which violates their promise to be honest with each other) and that's what comes out during that weird, naked picnic with the nettles -- definitely not a favorite scene of mine.

 

As for Fergus, unless I'm mistaken his encounter with Jack IS the first time he's ever been with Jack but it's not the first time he's been with a pedophile. He was born in a brothel.  He's been offered up for money before.  That's why he wasn't too fussed about it at first, but then it goes badly because, of course Jack can't get it up unless the person he's with is fearful or in pain.

[GHScorpiosRule]

No, I got that part, that she only told Jamie about the hooded men, Compte St. Germain, etc., but there were those lines by Jamie saying how he was "there" and "saw" her having sex, only to move to the naked scene by the nettles, where like I said, he tells Claire he knows something's off. I think it was an editing thing, and that whoever was in charge should have caught it.

 

Oh, I knew this was the first time with Randall, and silly me, it didn't occur to me, that although he grew up in a brothel, that he didn't let others, well, that he serviced them. 

[chocolatetruffle]

GH I know you've got Kindle and I've got a hardcopy so I checked it.  Jamie says that he imagined her lying with Louie all the while he was traveling back to her; he could see it (in his mind's eye) because he knew that was the only way she could have gotten Louie to release him.  He accuses her of sleeping with Louie because her body was her only bargaining chip.  That's when she lets him believe she bargained with her services as La Dame Blanche.  

[Starla]

And then the whole description of her miscarriage. I certainly didn't need to read how Mother Hildegarde stuck her fingers up Claire's vagina and pressed or squeezed the lymph nodes.

 

 

This was Master Raymond, and I thought this was very interesting. He was using some sort of energy healing here, which Claire described as a blue light. It was this scene, along with a few other hints throughout the book that led me to think Master Raymond may also be a time traveler, perhaps from the distant past or future. I've only read the first three books so far, so maybe this is addressed down the road, but so far there's been no confirmation, just a hunch. I think Master Raymond is fascinating and I hope he shows up again in future books.

 

I don't recall Jamie saying he saw Claire with King Louis. He would have been in the Bastille at the time so I can't see how that would have been possible. 

[lianau]

GH I know you've got Kindle and I've got a hardcopy so I checked it.  Jamie says that he imagined her lying with Louie all the while he was traveling back to her; he could see it (in his mind's eye) because he knew that was the only way she could have gotten Louie to release him.  He accuses her of sleeping with Louie because her body was her only bargaining chip.  That's when she lets him believe she bargained with her services as La Dame Blanche.  

And he wanted to believe her because it would have been so nice but her flinching under his touch gave it away as she had never done that , not even during their wedding night when he expected it .

[GHScorpiosRule]

GH I know you've got Kindle and I've got a hardcopy so I checked it.  Jamie says that he imagined her lying with Louie all the while he was traveling back to her; he could see it (in his mind's eye) because he knew that was the only way she could have gotten Louie to release him.  He accuses her of sleeping with Louie because her body was her only bargaining chip.  That's when she lets him believe she bargained with her services as La Dame Blanche.  

 

Thanks chocolatetruffle! I've noticed a lot of misspellings with the Kindle version, but the whole passage was horribly edited, so it wasn't clear, or maybe my eyes just didn't see the "imagine" part.

 

 

This was Master Raymond, and I thought this was very interesting. He was using some sort of energy healing here, which Claire described as a blue light. 

 

Yes, but Mother Hildegarde did it as well. Or something along those lines, with pushing and squeezing or something. Blech.

[GHScorpiosRule]

So.

 

We learn that Colum did indeed know about Claire being on trial for being a witch. Wonder if the show will also reveal that. Along with Laoghaire hosebeast being the one responsible.  As of right now, close to 70% of this book, Jamie is still unaware.

 

Stupid question: is the Angus that is referenced in this book, in King Charles' wing, the same Angus we met in the beginning? If so, funny that in the show, he's no' so big, but in the book, he's huge; a giant of a man. But Murtagh is described, often, as "a tiny little man."

[WatchrTina]

Book!Angus and Show!Angus are two vey different people.  Show!Angus doesn't really exist in the book.  He's Show!Dougal's most loyal henchman.  Book!Angus is Colum's right-hand man -- his personal body guard / enforcer and also the person who uses his great strength to massage Colum's twisted legs at night to give him some relief from the pain.  The names are the only thing those two characters have in common -- in fact I think it's a mistake that the show-runners used that name because it just causes confusion.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Book!Angus and Show!Angus are two vey different people.  Show!Angus doesn't really exist in the book.  He's Show!Dougal's most loyal henchman.  Book!Angus is Colum's right-hand man -- his personal body guard / enforcer and also the person who uses his great strength to massage Colum's twisted legs at night to give him some relief from the pain.  The names are the only thing those two characters have in common -- in fact I think it's a mistake that the show-runners used that name because it just causes confusion.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification, WatchrTina. 

 

I will admit, I did like how we got into Jamie's POV for a bit when he was thinking about the fighting at Prestonpas; or it may have been another war. But I liked seeing this part of Jamie and how he feels and thinks.  Though the whole interrogation of William Grey did make me uncomfortable, what with Jamie ripping Claire's dress open.

 

But to be honest, I am always baffled when Claire doesn't know whether to bash Jamie in the head, choke him with her foot on his throat, or generally want to abuse him, because I'm trying to understand just what he did that would warrant this reaction. There's very little softness in Book!Claire.

[Starla]

There is also an Angus in book 3, who I thought may have inspired show Angus.

Angus MacKenzie, who was in prison with Jamie. He was a little guy who had a piece of MacKenzie tartan. When the prison guards found it, Jamie claimed it as his own and took the punishment for him, 60 lashes.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Good grief! Just when I thought I couldn't hate him more, that ratbastard, sadistic rapist Randall shows up again! And to taunt Claire about his rape of Jamie. Ugh. That was just so, so gross.  And I was just prepared to see him again only to see him marry, well, Mary. Blech. Yuck. Ptooey.

 

I hate the Earl of Lovat. 

 

So now Claire is really comfortable saying "Thanks" instead of "thank you"? Mmmkay.

 

It's also very interesting just how possessive and jealous she is of Jamie. Not complaining, mind you...it's just interesting how Gabaldon throws those bits in, in instances where there's no need for her to be jealous.

[Nidratime]

The following is from a link to a FAQ of frequently asked questions to Diana Gabaldon. There are spoilers for more than Dragonfly in Amber (naturally) via this link so be careful, if you're trying to ... be careful.

http://www.dianagabaldon.com/resources/faq/faq-about-the-characters/

 

That all being said ... I can't wait to meet this character next season:

 

Who/What is Master Raymond? What is his significance? (SPOILER)

Well, he’s a prehistoric time traveler. I think he came from somewhere about 400 BC or perhaps a bit earlier (not technically “prehistoric,” but they certainly weren’t using written records where he started out), and the 18th century is not his first stop.

 

He is–or was–a shaman, born with the ability to heal through empathy. He sees auras plainly; those with his power all have the blue light he has–born warriors, on the other hand, are red (so yes, “the red man” is iconic). He has a rather strong aversion to Vikings, owing to events that happened in his own time; hence his nervousness when he sees Jamie. He’s afraid of them, but he also realizes just what a strong life-force they have–that’s why he makes Claire invoke it (using the sexual and emotional link between her and Jamie) to heal her.

 

His descendants–a few of whom he meets now and then in his travels–have the blue light about them, too; in large degree or small, depending on their talents. So he knows Claire, when he sees her, as one of his great-great, etc. grand-daughters. And Gillian/Geillis is another–you notice she has Claire’s sense of plants, though she tends naturally to poison, rather than medicines.

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

So, I finished this this morning.  And I don't know, if it was something the editor missed or what. In Outlander, Geillis told Claire, or had it written down, 1967; here, at the end of Dragonfly, it's 1968, just as it was told on the show.

 

One thing did confuse me in this book; the part where Jamie had gone to Stirling to try and get his men from Lallybroch released from Tolbooth...Claire comes to her room to find Murtagh on her bed directing who takes what weapons, as those same men have been pardoned and released.  So now, Claire will take the men to her husband in Stirling.  She talks about McIian playing the bagpipes while they head to Stirling, and all of a sudden, Jamie is there with her. I went back to make sure I didn't skip over anything or if I had tapped my Kindle and it skipped it. But no. There was nothing that showed me when Claire and Lallybroch men got to Stirling where Jamie was, or that he was coming and she met him halfway. It's was all like Claire will go to Jamie, and then Jamie is telling her where to go because the English are coming. 

 

Me: HUH?

 

And I'm just counting down until I don't have to "see" or "hear" that fucking rapist Black Jack ever again. Seriously. Boo hoo, he's crying because Alex is dying (I was sad Alex was dying, but didn't give two figgedity fucks about Black Jack's pain) with his head in Alex's lap.

 

And because I don't speak Gabaldon, can someone, who enjoys her writing explain to me why the Duke of Sandringham tried to kill both Jamie and Claire?  Thank ye.

 

And naturally I caved and got Voyager so I started reading that on the train right after I finished Dragonfly.

Edited May 20, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[tcay]

I honestly don't really get the Sandringham thing. I think because Claire was meddling with his plot, perhaps? That's something I hope the tv show fleshes out better. 

[AheadofStraight]

Wow, your questions remind me that I really don't remember much about that book! 

 

I enjoyed Voyager so much more, at least the 

reunion when Claire returns. I loved it. The rest of it did get a bit...much.

[mary2013]

The Sandringham thing - He wanted to start the Jacobite rebellion (why I don't know), and found out Jamie was trying to stop it.  He tried having Jamie killed.  When that didn't work, he figured having Claire killed would distract Jamie.   To be honest, I skimmed over a lot of the political stuff.

[GHScorpiosRule]

The Sandringham thing - He wanted to start the Jacobite rebellion (why I don't know), and found out Jamie was trying to stop it.  He tried having Jamie killed.  When that didn't work, he figured having Claire killed would distract Jamie.   To be honest, I skimmed over a lot of the political stuff.

 

 

Thanks mary2013!

 

Now I'm wondering if he had a hand in trying to poison Claire as well; or if that was all  Compte Germaine?

 

I skimmed as well. The parts where Gabaldon just delved into too much description which made my eyes glaze and didn't move the story forward at all.

[bluebonnet]

I almost want to reread alongside you, GHScorpiosRule, because I have no memory of the Duke of S trying to kill them.  I glazed over during a lot of the political stuff, mostly because I already knew the conclusion to that part of the story.  Plus, as you say, the wordiness. 

Edited May 20, 2015 by bluebonnet

[ulkis]

I honestly don't really get the Sandringham thing. I think because Claire was meddling with his plot, perhaps? That's something I hope the tv show fleshes out better. 

 

I wonder if they'll cut it out altogether.

[tcay]

I wonder if they'll cut it out altogether.

I think since they introduced him this season, he'll get more play. Maybe they'll combine him with the Vicomte? The Vicomte never seems to have any payoff. 

[chocolatetruffle]

I wonder if they'll cut it out altogether.

 

Hmmmm, since Claire blackmailed him with the knowledge that she knew he was working with Dougal, that would be a motive to have her killed.  She's a loose end running around that could get him hung for treason.  IDK why he'd go after Jamie, unless it's like Mary2013 says.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I almost want to reread alongside you, GHScorpiosRule, because I have no memory of the Duke of S trying to kill them.  I glazed over during a lot of the political stuff, mostly because I already knew the conclusion to that part of the story.  Plus, as you say, the wordiness. 

 

Well, we didn't know he was behind it when that stuff went down in Paris; we only learn of it after Claire is "saved" by the English when she, Dougal, Rupert and a few other Mackenzies take shelter in that kirk. It was shortly after they left Stirling--you know my above post where I'm confused as to when Jamie joined Claire, when she was supposed to take the Lallybroch men to Jamie at Stirling?  Anyhoo, instead of leaving Claire at Callendar House, where Jamie said he would come and retrieve her, the English take her from one place to another, until she's finally dumped at the Duke's home, I think it was? And we meet Hugh Munro again, only to lose him, and when Claire realizes where they've dumped her, Sandringham told her how he'd tried to get rid of her, but she just doesn't die. And it was his explanation and Gabaldon's wordiness, that confused me as to his reasons.