Book 7: An Echo in the Bone

[toolazy]

I like Dottie a lot but I don't find her character all that plausible.  Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part but I can't see someone raised as she was going happily to war to starve and wear rags and wipe people's butts and assist at amputations. And even if they survive the war, they will be pretty poor the rest of their lives.  I dunno, I guess her mother is kind of feisty so maybe some of that rubbed off.  I guess Denny must be really hot. 

[Dejana]

3 hours ago, toolazy said:

I like Dottie a lot but I don't find her character all that plausible.  Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part but I can't see someone raised as she was going happily to war to starve and wear rags and wipe people's butts and assist at amputations. And even if they survive the war, they will be pretty poor the rest of their lives.  I dunno, I guess her mother is kind of feisty so maybe some of that rubbed off.  I guess Denny must be really hot. 

I watched Downton Abbey and one of the high-brow daughters has a similar arc, albeit in the early 20th century. I think that sort of story works if you buy that the person was a misfit in high society, was looking for a way out even before meeting the guy, or it was a time of major social upheaval. We didn't get much from Dottie's POV...they seem like a nice couple but not this earth-shattering love.

[nodorothyparker]

Dottie reads like someone who in a less restrictive age would have run off for awhile with a guy she knows probably isn't suitable long term and had a grand adventure with him.  Eventually the relationship would have petered out and she would have gone back to her life but always looked back on that adventure as a grand old time and a good story to tell.  But because she lives in a time when women can't travel freely with men much without being labeled whores and you're supposed to marry the first guy you have sex with, she's going to still be married to him long after the romance of poverty and dirty battlefields wear off.  Everything about her efforts to show her conversion to Quakerism don't read as sincere conversion as much as trying it on as a means to an end.

I've made no secret of the fact that I don't care much about the Hunters or Dottie.  Dottie's just the most thinly drawn of the three with her characterization relying mostly on her being a member of the Grey family.

[lianau]

On 1.9.2016 at 5:44 PM, katville said:

This one was a skimmer for me, but when it caught my attention (pretty much anything to do with J and C) it really packed a punch. When Ian died, I had to stop reading and compose myself. And although the reasons are heartbreaking, I love Jenny in America. All of her life she has had to stay home, mind Lallybroch and take care of everyone. The idea of her finally having her grand adventure at age 60 makes my heart happy.

I do wonder if enlarging the universe was the only way for DG to keep the story going. I just cannot make myself care about most of the new characters, especially John's family. How differently would the series have been if Gabaldon had cut her books in half and focused primarily on Jamie and Claire? Would they still be as popular?

I am torn on the Bugs plot line. It did seem to come out of left field, but I like that there were layers there hidden in earlier books. And once their background was explained, it did make sense. Young Ian, as always, is made of awesome. And I like William -- when he is interacting with the other characters. Bree and Roger -- still don't care. I feel like I should care, but I don't.

This book was the first one where I think that Claire is really feeling her age. She is not a young woman anymore who can care for the injured around the clock. I do find myself speculating a lot on how the series will end. TBH, I think I will only be happy if Claire and Jamie die at the same time, because I don't think either one can truly live without the other.

As somebody who loves John and his family (more than Jamie actually , yes I said it ) I'm very happy to have them in the book . 

I see the Bugs pretty much as political fanatics who clung to a lost past , trying to bring it all back and when confronted with reality , that it's really truly over for good,  lost it .

[katville]

39 minutes ago, lianau said:

As somebody who loves John and his family (more than Jamie actually , yes I said it ) I'm very happy to have them in the book . 

I see the Bugs pretty much as political fanatics who clung to a lost past , trying to bring it all back and when confronted with reality , that it's really truly over for good,  lost it .

I think it is interesting how different readers have different characters that they feel strongly about. Even in this thread, everyone has favorite and they vary so widely. I know a lot of readers love the Bree/Roger 1980s storyline and I cruised right on by that. Some are not fans of William at all, and I actually like him a lot. I just want his storyline to merge with Jamie and Claire's. 

[buffynut]

On 9/1/2016 at 10:13 AM, DittyDotDot said:

Isn't it nice when an obsession is also educational? ;)

Definitely. I'm sure I would have enjoyed history more in school if we'd gotten to learn a bit about the regular folks and not just the dates and generals of battles.

On 9/1/2016 at 2:48 PM, Grashka said:

Or Lord John and William exchanging overly long letters concerning British military moves.

That was the only part I found myself skimming, as they went on and on and on ...

[katville]

48 minutes ago, Grashka said:

Yeah, though to be fair, probably not every letter can be as awesome as Claire's letters to Bree&Roger (with Jamie's postscripts) or the two letters Jamie sent to Claire before "drowning" - which had me in stitches :-)

I LOVED their letters. Especially the little snarky tidbits that they would include about each other. Some readers complain that the sex scenes between them are OTT because of their age, but they were separated for twenty years so I always read it as making up for lost time. However, they have also know each other since they were young and they know each other very well  -- that shows in the funny little jabs about each other's quirks.

[Petunia846]

You all are making me want to go back and reread these sections. I don't remember these letters at all. Can anyone give me a chapter number for where to start?

[DittyDotDot]

I don't have a chapter number handy, but it's during the period of time after Ian's death where Claire goes back to Philadelphia and Jamie stays behind to help Jenny get everything in order. Jamie also goes to France for a spell and writes some funny letters to Claire about his time there. I seem to recall he was a bit drunk when he wrote from France.

[Petunia846]

Thanks!

[LMR]

The rehash of the Jenny/Claire tension annoyed me. I read the books on a binge (all 8 in 6 weeks) so obviously the happenings of voyager weren't many years removed from me when I read the Scotland scenes which then seemed to go over the same ground. It would have made much more sense to have Claire's inability/refusal (depending on who you are) become an issues separate to that which created new tensions between them and maybe reignited some long damped down resentment rather than make it about Laoighrie (who's name I will never be able to spell). That tension still existed re She Who's Name I Cannot Spell between Jenny and Jamie was slightly more realistic given that its clear that whilst Jenny made the match for the best of intentions it was clear very quickly it was a very bad idea and between her guilt about that and Jamie's guilt about going through with it it caused friction between them.

 

The stuff with Ian, it just killed me. You felt the grief between the family.

 

The second half of the book is definitely the stronger and it benefits from having a much brisker pace. The whole confusion about Jamie's death thing could have been dragged out unbearably but it was resolved quickly enough that it was enjoyable but didn't become one of those scenarios in which there is confusion and mix up that can quickly become frustrating.

 

I like the Hunters. I enjoy the very different perspective they bring. They are refreshing without being naive and I think despite their pious life choices are actually surprisingly worldly, but in a different way from say Jamie or wee Ian.

I agree Roger is much better in the 18th C. Bree does not appeal to me regardless of location. She's clearly supposed to be written as uncompromisingly forthright but always just strikes me as tactless and obnoxious.

[LadyArcadia]

So, I accidentally got spoiled that Ian died in this book. I was so bummed it never dawned on me that there was another.  whew!

I had a tough time reading this one. I'm already 1/3 into the next book and I can't put that one down.  This one seemed to drag.  Plus, I was hoping for an uneventful trip back home, but I didn't expect an instant transportation with no mention of the journey at all!

[toolazy]

On 1/25/2017 at 1:49 PM, LadyArcadia said:

So, I accidentally got spoiled that Ian died in this book. I was so bummed it never dawned on me that there was another.  whew!

I had a tough time reading this one. I'm already 1/3 into the next book and I can't put that one down.  This one seemed to drag.  Plus, I was hoping for an uneventful trip back home, but I didn't expect an instant transportation with no mention of the journey at all!

 

I actually found that refreshing.  I had my fill of sea journeys in books three and four.  I like the second half of book seven more than the first half, I think.  It sets up things that go down in book eight, which is my second favorite book after Voyager.  

[ruby24]

I have a question. I just started this book and even though it picks up weeks after the fire that burned down the Big House in the past, it seems like two years have passed in the present with Bree and Roger? Is that right? Because Mandy and Jem are older and everything? 

Edited April 17, 2018 by ruby24

[toolazy]

24 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I have a question. I just started this book and even though it picks up weeks after the fire that burned down the Big House in the past, it seems like two years have passed in the present with Bree and Roger? Is that right? Because Mandy and Jem are older and everything? 

It looks like it.  The action opens in 1776 but when we see Bree & Roger, they're in 1980.  If the time difference is 202 years, then it appears that a couple of years have gone by for them when the book checks in on them.

One of the weird things about these books is that time passes differently for different people.  Just because things happen chronologically in the text doesn't mean that's in fact when they happened.  It's weird because you have to figure when to pay attention to the dates provided and when to ignore them.  Let's just say that DG does not excel at dates and chronology. 

[ruby24]

39 minutes ago, toolazy said:

It looks like it.  The action opens in 1776 but when we see Bree & Roger, they're in 1980.  If the time difference is 202 years, then it appears that a couple of years have gone by for them when the book checks in on them.

One of the weird things about these books is that time passes differently for different people.  Just because things happen chronologically in the text doesn't mean that's in fact when they happened.  It's weird because you have to figure when to pay attention to the dates provided and when to ignore them.  Let's just say that DG does not excel at dates and chronology. 

Okay, so basically time isn't passing along parallel tracks then. That's weird, I wonder if that's an unforced error on her part or if it's intentional.

[toolazy]

6 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Okay, so basically time isn't passing along parallel tracks then. That's weird, I wonder if that's an unforced error on her part or if it's intentional.

 

I'm sorry - I wasn't clear.  Time is actually passing on parallel tracks; it's just not reported that way.   The storytelling isn't necessarily linear, though the events are. 

[ruby24]

Okay, so I think I found another error along the lines I was talking about earlier. They say Mandy is three years old, yet also that they've only been back for just over a year. But they came back when Mandy was just a couple months old, right? So...that must be a mistake somewhere.

[DittyDotDot]

On 4/27/2018 at 4:21 AM, ruby24 said:

Okay, so I think I found another error along the lines I was talking about earlier. They say Mandy is three years old, yet also that they've only been back for just over a year. But they came back when Mandy was just a couple months old, right? So...that must be a mistake somewhere.

Seriously, this book is a time head-hurter with lots of inconsistencies. I finally had to just ignore most the dates and just go with it. I know it's not ideal, but it worked for me.

[lianau]

On 4/27/2018 at 11:21 AM, ruby24 said:

Okay, so I think I found another error along the lines I was talking about earlier. They say Mandy is three years old, yet also that they've only been back for just over a year. But they came back when Mandy was just a couple months old, right? So...that must be a mistake somewhere.

I think they also spend around a year or so in Boston for Mandy's surgery and recovery.

[ruby24]

Just finished it! Not crazy about the all the time spent with William wandering around. He's not very interesting. And Dottie and the Hunters have got to be the most boring characters she's ever introduced.

I will never understand why she seems to find Ian so much more interesting to write than say, Fergus, who she apparently lost interest in a while ago. I've never liked Ian that much, honestly. I never cared about him and his ex-wife. I don't care about him and Rachel Hunter (and they barely had any kind of build-up to their romance at all).

I did enjoy Claire marrying Lord John and sleeping with him. I feel like the book got good in the last hundred pages or so, when Claire finally met up with John and William in Philadelphia. It felt like things finally started happening that mattered. I just really don't need to spend all this time with William and the Hunters on their own, with no sign of Claire or Jaime around anywhere. 

As for Bree and Roger, eh. I really wish they could just stay and live their lives in the present, to be honest. Brianna is a lot less annoying in the present than she is in the past.

[Athena]

9 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Just finished it! Not crazy about the all the time spent with William wandering around. He's not very interesting. And Dottie and the Hunters have got to be the most boring characters she's ever introduced.

I will never understand why she seems to find Ian so much more interesting to write than say, Fergus, who she apparently lost interest in a while ago. I've never liked Ian that much, honestly. I never cared about him and his ex-wife. I don't care about him and Rachel Hunter (and they barely had any kind of build-up to their romance at all).

I like Ian and it does seem that DG realized Ian had more potential for whatever reason. The way she writes him is akin to how she use to write Jamie. I do agree with everything else you've said. I find Dottie and all the Hunters boring. I also find the Marsali/Fergus relationship more interesting than the snooze fest with Ian and Rachel. Other than Jamie/Claire, the buildups of the romantic relationships in this series are a bit lacking. Even Bree and Roger were marred by the time travel chase and Stephen Bonnet. 

[ruby24]

When did Brianna tell John that they were time travelers? Claire says that she told him at some point (even though he doesn't believe it), but did that take place offscreen (or off page?) Because I don't remember Bree telling him that.

Also, when did Claire tell Joe Abernathy the truth? Because he seems to know, but I don't remember her ever telling him either. And I would've liked to read that conversation, because how and why does he just believe it?

[Sew Sumi]

I thought Claire told Joe in Voyager.

[auntlada]

Just now, Sew Sumi said:

I thought Claire told Joe in Voyager.

I believe so, although the actual conversation about time travel is not written. But I think she told him the whole story.

[Sew Sumi]

Yes, that's my recollection.

[DittyDotDot]

12 hours ago, ruby24 said:

When did Brianna tell John that they were time travelers? Claire says that she told him at some point (even though he doesn't believe it), but did that take place offscreen (or off page?) Because I don't remember Bree telling him that.

Also, when did Claire tell Joe Abernathy the truth? Because he seems to know, but I don't remember her ever telling him either. And I would've liked to read that conversation, because how and why does he just believe it?

I believe it was Brianna who told Lord John they were travelers. It was when Roger, Brianna and the kids were preparing to head back through the stones and Brianna sees Willie for the first time. She makes a deal with Lord John to tell her the truth about Willie if she tells him the truth about where they come from and where they were going back to.

I believe Claire told Joe in Voyager when she returned to Boston to get her affairs in order before heading back through the stones.

As far as I recall, neither of these conversations were written. There was the lead up for the conversation with Lord John and then it skipped to John sitting under a tree contemplating what she'd told him. Similarly with Claire and Joe, as I recall, but no tree.

Edited July 9, 2018 by DittyDotDot

[Petunia846]

I thought Brianna told John about it when she was pregnant with Jem and living at River Run and there was something about how he was going to marry her?? While Roger was with the Indians...I might be making all of this up.

[SassAndSnacks]

If you've been following along in the other Book threads, you'll know by now that I'm in the midst of my Pandemic Outlander Series Reread.  Disclaimer - Book 7 is my least favorite of the series, but I've come to a lot of realizations and have reevaluated previous feelings throughout this 3rd time through the stones.  Maybe Book 7 will rise in my estimation as Book 5 did?!  Let's see...

I started this one over the weekend, and nope, so far, just nope.  SO much William.  Blah.  Bree being Bree (though not as insufferable as usual). Blah. And honestly, just so much STUFF so far.  Stuff that I don't care about, like freaking Dottie or the Bells or Lord Norrington.  I have a "No Skipping, No Skimming" rule. but nope...not following it.  I blazed right through Lord John in London.  Don't care.  William on Long Island - skipped it.  Roger and Bree fighting about jobs.  Hard pass.  

I want Jamie and Claire.  

I know it will pick up and we'll get some wonderful time back in Scotland.  But, we'll also get the freaking Dismal Swamp and more William and more Bree.  How can Jamie Fraser be their father?  

On a high note, IAN!  Lots of Ian!

Anyway, Jamie and Claire are about to get on a boat for High Seas Highlander Hijinks Part II.  <insert facepalm>  Those two should really avoid ocean travel. 

 

[SassAndSnacks]

Popping in to say - 

DG's writing of Ticonderoga and Saratoga is good.  SO GOOD.

William's POV, blah.  Not a fan.  Stop trying to make "William is mini-Jamie" happen.  

And Lord John and his family, and the intrigue, and Percy.  Snoooooooooooooze. 

For real, if DG doesn't make something out of this Beauchamp connection and tie it back to Claire...well, I don't know what I'll do, but it'll be something drastic.  I know she's writing a prequel about Jamie's parents, but what about Claire's family?  How/why can she travel?  What REALLY happened to her parents?  Why do her grandchildren have super-sensory powers?  Is it because that got a double-dose of the genes?  For me, this is much more compelling than the LJG snoozefest and anything to do with William.  Herself wouldn't just throw us a big ole Easter egg like that and not let us find the candy inside.  

Ok, we're off to Scotland!  TTFN!

[SassAndSnacks]

I love Jamie Fraser so much.  I'm all in on with the "King of Men" and "Greatest Literary Male" opinions facts.  What I love most about him (I love so many things about him) is that he isn't perfect.  

This is what irks me most about him -

He never defends Claire when someone calls her a whore or a witch.  It really bothers me, and I don't think it's true to his character.  In Voyager, Marsali calls Claire a whore, repeatedly, as they are on the Artemis.  He doesn't stop her, correct her, put her in her place.  Fergus does, but he doesn't.  Maybe in this instance, because Claire was there, he didn't feel like he needed to and that she could speak up for herself.  In Echo, when he visits Hosebeast at Balriggan, she repeatedly calls Claire a whore and a witch.  He says nothing.  I read this part last night, and it annoyed me to no end.  I can't imagine that a man like JAMMF would let it pass that someone would refer to his wife as a whore.  Thinking of my own husband, who shares several traits with Jamie, he would NEVER allow that to be said either in my presence or not.  The person would be verbally eviscerated or flat on his/her back.  

With as much respect as Jamie has for Claire, I can't imagine that someone insulting his wife that way would sit well enough with him to just let it pass.  And I get that Claire doesn't "need" him to defend her to these people, but by insulting his wife, they are insulting him.  But mostly, she isn't what they say, and I hate that people simply go to the lowest point when trying to degrade someone and that lowest point is calling a woman a whore.  For me, it's as insulting as the abhorrent c-word (which I know isn't an insult in other countries but dammit, it's as low as you can get here). 

 

 

[WatchrTina]

On 9/21/2020 at 10:13 AM, SassAndSnacks said:

In Echo, when he visits Hosebeast at Balriggan, she repeatedly calls Claire a whore and a witch.  He says nothing.  I read this part last night, and it annoyed me to no end.

Well, in his defense, the most amazing blessing that was ever visited on Jamie in his entire life -- the return of Claire -- DID actually humiliate Laoghaire to an extraordinary degree. For that reason I can well imagine Jamie allowing Laoghaire to vent her anger by name-calling because she can't hurt Claire in that way.  (Sticks and stones, etc.)  I also imagine that Jamie still feels guilty about the failure of his marriage to Laoghaire, which was due -- at least in part -- to his inability to love her because he was still in love with Claire.

Edited September 22, 2020 by WatchrTina

[SassAndSnacks]

6 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Well, in his defense, the most amazing blessing that was ever visited on Jamie in his entire life -- the return of Claire -- DID actually humiliate Laoghaire to an extraordinary degree. For that reason I can well imagine Jamie allowing Laoghaire to vent her anger by name-calling because she can't hurt Claire in that way.  (Sticks and stones, etc.)  I also imagine that Jamie still feels guilty about the failure of his marriage to Laoghaire, which was due -- at least in part -- to his inability to love her because he was still in love with Claire.

Ooooh, I'm game for any defense of Jamie, and I understand that he has a large level of guilt associated with that part of his life.  A simple, "Laoghaire, she's not a whore" would have sufficed for me here.  Even said softly whilst she was ranting would have been fine. "Yes, Laoghaire.  You're right, I was awful.  No, I shoulda marrit ye. No, I never needed ye. But, I'll no abide by ye callin' my wife a whore." There, done.  

[SassAndSnacks]

Wrapping up Book 7 and super excited to move onto Book 8 (so good).  Echo has a slow burn that rapidly speeds up to Mach 10 when the action returns stateside (colony-side?).  In some ways, too fast?  This is the third time I've read it, and I'm still wishing for more details.  Or so I thought, then while driving and doing some serious thinking on all things Outlander (as one does), I surmised that the back third of this one is written with the appropriate speed and content, but I didn't appreciate that because the first 66% of it is so slow and bogged in minutiae.  I think we get accustomed to the inane details of some of the side plots, and then when DG dives back into normal writing, it feels rushed.  

Anyway...

I really like the last third of the book.  From the moment they arrive in Scotland to the moment Jamie rushes into 18 Chestnut Street, I AM IN THIS!  I recall the first time through not really liking the LJG + Claire = marriage, but this time I found it refreshing and human.  Though, I did want to hear more about Claire's alleged spying.  I gave up on the timeline (or lack thereof) with this one awhile ago, so I won't go there, but I'm interested in Claire's time in Philadelphia without Jamie.  Also, why didn't she mention going back to Bree and Co.?  Surely, that would have been a thought, at the very least.  

I also wanted to see more about Claire's evolving relationship with William.  He clearly trusts her and has some affection for her.  I find that I don't dislike him as much as I did at the beginning of the book.  Hell is freezing over.  The apocalypse is upon us (Oh, wait...).  I actually, may almost, sort of, slightly like William.  Just a wee bit.  I wish Rachel would have ended up with William and not Ian.  #IanDeservesBetter  Plus, I just think Rachel and William make more sense and had more chemistry.  

And Jem, sweet, fiesty Jem.  He reminds me of my own little red-headed chap.  I was spoiled to this part of the story when I read it initially, so I don't think I had as strong a reaction during the first read.  This time, my heart was in my throat.  Fucking Rob Cameron.  You don't mess with Jemmy!  I'm SO excited to see how his story continues to unveil itself in Book 9 (hopefully).  This is a special kid, and I love the connection he and Mandy have.  

Finally, Buck...there's more to this.  It's either super flimsy writing or Herself is holding out for a big reveal with this subplot.  He couldn't possibly have just mistakenly shown up there.  

So I'm on to Book 8 (Spoiler Alert - I already started it) and I'm damn near giddy with excitement! I can't imagine what people did when reading Echo in real time with Jem stranded in the dark, Roger rushing back through the stones, and Jamie absconding with Lord John.  Oh, they must have felt as I do right now waiting for Book 9.  

[Kim0820]

On 10/19/2014 at 12:07 PM, nodorothyparker said:

I have no idea whether he's really a time traveler or not.  But yeah, it's a throwaway paragraph after he gets lost in the Great Dismal where he's listening to the sounds of the swamp and thinks about how he first heard stones talking to each other when he was a kid at Helwater and how he's never told anyone about that.  There's more stuff there about how he also hears people in the fog who aren't there, but I don't know what we're supposed to make of that.

 

Isn't their idea that time travel is genetic just one of Claire's theories anyway?  I mean, despite Roger's efforts it's not like they have an official handbook that definitively lays out how it works and why. 

When one first gets into Outlander, it is natural to think of Jamie traveling to Claire's time.  DG had loud fans who get extremely upset and tell you that DG says that will never happen!  Like was are supposed to know what she says in her interviews as part of knowing the books.  

If she was not so adamant about it, or if she wanted to change that, it would be easy to create some more issues about the stones that would explain why he could not hear them and could crawl all over them and not be taken (as he did in the scene in the first book) but yet could time travel.  William being able to would be an interesting way to bring it in.

 This one was the most draggy and it took me awhile to get to 80%.  Reading this board helped me hang on, knowing it was going to be better in the last 3rd.  Reading it so little at a time, I missed where Hunter and Dorothea fell in love.  I thought she was William's love interest.  

Edited March 30, 2022 by Kim0820

[Night Cheese]

4 hours ago, Kim0820 said:

Reading it so little at a time, I missed where Hunter and Dorothea fell in love.  I thought she was William's love interest.  

I may be misremembering, but I think Dorothea and William being in love was a ruse. Dorothea was in love with Hunter, but she couldn't tell her parents for some reason (social standing? His being a Quaker?), so she and William pretended to want to be together so that Dorothea's parents wouldn't try to marry her off to another suitor.