Book 7: An Echo in the Bone

[lianau]

Wee Jemmy had to spend 5 years in that tunnel :) 

 

I don't think the Bugs got character assassinated, they are nice people . I see them as fanatics for a lost cause , what kept them going after Culloden was the dream of bringing it all back , to get the gold and use it  for its intended purpose  . And then they first  lost control over the situation and then  the gold and they had to come to the realization  that it was truly , irrevocably over . 

[nodorothyparker]

I've asked this question before and people have assured me that Bree does tell John about being a time-traveler but I think they said it happened in an earlier book, during the period when John was considering marrying the pregnant Bree, in order to give her child a name (Roger has gone missing at this point.)  I honestly do not recall that scene (maybe it happened "off camera"?) but others have assured me it happened.  Diana is certainly convinced that it happened because, as you point out, John and Claire discuss it in this book.

 

In the same chapters of Breath and Ashes we were discussing yesterday, Bree is trying to pinpoint exactly when William was conceived and finally realizes that oh okay, it was before Claire came back and simmers down a bit.  This prompts John to get snarky with her and say yes, from France where you were supposedly born and raised, knowing that she speaks piss poor high school French at best.  At that point, she offers to tell him about her and Claire and where they actually were if he tells her about William.

 

There's no more mention of it until Claire and John discuss it in this book, with John obviously not believing it but saying he'll pretend that he does.  So yeah, another huge conversation that apparently happened completely offpage.  Because in a series that heavily features time travel, we don't want to see anyone react to that apparently.

[Archery]

I'm reading Echo for the first time. I'm embarrassed to say that even with the clues about his father being a captain of dragoons and dying in the Highlands campaign, and the fact that his name is Randall, I did not put together that Captain Denys Randall-Isaacs was Mary Hawkins and Alex Randall's kid until Claire explicitly said so. Honestly.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Archery

[chocolatetruffle]

Just finished, so here we go:

 

The Good:

Anything that involved Young Ian Murray. His character just makes every story better. His homecoming to Lallybroch was some of the best writing I have read by DG.  I literally had to put  the book down during the passages leading up to the death of Elder Ian.  DG so vividly described the family's heartbreaking struggle w/ Ian's illness that I just cried and cried and cried.  I just closed the book and had to go do something else for a while.  Coming back later I finished the story up to Ian's death and aftermath and closed it again for a good long while. This story just gutted me.  And it made me very happy to see Jenny excited about successfully speaking French and looking forward to a new life in America.  There was only one passage that rang false to me – see The Ugly below. 

 

Other good included the section describing the growing tension at Fort Ticonderoga while waiting for the British to attack and the metaphor of Mrs. Raven quietly going insane.  And finally, Bree and Roger’s toast by Robbie Burns,  “Here’s tae us, Wha’s like us? Damned few and they’re all deid.”

 

The Bad:

Lord John and his boring-ass family.  Good grief all the letters and intrigue and sick uncles were a giant snooze-fest for me.  William was dead-ass boring until he hooked up w/ Ian in the Great Dismal.  And I began to like him after he woke up and, hearing Ian’s voice, was excited for his return followed by crushing disappointment when he realized Ian had left him (I’d be disappointed too if Ian had left me w/ a bunch of Quakers). 

 

Other bad: Arch Bug stalking Ian up and down the Eastern seaboard by land and by sea – did he have a GPS?

 

The Ugly:

Claire.  She really started to grate on my nerves in this book.  Let’s start w/ Philly, shall we?  Claire has performed life saving surgery on anyone she found who happened to be horizontal. Lord John is falling for her.  William calls her Mother Claire.  In fact, men in general are falling all over themselves when they are gifted w/ her magnificent presence. Women are either in awe of her strength or are threatened by it or think she’s a witch. She is never wrong and saves lives at the drop of a hat (well, all except poor Ian, but I digress) and is able to walk unmolested through the streets of Philadelphia because she is sooo unthreatening that soldiers automatically trust her; so of course she decides that she is going to pass out seditious pamphlets because she was, what, bored while waiting for Jamie to return? (I keep seeing visions of Ina Garten in 1780’s garb passing out leaflets to Rebels along w/ homemade brownies and blintzes) But Lord John can’t allow Claire to suffer consequences for her stupidity so he marries her to save her life (Wait, hasn’t this happened somewhere before?  Hmmmm).  But of course, he must have her because she’s Mt. Claire whose sexual prowess can un-Gay any man, and besides she’s grieving so her libido must be satisfied.  So they do the horizontal mambo and poor Jamie isn’t even cold in his watery grave yet. 

 

Other ugly is what’s up w/ Claire & Jenny's relationship being strained because Jenny sent for the Hosebeast the last time they were all at Lallybroch?  In Voyager, there was a scene between the two women at the stables and Jenny explained that she was afraid that Claire would take Jamie away and Claire said all she wanted was to stay at Lallybroch.  Jenny asked Claire to always take care of her brother, no matter what, and Claire promised she would.  They reconciled, so why the unresolved tension because of what Jenny did??  And why couldn't Claire tell Jenny that in her time, there was no cure for tuberculosis, helping Jenny to understand that there was nothing she could do.  That whole episode just seemed like unnecessary drama between the two women.  Which brings me to… Why is it that Claire can never have any friends?  It’s ridiculous that she’s lived at the Ridge for 10 years and has never had a friend.  Oh yeah – see The Ugly above.

 

The Stupid:

Firstly, the Timeline.  Ian left Ticonderoga June 1 or 2.  William arrived at The Great Dismal in Virginia on June 21 and wandered 2.5 days before meeting Ian on June 23/24.  After dropping him off at the Quaker farm June 25/6. William was there at least 2 days, probably 3 before Ian returned with the extra horse and finally departed putting us at June 28, being conservative.  Not sure when the Hunters left, but it definitely was not before June 28 and they were on the road for several days before arriving at Fort Ticonderoga.  Now here’s where it gets interesting -  Claire performed the surgery amputating Ormiston’s leg on June 22 w/ the assistance of Dr. Hunter (who according to Claire’s letter was there before June 18)!  Meanwhile Ian, who left on June 28, walked for 12 days before meeting Emily at Snaketown on or about July 10.  I don’t know where Snaketown is, but somehow he miraculously managed to leave there and arrive at Fort T. on July 7!  I know this book is about time travel, but REALLY??  I think DG was just playing with us to see if we were paying attention.  Oh, by the way, what the Hell was Ian doing in Virginia?

 

The second stupid thing was Roger and Buc going thru Craigh Na Dun to get Jem.  Roger believes that Cameron wants the gold, which, according to Jamie, is hidden somewhere on the Ridge in So. Carolina.  So wouldn’t it make more sense for Cameron to take a plane to Charlotte and drive Jem up to Fraser’s Ridge/Grandfather Mountain to look for the hiding place??  Why would he go back in time in Scotland? On the wrong side of the Atlantic? I understand that they were freaked out by Mandy’s dream but they had time to think, to figure out what Rob wanted.  Clearly Rob left the truck so they would think he went thru w/ Jem, but it’s also like a neon sign saying “they went that-a way.”  And I’m yelling “It’s what he wants you to think, ya sap, use your head!”

 

Other random thoughts:
Enfiladement has joined defenestration as one of my favorite words.
1980’s Bree is not nearly as annoying as 1770’s Bree.
1980’s Roger is not nearly as interesting as 1770’s Roger.
Rollo rocks the house!

Edited September 12, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[nodorothyparker]

I obviously wasn't paying attention because I never noticed that about the dates, so if that was her intention as opposed to just being sloppy as she sometimes is in these later books, mission accomplished.  That is funny.

 

Claire does wander dangerously close to the Mary Sue line at times for me with all her miraculous healing powers and still being the most capable most desirable most everything woman in the room pushing 60.  And this book definitely at times was laying it on a bit thick.  The whole thing with Jenny I can sort of buy though because she and the entire family are obviously under terrible strain dealing with Ian Sr.'s illness and imminent death.  Now Claire with all her super duper amazing healing powers shows up and promptly announces that rather than just being every magical creature in their folklore as they previously thought, she's actually from the future and that's where all her amazing abilities and knowledge comes from.  But nope, still can't do anything about Ian.  Not a thing.  I can see where that would stir up all kinds of old resentment in addition to just being furious and heartsick that there's nothing any of them can do to stop the man she loves from slowly wasting away.  

 

And that's assuming any of them actually believe her.  Since the time travel reveal is yet another Very Important Conversation that Gabaldon doesn't deem fit to show us, we have no idea if any of the family actually do.  I imagine quite of few of them in spite of it probably still believe Claire abandoned Jamie and all of them to suffer for 20 years.

[peacefrog]

This book is a mess with timelines. I never noticed the one above because I was bored during that part. At the end is another timeline error from when Jamie and Jenny's assumed ship went down to when he comes back, IIRC. I think DG addressed it on Compuserve in her usual charming way as "I don't pay attention to dates."

[nodorothyparker]

You know, I just now realized I've never had a very firm idea in my head of the whole timeline of the lost in sea and everyone thinking Jamie and Jenny are dead thing.  It was obviously long enough for Claire to settle in and become publicly known as John's wife.

 

I generally like this book but it really needed an more aggressive editor.

[chocolatetruffle]

 Jamie's letter from Paris was dated April 1, 1778 saying they would be leaving in 2 weeks, and they left shortly thereafter.  She received it right after Henry's surgery.  But according to Richardson, she had been passing seditious materials around Philly for 3 months, maybe longer. This was right before John married her. So she had to have been there at least 3 months from the time she received Jamie's letter.  However, May 18, 1778 was the date of the party for General Howe.  So unless Richardson was grossly exaggerating, the timeline makes no sense.

[Clawdette]

While I read the first six books without being tempted to skim, I have succumbed to the urge in this one.  William's letter to Lord John that went on and on about Benedict Arnold's campaign just made my eyes glaze. 
 

I know exciting escapades propel novel plots but why does every.thing.under.the.sun have to happen to Jamie and Claire? Each time I finish a buik I am worn out and have to wait a little while before starting the next. 

[DittyDotDot]

Only four percent in and already have so many questions...

 

So, Brianna and Roger find the box and letters in 1980. So, have they been back for 5 years or did they not go the customary 200 years? I'm just trying to figure out how old Jem and Mandy are at this point. I also wonder why they decided to go to Lallybroch instead of the Ridge? Since that's where their life was in the 18th century.

 

Why is everyone crammed into the little cabin when there's the Bugs's cabin that's open and doesn't Young Ian have a place of his own, too? Oh, wait, I think I just figured that one out. Jamie probably wanted to keep everyone together so he could protect them. Never mind.

 

Is this Beauchamp character some distant relation to Claire perhaps? Hmmm? I hope so, we've has so little about Claire's family history, it might be nice to delve in there some.

 

And, no good is going to come out of Ian killing Mrs. Bug, is there? Which, I'm still a little dazed in learning of their thievery, but I can't believe Mrs. Bug took a shot at Jamie like that. I have a bad feeling the Bugs are going to get vilified in this book. Not sure how I actually feel about that right now. On the one hand, I liked Arch and felt like he somewhat filled the space left by Murtagh--although, no one can replace Murtagh, IMO. And, I found Mrs. Bug constant busy-body somewhat endearing even if I'd want to strangle her in real life. But, sometimes the best villains are the ones I not only don't see coming, but are also ones who have a valid points of view and not necessarily true villains. 

 

I know, I know all will be revealed eventually...I'm feeling impatient with this one for some reason. Not sure if it's a good sign or a bad one.

[chocolatetruffle]

Without revealing too much, I can say that, even after reading the whole book, I still feel the same way you do about the Bugs.

[DittyDotDot]

I'm beginning to wonder what the purpose is for Gabaldon to be changing timeline when she shifts POV here? I don't mean the shifting between the 18th and 20th centuries, but William's story is 6 months behind where Jamie and Claire are. Right now I'm reading about the battle on Long Island and it just occurred to me that it's August 1776 and the last we heard of Claire and Jamie it was early January 1777.

 

Also, am I to assume that this Allan, who has a Scots accent and is one of the men who pulled William from his horse, is Allen Christie? Nah, that's gotta be too much of a coincidence. Even for Gabaldon, right?

 

Anyhoo, I find it interesting that a young and inexperienced William gets taken unawares much as his adopted father did back before Prestonpans. William seems to have Jamie's temperament, but lacks Jamie's well-honed instincts. I also love how he takes offense to people thinking he might be incapable. Ah, kids those days!

 

Oh, and I was wondering why Jamie was set on retrieving his printing press rather than fighting on the battlefield this time..."I swore to myself that I shallna ever face my son across the barrel of a gun." Nicely done there. Nicely done.

 

And, it also just occurred to me that Young Ian was not present when Roger, Bree and the bairns returned to the 20th century. I wonder why that was? 

 

I just keep coming up with more questions, it seems. Sigh. Back to the book, I guess.

 

ETA: As a total tangent, but TV-related: When William was talking about the Hessians in the battle, all I could think of was the Hessians on Sleepy Hollow. Keep in mind I only watched the first season of that show, but still... . I fear this is going to happen a lot with the battles in this book. ;)

Edited September 28, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

I'm hoping this book starts to come into focus soon. I enjoy Lord John and am liking getting to know William, but all the shifting around POV and timelines are making my head hurt a bit trying to keep everything straight in my head. Plus, I was never too fond of the political machinations of Dragonfly in Amber and it feels like we are heading down some of that same road in this book.

 

Maybe I'm just impatient for Jamie and Co. to get back to Scotland? I really want to see Jenny and Ian and Young Jamie and all of them again. I've been anticipating this to happen for four books, I only hope it can live up to expectations. 

 

Meanwhile, Bree and Roger are fighting like a regular married couple. I hope it becomes obvious to the both of them soon that Roger's calling didn't seem to be to God, but to help people. Roger seems to have a deep seeded need to be needed and in the 20th century there's really not so much of that for him. Funny, I'm finding Roger was a more compelling character in the 18th century than he is in the 20th century. Ironically, I think Bree might be a more compelling character in the 20th century, though, as I've always felt like she's a very thin character previously. 

[chocolatetruffle]

I'm hoping this book starts to come into focus soon. I enjoy Lord John and am liking getting to know William, but all the shifting around POV and timelines are making my head hurt a bit trying to keep everything straight in my head. Plus, I was never too fond of the political machinations of Dragonfly in Amber and it feels like we are heading down some of that same road in this book.

 

Maybe I'm just impatient for Jamie and Co. to get back to Scotland? I really want to see Jenny and Ian and Young Jamie and all of them again. I've been anticipating this to happen for four books, I only hope it can live up to expectations. 

 

Meanwhile, Bree and Roger are fighting like a regular married couple. I hope it becomes obvious to the both of them soon that Roger's calling didn't seem to be to God, but to help people. Roger seems to have a deep seeded need to be needed and in the 20th century there's really not so much of that for him. Funny, I'm finding Roger was a more compelling character in the 18th century than he is in the 20th century. Ironically, I think Bree might be a more compelling character in the 20th century, though, as I've always felt like she's a very thin character previously. 

 

OMG were we separated at birth??  You are having the exact same reactions that I had while reading this one.  I can't wait for you to finish to see if you come to the same conclusions I did!

[DittyDotDot]

Heh, I haven't read through the thread yet--I usually wait till I finish the book so things are still somewhat of a surprise--but now I'm really looking forward to doing so. I'm a tad spoiled, but not enough to really have any clue how it plays out. I guess I'm kinda like Claire in that respect. ;)

[DittyDotDot]

Can I just say how much I love that Fergus is thriving in New Bern. And, Gemain...oh how I adore Germain! Although, I certainly hope Fergus teaching Germain how to pick pockets will not end in Germain getting his hand cut off or something like that. But still, Germain and his frogs with Percival...too cute! And I started howling when Germain told Jamie he couldn't repeat the cursing due to his father's virgin ears. Such a charmer he is.

 

However, I don't understand all the hubbub with Roger thinking he can't just drop back into academia. Granted people are going to have questions, but I thinka simple, "My wife and I dropped out of society and went to live with her family on a commune in the middle of nowhere for a few years," would suffice for the time period. It's not like people didn't do that in the 1970s and this is before the paper-trail age. I doubt anyone would be compelled to go check out the story as long as they were consistent with it. Plus, living on the Ridge in the eighteenth century was somewhat like living in a commune...so not exactly a lie. 

 

Anyway, this is all just to set up someone figuring out that they're time travelers, isn't it? I mean, I'm assuming at least some of the family ends up back in the eighteenth century by the end of the book--maybe it's just one of the kids?

 

Okay, okay, enough speculating. Back to the book...

[DittyDotDot]

"The wind's come up at bit and the water's getting rough. Your father has gone rather pale and clammy, like fish bait; I'll clase and take him down below for a nice quiet vomit and a nap, I think." 

 

Oh, Claire...sometimes you just get me giggling. Reminded me of when she was putting the maggots in Roger's foot and telling him how wonderful it was. And, Brianna's response of "God, mama!" Too cute.

 

Anyhoo, what's with the long letters of exposition? Seriously, I had to basically skip the one from William to Lord John which detailed that battle with Sir Guy in Quebec. I'm sure I'll end up regretting it later; if I've learned one thing about these books, nothing is unimportant. I just couldn't though. William's description of the Northern Lights was beautiful though, so I didn't skip the entire letter. 

 

So some creepy fellow is hanging out in the old tower at Lallybroch, eh? A fellow time-traveler, perhaps?

[DittyDotDot]

I'm thinking Claire and Jamie should just stay away from ships...or boats in general. Seems like they can't get near one without a whole lot of crazy happening. It's kinda early for this to be the stupidity portion of the book--that usually comes in around 60 percent in, not 35--but that was mostly nonsense, IMO. But, they rescued Rollo, so all is right with the world again. ;)

 

It's interesting how many "soft" spots are cropping up now. I'm kinda feeling like it's getting to be overkill. Plus, what happened to the stones only "singing" or affecting them at certain times of the year? I don't remember what the date was when Brianna got locked in that tunnel, but it's starting to become ridiculous how they are finding these spots just about everywhere. 

 

However, I'm enjoying the culture shock that Jem is having in adjusting to the 20th century. Nicely done with how Gaelic was seen as being backwards in the 1980s. Much like how most Native American languages were discouraged in the US at that time, too. Such a loss of culture and the beginning of the "normalizing" that's to come.

 

This book seems to be rather fractured and lacking focus again. Seems like the pattern is every other book is like this. That means, if I can just stick with it, the next one will be the payoff. Off to see if my theory pans out...

[Andorra]

I just finished "An Echo in the Bone" and now I have only one book left!?? 

 

I must say I struggled my way through this one. More than half was just too many different storylines completely independent of each other and, I'm sorry, but I just can't find myself to care much for Roger and Bree. I like John Grey and I'm interested in William, but I have no knowledge at all about the politics of the American civil war and so a lot of the time I was just like "Who and what are they talking about?" (I know, I should probably do some research, but I don't even know where to start).

 

The end of the book was better. I liked the Hunters, I love it that young Ian fell in love again after Emily. I was so sad about Ian's death! I loved the John Grey/Claire desaster marriage! What is Jamie going to do now? Will he ever forgive them?!! I'm glad Archie Bug is dead now, he was so scary!

 

I have no idea who Percy Beauchamp is and what is his connection to Lord John? Has he been his lover once??

 

And what is going to happen to Roger now?!! I know, I said I don't care for him and Bree, but I still don't want them seperated through time and their son kidnapped!! 

[WatchrTina]

 

I have no idea who Percy Beauchamp is and what is his connection to Lord John? Has he been his lover once??

The answer to that question is revealed in the Lord John novels, so meet me behind the spoiler bar if you really want to know.  Some significant spoilers from the Lord John series are here-->

Percy is John's step-brother and ex-lover. They met and fell into a sexual relationship when John's widowed mother married Percy's father. I have forgotten why they stopped sleeping together but I'm pretty sure it's because Percy's dubious character came to light.  They later both served in the military together and unfortunately that led to an incident in which John and another officer walked in on Percy and another soldier having sex. That got Percy thrown in prison and got John put in the position of having to testify against him. Before the trial the other officer is killed in battle. That leaves John the only witness to Percy's "crime." What is an honorable man to do? Testify against his own step-brother and former lover -- condemn him in open court for acts that John himself has committed? Or should John lie to the court to save Percy? In the end he finds a 3rd option and arranges to fake Percy's death in prison from disease (not an uncommon occurrence). Percy's body is replaced by a fresh corpse and Percy is smuggled out of the country.  He and John have no dealings for a very long time after that until he resurfaces in the big books where he in on a dubious mission involving Fergus.  Fergus, who has good instincts, mistrusts him on sight.  It is also hinted (though I can't recall in which books) that John has, unknowingly, been communicating with Percy for years as a part of the covert work John has done for His Majesty's Government.  Percy, it seems, may have been playing a similar role for the French government.  This last bit is still murky.

Edited October 4, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

I have no idea who Percy Beauchamp is and what is his connection to Lord John? Has he been his lover once??

 

I'm only halfway through the book (and haven't read any of the Lord John books yet), but as I understand it, Percy is Lord John's step-brother and it's been strongly suggested that, yes, they were also once lovers. He's all sorts of sketchy, but it seems like Percy was caught with another man--or something of the like--and John and Hal helped fake Percy's death so Percy could disappear and probably avoid formal charges. Sorry if that's what's under that spoiler tag, WatchrTina, I didn't want to peek...I do plan to read the Lord John books eventually.

 

I'm not yet sure exactly what Percy's intent is with looking for Fergus, but I assume it's really to find Jamie. Actually, I have a new theory that it's really to find Claire. But, that could be wild speculation right now because I just read the part where Lord John realizes who the three arrows are. Got me to thinking of how one of the Beauchamp sisters is never talked of and Claire was known to have been a Beauchamp when she first went through the stones, and I think it might have made the circles in France too? Plus, Geillis Duncan lived in France for a time before going to the Indies, so it could be that she told someone about the time travel and about Claire too. No doubt this all leads back to Geillis Duncan, in my mind, though.

 

It also made me wonder if this Beauchamp sister is perhaps a direct descendant of Claire's and if she "traveled" is why she's non-existent anymore. Which I have a weird kinda wish that it will be revealed that one of Claire's own parents traveled forward in time--I just think that could be an interesting twist. It could also explain why Claire traveled to the time period she did the first time she went through the stones. The theory is they travel 200 years, but it also seems you can steer by thinking of where you want to go--or someone you want to see. Perhaps Claire was thinking of her mother and ended up in a time where her mother existed? And maybe her mother traveled shortly after that, but to the future where she met Claire's father and had Claire. So, hearing of this Beauchamp woman showing up in Scotland close to the time their sister disappeared could provoke them to think it could be their sister and go looking for her. Okay this is getting long and convoluted and none of it really matters yet because it's only my own whack-a-doodle idea here.

 

 

Anyhoo, I really enjoyed Roger's Gaelic lesson. But I'm weird that way. I probably would've stayed in college forever if money wasn't a pressing issue...and it was. I especially liked how he talked about the line singing in church and such. I remember, when I was a kid, we had a pastor who used to do that. He was very old and had no stage presence what-so-ever, so I found it very boring and tedious as a youngster. But, reading that part, I felt like I was sitting in church again on a hot summer Sunday wishing I could get out of my scratchy polyester dress and tights and go play outside. Ah, good times. ;)

 

I think Roger is starting to engage me again now that he stopped moping around all the time. And, funnily enough, Brianna is starting to interest me less again. Apparently there is some rule of the universe that both Brianna and Roger can not be interesting to me at the same time. ;)

ETA: My other thought was this second Beauchamp sister could turn out to be Fergus's mother?

[lianau]

And I want Percy and John to hook up again ... They were cute together until it all went down the drain .

[CalamityBoPeep]

 

It also made me wonder if this Beauchamp sister is perhaps a direct descendant of Claire's and if she "traveled" is why she's non-existent anymore. Which I have a weird kinda wish that it will be revealed that one of Claire's own parents traveled forward in time--I just think that could be an interesting twist. It could also explain why Claire traveled to the time period she did the first time she went through the stones. The theory is they travel 200 years, but it also seems you can steer by thinking of where you want to go--or someone you want to see. Perhaps Claire was thinking of her mother and ended up in a time where her mother existed? And maybe her mother traveled shortly after that, but to the future where she met Claire's father and had Claire. So, hearing of this Beauchamp woman showing up in Scotland close to the time their sister disappeared could provoke them to think it could be their sister and go looking for her. Okay this is getting long and convoluted and none of it really matters yet because it's only my own whack-a-doodle idea here.

 

...

 

ETA: My other thought was this second Beauchamp sister could turn out to be Fergus's mother?

 

Man, I love this whack-a-doodle idea of yours!  This would rock, in so many ways.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh pooh, I guess the second Beauchamp sister was probably Fergus's mother. I so hoping it was something more, but that does work too, I guess.

 

So, I'm in the midst of the stupidity portion of the book and I had to just stop for a bit. It can't just be that Ian falls in love with someone and there are complications to work out. Nooo, there had to be this skeevy guy show up to blackmail Jamie and threaten Claire, so Ian would feel the need to come to his uncle's aid and kill the arsehole. And if that wasn't enough, a couple officers have to stumble by right at that moment..and then the running and yelling and tripping and such starts...sigh. Nothing can ever be simple, can it?

 

I'm also finding all the near-misses with William a bit tedious at this point. And, TBH, I'm tired of the battles. BTW, aren't they going to Scotland? I was promised a return to Scotland and am beginning to think I was duped. Wait, no, I'm only 70 percent in, still miles to go, right? These books are long!

 

In other news, I rather enjoy the Hunters--innocence dropped into the middle of madness. Not since book one or two has so many characters felt vivid to me like the Hunters do. I love their quick-witted exchanges about God and the nature of things. Plus, Denny routinely gets me to chuckling. I loved young Ian rescuing him from the British camp when they were playing the deserter's game. "He has come to help me escape, Friend William. I would take it kindly if thee did not hinder him, though I will understand if thy duty compels thee." Hee!

Edited October 5, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

Okay, thinking further on this idea that Fergus could be the son of of the Beauchamp sister and the Compte St. Germain...could that mean that Clair herself could be a descendant of Fergus and Marsali? That could be interesting. Oh, oh, oh...which one would be carrying the "traveling" gene? Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see. Claire seems to be reluctant to believe this, so maybe it's just another McGuffin? On the other hand, Claire does seem to jump to the wrong conclusion quite a bit. Hmmm?

 

Well, I'm shocked to read that no hijinks befell Claire and Jamie's actual voyage to Scotland. Is this the first time they've boarded a boat of any kind together that didn't end in disaster? It only stands to reason, then, something just awful is going to happen on their voyage home...right? I mean, that was way too easy, IMO.

 

BTW, I did not see Roger's great-great-whatever-grandda's appearance coming. Not in a million years would I have guessed that's who the Nuckalavee would turn out to be. I was beginning to think it would turn out to be Percy or something like that. Buck is all sorts of skeey to me, though. I'm thinking he'll turn out to be up to no good, in the end.

 

Which got me to thinking, so far, most of Jamie's ancestors have been conniving and somewhat ruthless bastards. Roger's ancestors have mostly been somewhat unbalanced--due the the introduction of Gellius in the gene pool, I would guess. So, I've been wondering what trait might mark Claire's ancestry? If Fergus and Marsali do turn out to be her ancestors, could it be they are open-minded thinkers? Sorry, the things I get to thinking about sometimes...

 

 

ETA: Forgot, this farce of William and Dottie's, she turns out to be Denny Hunter's English love, doesn't she? Gah! Of all the damn coincidences...

Edited October 6, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

Noooo! Ian died. Sniff. I was not anticipating that, but now I realize I should've been since I knew Jenny comes to the Americas at some point. And, I'm just now realizing this marriage of Lord John and Claire's, I've heard tale of, is probably in this book, too. I assumed it was in the next book since it hasn't happened yet and it feels like there isn't really time to do it properly now. It's so weird to know bits and pieces, but not really know enough and still be surprised with when and how it does happen.

 

Anyhoo, I'm sad to see Ian go, but at least it was done well. It'll be nice to pull Jenny back into the narrative; I can only hope this wasn't done to so she could go to the Americas to be hold a grudge against Claire. I think that would suck!

 

Even though I called Dottie being Denny's English love, I still enjoyed reading it immensely. Of all the crazy coincidences--not only that Young Ian randomly takes William to the Hunter's in the first place, but that they then end up meeting Claire and all--this one is by far my favorite of the series, I think. I really like how Denny and Rachael have each other's number. 

 

So, I'm assuming something terrible befalls Jamie soon--oh, wait, he has another voyage coming and nothing good generally happens when he gets near a boat--why else would Claire and he be split up, right? Sigh. At least Lord John and Claire together should be somewhat entertaining. I'm assuming this marriage I've heard tell of is mostly for convenience or it's a total ruse...?

[Laurie]

Dot,

 

Having read and listened to the books several times I really get a kick out of reading your synopses and reactions.  Since I know what's coming I always think "I can't wait to read what she has to say when she gets to..."

 

I think you're going to love MOBY.

 

Laurie

[DittyDotDot]

I'm glad to know I'm not just annoying people with my blurting out my random thoughts. I just really need to let it out on occasion, though.

 

First, to the Jem nonsense. I understand why they believed Rob had taken Jem through the stones--Rob's truck was at the scene and all--but I'm disappointed none of them stopped to question why he would take Jem through the stones when it would make more sense for them to have boarded a plane to North Carolina to find the gold. Granted, they were all panicked and weren't really sure of Rob's motives, but it seemed like they should've at least ran down a few other possibilities. But, none of that's going to matter, right? I'm assuming Jem's still going to travel in that tunnel anyway...I'm guessing anyway. So, it will be useful for Roger to be in the past anyway.

 

Second, the marriage. Now, I do rather like John and Claire's kinda jealousy of each other and I also love how they both see the other as the odd one, but, I can't really figure out the timeline right now. At the beginning of the book, I couldn't keep all the timelines straight because there were too many of them. But now, I can't figure how much time has passed from when Claire hears about the ship sinking to them being married to their night of drunken and grief-stricken sexy times together. For that matter, I can't figure out how much time has passed since Claire showed up in Philadelphia. How long was she passing around the seditious material? I'm at 91 percent, so it better start becoming clear soon...I does become clear when Jamie finds Claire and she tells him of it all, right?

 

In other news, Arch seems to have located Rollo and Rachael...nothing good is probably going to come of that. Sigh.

Edited October 8, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

Well, I finished it. Cliff-hangers galore, hu? Well, here's what I have to say about that...Mmph. ;)

 

Not a very strong finish or a particularly strong start, but some of the stuff in the middle was rather good at times. What I realized at some point though, I don't really care about the lengthy details of some of the battles. I read them, sure that they would be important at a later date, but I prefer the way she wrote the battle sequences in Dragonfly in Amber. Everything was from Claire's POV, so we didn't get the on-the-battlefield perspective as much as we heard how it went from other characters so it didn't have this history-book quality to them that some of the ones described here did. Ah well, what good are other characters POV if you don't use it from time to time, right? 

 

I'm still baffled by the timeline, though. It appears Claire leaves Scotland in mid-February, travels to America, does two major surgeries, passes seditious material all about town enough to get noticed and has been married to Lord John for a month when Jamie shows up in mid-May. It seems a bit incredulous how all this could've happened in that short of a period of time. Wouldn't a sea voyage from Scotland to America been almost a couple months alone? So, when did Claire have time to do surgery and pass seditious material around Philadelphia? In the meantime, it takes Ian a whole month to figure out Rachael is in Philadelphia...which actually seems appropriate for the time period. I should stop thinking about this, right?

 

Overall, I'm rather disappointed how many things were kinda glossed over, in the end. The aftermath of the fight with Arch Bug was totally skipped over and I don't like it when Gabaldon skips over anything to do with Ian. I also wish we'd get more with Fergus. So much stuff seems to happen to him off-screen, so to speak, and I wish some of it wasn't. I know, there's a lot of characters at this point in the series and he's not physically with Jamie or Claire most of the time, so it's probably difficult.

 

Interesting with the letter from Frank to Brianna. So he did know she would travel at some point and was preparing her with the hunting and such. I have a hard time actually disliking Frank as others seem to. Even though he didn't always do right, I understand why he did the things he did. If nothing else, he did try to protect and support both Claire and Brianna--even if he was doing it in a dishonest fashion--when he could've chosen not to. I hope we get to see the end of that letter in some future book.

 

Which reminds me, I was surprised Claire outted herself to the family. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out with Claire and Jenny. Seems like an awful lot of folks have this knowledge now. Which reminds me again, I was confused by Claire asking Lord John if he believed Brianna about who they were. When did Brianna tell him they were time travelers? I don't remember that. 

 

Seems like Bree and Roger's offspring are not only time travelers, but a bit psychic too? Interesting. I wonder if they get the "sight" from Jamie's side of things, though? With his dreams and Jenny's seeing things...perhaps Mandy and Jem come by their oddness completely honestly?

 

Now I'm sitting here thinking about Buck and wondering how it was he managed to travel forward in time. Claire did it but she was returning to her time. Hmmm? this is going to require more thinking. 

 

Which reminds me...off to download the next one. I'm not sure if I should be thankful that I didn't read them as they were being published--what a long time to wait and see how this plays out! But then again, perhaps I'd have gotten more sleep over the last couple weeks if I hadn't been up till all hours reading one right after the other? 

Edited October 9, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

Now that I've had a chance to read through the thread...I'm glad to know y'all had issues with the timeline too. Egads, it was even worse than I thought, you guys pointed out a whole bunch more that I hadn't picked up on too.

 

 

The Ugly:

Claire.  She really started to grate on my nerves in this book.  

 

I've been really thinking about Claire as a character a lot lately. I've never really warmed up to her, but when the POV shifts away from her I really miss it. What I finally decided is, Claire is an intriguing character, but not a person I would want to be acquainted with in real life. 

 

Oh, by the way, what the Hell was Ian doing in Virginia?

 

I thought he was on his way to Snaketown to see "Emily". Of course, what's her name wasn't at Snaketown, and coincidences being what they are in these books, runs into some other Mohawks who conveniently know of her and of her current whereabouts. Either way, he came from Ticonderoga, so Virginia is on the way.

 

I think you're going to love MOBY.

 

Should I take this to mean that things will be explained in MOBY? Judging by the series history, it usually goes: one book is set up and the next payoff. Outlander/Dragonfly in Amber; Voyager/Drums in Autumn; The Fiery Cross/Breath of Snow and Ashes. So, if pattern persists, Written in My Own Heart's Blood should be the payoff for Echo in the Bone, right? If so, I will probably love it. ;)

 

I couldn't figure that out either. It sounded like she was saying that he was Ian's son, but I thought he was cast out right after she miscarried the last child. If that's the case, he couldn't be. Also, If there was an issue with the Rh factor, it would be highly unlikely. I'm Rh negative myself and had to be tested. We have Rhogam now to prevent the issues that Emily had but it still can happen if there is an unknown pregnancy that miscarries.

 

I don't think he was cast out after the last miscarriage. I don't remember if it was when he was talking to Claire in this book or when he told Bree about his departure, but I thought he said after the last miscarriage they had tried to make things work for some time before they both realized it wasn't working. Tensions starting to run high and Emily's grandmother told him to leave. So, I think lizard boy could technically be Ian's biological son--medical wizardry aside--and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Ian does indeed have his own William at some point later in the series.

[Laurie]

When did Brianna tell him they were time travelers? I don't remember that.

 

 

If I remember correctly that happened in Snow and Ashes when they ran into Lord John & William when they were all in Wilmington just before they "travel" again.  At some point she and Lord John go for a walk alone so she can give him the 3rd degree about who William really is.  I think it's during that conversation she tells him but you never hear/read what she actually says so it doesn't really stand out.  For some reason I also thought she may have told him when they were "engaged" at Cross Creek but I could never find it so I must have imagined it.

 

I gave up gnashing my teeth about the timeline things throughout these books.  It all stems from the "I don't write in a straight line" comment she likes to make.  By the time she gets it all put together I think it's too hard/cumbersome to then try and resolve all the timeline issues.  You're right...a crossing would have taken at least a month.

 

I've never gotten the sense that "Lizard Boy" was Ian's biological son...just that the grandmother felt that was the son Ian and Emily should have had.  I think she really liked Ian, hated having to send him away, and that the 2nd husband doesn't compare all that favorably to Ian in her eyes.

 

MOBY certainly resolves some things but then again, like most Gabaldon books, it comes with it's own set of conundrums.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply that all things get resolved in every other book. It's just that it seems like she introduces something that doesn't generally pay off until the next book. That's one way to make sure you get people to buy the next one, I guess? ;)

 

Thanks for refreshing my memory, Laurie. I now vaguely remember Lord John demanding to know where Brianna was born and had spent her childhood and she said she'd tell him if he told her about Willie. So, he did his on-camera and then she did hers off and then left him sitting under a tree to contemplate what she'd said, if I recall properly. It being off camera, so to speak, it must not have made a big impression on me. It's always interesting what conversations Gabaldon chooses to put on-camera and which she doesn't. 

 

I give up on the timeline now too. I just started MOBY and it's even more screwy right from the start. As long as she keeps everyone in their respective centuries in the same timeline as she had in the past books, it shouldn't be so hard for me. I never actually paid much attention to the dates before this one and it's only because she had all her characters start at different timelines that I started paying attention. Now that all those timelines seem to have merged, I'm hoping won't be an issue going forward.

 

I didn't get the sense that lizard boy was in-fact Ian's kid in this book, just saying that it's not out of the realm of possibility given Gabaldon's way of introducing something that seems benign in one book only to be something much more later on. I was mostly being factitious, but intonation seems to be something I struggle with over the internet.

[chocolatetruffle]

I don't mind her jumping around in the timeline since I usually don't pay that much attention to it anyway.  But when DG starts giving us actual dates, like she does at the beginning of chapters in this book, it draws attention to times and places.  Or when she says specific things like "Ian walked for 12 days."  Of course that's going to make me aware of how long it takes to get from place to place, and me being me, I'm going to start counting backwards.  Her dates in this book were atrocious and if she wants to fudge timelines, then don't give exact dates for events.  By the way, I noticed that she stopped giving dates in the second half of the book, so maybe she got frustrated with the whole timeline issue too.

[DittyDotDot]

The introduction of Randall - Isaacs character certainly doesn't help. It's one of the reasons I'm apprehensive about reading "Written in my own heart's blood" because it would be the final straw for me if he was to share his father's fate.

 

Just to put your mind at ease I'll just say, so far, Randall-Isaacs is not Black Jack Randall's son in anyway. Obviously he wasn't genetically and wouldn't even have laid eyes on the boy since Black Jack died at Culloden. Now you can jump in unfettered...;)

 

 

Do we really know that much of what Jamie was at Willie's age? Or there is something more about his teenage self in one of the additional books, which I have not read? We know he was a mischievous child and his father used to give him a beating in the front of his yardmen so he learnt the meaning of severe justice very early. He also made some crude remark about Mrs Fitz's opulence behind her back and took some massive public trashing as punishment, but he was 16 when he did so. William is 19 in AEITB and Jamie at this age first encountered BJR, got flogged almost to death, lost his father, his home and had to go into exile. So he had to grow up very fast and that's why he sometimes seemed wise beyond his age in his early '20. On the other hand he still used to carry some sort of toys and mole's feet in his sporran back then (hee, sorry I just found it totally endearing).

 

Anyway, the main difference between Willie and Jamie's attitudes is that the latter had zero tendency to whine and mope even though the events with his family and BJR certainly left a gaping emotional wound (after all it's this book when Jamie finally, after 37 years (!), learns how exactly Brian died and is overwhelmed by grief) so William being prone to (well-founded) brooding and moping does set him apart from his his father.

 

I find I actually like William and his little hissy fits. He's young and hotheaded, but it feels genuine to someone born to wealth and a title and who no one seemed to deny his every wish. His grandmother and aunt certainly didn't, anyway. I think John took a stronger hand with him after Isobel's death, though, so I think he'll figure it out eventually.

 

Most of what we know of Jamie's young life is told from Jamie's point of view, so maybe he's just trying to be honest with himself, but I got the sense he was a bit of an idiot when he was 16-18. It sounds to me like he was fairly self-absorbed and full of himself, as most people are at that age. But, as you said, he grew up quite quickly after his run-in with Black Jack. It just seems to be taking William a bit longer to wake up to himself.

 

 

I have another question. Am I wrong to think that Jamie is running out of his lives? He was supposed to have nine lives, like a cat, accoring to a divination mentioned in ABOSAA.

So...

 

- the first life he "lost" when he was hit on head with an axe and nearly died.

 

- the second life he "lost" the night he met Claire for the first time and she tended to his wounds - this one I'm not sure about.

 

- the third life he lost when he nearly died at the abbey and Claire brought him back from delirium.

 

- the forth life - after Culloden.

 

- the fifth life - being shot by Laoghaire.

 

- the sixth life - snake bite in "Fiery Cross".

 

- the seventh life - having his throat nearly slit ater Saratoga battle - does it count?

 

- the eight life - missing the boat which sank with all passengers aboard and believed to be dead by everyone including Claire.

 

I guess the next time he really dies...

 

Yeah, Jamie's nine lives do seem to be running out. Although, I'm not sure I'd count the ship wreck since he didn't actually survive it, just lucked out that he wasn't on it. And, even though Jamie doesn't count the gunshot the night he met Claire, I do. ;)

[Petunia846]

Do we really know that much of what Jamie was at Willie's age? Or there is something more about his teenage self in one of the additional books, which I have not read? We know he was a mischievous child and his father used to give him a beating in the front of his yardmen so he learnt the meaning of severe justice very early. He also made some crude remark about Mrs Fitz's opulence behind her back and took some massive public trashing as punishment, but he was 16 when he did so. William is 19 in AEITB and Jamie at this age first encountered BJR, got flogged almost to death, lost his father, his home and had to go into exile. So he had to grow up very fast and that's why he sometimes seemed wise beyond his age in his early '20. On the other hand he still used to carry some sort of toys and mole's feet in his sporran back then (hee, sorry I just found it totally endearing).

 

Anyway, the main difference between Willie and Jamie's attitudes is that the latter had zero tendency to whine and mope even though the events with his family and BJR certainly left a gaping emotional wound (after all it's this book when Jamie finally, after 37 years (!), learns how exactly Brian died and is overwhelmed by grief) so William being prone to (well-founded) brooding and moping does set him apart from his his father.

One thing I'd add as evidence of Jamie reminding me of Willie is the way he held a grudge about Jenny when he thought she'd had a child with BJR. Instead of going back and talking to her and being there for her, he got it stuck in his head just because Dougal told him and then stayed away for years without being in touch with her. And then when he finally goes back he says those horrible things about her and gets in that big argument. None of that was very mature and he was what 22? I'd call that moping even though it's not in the traditional sense of the word. I like it though, the way both of them can be whiny (or more accurately, I'd say they are overly stoic...a manly man's version of whining) and avoid things they don't want to deal with (telling Claire about remarrying, about William...). It makes them more human as characters, so I don't mind Willie. I actually like him a lot.

[DittyDotDot]

I have a silly question - what was that Claire called Jamie when she put him asleep before the amputation - "You made me cry you ????" In original as I read the books in translation?

 

Speaking of which, her gigantic outburst when she found him wounded on the hill was one of those moments when I didn't know what to do with my love for these two :-)) which is another reason for me feeling apprehensive about WIMOHB. I'm afraid that with so many characters and plotlines around, they are going to get no more than 50 pages or so.

 

Claire calls Jamie "Bloody man". (That's the British slang/swear usage of "bloody")

 

You inspired me to re-read that whole sequence last night starting with Claire looking for Jamie on the battlefield. You know Jamie's going to be okay if Claire starts yelling at Jamie when he's hurt. It's when she gets quiet I begin worry. ;)

[Dust Bunny]

 

Claire calls Jamie "Bloody man". (That's the British slang/swear usage of "bloody")

 

Huh. I know that slang usage, but all this time I've read that phrase as Jamie being a man who is bloody (war, justice, vengeance, etc). It never occurred to me to interpret it in the slang way before. Now I want to search that phrase in all 8 books on my Kindle and read the contexts.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'd just assumed it was in the context of "Bloody Fool." (shrugs)

[DittyDotDot]

Huh. I know that slang usage, but all this time I've read that phrase as Jamie being a man who is bloody (war, justice, vengeance, etc). It never occurred to me to interpret it in the slang way before. Now I want to search that phrase in all 8 books on my Kindle and read the contexts.

 

I always assumed Claire was swearing 90 percent of the time she uses the term simply because she is English and how often Jamie comments on her having a foul mouth after she uses it. I'm sure there are many instances where Claire has called Jamie a "bloody man" to mean he was a man of violence or had blood on his hands, though. But in the context of what Grashka was asking--just before Claire amputates Jamie's mangled finger and Jamie says losing his finger would be worth it if there were at least one good man in the fifty or so he saved on the battlefield; which made Claire cry and utter "You made me cry, bloody man."--I think it's meant to be the English slang/swear usage.

 

Or, in other words, "Damn you man, you made me cry."

 

I don't think the slang usage has the same impact it did back before the 1950s or 1960s. I'm not sure when it went from being a full-on swear word to just being more of an intensifier as it's known today. Hey, is there a word-o out there who knows more on this?

Edited January 6, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[Athena]

I don't think the slang usage has the same impact it did back before the 1950s or 1960s. I'm not sure when it went from being a full-on swear word to just being more of an intensifier as it's known today. Hey, is there a word-o out there who knows more on this?

 

Bloody has been used as an expletive and intensifer since the 17th century, but it didn't become a swear word until the mid 18th century which is when these novels are set. At that point, "bloody" was defined by Samuel Johnson's (1755) dictionary as being "very vulgar". It was profane and considered controversial until about forty-thirty years ago.

 

Claire's constant use of it are definitely not typical of her gender or class but can be attributed to her unusual upbringing and war experiences.

[toolazy]

I just started re-reading this (for about the fourth time) and of all 8 books, it's got the most number of skippable chapters.  Like many others here I have trouble with all of the military nonsense and the interminable letters and declarations and the like.  

 

I am also gratified to find that I'm not the only person who dislikes Brianna.  The only time I like her is when she's talking with John Grey and that's probably just because I like the way he responds to her. In my various re-readings I've taken to skipping over the 20th century bits, for the most part. I have to say that I'm glad I'm not one of the readers who had to wait 5 years for Jem to get out of the tunnel.

 

This is the book that caused me to fall in love with John Grey and his family.  The only JG chapters I skip are the ones when he's going around to various political people and discussing things I don't care about.  

 

I want more scenes with Fergus, Jamie & Germaine like the one in the pub when they were spying on Percy.  The three of them are a hoot together.

 

Speaking of William's resemblance to Jamie - in the scene where the Bell women visit Jamie & Claire in the inn one of the girls looks at Jamie and says, "You remind me of someone." Ha!  She was one of the ones making eyes at Willie when he had dinner at their house.  These sorts of offhand little comments that one can easily overlook in the context of the scene are riddled throughout these books and the more I read, the more I come across.  I love them.

 

Yeah, this is a weird book. There are great things here but there's a lot of other stuff to either endure or skip. 

 

As for the Hunters, I wasn't wild about them in this book but by the end of the next book, I think they're awesome. Their characters become much more complex and interesting over time. 

Edited January 29, 2016 by toolazy

[toolazy]

While Jamie and Young Ian bear some responsibility for the events in DiA, I mostly blame Brianna.  I should say, I mostly blame Diana G for making Brianna stupid enough to not explain to her mother exactly what happened.  It was one of those plots that couldn't work if the characters communicated with each other.  It was lazy writing.

 

I'm troubled that the producer is saying possibly negative things about this character because that makes me worry that she's going to be annoying in the show, too.  

[satrunrose]

Oh, Ian! Seriously, there needs to be a warning before the saddest chapters 'cause I was just eating my breakfast, reading away and then Ian died and I was bawling all over my croissant. For all of the issues Outlander might have, the relationships between the characters are a beautiful thing and it just makes things like that so hard. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the first 1/2 or 2/3 of this one was slow going. I blamed it on the fact that I haven't read any of the Lord John novels and I'm not American so I only know the broadest strokes about the Revolution, but I think now that I've read through this thread, I can safely blame DG (sorry DG). 

 

My likes

Anything with Jamie and Claire: I just love those two together much, but I also like them separately. I think Claire might be a little hard to take in person because she's so compassionately ruthless and direct, but as a character I mostly love her to pieces (with the exception of certain chunks of DIA ). 

The Hunters: Unlike Claire and even Jamie (I love his personality, but feel like being near him is just asking for something unpleasantly dramatic to happen to me), I would love to hang out with Friend Denzel and Friend Rachel. They're nice, smart and idealistic without being stupid about it. I'm not sure I could handle a whole buik just about them, but I don't find them any less interesting than Bobby or Lizzie or the twins (seriously, the only interesting thing about that trio is their... unconventional... living arrangement). I also felt like the Hunters' Quaker faith was a good way to keep talking about the role of violence in society. We've seen this theme in other books, but since Jamie is very much a warrior and Claire, for all her muttering about men and scots, doesn't entirely disagree with him, it's nice to see the other side (sort of - DG is still very much team Warrior and it shows in the way the Hunters relate to the war and to Ian at the end). 

Scotland: After some much-needed humour in Edinburgh (Bonnie the printing press, snicker), the Lallybroch parts were heartbreakingly well done. I also surprised myself by enjoying Legohaire. I've hated that character since the witch trial but it was nice to see that her perspective wasn't completely unreasonable without taking anything away from Jamie and Claire. 

They have their moments...

William and John. William got much more interesting after he joined up with the main cast and I liked John a lot after he got back to Philadelphia. I had a hard time following the spy stuff and the Gray family drama (though I did like Dottie and Henry).

The war stuff. One of the reasons I love historical fiction is because it lets you see things from the perspective of the people who didn't have a chance to leave a written record at the time. I found the evacuation of Ticonderoga, the parts about life in camp, the politics and the aftermaths of the battles fairly interesting but DG could have covered the same ground in about half the time (especially the early parts narrated by William).

Fergus, Marsali et al. I love them, but Fergus and Percy was one sub-plot too many. I think if DG had cut William's fruitless intelligencing then the MacKenzie-Frasers might have had a little more room to breathe. 

Roger and Brianna: I've always liked Roger and been meh on Brianna (she's beautiful! She can hunt! She can paint! She can make/build/invent anything! She can do all the heavy lifting required for an 18th century colonial woman but I've always found her personality weirdly bland.) This book mostly reversed that. I thought Brianna was much more relatable as a 20th century working mom but I don't get why Roger has his crisis of faith regarding predestination in the 20th century but was fine with it when he was actually living in another time and potentially changing things.  

Young Ian: Love the character, hate the baggage. I miss goofy Ian from DOA. I get why he isn't that goofy kid anymore and that he would have grown up and gotten less goofy even without all the tragedy but it still makes me sad.

 

Ugh

The Bugs: As much as I love these books, DG is just not good at villains. With BJR, after a book and a half of unspeakable evil, DG tries to make him sympathetic and it just doesn't work. The zealots for a lost cause (Dougall and Gellis) started out interesting and ambiguously vilainish but, sadly, turned out to be plain nuts. The worst, though, are the twist villains like Sandringham, Mr Wiloghby and now Arch Bug. At least with Dougall and Gellis there was some build up to the way things ended but the Bugs especially came right out of left field. A few lines said by either Bug about the Bonnie Prince or their feelings about vengeance is all the foreshadowing that we would have needed to make this a compelling storyline instead of one that only makes sense if you look at the book individually instead of part of a larger series.

The privateer thing: I hate the farce-y string of action bits in every book (see Voyager) and this is no exception. There are better ways to get Jamie into the thick of the Revolution. 

 

Sorry this was so long-winded everyone. If your do like I did for certain chunks of the book and skim I don't blame you in the slightest.

Edited May 23, 2016 by satrunrose

[Dejana]

How did I miss the time when a sober John joins a lonely (but sober) Claire in bed, offers to "comfort" her and she ends up *ahem* giving him a hand?! I've read this book a few times and of course remember the infamous drunken night, but I guess I skimmed over that part until now!

[WatchrTina]

You probably forgot it because neither John nor Claire remembers to mention it when each confesses to Jamie.  John certainly didn't need to add fuel to the fire and Claire probably didn't want to get into details because, as you rightly point out, that time they weren't drunk and nearly prostrate with grief like they were when they had "carnal knowledge" of one another.  Yeah, best not to share that particular story with Jamie.

Edited August 8, 2016 by WatchrTina

[ulkis]

I visited the Princeton Battlefield site this weekend, and for those in the area, there was an bit that reminded me of Outlander - Brigadier General Hugh Mercer (who was killed in the battle) was an assistant surgeon in Charles Stuart's army and took part in the Battle of Culloden, and fled in 1747. (I picked this thread to mention it in because the battle took place in January 1777.)

Edited August 8, 2016 by ulkis

[buffynut]

Hi folks. I've been avoiding this forum as I'm too afraid of accidentally getting spoiled.  But since I've just finished An Echo in the Bone, thought I'd say pop in and hello.

I started reading the series for the first time in the spring and have been borrowing the e-books from my library. The first couple books I read one after the other. Then I had to wait a few weeks for a couple books. And now I've just finished this one and started the 8th one.

Reading them one after the other makes it hard to comment on individual books, as I find they all run together in my mind, especially the last couple.  I did enjoy this one a lot, though did skim over some of the long letters from William and other battle stuff.

As a Canadian, I am learning about the American Revolution, as until reading these books, I thought by July 4, 1776 everything would be settled.  I also didn't know much about the French Revolution until Claire's warning to Michael prompted me to Google it.  

Will post in the Written in My Own Heart's Blood thread in a few weeks, as it takes me about that long to read these books.

[DittyDotDot]

On 8/29/2016 at 1:02 PM, buffynut said:

As a Canadian, I am learning about the American Revolution, as until reading these books, I thought by July 4, 1776 everything would be settled.  I also didn't know much about the French Revolution until Claire's warning to Michael prompted me to Google it.  

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

[katville]

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.

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, Grashka said:

I like Lord John and kind of love his brother Hal, particulary in book 8 (Dottie - not so much) but when their storyline strays totally from the Frasers, I rather don't see the point.

The one thing I like about the inclusion of Lord John and his family is that they are English and the enemy, so to speak. What I mean is, I like how Gabaldon has shown two sides of the American Revolution and no one side is entirely right or wrong. Both sides are full of people doing what they think is right and/or doing what they think is right for them. I think that's something important to remember when we look back at history, so I appreciate how Jamie danced between the two factions. But for that to be successful, we really do need to have some insight into both sides, IMO.

Other than that, I could totally live without Hal's kids--I find them mostly boring--but I kinda love Hal and John's relationship so I enjoy it when they get some time on the page together.