Book 4: Drums of Autumn

[WatchrTina]

I've just finished re-reading a lot of the comments in this topic (I love them because everyone has such a strong reaction to Roger's story-line) and I just want to weigh in with a defense of Jamie.

 

Yes I hate the scene where Jamie and Ian beat Roger and  . . .  well you know what happens next.  And I know some people are irritated by Jamie's fixation on Brianna's "maidenhead" having been taken.

 

But I recall that one of the things motivating Jamie is the 18th century notion that if a man gets a woman pregnant outside of wedlock, he ought to marry her.  Even if she is unwilling.  Even if he raped her.  He is even considered by some to already have "rights" to her because she is carrying his child. In the minds of some, they are already married.  When Roger starts talking to Jamie and tells him he is looking for his wife, Jamie thinks he's trying to assert those rights.  So I'm going to give Jamie some credit for NOT going along with the 18th century thinking, for NOT wanting his daughter handed over in marriage to her rapist.  And the fact that he found a way to prevent the rapist from asserting those rights without killing him outright.  Well, that was rather clever of him.  Also wickedly vindictive -- a bit of bona-fide Highlander-style vengeance if you get right down to it -- but clever.

[AD55]

I've just finished re-reading a lot of the comments in this topic (I love them because everyone has such a strong reaction to Roger's story-line) and I just want to weigh in with a defense of Jamie.

 

Yes I hate the scene where Jamie and Ian beat Roger and  . . .  well you know what happens next.  And I know some people are irritated by Jamie's fixation on Brianna's "maidenhead" having been taken.

 

But I recall that one of the things motivating Jamie is the 18th century notion that if a man gets a woman pregnant outside of wedlock, he ought to marry her.  Even if she is unwilling.  Even if he raped her.  He is even considered by some to already have "rights" to her because she is carrying his child. In the minds of some, they are already married.  When Roger starts talking to Jamie and tells him he is looking for his wife, Jamie thinks he's trying to assert those rights.  So I'm going to give Jamie some credit for NOT going along with the 18th century thinking, for NOT wanting his daughter handed over in marriage to her rapist.  And the fact that he found a way to prevent the rapist from asserting those rights without killing him outright.  Well, that was rather clever of him.  Also wickedly vindictive -- a bit of bona-fide Highlander-style vengeance if you get right down to it -- but clever.

 

I believe your defense of Jamie is a mitigating factor, but it works for me only up to a point. One of the sad things for me about these novels is that I went from loving Jamie to disliking him pretty intensely. I have stayed with the novels because I want to know how they end, I continue to find the relationship between Claire and Jamie somewhat compelling, and I've become interested in a few of the other characters.

 

I'm a long way from the older novels, but my recollection is that my change of heart towards Jamie began with this episode. It's the one that demonstrated most clearly Jamie's attraction to vigilante justice. This tendency was probably always there, but I don't recall it being so much in evidence before he arrived in North America. I saw someone criticize Jamie for this episode on DG's twitter feed to which she responded, "what if it had been Steven Bonnet instead of Roger?" as though a wrong action is okay just so long as you are sure to get the perpetrator's identity right. That's not to mention that this episode shows that one often can't be sure. I oppose the death penalty and I would oppose it even if the victim were one of my relatives. I don't mean to get into whether the death penalty is right or wrong as this isn't an appropriate place for that discussion. I'm just using it as an example to explain why I object to Jamie's actions. Vigilantism was not the only recourse in the eighteenth century, so I don't excuse him on the basis that he had no choice. I realize that rape can be viewed as a special case. People continue to question what constitutes "real" rape and the victim is frequently the one on trial. I still don't think that's an excuse for the person's relatives to go on a murderous rampage or outsource the punishment as Jamie and Ian do.

 

I will understand if people think I'm being anachronistic, but the novels are full of anachronisms and it's simply not the case that all eighteenth-century men were running around with machetes enacting frontier justice.  I do give Jamie credit for demonstrating to Bree that she was not at fault for the rape when she gets into self-blaming. That could also be viewed as anachronistic, though I would argue it's an example of why one should not assume that all persons of a particular era hold the same views.

 

Some of my opinion is informed by my not being much attracted to the martial virtues and Jamie is the embodiment of these. DG doesn't present us with many counter-examples -- my impression is she considers other forms of courage to be of a lesser variety -- and the characters who do embody other kinds of heroism, if one can consider Jamie's actions to be a form of heroism, are usually not portrayed all that positively. I could be misremembering, but it did seem to me that he was presented as a more complicated individual in the earlier novels. Perhaps that's not the case, and I was just bowled over by his tenderness towards Claire.

[bearcatfan]

I think part of Jamie's reaction to Bree's rape is fueled by his own experience. Also realizing that in the 18th century, there likely wouldn't be any other repercusion for the rapist other than what the victim's family would dish out. I think Jamie was lenient in comparison to most of that time. Most 18th century fathers would have killed him outright. Ian wanted to.

[WatchrTina]

 

demonstrated most clearly Jamie's attraction to vigilante justice

There is an interesting bit in "The Custom of the Army" -- one of the John Grey novels -- that speaks directly to this.  I'll tread carefully so as to no spoil anything.  Basically John Grey comes to Jamie during his time at Helwater (the horse farm where he was paroled after his prison term) and asks his opinion.  John has a moral dilemma.  if he tells the truth, he will end up condemning someone he cares about -- someone who is related to him by marriage.  If he lies to protect this person, he must lie under oath and betray his obligations as an officer in the army.  He asks Jamie's advice because he knows Jamie to be an honorable man and because the issue has a certain sensitivity to it that makes it impossible for him to discuss with his brother, colleagues, or friends.  

 

Jamie's response to John is very much informed by clan mentality.  He says would not condemn a clan member to a hostile outside authority, even if the clan member were guilty.  The clan would determine what punishment was warranted and would administer it.  I think that mentality is present in Jamie pretty consistently throughout the books. You see it in book 2 when he challenges Black Jack to a duel following the incident with Fergus.  You see it in this book when he punishes the man he thinks raped his daughter.  And you see it in later books as well.

 

Interestingly, John takes his advice and acts in accordance with it, placing family (clan) obligations first.

 

ETA:  I got confused.  The conversation I cited above was in Brotherhood of the Blade,  Thanks GHScorpiusRule for setting the record straight.

Edited July 25, 2015 by WatchrTina

[AD55]

There is an interesting bit in "The Custom of the Army" -- one of the John Grey novels -- that speaks directly to this.  I'll tread carefully so as to no spoil anything.  Basically John Grey comes to Jamie during his time at Helwater (the horse farm where he was paroled after his prison term) and asks his opinion.  John has a moral dilemma.  if he tells the truth, he will end up condemning someone he cares about -- someone who is related to him by marriage.  If he lies to protect this person, he must lie under oath and betray his obligations as an officer in the army.  He asks Jamie's advice because he knows Jamie to be an honorable man and because the issue has a certain sensitivity to it that makes it impossible for him to discuss with his brother, colleagues, or friends.  

 

Jamie's response to John is very much informed by clan mentality.  He says would not condemn a clan member to a hostile outside authority, even if the clan member were guilty.  The clan would determine what punishment was warranted and would administer it.  I think that mentality is present in Jamie pretty consistently throughout the books. You see it in book 2 when he challenges Black Jack to a duel following the incident with Fergus.  You see it in this book when he punishes the man he thinks raped his daughter.  And you see it in later books as well.

 

Interestingly, John takes his advice and acts in accordance with it, placing family (clan) obligations first.

Thanks, WatchrTina. I will have to read this one. I read one of the John Gray novels years ago and liked it, but I never got around to reading the others. I'm at the very beginning of The Scottish Prisoner, and I'm now even more curious about the direction it will go in as there seem to be similar issues at play.

[WatchrTina]

AD55 just so you know, The Custom of the Army is a prequel to The Scottish Prisoner.

 

Meanwhile back on topic.  Someone was asking if Jamie calls his Aunt Jocasta "Auntie".  I just read the scene in book 4 where they meet for the first time in America and he does call her Auntie.  If he stops using that expression later on it's probably when she starts trying to manipulate him into taking on a role he doesna want.

 

ETA:  I meant Brotherhood of the Blade, not Custom of the Army.  Oops.

Edited July 25, 2015 by WatchrTina

[chocolatetruffle]

AD55 just so you know, The Custom of the Army is a prequel to The Scottish Prisoner.

 

Meanwhile back on topic.  Someone was asking if Jamie calls his Aunt Jocasta "Auntie".  I just read the scene in book 4 where they meet for the first time in America and he does call her Auntie.  If he stops using that expression later on it's probably when she starts trying to manipulate him into taking on a role he doesna want.

 

I am reading Book 6 and

he is still calling her Auntie.  It's actually quite endearing.

[GHScorpiosRule]

There is an interesting bit in "The Custom of the Army" -- one of the John Grey novels -- that speaks directly to this.  I'll tread carefully so as to no spoil anything.  Basically John Grey comes to Jamie during his time at Helwater (the horse farm where he was paroled after his prison term) and asks his opinion.  John has a moral dilemma.  if he tells the truth, he will end up condemning someone he cares about -- someone who is related to him by marriage.  If he lies to protect this person, he must lie under oath and betray his obligations as an officer in the army.  He asks Jamie's advice because he knows Jamie to be an honorable man and because the issue has a certain sensitivity to it that makes it impossible for him to discuss with his brother, colleagues, or friends.  

 

Jamie's response to John is very much informed by clan mentality.  He says would not condemn a clan member to a hostile outside authority, even if the clan member were guilty.  The clan would determine what punishment was warranted and would administer it.  I think that mentality is present in Jamie pretty consistently throughout the books. You see it in book 2 when he challenges Black Jack to a duel following the incident with Fergus.  You see it in this book when he punishes the man he thinks raped his daughter.  And you see it in later books as well.

 

Interestingly, John takes his advice and acts in accordance with it, placing family (clan) obligations first.

 

 

That's odd. I only read Brotherhood of the Blade and The Scottish Prisoner, and I'm pretty sure the conversation about that--asking Jamie for his opinion, took place in the first one. {scratching head} Then again, I've been burning my way through the books. But I do know I didn't read the Custom of the Army one.

[Andorra]

So, I finished "Drums in Autumn". I found it a bit slower than the first three books, but overall I still liked it. Count me in among the people who find Brianna annoying though. I felt sorry for Roger, he didn't annoy me, but Brianna was just behaving stupidly and expecting everyone else to understand her without ever revealing things.

 

I loved her engagement to Lord John though, the interaction between them was very funny and it made me love John Grey even mor. He's really a great character.

 

Young Ian though!! Noooo!!! I hope we'll see him again!!

 

I found the birth of little Jemmy very touching. Jamie cried and so did I. I always cry when Babies are born, must be some hormonal disfunction of me, LOL.

[bearcatfan]

So, I finished "Drums in Autumn". I found it a bit slower than the first three books, but overall I still liked it. Count me in among the people who find Brianna annoying though. I felt sorry for Roger, he didn't annoy me, but Brianna was just behaving stupidly and expecting everyone else to understand her without ever revealing things.

While I understood why Brianna would be reluctant to tell anyone that she was raped and then to admit she was pregnant, she needed to understand that Jamie didn't know the difference between Roger and Bonnet. I don't think she would have been upset if Jamie's victim had been Bonnet and Jamie had no way of knowing who Roger was to Brianna. He didn't give him time to explain either but Lizzie had put it in his head that Roger was the rapist. I don't feel like I'm explaining this very well.

[Laurie]

There's no way to explain it very well because that whole saga was so dysfuntional. 

 

Roger doesn't tell Brianna that "Oh, by the way I go by MacKenzie now" and Brianna apparently didn't notice when someone called him MacKenzie in the bar when he arrived so her folks only know him as Wakefield. 

 

She tells her mother that she and Roger slept together but never bothers to metion to anyone they were hand-fast.  She also tells her mother that she was raped by Stephen Bonnett but Claire somehow only tells Jamie part of the story.

 

You never hear Claire tell Jamie that Roger is a MacKenzie decendant and related to Jamie...although a lot of stuff happens "off stage" in these books.

 

And LIzzie just jumps to all sorts of assumptions.

 

Resolving any one of those things could have saved everyone a lot of grief.

 

I love "Drums" but I find myself muttering "idiots" a lot when I'm reading it.

[tcay]

When I learned the phrase "idiot plot," this book was the first that came to mind. 

[Archery]

Me: So, how are you doing today, [insert my real name here again]

 

Me:  Now that I've FINALLY fixed all the errors for the brief we're supposed to file today, which I should have gotten two days ago, so I wouldn't feel the crunch? Just dandy. So I think I'll post my thoughts on Drums, which I didn't finish last night, but I'm at 90% so I'll definitely be done tonight.

 

Ahem

 

Hey [insert real name here],

 

One of these days, over a wee dram, I'll tell ye about the time I worked until the cock crowed to finish a brief that I'd let languish because I couldna let Jamie and Claire rest long enough to write it.  I didna charge for the overtime, though.  Like Ned Gowan, despite my profession, I do have some morals, ye ken.

[Archery]

Not to double-post or anything, but:

 

The one thing that bugs me the most about Drums of Autumn is . . . Brianna.  She jumps into the past to find her parents because she finds an obituary saying that they died in a fire.  And, . . .what?  She's so stupid.  No matter whether they died in a fire or died holding hands in their nice warm bed at a hundred and ten years old, they are still dead in your lifetime, you git.  Does she think that by going back to warn them, they won't actually die, ever?  I get that there had to be some catalyst to having her (secretly -- again, she's so stupid) go back in time, but that reason is just dumb.  Roger's reason (she's too dumb to live back then, and, oh, yes, I love her) makes much more sense. 

[mary2013]

Brianna is thinking Jamie and Claire are finally reunited after 20 years apart, but are only together for about a year before they both die.  They were cheated out of a life together, so she does want them to die holding hands in their nice warm bed at a hundred and ten years old.

[chocolatetruffle]

If I knew that I could stop my mother dying at say the age of 50, I'd do it. Better she live to a ripe old age, even if I wasn't going to see it. Yes, Claire was going to die at some point, but I don't blame Bree for trying to make that later rather than sooner.

[bearcatfan]

Brianna is thinking Jamie and Claire are finally reunited after 20 years apart, but are only together for about a year before they both die.  They were cheated out of a life together, so she does want them to die holding hands in their nice warm bed at a hundred and ten years old.

I think it's more than a year but I agree with your point. They didn't have long together before they died and she wanted them to have more time.

[nodorothyparker]

It's actually closer to 9 or 10.  Part of it certainly is wanting them to have more time together, but part of it is also something Roger articulates when he's wrestling with whether to even tell her about the death notice.  Because time in both periods was running parallel, that also meant that the window for her to ever go back and meet Jamie or see her mother if she decided to was closing.  If they had found a notice that did say both Jamie and Claire lived to be 100, Brianna in theory had all the time in the world.

[lianau]

I think Brianna also has a hard time thinking of her mother as dead in her time . First she tried to tell herself Claire was just on a holiday , than dead but that's also not really cutting it for her .

[Quinzee]

I finished this book last night, and I totally agree on the Three's Company analogy, and dislike of Brianna. I found myself skimming quite a bit to get back to the "action" , so to speak.

A few thoughts:

-Jamie and Claire just up and leave their fledging farm to find Roger without a thought to the animals or tending of the farm? I guess I filled in "Fergus took care of them" but seems like a farmer would take care of that first, versus placating his spoiled brat daughter. But when they returned to the neglected cabin, no mention of the animals at all.

-Brianna's blackmail of Lord John. Should we assume Lord John was "forcing" a male slave to tend to his "needs"?

-so Roger saved his greaty great grandfather on the ship?

-why did no one at Lallybrook ever ask Brianna where she was all the time Claire was back with Jamie?

-why no ending to the Willie and Jamie story going to the village?

[DittyDotDot]

Oh Lordy, I'm back at it again...

 

"Do you know 'This Land Is Our Land', Rodger? Or are you more into protest songs? But I guess you wouldn't be, since you're English--oops, I mean Scotch. You guys don't have anything to protest about, do you?"

 

Not only did I just break out laughing at the sheer idiocy of this statement, but it also seems to describe the tone of this book so far...it's so very, for a lack of better word, American. This book has made me, realize what about Claire's POV I was missing in when the POV shifted in Voyager. She had this dry wit about her that seems to be lacking so far in this installment--I know...only a few pages in, but still.

 

And, can I just say here's just something that seems so wrong about them riding in a wagon instead of riding horses across the Highlands. This book seems to have slown down the pace quite a bit to match it's new surroundings. I want to embrace it, I really do, but something just seems wrong about it. 

 

The self pleasuring talk was rather humorous, though.

[chocolatetruffle]

DittyDotDot, who was speaking that line?  And what was the context?  I don't remember it exactly, but the tone sounds sarcastic, dismissive or (even more interesting) very ironic.  Or was it spoken to reveal an idiot character who really didn't know anything about Scottish history?

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, it was totally to show what a nube Gayle was--she wasn't being sarcastic, but rather naive American-girl of the time. It was Gayle speaking it to Roger in reference to him being a singing at the Highland festival a day or so earlier. To Gayle, it was all folk songs and merriment, but doesn't understand the tradition they came from.  It just made me realize that, so far, this book seems to have a slightly different tone to it and that line made me think it was so very American. It doesn't bother me, or anything, just an observation. I actually think it's kind of a brilliant storytelling device so far, we'll see if it holds up. 

[chocolatetruffle]

Ah, yes - I remember that scene now!  This was where I started to fall in love a little bit w/ Roger.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, I already had a bit of a crush on him. ;)

[DittyDotDot]

Awww, Jamie is tutoring wee Ian and trying to make him into a "man of worth". How cute is that? And of course wee Ian could care less--ah, kids those days! This really got me to thinking of how Ian is a child of the new world, so to speak. Young Jamie was old enough to remember what it was before, at least, and has some notion of what was lost. But, wee Ian was born after the uprising and never even got to wear a kilt.  

 

To me, this is the disappointment of moving the books to the Americas. Book one was all about us getting to know and fall in love with the Highlands. Book two was the fall and the start of book three was what happens in the aftermath, but got quickly scrapped for being...pirates, I guess. I was really looking forward to Jamie being a part of the "rebuilding". Oh well, I'm sure they'll build something...

 

Also, something I was thinking about (I probably should've been thinking about it more when reading Voyager, though): for all Jamie's wistful thoughts on losing Lallybroch, I realized that he never really had it. What I mean is, Jamie's father died while he was jailed at Fort William and Jamie didn't return back--or even send a letter--until after the witch trial. He and Claire were only there for a couple weeks before he was captured and sent to Wentworth. Then they were in France and only were back at Lallybroch for eight or nine months before they went to war at the end of which Jamie signed it over to young Jamie. Basically, the property and the people have been managed more by Jenny than Jamie. It's interesting to think of how Jamie is laird in the sense that men follow him unquestioningly and know he will do his best by them even though he really hasn't been there to gain their loyalty. He truly a king of men.

[Petunia846]

Also, something I was thinking about (I probably should've been thinking about it more when reading Voyager, though): for all Jamie's wistful thoughts on losing Lallybroch, I realized that he never really had it. What I mean is, Jamie's father died while he was jailed at Fort William and Jamie didn't return back--or even send a letter--until after the witch trial. He and Claire were only there for a couple weeks before he was captured and sent to Wentworth. Then they were in France and only were back at Lallybroch for eight or nine months before they went to war at the end of which Jamie signed it over to young Jamie. Basically, the property and the people have been managed more by Jenny than Jamie. It's interesting to think of how Jamie is laird in the sense that men follow him unquestioningly and know he will do his best by them even though he really hasn't been there to gain their loyalty. He truly a king of men.

 

And that is why the move to the Americas is good.

It gives Jamie a chance to be the laird he was always meant to be. He gets to build his own little kingdom in the new world, which he never would have been able to do back in Scotland.

[DittyDotDot]

I get that, and yeah, it was good for Jamie and, of course, Claire. It's just, for me, though, the more interesting story was happening back in Scotland.

 

Another awww...Ian asked Jamie to take charge of wee Ian and not "just for the pleasure of his company." ;)

[DittyDotDot]

Ooh, oh, oh...Jamie's wearing plaid again! Awww!

 

I think I may have gone soft in the head, there's a lot of awww-ing going on. I wonder if Claire might have a treatment to offer?

[DittyDotDot]

Sorry to keep just puking out my thoughts here...can I just say how much I'm enjoying the pace of this book in comparison to the last. It's so nice to get these little moments of everyday life rather than the running around at a neck-breaking pace from one outlandish plot to the other. Okay, the bear wrestling was a bit on the outlandish side, but it did give us the nice moment with the Natives later. But, I think I'm falling in love with Jamie all over again with his outrage at the leaky roof; stomping out to fix it unclad on a cold morning and then curling back up in bed with satisfaction after. I won't even pretend not to think they were foolish for trying to stay the winter up there before they had time to be better provisioned, but I don't really care because I'm enjoying the quietness this has brought to the book. 

 

Anyhoo, in other related news: I'm just bracing for the other shoe to drop now. There's no way Jamie gets to keep his little piece of heaven, right? I mean, judging by the other two books, this is all going to end in heartache, right?

[WatchrTina]

 

I think I'm falling in love with Jamie all over again with his outrage at the leaky roof; stomping out to fix it unclad on a cold morning and then curling back up in bed with satisfaction after.

I love Jamie and Claire's first winter on the Ridge.  I'll admit that sometimes when I'm having trouble falling asleep I try to imagine I'm curled up in bed in that little cabin with snow and silence all around and a big red-headed Scot beside me. 

 

As for the other shoe dropping

Jamie and Claire are back on Fraser's Ridge at the very end of Book 8 after a series of adventures in . . . other places.  That doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means it hasn't happened yet.

Edited September 6, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

Awww, Bree is welcomed warmly at Lallybroch. Oh, and she gives Laoghaire a bit of a tongue-lashing...you go girl! I find it highly amusing that Bree went through the stones and got all the way to Lallybroch without any "adventures". I'm sure she's gonna have some, but usually one cannot go more than a day without an "adventure" befalling them in these books. And she being a woman (albeit, dressed as a man) alone.

 

In some ways, i found it disappointing we didn't follow Bree's foray across Scotland. Something I kind of got caught up on with Claire first going through the stones was, in general, is there didn't seem to be much culture shock for her. I quickly realized it was fine since Claire grew up traveling with her uncle and learned how to adapt to different cultures and situations quite quickly. She's definitely a fish out of water, but she's only part fish, so it worked. I figured it would be far more pronounced with Bree, though--Bree being a child of the modern world--and was kind of looking forward to her flopping around on shore for a bit. This is a girl whose never lived without electricity or running water for any length of time. I know she studied history, but there's a great deal of difference between reading about something and doing it.  Maybe it will get increasingly more noticeable as I go along?

 

Anyhoo, interesting with Roger "meeting" himself on his first attempt through the stones. While I'm on the subject, it's also interesting how Claire seems to have a connection with the bones of the travelers. The way she was able to tell how Geillis died when she was holding her skull and the skull she found in the cave seemed to speak to her too. Vera interesting.

 

So, something that's been on my mind since Voyager. Could Frank have found out Claire (and later Brianna) were going to go back through the stones and that's why he was going to take Brianna back to England and away from Claire? Could he have been trying to protect her in his own pig-headed way?

[WatchrTina]

DittyDotDot the answer to your question is a spoiler so I'll slip behind the bar.  Proceed with caution.  

We find out at the end of  this (?) book that Frank strongly suspected that Claire would go back to Jamie at some point.  He investigated Claire's story, probably with the intention of disproving it, and instead discovered that Jamie was real and that he survived Culloden.  He realized that Claire would probably discover that too as some point and he did become worried about Brianna -- worried how she would cope if her mother took her back in time and worried what would happen to her in the 20th century if anyone ever found out she could time-travel (assuming she inherited the ability.)  That worry prompted several actions by him.  I think you are right that his first reaction was to try to get her away from her mother.  Then he took a different approach to protecting her and he taught her to shoot, in case some day she needed to be able to hunt.  He mellowed even further later in his life.  We discover at the end of this book that he was responsible for that fake JAMMF headstone in book 3 -- the one that upset Claire so much.  He assumed she would see it at some point and that it wold prompt her to go looking for Jamie -- it was a subtle signal to her that Jamie did NOT die at Culloden.  And there is a letter that turns up in a much later book in which he warns Brianna NOT to tell anyone in the 20th century government about her time-traveling abilities.  He even hints in that letter that if the government should discover her ability the one safe place may be for her to escape into the past rather than be exploited or studied in the present.

Edited September 6, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

That's very interesting, WatchrTina, thanks!

 

So, Jamie finally gets to meet his daughter...awww! Seriously, I think something's wrong with me. I started tearing up when Brianna was explaining about the moon landing and stars being suns and all. Such a great moment between them and so heart wrenching for Jamie, I would think. Here's his grown daughter explaining things to him he can't even fully grasp. Like I said, I think I've gone soft in the head. ;)

 

Fergus was rather entertaining and humorous at the trial. Made me realize how much I'd missed Fergus in this book. It's weird, I'm finding I'm also missing Ian quite a bit now too since he's taken to hangin' with the natives, as of late. I'm glad he seems to be a bit more receptive to Brianna's presence than he was to Willy's though.

 

BTW, I think I may have finally stumbled on to the stupidity portion of the book--there's one in every one of this series so far, is there not? Stupidest fight ever between Brianna and Roger. After chasing her across time and an ocean, it's suddenly safe enough to leave Brianna to her own devices to go in search of some stones he's not even sure exist or will work? And Brianna being so mad he didn't tell her about the death notice...really? This is only going to lead to more stupidity--am I right? And, what the hell happened between Bonnet and Brianna? That was Bonnet, I presume, who was gambling with Claire's wedding ring? I know, I know...reading on.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, for cripes sake! If Voyager was the outlandish version of Pirates of the Caribbean, I'd say Drums of Autumn has become the Beverly Hillbillies with Jed and Jethro heading out to feud with the Drysdales because everyone wouldn't take two seconds to think before acting and realize how stoopid they are being. "Ian, get my pistols"...seriously? And Roger, "I've come to claim my wife." How about introducing yourself first before you go to brawlin' with your new father-in-law. Might've cleared a whole bunch of stuff up sooner. Sheesh.

 

Sorry, I knew something overly ridiculous was coming, I just never expected...that.

 

BTW, I've been contemplating whether I would last being thrown back into the 18th century...I mean, I grew up on a farm, lived in a cabin for years without running water, can grow stuff, ride a horse and such. I'm not one for hunting, but I bet I could forage and survive. Not one who could probably defend myself against a bear attack, though, either. One thing I got over both Claire and Brianna---endless knowledge of horror/sci fi/supernatural stories.

 

On Claire's part, never be the one left by the boat. It's never safer to be left behind, alone...never. You will be the first one killed in any horror movie; first one abducted in any sci fi story. And if you are left alone, don't go check out the noise you hear or the light you saw in yonder window--nope, no good will probably come of that either. On Brianna's part, never, ever, ever, follow a skevy man into his private cabin. It never turns out well. Forget the ring and go on your merry way to meet up with your father. Not that it's Brianna's fault she got raped, just saying there are certain precautions that can be learned from pop culture.;)

[DittyDotDot]

I'm beginning to think Gabaldon has a split personality. She sometimes writes the most ridiculous, hair-brained and absolutely silly passages that make me want to throw my kindle out the window. But then sometimes...sometimes she will follow it up with something so very poignant. I have no idea why she bothered with the hillbilly farce--other than to set up conflict between Roger and Jamie, which, IMO really wasn't all the necessary on top of the rape--when what she gave us with Jamie and Claire and then Jamie and Brianna in the stable and then Claire giving Brianna a choice...that was very good. It takes quite a bit to get me teary-eyed (although, you might not know it by all my awws lately), but she got me good today. 

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, Ian. "Cuimhnich."

[DittyDotDot]

Okay, I finished it and I have a question for all you who've read the Lord John books...should I read those and then The Fiery Cross? I grew to rather like Lord John in this book. I mean, I didn't dislike him in Voyager, but there didn't seem to really be enough of him to get me interested in reading his own books, but now am wondering if that was short-sighted of me.

[Laurie]

I love the Lord John books. I didn't read them until after I'd read the series. I didn't find that they added much to the plot of the big books...they kind of stand on their own.

[abbey]

I love the Lord John books also.  You might like the Scottish Prisoner if you haven't already read it.  That stars both  Lord John and Jamie.

[Petunia846]

I didn't care for the Lord John books, but I don't really care for Lord John either. There are some political machinations coming up that make a bit more sense if you've read the books, but you can still understand things all right without them, and they're not really main storyline stuff, so they were things I tended to skim anyway.

[DittyDotDot]

Thanks guys! Maybe I'll keep reading the rest of the series and then the Lord John series since they don't seem to be necessary right now. 

[DittyDotDot]

BTW, forgot to mention, I liked this book quite a bit in the end. I wasn't too fond of the idea of moving to the Americas, but overall it worked for me in the end. I'm still more curious about the life that was going on back at Lallybroch, though. I think it's just that I've read so very many stories of people coming to America and carving out a new life for themselves--and it being my own family history--that I can't help but wonder about those people who stayed behind to rebuild a life there.

 

However, the emotional beats in this book were so very good. The talk of loneliness and what it actually means to be lonely; the discussions about rape and abortion and I liked the details she gave with the bits of everyday life.

 

I also found all the talk of different types of love and marriages really well done in this book. Jamie and Claire have this ideal and almost fairy tale marriage until their daughter shows up to push the boundaries of that relationship. As most married couples will say, having children changes things. And, I found it interesting how Gabaldon basically set up a modern blended family in this historical setting. 

 

Mostly though, I loved wee Ian...this isn't the last we'll see of him, is it? 

 

My only real criticism of this book--outside of the requisite amount of people being stupid for plot purposes (but lets be honest, that's just gonna happen with Gabaldon and I made my peace with that in Voyager)--many of the characters just don't seem well defined outside of Jamie and Claire. Brianna is pretty thin as a character, IMO, and mostly serves pushing many of the plots forward. I would've liked to have seen her more rounded, especially throughout the pregnancy. I didn't dislike her, perse, just didn't feel like she was real either. It's weird to think the one book that's told entirely from Claire's point of view is the book I think the characters were the most vivid. 

 

Anyhoo, now I'm wondering if the series makes it this far, what scenes do I most look forward to seeing on screen from this book: 

• Jamie and Claire and the self pleasuring talk at the beginning of the book. Funny and beautiful at the same time.
• Jamie and Bree sitting on a hill at night talking about the moon landing and stars being suns. Jamie had just been explaining how he was going to make a bee gum--you know, being a parent and teaching something useful--and then his daughter starts explaining the workings of the universe to him. I was weeping.
• Jamie forgiving Black Jack and then arguing with God about who is the keeper of vengeance.
• Claire trying to give Bree a "choice". I was so moved by how Claire didn't want Bree to feel trapped.
• Wee Ian stepping up and choosing to be adopted by the Mohawks. Actually, I hope they don't cut any of the Ian stuff. I loved how he was such a wide-eyed kid at the beginning of the book and how much he grew up and became a man by the end of it. If I was Bree, I might have been tempted by that marriage proposal--even if the were first cousins...eewww! BTW, what was Jamie thinking there, that would still be considered incest even back then, right? Sorry, little tangent.
• And, just for humors sake, we need to see the testosterone poisoning scene. ;)

[Athena]

• Wee Ian stepping up and choosing to be adopted by the Mohawks. Actually, I hope they don't cut any of the Ian stuff. I loved how he was such a wide-eyed kid at the beginning of the book and how much he grew up and became a man by the end of it. If I was Bree, I might have been tempted by that marriage proposal--even if the were first cousins...eewww! BTW, what was Jamie thinking there, that would still be considered incest even back then, right? Sorry, little tangent.

 

First cousin marriage was very common back then especially among nobles. It really only fell out of favour in Europe during the 19th century; Jamie is still one century off from that. It would make sense for Jamie to propose Wee Ian since he's like a son to Jamie and more importantly, he was available.

 

Those are good scenes and I can't wait to see who they cast for Wee Ian. He's basically the second most attractive male in the series for me.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh yeah, I guess marrying cousins wasn't so uncommon. Once again my modern sensibilities got me caught up on something. Now I'm trying to remember what movie--or maybe it was a TV show--it was where one of the characters was talking about British royalty and insanity and suggesting this is a good reason why people shouldn't marry their cousins. Sorry, tangents are my thing today.

 

BTW, Athena, I'm also eager to see who they cast for both young and older versions of Fergus.

[Athena]

Oh yeah, I guess marrying cousins wasn't so uncommon. Once again my modern sensibilities got me caught up on something. Now I'm trying to remember what movie--or maybe it was a TV show--it was where one of the characters was talking about British royalty and insanity and suggesting this is a good reason why people shouldn't marry their cousins. Sorry, tangents are my thing today.

 

BTW, Athena, I'm also eager to see who they cast for both young and older versions of Fergus.

 

Yes, first cousin marriage wrecked havoc on a few major European royal families since the Middle Ages. Their desire to keep things in the family and intermarry other royals before they could really figure out the genetics resulted in lots of major issues. However, while it was common for people of the noble class like Jamie, it was not as bad. Historical tangents are fine in a historical fiction series.

 

Ahh, Fergus. He whom I adored before Wee Ian appeared. I still like Fergus a lot, but Wee Ian really does dominate (in a good way). Look forward to your thoughts in the next books.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, you should be careful what you say with me...just downloaded Fiery Cross to my kindle this morning. ;)

 

I found missed Fergus quite a bit in this book. I hope he gets pulled into the main narrative more in the future books. But, yeah, wee Ian stole his thunder in this book.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, coming from someone who just finished reading this entire series last month, I would say, to get a better understanding of Lord John and Jamie's relationship, and with a few things revealed in the later buiks, I would highly recommend reading The Scottish Prisoner, which takes place during the years Jamie was in Helwater in more detail. I couldn't care less about Lord John, though I warmed up to him by the end, but I still don't see why he merits his own series, and I know I'm in the minority with that opinion.  But, if you love Jamie, (and I do), this was a really good story.

[AheadofStraight]

Oh yeah, I guess marrying cousins wasn't so uncommon. Once again my modern sensibilities got me caught up on something. Now I'm trying to remember what movie--or maybe it was a TV show--it was where one of the characters was talking about British royalty and insanity and suggesting this is a good reason why people shouldn't marry their cousins. Sorry, tangents are my thing today.

 

BTW, Athena, I'm also eager to see who they cast for both young and older versions of Fergus.

 

Young Fergus has been cast:  http://www.outlandertvnews.com/2015/06/outlander-has-found-its-young-fergus/ (I wasn't sure if you didn't know he was cast or if you know and you're just eager to see him on screen.)

[Archery]

Yes, first cousin marriage wrecked havoc on a few major European royal families since the Middle Ages. Their desire to keep things in the family and intermarry other royals before they could really figure out the genetics resulted in lots of major issues. However, while it was common for people of the noble class like Jamie, it was not as bad. Historical tangents are fine in a historical fiction series.

 

Ahh, Fergus. He whom I adored before Wee Ian appeared. I still like Fergus a lot, but Wee Ian really does dominate (in a good way). Look forward to your thoughts in the next books.

I would think that Claire would put the kibosh on the 1st cousin marriage situation anyway, being from the 20th century and all.