Book 3: Voyager

[asp]

Petunia846

I found a copy of Matt Robert's Twitter pic here:

 

http://drunklander.tumblr.com/post/134425538740/what-if-all-of-this

[DittyDotDot]

I think that is an interesting idea lianau but that would mean that Jamie and Claire would be separated for almost an entire season.  Since their relationship is really the central story, I don't think it would work.  Imagine an entire season focused on Jamie recovering from his Culloden wounds, then hiding in a cave, then going to prison, escaping, returning, going to the horse farm, fathering a child, and finally, leaving Helwater. And while that is going on we see Claire in the 20th century, doing what? Packing?

 

I really do not envy the creative team the task of figuring out how to adapt Book 3 for the screen.  The good news is that Caitriona -- who worked SO hard in the first season (was in almost every scene of the first 8 episodes) -- should have a much easier time of it in season 3 because Jamie's pre-reunion story is, I presume, going to get much more screen time then Claire's.

 

I know what you mean. I was wondering if they'll end up doing the first half of the season in flashbacks? I'm not a fan of that idea, myself, but it would solve a lot of the separation issues. I kinda hope they stick with the narrative structure of the book--with Claire and Co. doing a historical scavenger hunt that transitions to Jamie--for the first half. I think when they finally do meet up it'll be much more powerful that way.

 

But, I don't have to write it, so, I understand why they might go another route.

Edited December 4, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[abbey]

next to the print shop scene we must have Marsalis's and Fergus's wedding in Voyager season 3.   That scene (and Father Fogden) is priceless lol.  I agree that some of those wild adventures on the seas, Margaret Campbell's scenes  could be condensed or even eliminated.  But keeping my fingers crossed that Fergus and Marsalis's wedding can be included.  The print shop scene is a given of course.

Edited December 3, 2015 by abbey

[lianau]

They can't cut Fergus and Marsali's wedding . I need the sheep and the dog and Father Fogden and the hand vs cock thing . All  funny stuff  but it's also the moment Fergus gets an official  last name .

[toolazy]


 

IIRC, he first sees Claire at the brothel, in bed with Jamie the next morning. Since "Uncle Jamie" is married to Laoghaire, as far as Young Ian knows, it's not a completely illogical conclusion on his part.

 

One of my favorite parts of the book - from the time they arrive at the brothel until the guy gets shot is just a hoot.  

 

No, she had money, and she had the time. She went back to the states to take care of her estate an resign her position.  Nope, I think DG dropped the ball on this one and depended on the readers' suspension of belief.

 

I'm pretty sure that the entire point of the dress was so that Jamie could unzip it in the brothel, so it really doesn't bother me that much.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a side note: I'm completely amused by Claire and Jamie both reading romance novels. Gabaldon seems to have taken the opportunity to poke fun at herself with this book. Too cute. ;)

 

Do you mean by this that she's poking fun at herself for writing romance novels? She doesn't believe them to be romance novels.  Or do you mean that she reads a lot of romance novels?

 

 

 

I've probably read this book 5 times in the last year and I love it.  However, I didn't love it at first - the first time or two I hated hated hated all the business with the ships and such.  However, on subsequent re-readings it's grown on me, though I do tend to skip chapters from time to time.  But I do this with all of her books.   I love the way she writes but I wish she would write just a little bit less. 

Edited January 23, 2016 by toolazy

[Nidratime]

However, on subsequent re-readings it's grown on me, though I do tend to skip chapters from time to time.  But I do this with all of her books.   I love the way she writes but I wish she would write just a little bit less.

 

 

That's because you're toolazy! ;-)

[DittyDotDot]

Do you mean by this that she's poking fun at herself for writing romance novels? She doesn't believe them to be romance novels.  Or do you mean that she reads a lot of romance novels?

 

Well, neither actually. I personally don't consider these books romance novels and I know Gabaldon doesn't either, but they are labeled as such anyway. Similar to to the discussion John and Jamie have about the length of novels and how some just need to be that long. These are two common criticisms of Gabaldon's writing and I just took it as her making of a joke of it all rather than getting all defensive and bitter about it. I can appreciate how she doesn't seem to take herself too seriously.

 

 

I've probably read this book 5 times in the last year and I love it.  However, I didn't love it at first - the first time or two I hated hated hated all the business with the ships and such.  However, on subsequent re-readings it's grown on me, though I do tend to skip chapters from time to time.  But I do this with all of her books.   I love the way she writes but I wish she would write just a little bit less. 

 

This book has had a similar effect on me too. I almost stopped reading the series in the middle of this book--it just started to feel like too much whack-a-do--but after finishing the whole series, and all the novellas too, I think it might be one of my favorites now. It's got some really great character beats in it even though it's over-packed with plot. It's probably the best example of not judging a book by it's cover I've ever run across. ;)

[Andorra]

Voyager is my favorite in the series, too. The printshop scene is probably my favorite scene ever and I like MANY scenes in the series. I really hope we will get a third season of the show, because I MUST see this scene on screen and played by Cait and Sam!

[peacefrog]

I pulled this book up on my Kindle after episode 201 to compare Claire's version of her talking with Frank and what we saw on screen. Needless to say I ended up reading the whole book. I had to chuckle at the part where Claire is telling Roger that you can't trust short men because they have something to prove. It just sounds so completely like DG, authoritative about something you just can't prove.

[lovetowrite73]

So, I'm reading Voyager now and I just finished the part where Claire and Joe Abernathy are talking to the guy with the bones. Those are Geillis's bones, aren't they? Because that's immediately what I thought. (Yes, I've spoiled myself and know that Claire sees Geillie again lol)

[toolazy]

That's pretty good - I didn't figure out whose bones those were until the second time I read the book.  

[lianau]

neither did I but I think that's normal . At that point in the book we don't know about Geillis being "alive"  ,  so why would we assume that some random old bones belong to a character we thought was dead and dusted 2 books ago ?

Edited June 4, 2016 by lianau

[ulkis]

Whose point of view is the is the prologue supposed to be from? I think it's Claire's but I'm not quite 100% sure. Thanks in advance.

[GHScorpiosRule]

9 minutes ago, ulkis said:

Whose point of view is the is the prologue supposed to be from? I think it's Claire's but I'm not quite 100% sure. Thanks in advance.

It's in first person, so yeah, it's Claire.

[ulkis]

Thank you!

[ulkis]

On 1/23/2016 at 6:18 PM, toolazy said:

I've probably read this book 5 times in the last year and I love it.  However, I didn't love it at first - the first time or two I hated hated hated all the business with the ships and such.  However, on subsequent re-readings it's grown on me, though I do tend to skip chapters from time to time.  But I do this with all of her books.   I love the way she writes but I wish she would write just a little bit less. 

I feel that way too, but hey, better too much than too little I guess.

I forgot Fergus gets his hand cut off. Poor Fergus. I mean, they all go through the wringer but Fergus kinda stealthy goes through the wringer in the background.

On 12/2/2015 at 7:20 PM, WatchrTina said:

I think that is an interesting idea lianau but that would mean that Jamie and Claire would be separated for almost an entire season.  Since their relationship is really the central story, I don't think it would work.  Imagine an entire season focused on Jamie recovering from his Culloden wounds, then hiding in a cave, then going to prison, escaping, returning, going to the horse farm, fathering a child, and finally, leaving Helwater. And while that is going on we see Claire in the 20th century, doing what? Packing?

I think it could maybe work if you made it clear to the audience that Claire was definitely going to come back later on. I think. Maybe. heh.

[lovetowrite73]

So, I just read the "Daddy" chapter and I was SO pissed at how Claire reacted to Laoghaire (I think that's how you spell it) and her daughters. She even reminds herself that Jamie doesn't know about her role in Claire being detained and put on trial for being a witch. At least give him the decency of hearing him out. But, of course, something had to happen in order for Young Ian to find her to let her know Laoghaire shot Jamie...On to the next chapter. :-)

[toolazy]

She even admits to herself later that the reason it was taking her forever to get to the stones was because she was giving him a chance to go after her.  But it had to be humiliating to find out so suddenly and know that you'd spent hours with people who already knew and hadn't said a word.  

On the other hand, I hate that she and Jamie started having wild violent monkey hate sex that Jenny had to break up.  I skip right past that part when I reread that book.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, ye all ken how I felt about that behavior from Claire--expecting Jamie to be able to read her mind, and acting more like an angsty teenager instead of the mature woman she was. But I still love those crazy kids! Ye can read my "free form posting" where I'm posting as I'm reading, heh.

Like she said that Jamie "should have known" that she wanted him to go after her, even though she told him that she never wanted to see him again and...ran away. But I will always like, and I say 'like' and not love, because ye ken how I can't stand her wordy mcwordy wordy style of writing, but I do love the story, this buik because I finally got to see things from Jamie's point of view.

[chocolatetruffle]

I decided to re-read this today and I just had to say that the Prologue is some of the best writing I have read, anywhere.  I literally got chills. Sometimes I forget, watching the show, how good a writer DG really is when she is at the top of her game.

[katville]

So I am reading the reunion part of Voyager for the ... well, let's not talk about how many times I have read that part. I wanted to hear your thoughts about the section when they are lying together and talking after Laoghaire shot Jamie -- specifically the paragraph where Jamie says, "I was uncle to Jenny's children, and Brother to her and Ian. 'Milord' to Fergus, and 'Sir' to my tenants.'Mac Dubh' to the men of Ardsmuir and 'MacKenzie' to the other servants at Helwater. 'Malcom the printer', then and 'Jamie Roy' at the docks.
The hand stroked my hair, slowly, with a whispering sound like the wind outside.
"But here," he said, so softly I could barely hear him, "here in the dark, with you... I have no name."

What do you think that he meant by that?

Edited August 29, 2016 by katville

[morgan]

I always thought he meant the deepest part of him...the part that was, before any name at all was given to him, was there with her.  That he could just BE, without having to be this or that or the other.  She full accepted him, unconditionally.  He could be that small part of him that he talked about naked under a blade of grass...but with her he doesn't need the blade of grass.  

[Petunia846]

I agree with what Morgan said. Also, I always think about how we all wear different "masks" or personas depending on who we're with. We behave differently with our mothers than we do with our boss, you know? Or like I don't talk about TV shows with my work friends, but I have lots of "fandom friends" I can chat with online. You show different parts of yourself to different people either because you don't think they'd appreciate some parts of you or because it would be dangerous to show them.

I think he's trying to express that he has felt pulled apart and fractured, like no one really knew ALL of him, or the heart of who he is, but with Claire he can be truly himself without having to hide anything or pretend. In the dark with her he is just his soul, she knows him that well that she can recognize him without any masks or social niceties. He doesn't have a special role to play, she just wants him.

Anyway, I'll stop rambling. I don't remember that line (I don't usually read that far into the reunion bits...) but that's such a beautiful moment. Just the reason why so many people love Claire and Jamie.

[katville]

I have thought about that passage and its meaning every time I read it and I agree with both of you. I also interpret it to mean that with Claire Jamie ceases to be solely himself -- which for almost half of his life was a very lonely existence -- and becomes part of her. 

[katville]

When I read Voyager this summer, I have to admit that I was put out with Claire for not trying to find out what happened to Jamie after she left. It seemed to minimize their relationship that she would never speak of him or try to learn everything that happened to him in the days after Culloden, and not just him but his family and their friends.

But after thinking about it, I realized that she came back through the stones incredibly traumatized. A lot of really bad shit happened to her in 2-3 years and although her love for Jamie was all-encompassing, those still weren't good years. They were full of hunger and pain and peril and death. So I understand why she wasn't exactly clamoring to immerse herself in that world again.

I think it is even more evident in Jamie. Here was an incredibly proud man, a leader and laird, and for the decade after Culloden, he was a shadow of himself. His world was very small and I think that was all he could handle after the events of Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber. Only when he took over the print shop do I think that he was finally climbing out of that traumatized state.

[Summer]

6 hours ago, katville said:

When I read Voyager this summer, I have to admit that I was put out with Claire for not trying to find out what happened to Jamie after she left. It seemed to minimize their relationship that she would never speak of him or try to learn everything that happened to him in the days after Culloden, and not just him but his family and their friends.

 

I felt the same way when I first read Voyager but then the more I thought about it, I realized that A: she truly thought he died at Culloden so in her mind there was no need to research what happened to him and B: If she did discover he didn't die, she couldn't very well go back and leave while Brianna was so small, I can't imagine Claire leaving a 6 year old Bree.  She almost had to wait until Brianna was an adult and it would be ok to leave her.   Also, I think she promised Frank she would not look into Jamie's whereabouts and she honored that request.  

[nodorothyparker]

That's been my impression as well.  She can compartmentalize enough to live with it if she leaves it alone with "well, he died some generic death with everybody else at Culloden."  But if she knew the specifics, like if he'd been captured and suffered a very public drawing and quartering?  That's not really something you want stuck in your head the rest of your life when you can't go back and do anything about it.  Look at how she reacts to learning from Hal's diary entry that he'd had a pretty bad leg wound that had gone unattended.

Edited September 15, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[CalamityBoPeep]

And also, if she'd discovered that he had lived, as noted, when Brianna was small... she'd have to make that decision also aware that what she'd be going back to was either Jamie living in a cave as the Dunbonnet while his family depended on him and went hungry much of the time, and she'd become another mouth to feed; Jamie stuck at Ardsmuir (where he'd be distressed knowing he couldn't protect her); or Jamie as a groomsman (not free) at Helwater. Not that she couldn't have done it, but Jamie specifically wanted her and Bree to avoid the fate that he knew was coming for the Highlands. Claire had told him it wouldn't be over, that the English would hunt the Highlanders for seven years, and imprison them or transport them after that.

So, those during those first seven years, the odds were pretty good that Jamie would die, or Claire would have. And it wasn't until he showed up as a printer 18 years after the battle, that he was both trackable and free. The Dunbonnet period was sort of a "lucky find" kind of thing. Gave them the first clue. Then after that the search through the obscure prison records couldn't have happened from Boston. Roger's dad would have had to do it, bringing him back into the mix, and likely Frank too.

And, if Claire had found Jamie sooner, in the historical record, she'd still have to wait out those years (assuming that time ran parallel, which would have been the assumption she would make, given that her initial return was 3 years after her disappearance) until Bree was grown enough to leave her. To begin that search, she'd already be aware that she couldn't realistically even return during the first seven years. Then she would have had to make the decision to leave her seven year old daughter. Yikes. No decent mother would ever want to contemplate doing that voluntarily. 

In the end, the only thing that might have been avoided would have been Jamie's marriage to Loaghaire. (Which, yes, would have been great to avoid... ;-) ) It would have required Claire leaving Bree when she was 18, rather than 20, and telling Frank that she was going, since at that point he was still alive.

I think the case for Claire not looking was pretty strong. Some plot events in these books rest on some fairly weak reasoning, but to me this isn't one of those events.

[auntlada]

Also, given Claire's prominence in the Jacobite Rebellion in the books, the English would have been looking for her, and she would have had to go into hiding as well or might even have been imprisoned or executed herself.

[LMR]

First up adaptation thoughts

I have to say I'm a bit conflicted about how this book will play out on the screen and what I want from it. As excellent as the first half of the book is, in many ways, I've read it a couple of times and I'm very much going through the motions until I get to what I know (even in the first read) is coming. The reunion. On the one hand, the book does lend itself to a two series split, but I agree, not having Claire and Jamie together for a full season wouldn't fly for me. There are lots of great things about the books and TV series, but for me the thing that keeps me coming back is the love story between Jamie and Claire. The best moments of the books are when they are together, the show is at its best when it portrays their relationship, to have them separated for more than a few episodes is probably as much can reasonably be tolerated. Having it all play out in flashback, might work, but again it would need to be carefully parsed.

I'm interested to see how they spin the Laoirghe (sp??) plot given in the show Jamie is fully aware of her involvement in attempting to have Claire burnt as a witch.

I'm also really hoping they remove the problematic elements of William's conception from the show as well. That scene made me really dislike Voyager despite the fact its one of the stronger books apart from that and I have studiously skipped it in re-reads.

Book thoughts in general (edited both for clarity and detail)

With regards to the long separation, I think it was unavoidable once they decided to get involved in the 45 (or at least at the point when BPC chose to involve Jamie). Once the decision to have Claire go back through the stones was made, even without all the stuff going on on Jamie's side, Claire couldn't/wouldn't leave her child and couldn't know whether or not it would be possible for Bree to travel even if Claire had been inclined to look for Jamie.

The Claire sections in the book break my heart. I don't know that they are as compelling or as well written as some of the Jamie bits, but something about it really speaks to me. Maybe its that the 20th Century (even distant 20th C) is more relatable, maybe its Claire as wife and mother is more relatable, but I feel her pain in the books, I feel her loss of Jamie. Jamie has so much going on that I feel some of that gets lost in his other responsibilities.

The print shop, well, lets just say its something I revisit whenever I feel a little blue.

I enjoy the back half of the book, its a pretty enjoyable romp compared to the heavy going first half and whilst the constant peril at sea gets a bit much sometimes, but I also enjoy spending time with the characters here. The wedding and turtle soup are particular favourites.

If the series decides to keep Mr W, I really hope they fix him and make him less of a racial stereotype. I don't know what Herself was thinking with this.

Edited September 28, 2016 by LMR

[morgan]

I agree.   I actually think they were both emotionally abusive to each other.  

[toolazy]

I don't think Frank emotionally abused Claire at all.  I think that their marriage was as happy as it could be, under the circumstances, and probably happier than most.  After all, Claire & Frank always liked each other, even when they were going through rocky periods.  

Frank did not know that Claire knew about his affairs until the confrontation on the night that he died.  He was pretty freaked out to learn that she knew all along and had been visited by some of his mistresses. He had never meant for Claire to know.  

I can't imagine that Claire was all that great to live with so I can't really blame Frank for finding warmth elsewhere and I give him credit for being discreet.

As for his ridiculous attempt to take Bree back to England:

Spoiler

Diana has said that we don't know yet why Frank wanted to get her out of the country, implying that he was doing more than simply rescuing her from a life of debauchery in Boston.  What I don't understand is how taking her back to England keeps her safe from the sort of government people that Frank was concerned with, unless something went on with the US government that we don't know about yet.   

[lianau]

I think Frank wanted Claire to care about his affairs , wanted her to show him that she still cared about him .  I usually feel very sorry for Frank  there . On the one hand he's accused of being a racist cheater ( really , the guy was born in 1906 , how progressive can a middle aged  English history professor  be , he isn't running a KKK chapter ) on the other hand he's trying to be married to a woman who's emotionally cheating on him 24/7.  And Claire does care about it , she just doesn't feel like she has the  right to be jealous  , Brianna, Jamie and everything else considered .  

[nodorothyparker]

I think some fans are so into the Jaime and Claire Most Amazing Love EVAR story that they're determined to see anyone they see as any impediment to that, whether they actually have any degree of fault or not, as a villain.

One of the things I appreciate about the series is how it's not black and white.  With the exception of Laoghaire as a 16-year-old dumbass behaving as a 16-year-old dumbass with a monster unrequited crush, no one's even really at fault.  They're just people trying to do what they think is honorable under some really less than ideal circumstances and sometimes they're getting it wrong.  I imagine it was a pretty thankless sort of thing to try living with either Claire or Jaime when both seemed to be perpetually pining for someone other than the person they were married to.

[lianau]

Jamie fueled Laoghaire's crush fire  by making out with her and taking the beating for her .  To a 16 year old (with wishful thinking blinders  on)  that was pretty much a marriage proposal , no wonder she thought he was suffering horribly in his forced marriage to that nasty woman from England .

[LMR]

Whilst I agree about Frank being a man of his times with regards to his less than progressive views, I'd be of the opinion that he's terrible in Voyager. However, it can be argued though that most of what we see of Frank is through Claire's eyes and she is often an unreliable narrator, I'd also be of the opinion that his behaviour generally is pretty shoddy in places. That being said, I think a lot of that maybe comes from the fact that he underestimated the weight of what Claire had in the 18th C and the extent which she would grieve it and could never really forgive her for that. In turn Claire appreciated what Frank did for her and Brianna but also could never really forgive Frank for being Frank and not Jamie.

Spoiler

DG definitely sets out to attempt to redeem him in later books and tbh, I sort of wish she wouldn't. I don't really know what service it provides. Even the Bree/Rob 'fucking' Cameron story line could probably be served without retconning him into some kind of matyr.

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

 

 

[katville]

20 hours ago, Grashka said:

"Scottish Prisoner" slows down the pace of Jamie's story and focuses on that part of his life that was rather glossed over in "Voyager" - his stay at Hellwater after Willie's birth. There is a lot about his grief over the loss of Claire, as well as about his friendship with Lord John.

It has been bugging me lately and I'm curious what people here think - I've seen a lot of Frank- hate post "Voyager", with fans frequently accusing him of "emotionally abusing Claire" in those 20 years. It seems like mantra (along with "Frank is a fucking racist and misogynist"). Maybe I've not given enough attention to Claire's POV chapters in Bostonian part of "Voyager" because it sort of escapes me. I've always thought that Claire&Frank marriage after her return to 20th century was a knot of mutual resentment, guilt and gratitude on Claire's part; anger, hurt and suppressed love on Frank's. There were also some good, semi-happy moments and shared love for Bree. Frank did/said some shitty things: he was cheating on Claire (pretty much to get her attention) and expressed some nasty racist attitude toward her friend. Finally, he tried to take Brianna away...but once you read MOBY

  Hide contents

it's reasonable to guess he was doing it to keep her safe from the likes of Geillis Duncan, and other whackos fixated on "Fraser Prophecy". Some fans say it's retconning on Diana's part but in "Voyager" nothing really confirms Claire's assumptions that he is leaving her for another woman.

On the other hand, he loved Claire's daughter as his own, he was an excellent father and

  Hide contents

even prepared Brianna for life in 18th century

He might have not understood Claire as well as Jamie, but he did encourage her to attend medical school and was looking after Bree all the time she was absent from home. As for Claire, she never took off his wedding band, and still remembers him fondly after all these years, even in the most recent book.

So. I don't get the "emotional abuse" part and I wonder if I missed something.

I have never thought that they were emotionally abusing each other as much as their marriage post-return was very cold. I saw them more as companions than passionate lovers like Claire and Jamie. That being said, one of the components of Claire and Jamie's relationship that I love is that Jamie admires Claire, he is not just in love with her. He is genuinely impressed by her. I am not sure that I can say the same about Frank and would like to hear y'alls thoughts.

[toolazy]

I think Frank was impressed with and proud of Claire, even as he acknowledged that her medical calling was "inconvenient."  Despite everything, they were still fond of each other.  

[auntlada]

27 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I think Frank was impressed with and proud of Claire, even as he acknowledged that her medical calling was "inconvenient."  Despite everything, they were still fond of each other.  

It's been a while since I read this one, but didn't he say something in a flashback about how rare it is to know what you are and should do? That he was a good historian, but could easily do something else, but Claire was called to be a doctor (or something like that)? I always thought he meant it exasperatedly but admiringly as well.

[LMR]

Frank probably is a fairly good representative of a man in his position, particularly when once again we put it into the context of the times, where blended families where less common (but by contrast the 18th C world its much more common, due to the hardships of the time and the fact that people often had multiple marriages through widowhood, there are lots of incidents both in Voyager and going through future books where not only Jamie, with Fergus and later Marsali and Joan but others raising children who have lost people which is interesting from an anthropological point of view).

If we are to believe Claire (and on this I'm inclined to as it fits with the Frank we see in Outlander as opposed just to this book), Frank takes Brianna on as much for his own sake as Claire's. Frank is a decent guy and a good father to Brianna. What he's not is a good husband to Claire (once she returns), and how he actually even tries is open to debate - there is definitely evidence for both sides. But then Claire isn't an especially good wife to him either (again not necessarily through any fault of her own), the difference being we never really get to see things from Frank's POV so we have to read more into his actions as we don't see his motivations. Also girl is our hero, we know that she is meant to be with Jamie and poor Frank is always going to pale in comparison and I find it almost impossible not to bring that bias to the table when I read Frank. Jamie even when he's messing up (and as much as I enjoyed Voyager, I spent a LOT of the first half yelling "FFS, Jamie" at my kindle), is still James Alexander Malcolm MacKenzie Fraser *swoons slightly*

[WatchrTina]

I'm loving this discussion.  I will be very interested to see if the Frank portrayed in Season 3 encompasses all that we learn of him in later books.  I suspect it will.

I just recently re-read the scene in Voyager where Jamie tells Claire how the men he was imprisoned with dealt with their unfulfilled sexual desires.  Basically it was through masturbation or by "using one another." Jamie speaks of how humiliating it was for him because -- due to his having irons on his wrists -- everyone could hear his movements when he sought relief.  And he also admits to her -- without going into details -- that he slept with other women when he thought he must do so or go mad.  We know about three of them (Mary in the cave, William's mother, and Laoghaire) but I've often wondered if there were others. 

If I think about that aspect of Jamie and then consider Frank's behavior I have to feel more sympathetic toward Frank.  He and Claire did have sex but it was not, I think, joyful sex.  I don't think it was satisfying.  It met a physical need but probably made the emotional hunger for connection even worse.  That pretty much excuses his affairs -- especially when you consider that several of them really wanted him to leave Claire and he refused out of his love for Brianna.  Additionally, Frank is shocked to discovers that Claire knew about his lovers and that more than one of them had approached Claire, begging her to leave him.  It was clear he thought he was dealing with that need privately and was dismayed to discover that -- like Jamie in the prison -- his actions were observed.

Edited October 1, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Starla]

I am currently listening to the Voyager audiobook, and just came to the section where Claire and Joe Abernathy discuss the bones. Joe mentions that his son Lenny has changed his name to Muhammad Ishmael Shabaz III (not sure if I spelled that right... don't have the printed copy in front of me). I also recently listened to Lord John and the Plague of Zombies, in which Lord John visits Geillis, aka Mrs. Abernathy, after her husband dies. Lord John also encounters Ishmael, who is a sort of medicine man. I assume this is the same Ishmael Jamie and Claire later encounter. If I remember correctly, Ishmael works at the Abernathy plantation.

Am I correct to assume that Joe Abernathy is descended from Ishmael of the Abernathy plantation, and this is where his son got the name? I've read Voyager once before but cannot remember what became of Ishmael at the end. If it is true that Joe is descended from Ishmael, that is some serious coincidence, especially considering the bones Joe is examining belong to Geillis.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Starla

[auntlada]

I think it was implied. When Claire is listening to Jamie interrogating Ishmael, she seems to hear Joe's voice in his answers.

[DittyDotDot]

8 hours ago, Starla said:

Am I correct to assume that Joe Abernathy is descended from Ishmael of the Abernathy plantation, and this is where his son got the name? 

That was my impression--Joe being a descendant of Ishmael, that is--but it's not ever stated explicitly that I recall. 

Edited October 21, 2016 by DittyDotDot
Decedent and descendant aren't really the same thing.

[toolazy]

5 hours ago, Starla said:

I am currently listening to the Voyager audiobook, and just came to the section where Claire and Joe Abernathy discuss the bones. Joe mentions that his son Lenny has changed his name to Muhammad Ishmael Shabaz III (not sure if I spelled that right... don't have the printed copy in front of me). I also recently listened to Lord John and the Plague of Zombies, in which Lord John visits Geillis, aka Mrs. Abernathy, after her husband dies. Lord John also encounters Ishmael, who is a sort of medicine man. I assume this is the same Ishmael Jamie and Claire later encounter. If I remember correctly, Ishmael works at the Abernathy plantation.

Am I correct to assume that Joe Abernathy is descended from Ishmael of the Abernathy plantation, and this is where his son got the name? I've read Voyager once before but cannot remember what became of Ishmael at the end. If it is true that Joe is descended from Ishmael, that is some serious coincidence, especially considering the bones Joe is examining belong to Geillis.

As I recall, Claire seems to believe that it's possible that Joe Abernathy is descended from Ishmael, or at least she believes that he's probably descended from slaves from Geillis' plantation.  What I don't understand is how or if Joe's son knew that there was an ancestor named Ishmael.  I'm re-reading Voyager now (for about the zillionth time) so I'll try to pay attention when I get to that part.  

[WatchrTina]

I'm re-reading now (Claire & Jamie just arrived at the Abernathy plantation) and I think that Joe's son choosing Ishmael as his middle name can be viewed in one of two ways:

1. It's just an interesting coincidence planted by Diana  -- an "Easter egg" for the readers who spot it, or
2. Ishmael is Joe's son's original middle name -- given to him in honor of one of his recent forbearer (a grandfather perhaps) and that forbearer was also named for HIS grandfather and so forth all the way back to Ishmael of Abernathy plantation.

I don't think it is likely that Joe's son would know that he had a distant forbearer named Ishmael and if he DID know that, it seem even less likely that he would choose to adopt that ancestor's "slave name" when choosing a new name for himself in the 1960's.

Edited October 21, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Starla]

Thanks for the input. The thing I found most obvious was one line where Joe jokingly says "I am Ishmael" to the Harvard student who brought in the box of bones. I find the connections between Joe/Claire/Ishmael/Geillis a bit of a stretch! Would Joe have ever been born if Claire had not gone back and interacted with Ishmael? I'm not sure when Ishmael's kids were born, but it is interesting to consider.

[LMR]

10 hours ago, Starla said:

Thanks for the input. The thing I found most obvious was one line where Joe jokingly says "I am Ishmael" to the Harvard student who brought in the box of bones. I find the connections between Joe/Claire/Ishmael/Geillis a bit of a stretch! Would Joe have ever been born if Claire had not gone back and interacted with Ishmael? I'm not sure when Ishmael's kids were born, but it is interesting to consider.

His exact words are 'Call me Ishmael' which is the  very famous first line in the book Moby Dick. I assume that Joe's words at this point are a reference to this and its a tongue in cheek sort of exasperation that comes with not really understanding what his son is doing, coupled with his sense of humour that leads him to this line.

I do think DG very definitely attempts to lead the reader to the conclusion that the Ishmael encountered in the 18th C is an ancestor of Joe and his family though. Its not especially subtley done imo, either.

[WatchrTina]

Oh.  My.  God.  The potential for controversy in the Geneva/Jamie sex scene is already getting play in the press.

 

<<link to the stupid story deleted>>

This pisses me off because the author obviously didn't read the book.  Geneva raped Jamie -- not the other way around.  He is a prisoner at Helwater and she abuses her position of authority (and threatens his family) in order to pressure him into sex.  It does not matter AT ALL that she got cold feet at the last second and told him to stop.  It's the same as when female prisoners in a jail have consensual sex with a guard.  It's still statutory rape.  Besides, unless I've mis-read the text, Jamie and Gevena have intercourse at least 3 times that night and it's pretty clear there is no question of consent the 2nd and 3rd time.  There is so much I love in Voyager -- it's really going to piss me off if this faux issue gets much play.

Edited December 8, 2016 by WatchrTina
Realized I was an idiot for driving traffic to an idiotic story.

[DittyDotDot]

7 hours ago, Grashka said:

To be fair though, this scene in "Voyager" is uncomfortable even given the context, and yeah, I believe that the way DG handled certain issues in the books she wrote back in the 90s  (Geneva and Mr Willoughby are the prime examples) does feel "outdated" these days.

I used to say that about the first couple books, but now that I've finished the whole series and can reflect back on it, I'm not sure it's so much the issues have dated ideas as much as it's Diana doesn't tend to muddy the waters as much as she used to when she first started writing the series. I think she used to like to take a controversial subject and almost dissect the issue by looking at it from many different angles. I also think she used to work really hard--maybe too hard--to subvert the reader's expectations with these things.

So, technically, sex with a minor is statutory rape and the adult in the relationship should act as the adult no matter what the child says or does. But is it still statutory rape when we set the story in a time the child isn't really a child and the child holds the power in the relationship? Technically, no means no and anything done after no is said, is rape. But what if your partner says no too late; where's the line between rape and regret?

Just like with the spanking scene and Fergus's rape, I think she tried to present these scenarios where there isn't really a clear right or wrong; instead everyone one is both wrong and right. I'm not sure if she just got tired of the controversy or if her own interest shifted, but she doesn't seem to do this as much in the later books. Even though there's countless more character POVs, there's actually a lot less different points of view, IMO. 

TBH, I actually prefer the more muddied approach. I tend to think there is never one right and wrong in most things and I like the exploration of different ideas. Plus, I don't need someone to tie a pretty ribbon around the story and make it look pretty from the outside as long as what's inside is meaningful. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by DittyDotDot