Book 4: Drums of Autumn

[DittyDotDot]

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.)

 

Actually both...thanks! He looks the part, should be interesting to see.

 

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

 

Oh, no doubt. And she was trying to before it all erupted with Brianna overhearing. I didn't think it would actually happen, but my first thought was, "Eewww, Jamie that's incest!" anyway.

[ElsieH]

I'm so glad you are done with this one, DittyDotDot, because I finished it about a month ago and some things are still bugging me. All of the stupidity which you and others have mentioned, which really just took me right out of it, but also the bit about the stone circle Roger finds when trying to escape the Indians Jamie and Ian gave him to. He says when he finds them that he didn't "hear" them, but then we have this whole drama about finding out Bree was pregnant, not knowing if it was his, and he goes up to the stones thinking he might just go back instead of come back to her. So the whole thing about it only works at certain times of the year is just totally forgotten for the sake of a cliffhanger then? I mean, I had read the book before, and all that farce business was tough to swallow (gets worse in later books, just to warn you by the way). And then he sits at the circle for two days making up his mind,  not really knowing if he could even use the stupid things, or if they are a real portal like Craigh na Dun. So stupid. And then Jamie has the nerve to resent Roger for having to trade Ian for him, when it was his stupid fault Roger was with the Indians in the first place? He even mentions it again in the next book, and I was thinking, do you all even REMEMBER how that went down? None of it was really Roger's doing, except that he was dumb enough not to tell them who he was. Whatever.

 

Other than that, I do like the slower paced life in the country bits. I wish there were more of that in later books too, all of them are just a wee bit exhausting to read and get through, and yet, once I start I can't stop :)

[DittyDotDot]

[...] but also the bit about the stone circle Roger finds when trying to escape the Indians Jamie and Ian gave him to. He says when he finds them that he didn't "hear" them, but then we have this whole drama about finding out Bree was pregnant, not knowing if it was his, and he goes up to the stones thinking he might just go back instead of come back to her. So the whole thing about it only works at certain times of the year is just totally forgotten for the sake of a cliffhanger then? I mean, I had read the book before, and all that farce business was tough to swallow (gets worse in later books, just to warn you by the way). And then he sits at the circle for two days making up his mind,  not really knowing if he could even use the stupid things, or if they are a real portal like Craigh na Dun. So stupid.

 

What I remember is, the first time he found the stone circle it was, I think, November, not long after Samhain, so not the right time of year. The second time, though, I believe it was close to Belatane (May 1). I remember it being April when Clair and Jamie abandoned Roger anyway. Also, I believe Roger said the stones were singing to him--but I could be mistaking that and they were only making some other type of noise--I distinctly remember him saying he was camped there for days and he heard them, though. Claire told Bree the stones on Hispanola sounded different than the ones in Scotland--like a bell ringing--so I just went with it. So, I think it might actually be consistent.

 

 

And then Jamie has the nerve to resent Roger for having to trade Ian for him, when it was his stupid fault Roger was with the Indians in the first place? He even mentions it again in the next book, and I was thinking, do you all even REMEMBER how that went down? None of it was really Roger's doing, except that he was dumb enough not to tell them who he was. Whatever.

 

Yeah, I was rolling my eyes at that comment. I'm thinking it's easier for Jamie to blame Roger for the loss of Ian than it is for him to own up to his own part he played in that right then when everything was still kind of raw. But seriously, the whole thing was just silly.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Actually, it was Roger accidentally killing one of the Mohawks, that led to the Mohawks demanding that Roger had to remain with them. But since Wee Ian had been visiting with them and having relations with Emily for some time, offered to take his place.

 

Plus, though Jamie had left Roger with the Iroquois, who then sold him to the Mohawks, and that was due to sheer plot point stupidity, Wee Ian was and is, more like a son to Jamie than Roger, who is basically a stranger, even if he was Bree's handfasted husband. So I have no problem with Jamie being angry with Roger over that.

[ElsieH]

See, i didn't even remember that roger killed anyone. The whole thing went by too fast I guess. And because I live in North Carolina, I'm wondering exactly how they farmed back then. I just had sprinklers installed and have red clay mud everywhere. I can't grow anything in my flowerbeds without buying topsoil from Lowe's. So how exactly did settlers back then grow enough barley to make all that whisky I wonder?

At any rate I didn't remember anything about the timeline and it was hard to follow for me. I certainly don't remember roger hearing anything at the stone circle but I'll take y'all's word for it! These books have way too much in them but I guess that's what makes them good to re read.

Edited September 9, 2015 by ElsieH

[GHScorpiosRule]

See, i didn't even remember that roger killed anyone. The whole thing went by too fast I guess.

 

Yes. It happened when Jamie, Wee Ian and the rest arrived and all hell broke loose, due to some drunk Mohawks, and during the fighting, Roger killed a native.

[DittyDotDot]

Actually, it was Roger accidentally killing one of the Mohawks, that led to the Mohawks demanding that Roger had to remain with them. But since Wee Ian had been visiting with them and having relations with Emily for some time, offered to take his place.

 

I'm not saying it was Jamie's fault or anyone's fault actually; everyone involved had a hand to play in the stupidity. Jamie and Ian jumped to conclusions and sold Roger to the Iroquois based on the testimony of a rather naive little girl; Roger let his temper get the better of him rather than just introducing himself was monumentally stupid; and, if Brianna had just told them there were two men, one who married her and one who raped her, none of it would have happened in the first place. It was all just a bunch of foolish people acting foolishly, IMO. However, I did think Jamie a bit petty at first, considering he was not innocent either. But, eventually he admitted he'd caused just as much damage as Roger, and they called it even, So, I was cool with it in the end.

 

 

See, i didn't even remember that roger killed anyone. 

 

When they started burning the priest, the priest's "wife" handed their baby to Claire and walked into the flames with him. All hell broke loose after that due to some of the braves getting drunk after finding the whiskey stash Jamie and Co. had buried to trade for Roger's life. Jamie was trying to protect Claire and got knocked out in the process. Ian was yelling in Gaelic for them to come to him and Roger heard that and broke out of where ever it was they were holding him, hoping to get the Scots to help him. He accidentally killed a brave when he burst out of the long house armed with a pole he'd broken off a cot--or it was believed he had killed a brave, Roger wasn't sure. So, they couldn't outright kill Roger for the death of one of their braves because they had already struck a bargain to trade the whiskey for Roger's life and the whiskey had already been taken and consumed. Instead, they decided they'd keep one of the men to adopt into the tribe as a replacement for the brave they lost. Ian volunteered himself and it was all pretty much done before anyone else knew about it.

 

I can't really blame Roger for trying to get free. There's no way he could've know that Jamie and Co were there to rescue him. He had no reason not to think he would be burned at the stake just like the priest. Way too much contributed to the stupid on this just so Roger and Jamie butt heads later. I'm imagining Gabaldon writing the testosterone poisoning scene first and was so gleeful about it she then had to force some conflict in order to justify keeping it. Like Jamie was going to like Roger anyway. The dude handfasted his "little" girl and then left her unprotected. To Jamie, that alone would've been cause enough to hate him, I'd think.

 

And because I live in North Carolina, I'm wondering exactly how they farmed back then. I just had sprinklers installed and have red clay mud everywhere. I can't grow anything in my flowerbeds without buying topsoil from Lowe's. So how exactly did settlers back then grow enough barley to make all that whisky I wonder?

 

Lot of back-breaking work, I would imagine. However, they probably weren't growing huge quantities on one parcel. I'm thinking it was many different settlers with small patches they grew to contribute to the cause and got a percentage of the profits in return. It probably matters where in North Carolina we're talking about, too. I'd think higher up in the mountains, like Fraser's ridge is described as, the issue would be rocky terrain rather than clay--but, this wouldn't be anything the Scots hadn't dealt with before judging by Ian's comments to Brianna when they passed that rock pile and she mistook it for a cairn of some sort.

[DittyDotDot]

I will say even more - Jamie was despicable in this particular book most of the time. Which is surprising to say about someone I normally love but while Gabaldon usually balances his character so well - his harsh, violent streak which is a part of his upbringing softened by his great sense of humor and his vulnerability. That's what makes him so compelling. But in DoA sans the fun early times with Claire on the Ridge I was sick of his "I'm the Highlander, hear my roar!" unpleasant brute ways with hardly any kindness. I can't blame Brianna for saying she wish to never met him in THAT moment. Not that she had not made some serious mistakes but there she was - raped and pregnant and learning that the man she loved is probably being roasted or skinned alive at the moment because of the actions made by her new found father while the said father is preaching about his HONOR and blaming her for his "disgrace". Just UGH. On the other hand it's the book where my love for Claire reached it's highest point.

 

I know what you mean about Claire, I really love her in this book. I've been jumping around reading some Lord John bits of the books lately and I read the part where Lord John first comes to the ridge with Willie last night. I just love Claire's abruptness and jealousy with Lord John. I was chuckling so hard at John saying he hadn't come to seduce Jamie. But mostly, I think the abortion talk might be one of my favorite written passages of the books. I really could fell Claire and her own struggle in those moments. TBH, this is the one book where I feel like Claire makes sense from start to finish.

 

Jamie is rather uncouth with regards to Brianna and Roger in this book. However, reflecting back on it now, I think I understand it better. I recently re-read the part of the book where Claire tells Jamie she thinks he's a good man and it got me to thinking of how Jamie seems to be trying to live up to label throughout the book. So, now I kind of see it as Jamie going a little out of his mind in the effort of trying to be someone he wasn't and so desperately wanted to be--Brianna's father. More often than not, he does seem to go about it wrong, in this book, though.

 

 

I think this book in particular is chock full of ultra creepy moments: execution of the slave, murdered girl with a bloody spike between her legs, Stephen Bonnet in general, Claire hearing the screams of those forever stuck between the times, story of the Native American time traveler, the priest losing his ear before being slowly tortured and burnt to death and Jamie's memories of Jack Randall saying he will treat him gently, as his "little boy", when he was about to...the sickness of this mofo never ceases to astound me.

 

Lately, I've been really thinking about how each book seems to have it's own genre feel to it. Outlander seems to be a fairly straightforward epic historical romance; Dragonfly in Amber is a political/spy thriller; Voyager is an epic action/adventure; Drums of Autumn seems to be a kind of a western horror story; and The Fiery Cross is kind of a murder-mystery whodunit. I haven't settled on genres for A Breath of Snow and Ashes, An Echo in the Bone or Written in My Own Heart's Blood, but I'm guessing they're there. Anyway, even though I don't always appreciate each genre, I kind of appreciate how Gabaldon tries to mix it up a bit from book to book.

[DittyDotDot]

He concluded the story by saying that this was the first and the last time when he was sure he did well. I really liked that despite of his confidence and even cockiness he was apparently a man who questions himself a lot. And that part of his character was nowhere to be found in the second half of DOA. There was a short moment of conversation with Claire on the road but after that he was getting more horrid with every scene.

 

Yeah, I think he was questioning himself at the beginning of the book when he said he didn't think he was a good man, but at some point it's like things started to go right for him and he stopped questioning himself. I did feel like he was going to confess what he'd done to Claire and ask her if what he'd done was right or not when they were walking and talking the night Brianna told him. But, of course, we can't have him actually do that because Claire would've figured out it was Roger who he'd sold to the Iroquois and the whole plot of nobody-talking-about-what-they-need-to-be-talking-about would fall apart right then and there.

 

Really though, I found him most out of character when he acted foolishly based on Lizzie's unreliable accounting. I forgive Ian a bit only because of his youth and I understand Jamie's urge to try and protect Brianna, but still seemed rather uncharacteristic for Jamie not to stop and think things through a bit before acting. There's a great bit in Voyager where Claire gets really frightened because Jamie doesn't know what to do when Ian is kidnapped which really highlighted how Jamie rarely acts so impetuously. But, I've come to think that was maybe the point of it all. So much of Drums of Autumn is Jamie learning how to be a father to a grown woman instead of the little girl he never knew. It makes him a bit irrational to a certain degree.

 

I totally agree about them abandoning Roger in the middle of the wilderness, though. I get Jamie was upset over losing Ian--and just pissed and in a mood in general--so he wasn't thinking all that clearly, but how the hell was Roger supposed to even find his way back to the Ridge if he decided he wasn't a coward? Plus, I was actually more disappointed Claire didn't step up in that moment and say she wouldn't just leave Roger there. Jamie wouldn't ever abandon Claire and Claire know this. But, again, then the whole plot of what-shall-we-name-the-fatherless-child would fall apart right then and there. We can't have that now can we?

 

 

Because has Jamie been always so graceful with handling Claire in the past? I wouldn't say so and I really wouldn't expect him to be. But he really sort of abandoned her when she gave a birth to dead child in Paris. Of course he was obliged to his mission in Spain but another reason for not showing up earlier was that he didn't want to face Claire after her little "tryst" with the king. He even admitted to Claire that he had been going back and forth between Paris and Fontainebleu not really sure if he wants to reunite with her or not.

 

Wasn't he was imprisoned and thought her dead until after he returned from Spain and had a chance to talk with the nun?  I might not be remembering that right, though, because I found that whole section of Dragonfly in Amber so annoying--far more annoying than the stupidity of this book. Between Claire acting the martyr and Jamie acting the jealous fool...TBH, I didn't care much for Dragonfly In Amber until they returned to Lallybroch. All the French intrigue drove me just nuts and if I hadn't been curious how Jamie survived Culloden, I don't think I would've even started Voyager. That's the problem with these books...just when I'm out, I get sucked back in. ;)

[lianau]

Jamie is rather uncouth with regards to Brianna and Roger in this book. However, reflecting back on it now, I think I understand it better. I recently re-read the part of the book where Claire tells Jamie she thinks he's a good man and it got me to thinking of how Jamie seems to be trying to live up to label throughout the book. So, now I kind of see it as Jamie going a little out of his mind in the effort of trying to be someone he wasn't and so desperately wanted to be--Brianna's father. More often than not, he does seem to go about it wrong, in this book, though.

 

And it's important to mention that he's trying to be a father to an adult (a very young one but still) woman who was raised by someone for whom he has very conflicting feelings  and who was also raised in a century about which  he knows nothing but a few fairy tales.  And Brianna is nothing like Claire in that regard . She grew up with the pill , mini skirts and the civil rights movement while Claire was born a few weeks before the end of World War I.   

Edited November 10, 2015 by lianau

[WatchrTina]

 

he really sort of abandoned her when she gave a birth to dead child in Paris.

As I recall he was stuck in the Bastille and at first he believed Claire had died.  Then he found out she survived, but he was still stuck in the Bastille.  He doesn't get out until Claire offers herself to the King and then he waits a bit before approaching her because it's pretty clear she's not too interested in seeing him.  She knew he was going to be released but she didn't wait around for him at their Paris house.  That sent him a pretty clear signal that she didn't want to see him.  

 

Meanwhile, back on topic -- I'm going to have to re-read this book because I don't recall Jamie & Claire "leaving" Roger in the wilderness.  Doesn't Roger tell them to bugger off?  It's a really stupid thing for him to do but he and Jamie are both suffering from toxic levels of testosterone poisoning at this point so it I could just barely willfully suspend my disbelief at their shared bull-headedness.  Those two really are a match made in heaven in this book.  When they finally "step outside" and start throwing punches -- well, I just LOVE that moment.

Edited November 10, 2015 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

Meanwhile, back on topic -- I'm going to have to re-read this book because I don't recall Jamie & Claire "leaving" Roger in the wilderness.  Doesn't Roger tell them to bugger off?  It's a really stupid thing for him to do but he and Jamie are both suffering from toxic levels of testosterone poisoning at this point so it I could just barely willfully suspend my disbelief at their shared bull-headedness.  Those two really are a match made in heaven in this book.  When they finally "step outside" and start throwing punches -- well, I just LOVE that moment.

 

They had just dropped the whole "Stephen Bonnet raped Brianna while you were off doing God knows what and the kid may not be yours" bombshell on Roger. It was all of about five minutes after they had left Ian in the Mohawk village and right as they were all realizing that it was too late for Brianna to try to travel back through the stones, even with Roger's revelation that there's another circle somewhere nearby.  So everybody was already angry and keyed up when Roger couldn't immediately answer whether he'd stay and give up his entire life in the future for a child that might not be his.  Jamie took off at that point in a snit, leaving Roger to finally urge Claire to go after him and he'd catch up to them "if I can."

 

It's dumb on all counts and nobody comes out looking very good, but that's what the plot needs them all to do for it to work.

Edited November 10, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[DittyDotDot]

And it's important to mention that he's trying to be a father to an adult (a very young one but still) woman who was raised by someone for whom he has very conflicting feelings  and who was also raised in a century about which  he knows nothing but a few fairy tales.  And Brianna is nothing like Claire in that regard . She grew up with the pill , mini skirts and the civil rights movement while Claire was born a few weeks before the end of World War I.   

 

I also think Jamie feels he's in competition with Frank's memory and it drives him a bit crazy. He seems to have come to terms with his jealousy of Frank with regards to Claire, but Brianna still holds Frank so dear. I think a lot of what Jamie does is an overreaction of him trying to prove he is just as good of a father as Frank ever was. 

 

Meanwhile, back on topic -- I'm going to have to re-read this book because I don't recall Jamie & Claire "leaving" Roger in the wilderness.  Doesn't Roger tell them to bugger off?  It's a really stupid thing for him to do but he and Jamie are both suffering from toxic levels of testosterone poisoning at this point so it I could just barely willfully suspend my disbelief at their shared bull-headedness.  Those two really are a match made in heaven in this book.  When they finally "step outside" and start throwing punches -- well, I just LOVE that moment.

 

After they leave Snaketown, they set up camp and Roger starts asking questions and things are revealed about the stone circle he found and Claire determines there's not enough time for Brianna to go back through the circle and declares Bree must stay. Jamie haughtly points out that Roger doesn't have to stay though. Which leads Roger to declare he had no intention of leaving Bree and his child behind--which he only learned about the day before when he was still an Indian captive. Claire insists they tell Roger the truth about the rape and that the child may not be Roger's. Jamie then starts shouting about how Roger is a coward and Brianna getting raped was Roger's fault for running away and leaving Brianna unprotected. Roger tells them how he left Brianna to steal the stones so they could get safely back. It's really mostly Jamie in a fit--more angry at himself than anything, IMO--jumping to conclusions and making demands while Roger is just trying to wrap his head around all the things that got dropped on him in the span of two minutes. 

 

Anyway, Jamie then demands to know right then and there if Roger is going to stand by Brianna knowing the child might not be his and gets all pissy at Roger's hesitation. He hastily throws all Claire and Jamie's stuff on their horses and tells Roger to go back through the stones because his daughter doesn't need a coward. I don't believe Roger told them to bugger off--If I recall properly, Claire is hesitant to leave, and Roger does tell Claire it will be alright--I don't think it was in anger though, just more like he was in a bit of shock. So they left Roger in the wilderness with a horse and nothing else. 

 

Like I said, I get that Jamie was in a mood and wasn't thinking too clearly right then, but those are the times that Claire can sometimes step in and think for Jamie. But, if Claire had stepped up and forced Jamie to stay by saying she wouldn't go--which would've given Roger time to think and Jamie time to calm himself--then the final 1,000 pages wouldn't have been necessary. Heaven forbid!!! ;)

 

Actually, to be fair, what wouldn't have happened is Roger being given the time to make his own decision without being pressured by Jamie. It's in the same vein of Claire getting to make her own decision at the stones way back in Outlander. It's far better to know that Roger stayed of his own choice than feeling like he had none at all. That's the thing about Gabaldon's writing, sometimes the plot needed to get the characters somewhere is so convoluted and contrived, but the pay off generally feels right to me, in the end. 

 

 

As far as I recall he went to the hospital after being released from Bastille and talked to Hildegarde so he learnt what Claire did to haul him out of the prison. I think Claire left him a note there informing him where she is. Then he sailed to Spain. After coming back he was still torn whatever to see her or not - both because he felt guilty of their child's death and because of his jealousy and anger. I guess what I'm trying to say is that he would probably qualify as "coward" by DOA Jamie's standards ;-)) 

 

Ah, yes, I had forgotten he had went to Mother Hildegarde right after the Bastille. For some reason, I thought he thought she was dead until after he came back from Spain and went to the hospital then...your recollection does seem more right now though. 

 

It's funny that you point this out, because there was the time when Claire tells Jamie of her life with Frank. How she couldn't forget and how difficult it must have been for Frank knowing that she had loved Jamie. Supposing it might be easier for Roger because at least Brianna didn't love Bonnet. Jamie says he hopes Roger turns out to be a better man than both he and Frank. So, I do think Jamie gets it...when he's not raging, anyway.

[DittyDotDot]

I guess my problem with Jamie in DOA is that he really had no right to judge Roger so mercilessly, both because he really wronged him and because he was also "guilty" of the same or similiar things in the past - feeling lost, hurt, jealous, uncertain or simply screwing up as far as Claire was concerned.

 

I understand how you feel and I do agree. People don't always behave as they necessarily should, though. I don't particularly like how Jamie acts nor am I'm excusing it, but, at the same time I also understand where Jamie's coming from is all.

 

Jamie really does have this sense of morality that sometimes is fascinating and sometimes mind boggling. That's one of the things that make him such a well rounded character, I would not be interested in a bland hero. But in the back half of DOA I sometimes felt he has been replaced by his evil twin ;-))

 

It is a credit to Gabaldon, I guess, that she's willing to take her characters somewhere real even if it's also somewhere unpleasant. 

Edited November 10, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[nodorothyparker]

I'll admit I don't particularly love Jamie much throughout the back half of this book when he's screaming about Bree's maidenhead or when he's treating her like a commodity that has to be quickly married off to anyone who'll have her.  But some of that I think is deliberate, because while of course we know this is a book set in the 1760s, we get so used to thinking of Jamie as better educated and less superstitious, more modern thinking than most of his counterparts, the reality is that on some things he just isn't.  Claire says as much when Bree first asks how she thinks Jamie will take news of the pregnancy.  It amuses me to no end when she calls him old fashioned and then has to acknowledge that there's a very good reason for that.

 

Jamie's only known of Bree's existence as an actual person and not just a vague hope for a couple of years at this point.  He never expected to meet her.  She was raised in a place that might as well be a fairy tale to him by someone he's got good reason to be jealous of.  But then suddenly there she is and he immediately kicks into overdrive trying to be a father to a now adult woman who has extremely different social mores than he does.  Of course he's going to get a lot of it wrong.  He doesn't have the shared experience of raising her to draw on, and while he's obviously thrilled with having her there her presence brings his long simmering resentment and jealousy of Frank to the forefront.  (Because Bree does throw it in his face at one point that he's not Frank and that Frank would have understood.)  There's also been the assumption up through the pregnancy that she'd be going back through the stones eventually, so he's also had to make peace with the idea that this was the only time he would ever have with her.  The pregnancy with its promise of the family he's always been denied and Roger throw all of that up into the air.

 

None of this of course justifies him acting like a right ass through so much of the story.  But it does help give it some context other than well, that's what the plot needs to be to get us from A to B.  All of this said, I'll never not hate the Three's Company style misunderstanding that sets the whole mess in motion.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I also don't think Jamie at 22 or 23, judging Jenny for what he thinks his her keeping Black Jack's bastard is comparable to him at 57? I think, telling Claire he would accept a child as his own as a result of her rape. There's about over 30 years of life, experience and maturing that took place.

 

And Jamie, for all his being an educated man, is a man of his times, so I'm not going to side-eye him for what he said, though I oculd have done without the talk of Bree's maidenhead; there's also the fact that Bree didn't say she was raped by Bonnet to Jamie--all Jamie and Wee Ian knew, was that she was pregnant and that she had been raped? It's all a blur to me. And the whole Wakefield and MacKenzie thing, and since Jamie pretty much raised Wee Ian, I have no problems with Jamie's attitude toward Roger.  

 

But I've already posted my thoughts so won't repeat myself, as it would just be redundant.

[WatchrTina]

 

Jamie really does have this sense of morality that sometimes is fascinating and sometimes mind boggling. That's one of the things that make him such a well rounded character, I would not be interested in a bland hero. But in the back half of DOA I sometimes felt he has been replaced by his evil twin ;-))

This is what we need to remind people of whenever someone says Jamie "King of Men" Fraser is too good to be true or is a "Marty Stu" character.  This is the book where he makes a really bad decision and inadvertently hurts several members of his family.  I give Jamie a pass on ditching Roger in the woods because at that point is just so unhappy about all that has happened, he's likely to explode in a dangerous way if he doesn't put some distance between him and Roger (who, let's face it, he blames from Brianna's rape and everything that followed.)  I can also fan-wank that the discovery of Brianna's rape has awakened in Jamie a memory of his own failure to protect Claire from her would-be rapist in the meadow right after their wedding.  And as much as he is furious at Roger for not staying with Brianna once he found her, he must also recollect that Claire ended up in Black Jack's clutches and was nearly raped because he forced her to stay alone in that glade after she begged him not to leave her there.  Yeah, Jamie's having all kinds of hot-button moments during this episode. I forgive him. It makes him a much more interesting character.

Edited November 11, 2015 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

Also , he helped Bonnet escape ,  blaming Roger so he doesn't have to look at himself .

[DittyDotDot]

Also , he helped Bonnet escape ,  blaming Roger so he doesn't have to look at himself .

 

Yeah, I think Jamie is actually just mad at himself, more than anything--not just for Bonnet, but I think it goes all the way back to him trying to free himself from Laoghaire by using someone else's treasure to his own benefit and getting wee Ian kidnapped--but doesn't want to admit it five minutes after they leave wee Ian in Snaketown. I think Jamie well knows it's not really Roger's fault, it's just far easier to blame this random guy who deflowered his "little" girl in that moment. 

[ulkis]

I also don't think Jamie at 22 or 23, judging Jenny for what he thinks his her keeping Black Jack's bastard is comparable to him at 57? I think, telling Claire he would accept a child as his own as a result of her rape.

Did he think Claire would get pregnant at 62?? Or did I misunderstand the quote?

[DittyDotDot]

Did he think Claire would get pregnant at 62?? Or did I misunderstand the quote?

 

I think the comment was referring to the conversation Jamie and Claire has after Brianna tells Jamie about the baby and the rape. Jamie is wondering if Roger will stand by Brianna and Claire poses a hypothetical question to Jamie if the same had happened to her, would he. So, no, he's not concerned about Claire actually getting pregnant, in that moment.

 

ETA: Jamie's actually not 57 in that scene, but more like 47. He turns 50 in The Fiery Cross.

Edited November 22, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[ulkis]

ETA: Jamie's actually not 57 in that scene, but more like 47. He turns 50 in The Fiery Cross.

 

Thanks DittyDot. I appreciate you answering all the random questions I'm throwing out this weekend. :)

[DittyDotDot]

Am I? Ah, weel, glad to be of some service. ;)

[Andorra]

I just finished rereading "Drums in Autumn". It's such difficult book for me. Some parts are really nice, where Claire and Jamie settle at the Ridge. It has almost a  "little house in the Prarie" feeling. I love how they spend their first winter there and the story where Jamie goes hunting and hurts his back? These are great chapters. 

 

But Brianna... urgh. I hated her even more on second read. She is so stupid, sorry! So immature, stubborn, spoilt... she got on my nerves in almost every chapter that she was in. 

 

And then the giving Roger to the Mohawks part was so annoying, too. I could have slapped Brianna, Jamie, Roger and Ian. All four behaved totally foolish. I hate it when people simply and stupidly don't talk and that's the reason for terrible misunderstandings. It's such an awful way of storytelling. 

 

But then in the end it became beautiful again. I loved the ending at the Gathering.

 

Now on to the "Fiery cross". 

Edited March 15, 2016 by Andorra

[morgan]

I absolutely love the bookends in Drums with the Highland Games calling of the clans and the end of the book calling of the clans. I know a lot of people are not Bree//Roger fans but I love them. I agree so much frustration with lack of communication. So much could have been avoided.

Edited March 15, 2016 by morgan

[lovetowrite73]

Brianna's exclamation (at the port in Inverness) that she was born in America...stupid, stupid Bree. Seriously.

[Keeta]

I'm in the middle of a re-read (first one in a while... maybe only my second time ever), and nearing the end of the book. It's interesting that my impression has been that the first 2/3 or so was fairly smooth sailing (no pun intended) with nothing super crazy happening -- grading on an Outlander scale of crazy, of course. The super crazy thing taking it over the top being the misunderstanding about MacKenzie = Roger Wakefield, and not Brianna's rapist... hoo boy. (The conversation/fight with Roger, Jamie, and Ian in the clearing is so ridiculous. "I've come to claim my wife", Roger? Really, that's the line you're going with?) But until then, it's a lot of "just living life" scenes, though of course exaggerated beyond what would happen in an average person's life. Yes, Brianna going through the stones without telling Roger and all that is very dramatic, but it felt like a natural extension of character and events in a way that the MacKenzie fiasco doesn't. And making the move to the Ridge and settling in there is all really lovely, not to mention Jamie and Brianna getting to know each other (and Claire observing, knowing them both so well). 

Another interesting takeaway for me on this read is how conservative Roger comes across in certain parts. His relationship with Brianna seems very much about him a lot of the time: HE'S being virtuous and deciding they shouldn't have sex; HE'S deciding to withhold devastating information about her parents; HE'S telling her how to dress in the past (ok, he may have a point there...). I can't remember if I felt this way the last time I read DOA. I still like the guy, and a lot of these things mainly serve to drive the plot. Plus men in the 1960s (heck, many in 2016...) still had a lot to learn about feminism. :)

[toolazy]

I blame Brianna almost exclusively for the Jamie/Ian/Roger fiasco.  If she would have just told her parents that she was handfasted with Roger and had been raped by Bonnet, end of problem.  Roger Mac doesn't get beaten, Ian doesn't go to the Indians, etc.  This is the point in the books that I begin to actively hate her. 

[Keeta]

I blame Diana, actually. ;)

[pootlus]

I finished this book a week or so ago and am half way through The Fiery Cross...and to be honest, some parts are becoming a bit of a chore.

Those parts being those featuring Brianna/Roger. Brianna I can endure, she's not really a character in her own right, and the constant descriptions of her are really annoying. Yes, I know she's tall, I know she's got thick eyebrows. And the meeting with Jamie/reunion with Claire scenes mean that she gets a bit of slack.

But I really cannot stand Roger, the man from the twentieth century who somehow manages to be much more of a colossal misogynist jerk than the man born in the eighteenth. I found myself hoping he'd drown, then that Jamie did actually kill him, then get gutted by Indians, die of exposure in the wilderness...but he's got more lives than a cat. And now because of Bree's baby I have to endure the pair of them because (for reasons that I'm still not clear on) they can't go back through the stones. Their sex scenes (or thoughts of lust for each other) just seem nauseatingly bad for some reason.

It's a shame because I loved the parts about the settlement (hope that Jamie and Claire get rich in their old age so that the privation is worth it).  I just wish that the series would get back to what made it so good - Jamie and Claire - and stop giving me Bree and Roger's POV that I'm not interested in.

So my question is to my fellow book nerds going forward - will I miss anything important skipping or skimming the Roger/Bree POV chapters?

Edit: they do have one benefit. I can now put down the books (well, my tablet) at night. "Roger POV chapter? Oh, look at the time."

Edited August 27, 2016 by pootlus

[katville]

11 minutes ago, pootlus said:

I finished this book a week or so ago and am half way through The Fiery Cross...and to be honest, some parts are becoming a bit of a chore.

Those parts being those featuring Brianna/Roger. Brianna I can endure, she's not really a character in her own right, and the constant descriptions of her are really annoying. Yes, I know she's tall, I know she's got thick eyebrows. And the meeting with Jamie/reunion with Claire scenes mean that she gets a bit of slack.

But I really cannot stand Roger, the man from the twentieth century who somehow manages to be much more of a colossal misogynist jerk than the man born in the eighteenth. I found myself hoping he'd drown, then that Jamie did actually kill him, then get gutted by Indians, die of exposure in the wilderness...but he's got more lives than a cat. And now because of Bree's baby I have to endure the pair of them because (for reasons that I'm still not clear on) they can't go back through the stones. Their sex scenes (or thoughts of lust for each other) just seem nauseatingly bad for some reason.

It's a shame because I loved the parts about the settlement (hope that Jamie and Claire get rich in their old age so that the privation is worth it).  I just wish that the series would get back to what made it so good - Jamie and Claire - and stop giving me Bree and Roger's POV that I'm not interested in.

So my question is to my fellow book nerds going forward - will I miss anything important skipping or skimming the Roger/Bree POV chapters?

Edit: they do have one benefit. I can now put down the books (well, my tablet) at night. "Roger POV chapter? Oh, look at the time."

I am right there with you. I honestly skipped over a majority of the Bree/Roger parts in both DOA and TFC. Then once I got to BOSAA (of which I am halfway thru and have found it a much, much better book) I started worrying that I might have missed something essential in the skimming. Not because I care anything about Roger or to a lesser degree Bree, but that I might have missed an interesting tidbit about Jamie and Claire. One of the things I like the most about these series -- and probably what keeps me coming back -- is how Galbadon calls back to the earlier books and fills in more details to the pivotal moments, ie. Wentworth, Culloden, etc. 

But, if I missed it, so be it. I don't think I can make myself slog through R/B sex scenes just to catch a Claire or Jamie anecdote. I really question the wisdom of having large chunks of the book from Roger and Bree's POV. I wonder if they would be better novels if they were cut out and each book shorter.

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, pootlus said:

So my question is to my fellow book nerds going forward - will I miss anything important skipping or skimming the Roger/Bree POV chapters?

It depends on the chapter, I guess. Sometimes they're just character beats and sometimes they're actual plot relevant bits. One thing about Diana's writing, though, you never can tell what's going to be relevant later. Sometimes the most seemingly mundane and pointless thing will become very important later. 

Glass half full: I think Drums of Autumn is the hardest to get through with regards to Bree and Roger, and you already made it! Glass half empty: As the story goes on, their part to play will become more and more relevant to the overall story and skipping their chapters might not be as easy.

While I never really minded Bree or Roger, in all honesty, I too kinda found them rather superfluous until the middle-to-end of The Fiery Cross. It's funny you're having a harder time with Roger than Bree because I was just the opposite. IMO, Bree is a very thin character and I didn't start to really feel her until book 7 or 8. Roger, on the other hand, I could always sense who he was as a character.

Bree and Roger, as a couple, hasn't really wowed me though. I mean, I just don't feel the draw they have like I feel it with Claire and Jamie. Looking back, though, I think that's kinda the point. Roger and Bree are more a typical married couple whereas Jamie and Claire are more a idealized and almost fantasy. I think they provide an interesting contrast at times.

24 minutes ago, pootlus said:

And now because of Bree's baby I have to endure the pair of them because (for reasons that I'm still not clear on) they can't go back through the stones.

Technically, they can go back, but they don't yet know if the baby can travel so they choose to stay. Basically they choose not either kill the kid by trying to take him through the stones or abandon him to a wilderness so they can return to a more hospitable time. 

[katville]

I will say that I do like the time travel parts of the book. And I know that as the characters age, it probably would not work to focus on J + C solely as some of the more adventurous parts of the story don't really work when they are in their late 50s/60s. I did read a review awhile back from someone who hated that they were older because they felt that the sex scenes between two older people were unrealistic and unpalatable. That kinda pissed me off. I am only in my thirties, but I would like to believe that people can have a satisfying sex life well into old age. Especially Jamie and Claire who are still healthy and active. I do wonder how the show will fare with the change of perspective and older characters of the later books.

[DittyDotDot]

22 minutes ago, katville said:

I will say that I do like the time travel parts of the book. And I know that as the characters age, it probably would not work to focus on J + C solely as some of the more adventurous parts of the story don't really work when they are in their late 50s/60s. I did read a review awhile back from someone who hated that they were older because they felt that the sex scenes between two older people were unrealistic and unpalatable. That kinda pissed me off. I am only in my thirties, but I would like to believe that people can have a satisfying sex life well into old age. Especially Jamie and Claire who are still healthy and active. I do wonder how the show will fare with the change of perspective and older characters of the later books.

That's a good question. I hope it fares well because personally, one of the things I loved about the series is Claire and Jamie aging and growing older together. Their sex life actually becomes more realistic to me over the course of the series. 

[pootlus]

Thanks for the replies - I'll endeavour to try and like Bree & Roger a bit more. Sigh.

Still skipping their sex scenes though, they squick me out completely for some reason.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, pootlus said:

Thanks for the replies - I'll endeavour to try and like Bree & Roger a bit more. Sigh.

Still skipping their sex scenes though, they squick me out completely for some reason.

Why should you try to like them if you dinna? I couldna stand Bree from the moment I met her, and I still dinna. Roger? Well, he sort of grew on me.

[pootlus]

13 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Why should you try to like them if you dinna? I couldna stand Bree from the moment I met her, and I still dinna. Roger? Well, he sort of grew on me.

Well if their chapters are important in later books, I should try and at least tolerate them or I might as well not read the books, and I'd miss what happened to Claire, Jamie, Fergus, Jenny, etc.

[GHScorpiosRule]

47 minutes ago, pootlus said:

Well if their chapters are important in later books, I should try and at least tolerate them or I might as well not read the books, and I'd miss what happened to Claire, Jamie, Fergus, Jenny, etc.

Aye, but ye dinna have tae like them tae not lose information aboot Jamie and Claire. I did a LOT of skimming m'self, whenever it was their sex scenes and wot not. And because it's well known I'm not a fan of Diana's writing, a LOT of skimming of stuff that I dinna find interesting. I made sure tae read dialogue though and Claire and Jamie's POV. I think I've done okay. And if I missed something in my skimming, I've always asked the people here, and they've been more than helpful. And if I felt like it, I would go back tae read, but that didn't happen/I dinna find it necessary.

But that's just me.

[Dejana]

My feelings about characters have changed over time. I like John at the moment and he used to get on my nerves. Bree used to be a brat to me and a collection of feistiness and girl power traits rather than an actual character, but once I started viewing her DoA story as a massive idiot plot her behavior in the books aside from that seemed reasonable enough. Roger's internal commentary on gender roles stands out a lot more than it had in previous reads, though it's good to be reminded that people from modern times aren't always totally enlightened.

[toolazy]

Also remember that Roger is from 1968, not from 2016.  While feminism was definitely on the upswing, it was definitely something new, especially considering that he's a minister's child who spent his life in a relatively small, conservative town.  Women's lib was definitely something that took society some time to get used to.  

[MarieT]

I had admired that the characters throughout all the books would take responsibility for their actions; then comes Brianna (groan).   Even after Roger apologized for not telling Brianna that he had found the death noice, there's no apology for Brianna having kept secret that she found the death notice.  Or for Brianna having kept secret that she was going through the stones.  Or for Brianna having kept secret that she was hand fastted to Roger.  Or for Brianna having kept secret that she was raped.  Or for Brianna having kept secret that she was pregnant.  All of Roger's monumental suffering is due to Brianna's lies by omission and yet she takes no responsibility, offers no apologies, shows no remorse, and even holds Roger at arms length until HE proves himself to her yet again. Everyone apologized to Roger (Jamie, Ian, Lizzie) except Brianna and it was all her fault!  Perhaps other readers would have more respect for Roger if his wife did.  The foundation of the Jamie Claire romance is honesty and Drums of Autumn is all about deceit. 

[WatchrTina]

I listened to the first third of this book as I drove back and forth to visit family over the holidays.  It's been a while since I read it so it was fun to discover it anew.  Certain scenes were burned into my memory of course:  the hanging/burial/discovery of Stephen Bonnet that kicks things off -- the robbery on the barge when Bonnet enters their life a second time -- Jamie meeting Jocasta -- and the episode where Jamie falls and hurts his back while out hunting in the snow (that's where I stopped.)  But many scenes I had forgotten completely.  Boy there's a lot of sex in this book (including naked sweaty sex on a riverbank.)  I'm betting THAT won't be in the TV show.  I'm also betting that the scene where Claire repairs a hernia by operating on a man's "taint" during a dinner party also won't be filmed.  And the violence that happens in and around the turpentine "factory" on Jocasta's land is breathtakingly awful.  But there was one thing I did take comfort in.  I had not recalled how much time young Ian spends in the company of indians in the first part of this book.  He accompany's the mountain man to deliver the runaway abortionist slave to the Tuscarora indians (after Jamie & company smuggle her out of harm's way.)  He goes off hunting with them many times during that first winter on the Ridge.  I noticed it because, of course, I know what's coming.  It makes Ian's decision to stay with the Mohawks -- another member of the "Six Nations" -- later in the book slightly less heart-breaking.

I'm so happy the show will make it to book 4.  It's going to be a great ride.

Edited January 7, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Petunia846]

I don't know, I get a sense that that riverbank scene is a particularly popular one with book fans. They may keep it in for that.

[toolazy]

I don't even know what riverbank scene y'all are talking about and I've read that book about five times.  

[WatchrTina]

It comes after they've been on the road for a while but before they book passage on the barge to Jocasta's place.  Everybody is hot and sweaty and when they get to a river and stop for the evening Claire goes off by herself to bathe.  Then she gets to feeling sexy and starts pleasuring herself while lying naked on a hot, flat rock at the river's edge.  Cue the sudden appearance of Jamie, standing naked in the river -- water just up to his thighs -- who has apparently been watching with interest and some surprise, having not known that women did that sort of thing.  They fuck.

It's not a favorite scene of mine because I spend the whole time worried that someone who is NOT Jamie may stumble upon Claire and things could turn dark REALLY fast.  Diana scares us once when Rollo (the dog) turns up -- he's just fishing for his dinner -- but it heightens the sense that Claire is quite vulnerable lying there.  So yeah, not a favorite scene.

I much prefer the descriptions of Jamie and Claire, alone in their wee cabin (because Ian has gone off hunting with the Indians), passing the long night by going to bed at sunset and lying entangled with one another in their feather bed (a gift from Jocasta) catching up on the 20 years they spent apart.  I just LOVE those passages.  But alas, it's the quiet moments like that that have been cut from past seasons due to having to get through a LOT of plot in only 13 episodes.  But I will cheerfully pass on the riverbank sex (which would be hard to film without Sam & Cait having to be placed in a very uncomfortable situation) for a few minutes of fire-lit pillow-talk in a featherbed in a snug, warm, cozy cabin.

Oooh I've just had a thought.  In the book, after Jamie falls and hurts his back and Claire is trying to keep them both awake in their make-shift shelter until it feels warm enough inside for them to fall asleep without freezing to death, she tells him Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol from memory.  She can do it because she and Frank used to read it to Brianna each year.  But it also makes her recollect having told the story to comfort Brianna when the three of them had to spend a night in a car in a ditch after sliding off the road in a snow-storm.  We know Ron Moore loves Frank, loves Tobias Menzies, and is eager to use him as much as possible in season 3.  I'll bet the flashback to the car incident WILL be filmed.  And I'll bet a lot of Jamie loyalists will just HATE it.  We'll see.  Oooh, so much to look forward to.

Edited January 7, 2017 by WatchrTina

[auntlada]

I don't like the riverbank scene because it doesn't really move the story forward any. It seems as though it is just there for the sex. I'm not against sex in books (obviously, or I wouldn't like these) but I don't read them just for the sex, if you know what I mean. I don't really want unnecessary (not the word I want, but I can't think of the word I want) sex scenes. I want story. (The word I want is related to when filmmakers throw sex and violence into a movie so people will go see it. I think these books don't need that.)

[morgan]

Ok, sensing another re-read in my future!  I agree I was nervous for Claire on the riverbank.  Also the cabin scene/Christmas carol I don't remember at all so def need to re-explore that.

[Clawdette]

Gratuitous, auntlada?  

[auntlada]

39 minutes ago, Clawdette said:

Gratuitous, auntlada?  

Thank you. That's the word I wanted, and it had just gone completely away. All I could think of was prurient, which could fit, but wasn't quite what I meant.

[WatchrTina]

I have to agree.   That scene felt gratuitous.  As I listened to the audio book while driving, every time they got to a sex scene in book 4 I found myself getting impatient and wanting to fast-forward to where the "story" re-started.  And I say that as someone who LOVED the wedding night scene (which, let's face it, goes on forever in book 1) and really loved the hot, urgent, post-battle sex after they chased off the cattle raiders in book 1 (such a shame that it was way too explicit to make it into the TV show.)  I'm glad Jamie & Claire have great sex.  There are scenes in other books that I really look forward to seeing on screen, including the one involving turtle soup in book 3 and some frantic, up-against-the-wall-OMG-this-is-the-first-time-we've-been-alone-in-weeks sex when they get caught up in the American Revolution.  Oh and there is a great scene in book 5 (I think) that I won't go into because this is the book 4 thread but let's just say the first bath after the spring thaw has an inspiring effect on people who've been living way too close to a bunch of other people all winter long.

The whole beginning of Book 4 felt slow to me as I listened to it on my drive.  I enjoyed it but it felt slow.  That's actually going to be good news when it comes time to film it.  It means they can cut out quite a bit (which they must do) without losing anything essential.

Edited January 7, 2017 by WatchrTina