Book 4: Drums of Autumn

[SassAndSnacks]

3 hours ago, toolazy said:

It is the setting for one of the most grievous geographical coincidences in the entire series. 

This is really the most astute description to ever describe that situation. 

[Cdh20]

9 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be spoilery for you.  You might really enjoy it!!

I just hate the whole Geneva plotline, so I refuse to read it.  Helwater is my...

...I just absolutely loathe and hate it.  I actually have a physical reaction to even discussing/thinking about.  This probably means I'm far too invested in this story, but it is what it is.  

Oh my goodness, YES!  I just read this two weeks ago and complained about on this very forum!  Clearly, I repressed those painful memories.  Yes, Outlanders of the Caribbean, not my fave.  

If I was too worried about spoilers you wouldn’t find me in any book threads, haha! 

I will not make you talk about Helwater again, it doesn’t belong in this book/ topic anyway. (And it’s the show version I love anyhow.) 

i love that Diana created these wonderful characters, but I do not love ALL of these books, only bits & pieces.

[SassAndSnacks]

On 6/11/2020 at 7:45 PM, Cdh20 said:

I will not make you talk about Helwater again, it doesn’t belong in this book/ topic anyway. (And it’s the show version I love anyhow.) 

i love that Diana created these wonderful characters, but I do not love ALL of these books, only bits & pieces.

Oh, I'll talk about it, but my language will be filthy, and I'll probably get red in the face and gesture a lot.  I appreciate the show's telling of it, I just don't care for the plotline.

Agree with your point above completely.  I have so much respect for her creativity and talent in conveying the story.  I don't always care for where she is headed sometimes (or even where she ends up), but I really appreciate the amount of effort and care she puts into it.  And of course, I love the story as a whole and some parts a lot more than others.  

[SassAndSnacks]

Ok, so I finished this one yesterday, and ugh, the end was such a frenzy.  Why are the ends of these books always such a frenzy?

I broke my "No Skipping, No Skimming" rule AGAIN and totally skimmed the whole section where Bree blackmails LJG into an engagement and then the entire section of her with Bonnet in the warehouse.  I want to like her.  I want to like her SO badly.  I just can't like her.  

I also mistakenly thought the book ended with Roger coming back to her at River Run (thanks for toying with my memory, Show), but no...there's a whole lot more to the book after Roger returns.  I like Claire's very blunt conversation with Roger regarding the reproductive experiences that Bree has had - losing her virginity, rape, and then birth.  So no, Rog, I don't think she wants to hop right into bed with you, no matter how badly your balls are aching.  Plus, your foot is infected and apparently stinks to high Heaven and so does the rest of you.  So there...

And still the book doesn't end.  Then we actually head to the Gathering at Mount Helicon, which again, I mistakenly thought it all happened in Book 5, but no.  Roger recites the letter that he found, which was from Frank to the Reverend, where Frank confesses to keeping the knowledge about Jamie surviving Culloden from Claire.  "But hey, it's all ok Rev., right?  Because I had you put up that fake gravestone that Claire will surely find SOME DAY...maybe...hopefully....if she just happens to go to Scotland and then somehow stumbles into that particular Kirkyard, and then she'll know for herself that Jamie didn't die at Culloden like I've let her believe for decades.  And she won't feel at all bad about having missed out on having a life with him. Not at all, because we have such a great thing going on here."  I fucking loathe Frank.  LOATHE him.  I don't care how great a father he was to Bree, he's an ass.  Whenever I start to have soft feelings for him (ha!), I'm going to go back and re-read this chapter just to remember clearly what an asshole he truly was.  What a jealous prick.  Gah!

As if it wasn't clear before, TEAM JAMIE.  (Do people still say that or am I dating myself?)

[Ziggy]

20 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I fucking loathe Frank.  LOATHE him.  I don't care how great a father he was to Bree, he's an ass.  Whenever I start to have soft feelings for him (ha!), I'm going to go back and re-read this chapter just to remember clearly what an asshole he truly was.  What a jealous prick.  Gah!

It's so frustrating when non-book readers say, "Why are you (book readers) so hard on Frank?" 

I think Frank and Claire's marriage would have failed, eventually, even without a trip through the stones.  Claire's not an idiot, and they were never going to be happy together.  Claire has her faults, but really, she's too good for Frank.

[Cdh20]

40 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Ok, so I finished this one yesterday, and ugh, the end was such a frenzy.  Why are the ends of these books always such a frenzy?

I broke my "No Skipping, No Skimming" rule AGAIN and totally skimmed the whole section where Bree blackmails LJG into an engagement and then the entire section of her with Bonnet in the warehouse.  I want to like her.  I want to like her SO badly.  I just can't like her.  

I also mistakenly thought the book ended with Roger coming back to her at River Run (thanks for toying with my memory, Show), but no...there's a whole lot more to the book after Roger returns.  I like Claire's very blunt conversation with Roger regarding the reproductive experiences that Bree has had - losing her virginity, rape, and then birth.  So no, Rog, I don't think she wants to hop right into bed with you, no matter how badly your balls are aching.  Plus, your foot is infected and apparently stinks to high Heaven and so does the rest of you.  So there...

And still the book doesn't end.  Then we actually head to the Gathering at Mount Helicon, which again, I mistakenly thought it all happened in Book 5, but no.  Roger recites the letter that he found, which was from Frank to the Reverend, where Frank confesses to keeping the knowledge about Jamie surviving Culloden from Claire.  "But hey, it's all ok Rev., right?  Because I had you put up that fake gravestone that Claire will surely find SOME DAY...maybe...hopefully....if she just happens to go to Scotland and then somehow stumbles into that particular Kirkyard, and then she'll know for herself that Jamie didn't die at Culloden like I've let her believe for decades.  And she won't feel at all bad about having missed out on having a life with him. Not at all, because we have such a great thing going on here."  I fucking loathe Frank.  LOATHE him.  I don't care how great a father he was to Bree, he's an ass.  Whenever I start to have soft feelings for him (ha!), I'm going to go back and re-read this chapter just to remember clearly what an asshole he truly was.  What a jealous prick.  Gah!

As if it wasn't clear before, TEAM JAMIE.  (Do people still say that or am I dating myself?)

Is anyone not team Jamie?? Even my husband who feels so sorry for Frank, is team Jamie!! 

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

Is anyone not team Jamie?? Even my husband who feels so sorry for Frank, is team Jamie!! 

Non-buik readers based on what I've read.

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

  Then we actually head to the Gathering at Mount Helicon, which again, I mistakenly thought it all happened in Book 5, but no. 

Bad news.  It's also in Book 5. 

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Non-buik readers based on what I've read.

Yeah, I've run across people who are all Team Frank and I don't get it.  

[SassAndSnacks]

2 hours ago, Ziggy said:

I think Frank and Claire's marriage would have failed, eventually, even without a trip through the stones.  Claire's not an idiot, and they were never going to be happy together.  Claire has her faults, but really, she's too good for Frank.

I wish there was an icon higher than “love” because that’s how strongly adore your comment. And yes, they were doomed. You can clearly see it at the beginning of Book 1 when he accuses her of cheating on him even though she repeatedly denies it. Projecting much there Frank?

34 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Bad news.  It's also in Book 5. 

I’ve already gone through “The Longest Day Ever” twice, and yesterday, I started it for a third. I can do this, I can do this...

36 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Yeah, I've run across people who are all Team Frank and I don't get it.  

Misguided. They’re definitely misguided. Probably by Ron Moore’s interpretation. Pfft.

[nodorothyparker]

My husband's Team Frank, as are a few of the guys I know of who at the very least started out watching this to humor their wives/partners.  He find it highly convenient that Claire gets to have a husband in each time period who nonetheless can never also travel to face each other.  That Frank gamely stiff upper lips it through Claire showing back up after a nearly three-year absence with someone else's kid and what has to sound like a highly far-fetched story about her One True Love that isn't him to raise that child also goes a pretty long way, I think.  He hasn't read the books and doesn't particularly care beyond that.  Luckily, most of his takes on this series are pretty funny and the ones that aren't really aren't worth arguing about.

3 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

"But hey, it's all ok Rev., right?  Because I had you put up that fake gravestone that Claire will surely find SOME DAY...maybe...hopefully....if she just happens to go to Scotland and then somehow stumbles into that particular Kirkyard, and then she'll know for herself that Jamie didn't die at Culloden like I've let her believe for decades.  And she won't feel at all bad about having missed out on having a life with him. Not at all, because we have such a great thing going on here." 

Even coming in the same book as the Great Misunderstanding, this just kind of boggles.  Well, gee, I could maybe leave her a letter if I'm not inclined to just come out and tell her the truth like a normal person.  Or, or I could have an entirely third party plant a fake gravestone in some out of the way place on the off chance she sees it and then the same woman who's never shown much interest in the history that I've made my life's work will surely deduce what it means and set off on a historical discovery tour of a country she doesn't live in with yet another third party.  Why, that's perfectly logical and not convoluted or flat out insane at all.

All that said, I do kind of enjoy Jamie's very dry reaction to all of this.  But really, what can he even say at that point?  Frank's dead in both timelines and has gotten his final word in.

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

 

Misguided. They’re definitely misguided. Probably by Ron Moore’s interpretation. Pfft.

And all because Ron Moore like working with Tobias Menzies.

[SassAndSnacks]

2 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Even coming in the same book as the Great Misunderstanding, this just kind of boggles.  Well, gee, I could maybe leave her a letter if I'm not inclined to just come out and tell her the truth like a normal person.  Or, or I could have an entirely third party plant a fake gravestone in some out of the way place on the off chance she sees it and then the same woman who's never shown much interest in the history that I've made my life's work will surely deduce what it means and set off on a historical discovery tour of a country she doesn't live in with yet another third party.  Why, that's perfectly logical and not convoluted or flat out insane at all.

All that said, I do kind of enjoy Jamie's very dry reaction to all of this.  But really, what can he even say at that point?  Frank's dead in both timelines and has gotten his final word in.

A third party who just so happened to also be a historian well-versed in Jacobite history with access to multiple resources for uncovering information. I mean, this was 1968, they weren’t pulling up articles on their phones. He was mailing things to people and receiving mail back. It took time. AND it was all basically a duplication of the work that Frank had already done. So much wasted time.

He’s a complete and total ass. 

One of my favorite veins running through this book is the slow unveiling to Jamie that Claire also struggled when they were apart. Yes, she was fed, had a roof over her head, was able to pursue a fulfilling career, and wasn’t constantly trying to be killed, but she was lonely, lost, guilt-stricken, and stuck in a loveless marriage with someone who repeatedly lied to her on multiple fronts. She was living half a life just as he was.  

Jamie, emotionally intelligent guy that he is, grasps that, and I think that has a lot to do with his reaction to the letter. I also think it allays some fears that he still harbored from The Great Misunderstanding that Frank was a better father and husband than he was. 

[Cdh20]

I am going to jump in here & say that I don’t hate any of the characters, not  Frank or  Laoghaire or Geneva, probably because I saw the show first. Well maybe I hate BlackJack Randall a bit. 

[Dejana]

On 6/15/2020 at 11:56 PM, Cdh20 said:

I am going to jump in here & say that I don’t hate any of the characters, not  Frank or  Laoghaire or Geneva, probably because I saw the show first. Well maybe I hate BlackJack Randall a bit. 

I read the books first, but as the books went on, it was easier to see Gabaldon's heavy hand in how she painted the "obstacles" to Jamie and Claire. Her writing makes it so that Jamie has to be coerced or cajoled into sex with anyone besides Claire. When he marries another woman, it's under pressure from his sister and false pretenses (he never would have married Laoghaire if he'd known her full role in the trial). Frank seemingly cheats with a string of (younger) women and is a racist, too! A lot of white people born circa 1902* were, granted, but it seemed more like Diana wanted Frank to be really unlikable right before he died, all the better to make Claire more sympathetic and justified for spending years emotionally checked out of a marriage she chose to continue.

I think Frank's plan with the gravestone is beyond convoluted but withholding the knowledge that Jamie survived Culloden? The wrong choice but one many men in his shoes would make, if he thought she'd leave forever and take the child with her. The story would be boring if everyone did the right thing.

 

Book Roger reminded me in some ways of "Meathead" from All in the Family: a progressive with some chauvinistic tendencies. The modern book characters generally acted like people born in 1918 or the 1940s, even if they did unconventional things sometimes, while the show wants to smooth them out so they're "relatable" to contemporary viewers. That approach runs into problems when the story says Roger has lingering hangups about Bree being raped, or the modern characters interact with enslaved people and slaveholders without personally doing much to eradicate the institution on a societal level. That would not have been an expectation from a 1990s romantic sci-fi/fantasy novel but the show is being made in a different time. I wonder if people who see the show first go into the books expecting the characters to be more enlightened and are disappointed when that's not the case. 

 

*The books allude to a sizable age difference between Frank and Claire, and they married when she was 18. The show completely omitted this dynamic, or any sign that Claire/Frank might have been wrong for each other, even without the time travel.

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, Dejana said:

 Frank seemingly cheats with a string of (younger) women and is a racist, too! A lot of white people born circa 1902* were, granted, but it seemed more like Diana wanted Frank to be really unlikable right before he died, all the better to make Claire more sympathetic and justified for spending years emotionally checked out of a marriage she chose to continue.

n without the time travel.

 

Weirdly, Diana Gabaldon claims that it is not definitive in the books that Frank cheated. That she left it ambiguous.  I mean, that might be how she remembers it but it is not ambiguous. There is evidence in the text that he cheated such that it erases any benefit of the doubt.

And for some reason it really bugs me that she keeps saying it. 

[Dejana]

31 minutes ago, toolazy said:

 

Weirdly, Diana Gabaldon claims that it is not definitive in the books that Frank cheated. That she left it ambiguous.  I mean, that might be how she remembers it but it is not ambiguous. There is evidence in the text that he cheated such that it erases any benefit of the doubt.

And for some reason it really bugs me that she keeps saying it. 

I think that when Gabaldon originally wrote Voyager, she had Frank in mind as a cheater. Now, with many more books and years behind her and Frank fans in the fold, she's teasing some sort of retcon: "He wasn't cheating-he was off being a government spy investigating time travelers!" Or something to tie into the larger story, I'll bet. 

[Kim0820]

18 hours ago, Dejana said:

I read the books first, but as the books went on, it was easier to see Gabaldon's heavy hand in how she painted the "obstacles" to Jamie and Claire. Her writing makes it so that Jamie has to be coerced or cajoled into sex with anyone besides Claire. When he marries another woman, it's under pressure from his sister and false pretenses (he never would have married Laoghaire if he'd known her full role in the trial). 

I think Frank's plan with the gravestone is beyond convoluted but withholding the knowledge that Jamie survived Culloden? The wrong choice but one many men in his shoes would make, if he thought she'd leave forever and take the child with her. The story would be boring if everyone did the right thing.

That approach runs into problems when the story says Roger has lingering hangups about Bree being raped,. 

*The books allude to a sizable age difference between Frank and Claire, and they married when she was 18. The show completely omitted this dynamic, or any sign that Claire/Frank might have been wrong for each other, even without the time travel.

DG wants to have this great love story spanning time, so Jamie can never fall in love with anyone else (Claire doesn't either, after Jamie) so I think that's why he has to be coerced and cajoled.  When he was with the madam at the brothel at the beginning of the reunion episode, and he appeared to be a customer, I thought she had that covered - sex was with prostitutes because he couldn't love anyone other than Claire.  But apparently not enough to DG as she wrote it that Jamie has only 2 other encounters plus whatever happened with Leoghaire, all of it bad or sad.

Someone had an idea that maybe it was best Claire didn't find out about Jamie surviving Culloden until Brianna had grown up.  Knowing he was alive during that 20 years would have been very frustrating and it would be scary to try to get a child through the stones.  But Frank's motives were for himself I agree.

I remember the early 70s and there was more discussion of rape beginning to happen.  One of the first considerations (of course) was the effect on the woman's husband!  His pain was first, naturally.  So it is consistent with the times.  DG would remember better, as she's a bit older than I am. 

18 marrying a 30 year old would make a rather traditional, male-as-master marriage.  It's part of the contrast that Jamie is 5 years younger than Claire, I think.  Claire isn't the follower type.  With a younger husband also disadvantaged by being born in earlier times, she has a better shot at equality.  

Kindle says I am 50% through this book before the plot starts moving, where Roger goes through the stones.  I was interested to see in the books, Joe Abernathy knows about the time travel.  He and Roger have this interesting phone conversation where they dance around it until they both admit it.  Very hard to suggest to someone who might think you are crazy.  Even Geillis only did it under extreme pressure.  I think Geillis suspected Claire early on - but thought Claire might have an anti-Jacobite agenda.