Book 8: Written in My Own Heart’s Blood

[WatchrTina]

 

it's a shame that Jamie had to use William's bastardy as a weapon in this instance, though I don't know what else he could have done given that he had to think on his feet and did a pretty impressive job of doing so.

I agree -- especially since Jamie was still incapacitated by his back injury so he was just barely hanging on during that conversation (I just finished re-reading the chapter.)  The chapter ends with his relief at succeeding coupled with his dismay at the realization that if his blackmail had not worked and if William had taken a swing at him, he would not have been able take him (due to his back.)

 

I re-read that chapter as a result of the discussion above and I SO enjoyed it.  I completely give William a pass (but only because Ian got away unscathed -- I would NEVER have forgiven him if Ian had been flogged.)  The poor lamb.  His whole world is turned upside down and on top of everything else the girl he fancies has gotten engaged to his "cousin."  And she knows about his biological father -- knew it before he did even.  I completely forgive William for losing it.  He does have the Fraser temper gene after all.

 

That chapter is comical in so many ways.  I loved the fight between Rachel and William.  I was SO proud of her when she hit him and doubly so when she spits and wipes her mouth after he kisses her.  She didn't say it but I know her actions meant "Fuck thee!"

 

And that moment when Ian catches sight of Jamie . . . that was funny too -- not at all the warm, emotional, huggy, weepy reunion another writer might have written.   Loved it.

Edited August 11, 2015 by WatchrTina

[AD55]

That chapter is comical in so many ways.  I loved the fight between Rachel and William.  I was SO proud of her when she hit him and doubly so when she spits and wipes her mouth after he kisses her.  She didn't say it but I know her actions meant "Fuck thee!"

 

 

I understand Rachel's smacking William, but I don't admire her for blaming him for her falling off the pacifist wagon. Woman up and take responsibility for your actions, girl.

 

I've always found Rachel's sanctimony a little irritating,  and her relationship with Ian makes zero sense. I just don't see a Friend with conviction agreeing to marry someone whose morality is so radically different from hers. To use an anachronistic analogy, this isn't a quarrel over whether the toilet paper should unravel over or under the roll. I would understand her being attracted to him, but her rationalization that he's her wolf so it's just fine for him to come home after a long day at the office killing people is contemptible and, I think, unrealistic. It would have been much more interesting if DG had portrayed their love as the tragic attraction between two people whose radically opposed views of violence prevent them from being together. As it is, Rachel isn't even very conflicted. I didn't think for one minute that her commitment to nonviolence would result in her rejecting Ian.

[GHScorpiosRule]

It's hard to argue with this, but if Rachel and Ian had just let William go instead of chasing after someone who clearly did not want to talk to them, that would have been the end of it. William did beg Ian's pardon for hitting him and tried to clear out knowing that he was about to pop off. While he was already angry at Ian, I think it was his betrothal to Rachel and the discovery that Rachel knew Jamie was his father (and had gossiped about it with her brother as nodorothyparker said) that set him off. His fury that everyone but him knew about his parentage combined with his feelings about Rachel were all too much for him. Again, not excusing his behavior here. Ilike to think that he would have freed Ian on his own before any real harm was done even if Jamie hadn't blackmailed him.

 

But Wee Ian didn't know why Willie wouldn't want to talk to him--and it's not like Wee Ian grabbed Willie's arm, he just reached out and touched it. He was totally in the dark about Willie learning of his parentage.

 

Now the aftermath of Jemmy's kidnapping and Rob's Arsehole and his gang of thieves is getting bloody ridiculous. As if Bree has the key to the gold, and the fucking polis just seem to shrug off Jemmy's kidnapping? When you have an eyewitness in the form of one MacLeod, the watchman, who told them that yes, some man was chasing after Jemmy and conked him?

 

I just want to gather Jemmy up and hold him and cuddle him and love him. Puir wee lamb--knowing why he was kidnapped--going through the rocks, having to stay silent and then just losing that Famous Fraser temper, along with some PTSD.

 

And I wanted to kosh that maroon Ernie's heid.  It took kidnappers smashing into his van and seeing strangers coming out of the house for him to realize that it wasn't over? The fact that Cameron Arsehole was still at large and the polis were still looking for him, didn't give him a clue?

 

So is McEwan Raymond? Or a fellow traveler like Raymond, he of the giving off of the blue light?

 

I'm ready to get back to Jamie and Claire and Wee Ian, thankyouverramooch.  And if it's not too much to ask, how about some Fergus and Germaine, while we're at it?

 

[WatchrTina]

 

And I wanted to kosh that maroon Ernie's heid.

Oh good, you've joined me in my disgust with Fiona's moronic husband.  Welcome to the club.

 

 

I understand Rachel's smacking William, but I don't admire her for blaming him for her falling off the pacifist wagon. Woman up and take responsibility for your actions, girl.

Weel, he did taunt her with that whole "What are YOU gonna do about it?" exchange when she is trying to shame him into releasing Ian.  So I forgive her the slap.  He had it coming. "Your Honor, he NEEDED slapping."

 

So . . . I wasn't sleepy and decided to skim the chapters that followed that scene to get to the Jamie-Claire reunion scene.  How had I forgotten the scene with Jenny holding a gun on Hal?  Oh my gosh that scene was funny.  Jamie just wants to find his wife but first he has to stop Jenny from killing Hal, avoid Mrs. Figg who's waiving around a rifle, stop Hal from killing Denny, whoops, I mean stop Hal from dying from asthma due to being so angry with Denny, and then he gets to witness the touching reunion between Ian and his Mam.  Aw.  But where the hell is Claire?

 

Oh there she is!  Sigh.  The reunion scene.  I do love a scene written from Claire's point of view that features a very emotional Jamie just barely keeping himself in check. And I love how what looks like it's going to be repeat of the weepy, loving Ian/Jenny reunion scene turns IMMEDIATELY to "Ye went to bed with John Grey, aye?"  Cue the record scratch sound effect!  Hee!  There is lots of pathos in that chapter but I cracked up laughing out loud repeatedly through that scene.  OMG, the moment when she figures out that Jamie knows she wasn't the only one pretending that Jamie was there when she and John had angry, drunken, grief-induced sex.  I'm sorry -- I know Jamie's PTSD-driven feelings about John's attraction to him is no laughing matter . . . but that was funny.  Great writing.  And I did love both the parallel and the contrast between Jamie's night with Mary MacNab in the cave and Claire's night with John.

 

So . . . I'm pretty sure neither John nor Claire ever mentions to Jamie the morning hand-job Claire gave John at a later point in the marriage, right?   Honesty is one thing but that would just be poking a bear with a stick.

Edited August 15, 2015 by WatchrTina

[AD55]

Weel, he did taunt her with that whole "What are YOU gonna do about it?" exchange when she is trying to shame him into releasing Ian.  So I forgive her the slap.  He had it coming. "Your Honor, he NEEDED slapping."

 

 

Just to be clear, I don't blame Rachel for slapping William. I blame her for not taking responsibility for her actions. It's not his fault that she doesn't keep to her principles.

[CalamityBoPeep]

Just to be clear, I don't blame Rachel for slapping William. I blame her for not taking responsibility for her actions. It's not his fault that she doesn't keep to her principles.

 

I always had the impression that Rachel's Quaker principles weren't as deeply ingrained as Denny's.  She just seemed more conflicted overall, at all the points where other needs opposed the Quaker training.  Including the point about Ian's being comfortable with violence and wolf-like.  I think that there's a part of Rachel that just can't fully accept the pacifist idea that violence is never necessary, and so she rationalizes that if she doesn't commit violence herself, it's good enough.  She lets others take the job of being the sheepdogs for the Quaker flock.

 

Because, honestly, look at the world she lives in.  Violence all around... and she's really just one woman, with her brother, and not a lot of protection.  Not even safety in numbers, for her and Denny, except when they're with the army... which is a fairly violent place to be.

[AD55]

I always had the impression that Rachel's Quaker principles weren't as deeply ingrained as Denny's.  She just seemed more conflicted overall, at all the points where other needs opposed the Quaker training.  Including the point about Ian's being comfortable with violence and wolf-like.  I think that there's a part of Rachel that just can't fully accept the pacifist idea that violence is never necessary, and so she rationalizes that if she doesn't commit violence herself, it's good enough.  She lets others take the job of being the sheepdogs for the Quaker flock.

 

Because, honestly, look at the world she lives in.  Violence all around... and she's really just one woman, with her brother, and not a lot of protection.  Not even safety in numbers, for her and Denny, except when they're with the army... which is a fairly violent place to be.

 

Fair enough, but if that's the case, she should just acknowledge that she doesn't have a problem with violence in some instances and not keep paying lip service to her principles. Ian at one point tells Jamie that pacifists only get to be nonviolent because there are people like them who do their fighting for them. This is a common opinion, but It's a patronizing and disrespectful view that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the deeply held beliefs of the Society of Friends, among others. People who consider themselves pacifists don't want other people to commit violent acts on their behalf. Unfortunately, pacifism is often equated with passive and they're quite different things.

 

Do I condemn people who don't hold to their principles in this or in other areas when they are severely tested? No. Most of us don't know how we will behave until we are under duress, but that's the point, really. I would say that refraining from hitting William should have been a pretty easy test to pass, so I agree that Rachel's commitment to nonviolence is frail. That said, many proponents of nonviolence make a distinction between personal self-defense and war. William had no business forcing himself on Rachel -- I don't cut him any slack for that -- and her slapping him could be seen as falling into the first category, assuming that's what she thinks. Again, it's really her blaming him for making her violate her principles that I have a problem with. I live in a big old glass house myself and am in no position to condemn others for their flaws. When my kids were small, I was always astonished when folks would criticize other people's parenting. Unless a parent is clearly abusive, that's the kind of thing that will eventually bite you in the butt.

Edited August 11, 2015 by AD55

[GHScorpiosRule]

Oh good, you've joined me in my disgust with Fiona's moronic husband.  Welcome to the club.

 

<snip>

 

 How had I forgotten the scene with Jenny holding a gun on Hal?  Oh my gosh that scene was funny.  Jamie just wants to find his wife but first he has to stop Jenny from killing Hal,

 

Yes, he's the most selfish, idiotic, ignorant idiot! And how Fiona allowed him to take Jemmy and Mandy home, when she hadn't heard back from Bree yet? Dolt.

 

Was she really trying to kill Hal, though? I thought she was using it to get him back into bed, because he wasn't quite healed yet, but then also used it to remind him of why shouldn't she kill him, since "he", meaning the English, were responsible for taking Ian away to Tollbooth, which caused Ian's consumption, and led to his painful death. But yeah, like I said up thread, the whole scene was hilarious.

[CalamityBoPeep]

I would say that refraining from hitting William should have been a pretty easy test to pass, so I agree that Rachel's commitment to nonviolence is frail. That said, many proponents of nonviolence make a distinction between personal self-defense and war. William had no business forcing himself on Rachel -- I don't cut him any slack for that -- and her slapping him could be seen as falling into the first category, assuming that's what she thinks. Again, it's really her blaming him for making her violate her principles that I have a problem with. 

 

Oh, I agree on that point.  Not hitting William should have been a pretty easy test to pass, but I'm not sure Rachel has had enough experience with men in love with her to have worked out another way to handle it, yet.  (Tongue kind of in cheek there, btw).  I just write it off as her being young, surprised at her own impulse to smack him, not very sure of her own principles, and probably a bit shocked at how much attention she's garnering, as apparently the only nice looking young lady around. ;-)  I mean, how long is it going to be before she falls victim to a rape attempt, right?  Then all her character traits will be sorely tested.  <rolling eyes>

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yeah, well, Rachel smacked Wee Ian when he first kissed her, too.

[CalamityBoPeep]

Yeah, well, Rachel smacked Wee Ian when he first kissed her, too.

 

Oy.  Forgot about that.  I guess she just likes smacking people who want to kiss her then. LOL  Hopefully when the inevitable rape attempt happens, she won't freeze up, and will freely smack away.

 

(This is not a suggestion for a story direction, DG!)

[AD55]

Yeah, well, Rachel smacked Wee Ian when he first kissed her, too.

 

I had totally forgotten this.

[bearcatfan]

Earnie is a dolt. That's probably too kind. He only get that much because he did realize that Bree and the kids were in danger and helped them out. Of course they wouldn't have been in that much danger if he hadn't brought the kids back.

 

I understand that pacifists don't want anyone to use violence, but that's not reality, not now and certainly not in the past. Some one has to be willing to use violence so the pacifists aren't enslavened or murdered. A country without a military force soon finds itself occupied.

 

Everyone (characters) saying that they knew Jamie was Willie's father annoyed me too because they didn't know, they suspected. It is possible for unrelated people to resemble each other. Only a few people actually knew with certainty.

 

The whole scene with Willie, Ian and Rachel was the height of my Willie annoyance. Ian had been nothing but kind to him and he hits Ian and then forces himself on Rachel. Not his best moment.

 

[WatchrTina]

I entertained myself today at lunch and dinner by re-reading the following scenes in books 7 & 8:

• ​Claire & John's night of mutual grief followed by a morning of post-coital getting-to-know-you talk.
• The return of Jamie (followed rapidly by William finding out he's a bastard, Jamie kidnapping John, William & Claire's tete-a-tete, William going all HULK-SMASH on the stairs and chandelier, Claire and Jenny's reconciliation, and last but not least, John's growing realization that he is going to DIE followed by his declaration to Jamie re: having had carnal knowledge of his wife.)
• Jamie & John discuss having sex with Claire -- part 2 (also known as the time John proved he was no diplomat by kicking down one of the pillars of his friendship with Jamie -- the pillar that required him to never mention his desire to bone Jamie.)
• Jamie & Claire discuss having sex with John -- or rather Claire's serving as a surrogate so that John could have sex with Jamie.

I kept laughing out loud. In a restaurant. Damn these books are fun.

Edited August 12, 2015 by WatchrTina

[bearcatfan]

[*]Jamie & John discuss having sex with Claire -- part 2 (also known as the time John proved he was no diplomat by kicking down one of the pillars of his friendship with Jamie -- the pillar that required him to never mention his desire to bone Jamie.)

I'm going to have to read that scene again because I'm not sure if John realizes his mistake was confessing to pretending Claire was Jamie rather than actually having sex with Claire. Not that Jamie was happy about that but he wouldn't't have been quite so violent about it.

[WatchrTina]

Oh I think John realizes his mistake.  After all, it's not the first time.  If you've read the John Grey novels you know that there is a scene in one where John says something even MORE provocative to Jamie (though admittedly Jamie provokes him into saying it) and in that case Jamie also throws a punch but diverts it at the last second and puts his fist into a wall.  That was self-preservation by Jamie because this happened while he was still a paroled prisoner at Helwater.  I think that's what Jamie is referring to  here in Book 8 when he tells Claire (during their long, confessional talk in the garden) that he hit John twice and the first punch was for matters "between them" and that the blow had been a long time coming.  Jamie didn't hit John back in Ardsmuir Prison when John made a pass the first time.  He didn't hit him at Helwater though he came very close.  But when John tells Jamie that he had sex with Claire, pretending she was Jamie . . . well yeah he asked for that one.

 

I just love John Grey, in part because he is such an honorable guy, but there is such a thing as being too honest.  Would it have been so hard to say "We were drunk and grieving and it only happened the one time and I'm quite certain she was thinking of you the whole time so let's just not talk about it any more."  Oh no.  He has to say "we were both fucking you."  Seriously, he deserved that punch.  What happened afterward . . . well he didn't deserve all THAT.  But damn John, you're supposed to be a diplomat.  Show some discretion!

Edited August 12, 2015 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

Do you think John will ever be told what happened to Jamie in Wentworth ?

[WatchrTina]

No, I don't. It's WAY too personal.  But actually, he sort of knows.  Gotta slip behind the spoiler bar because I'll be quoting a John Grey novel.

 In one of the John Grey novels John ask Jamie's advice on a personal matter.  Jamie's one of the few people he can talk to because it has to do with a friend of John's who has been caught in a homosexual act (while in the army -- so he's up for court-martial).  There were only two witnesses -- John and one other man -- and the other one has been killed in combat.  So John can spare his friend by lying about what he witnessed, but that would be dishonorable.  Jamie gives him some advice but the conversation takes an unfortunate turn with regard to gay sex and whether or not gay love is real.  Jamie is offended by John's assertion that the love between two men can be just as real as between a man and a woman.  Jamie  -- who is still grieving for Claire and is, let's face it, still suffering from post-rape PTSD -- scoffs at this and basically equates homosexuality with child molestation.  John reacts badly to this.  Heated words are exchanged.  And John says (very ill advisedly) that if he were to take Jamie into his bed, he could make Jamie "scream."  Jamie throws a punch that, had it landed, could have killed John. Lucky for John, Jamie veers off at the last second and punches the wall instead. John beats a hasty retreat because, in that moment, looking in Jamie's eyes, he suddenly realizes that someone -- some man -- HAS made Jamie scream.  In bed.  And not in a good way.  So although that topic is never discussed again between them, that moment gives John some insight into why Jamie's reactions to his overtures at Ardsmuir were so extreme (i.e., "Remove your hand or I'll kill you.")  John doesn't know when or where it happened, but he's got a pretty good idea that Jamie has had a very bad experience somewhere in his past that colors his opinion of gay sex to a dangerous degree.

 

Now I have a question for the peanut gallery.  John and Jamie share one climactic scene together at the beginning of the book when Jamie hits John (twice) and then gives him to the rebels.  Do John and Jamie see each other again in this book?  If so, can anyone tell me which chapter? Because I'd really like to re-read that scene.

Edited August 15, 2015 by WatchrTina

[bearcatfan]

No, I don't. It's WAY too personal.  But actually, he sort of knows.  Gotta slip behind the spoiler bar because I'll be quoting a John Grey novel.

 In one of the John Grey novels John ask Jamie's advice on a personal matter.  Jamie's one of the few people he can talk to because it has to do with a friend of John's who has been caught in a homosexual act (while in the army -- so he's up for court-martial).  There were only two witnesses -- John and one other man -- and the other one has been killed in combat.  So John can spare his friend by lying about what he witnessed, but that would be dishonorable.  Jamie give him some advice but the conversation takes an unfortunate turn with regard to gay sex and whether or not gay love is real.  Jamie is offended by John's assertion that the love between two men can be just as real as between a man and a woman.  Jamie  -- who is still grieving for Claire and is, let's face it, still suffering from post-rape PTSD -- scoffs at this and basically equates homosexuality with child molestation.  John reacts badly to this.  Heated words are exchanged.  And John says (very ill advisedly) that if he were to take Jamie into his bed, he could make Jamie "scream."  Jamie throws a punch that, had it landed, could have killed John. Lucky for John, Jamie veers off at the last second and punches the wall instead. John beats a hasty retreat because, in that moment, looking in Jamie's eyes, he suddenly realizes that someone -- some man -- HAS made Jamie scream.  In bed.  And not in a good way.  So although that topic is never discussed again between them, that moment gives John some insight into why Jamie's reactions to his overtures at Ardsmuir were so extreme (i.e., "Remove your hand or I'll kill you.")  John doesn't know when or where it happened, but he's got a pretty good idea that Jamie has had a very bad experience somewhere in his past that colors his opinion of gay sex to a dangerous degree.

 

Now I have a question for the peanut gallery.  John and Jamie share one climactic scene together at the beginning of the book when Jamie hits John (twice) and then give him to the rebels.  Do John and Jamie see each other again in this book?  If so, can anyone tell me which chapter? Because I'd really like to re-read that scene.

I think they see each other at Jane's funeral but don't' interact at all. I can't recall any other time. It's chapter 134.

What novel is it with Jamie and John's "discussion"?

[Laurie]

Yes they do.  John eventually ends up in a rebel militia outfit that ends up under Jamie's command.  They discover him in the ranks when they're inspecting the troops. So then he becomes Jamie's prisoner and he's taken to Jamie and Claire's tent so Claire can fix his eye.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Speaking of more gaffes...and maybe it's because I'm reading these [i[buiks[/i] back-to-back, no, wait. Jamie didn't punch John in Echo, it was in this buik. Anyhoo, it explicitly states that Jamie socked him in the right eye. But after that, every time we see Lord John, he talks about his left eye being injured, how Jamie hit his left eye, the left side of his face hurts, left...left..left...left...

 

And DG always thanks people who read her drafts in chunks, and they didn't catch this?

 

I have no explanation as to why I catch these kind of things. But it bugs me.

 

bearcatfan, I believe it's  The Brotherhood of the Blade.

Edited August 12, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[nodorothyparker]

Chapter 61.  A Viscous Three-Way.  We're in the process of getting ready to move and I don't have a ton of books left out.  I'm doing a lot of skimming for favorite scenes in the books that are.

 

Honestly, I don't know that John truly sees anything he said to Jamie as a mistake.  It was certainly the wrong approach if he didn't want to take an ass beating but he even makes a point of yelling after Jamie that he's not bloody sorry about it when Jamie abandons him to the rebels after their altercation.  And when Claire later asks him about it, John says, yes of course he did know better but did it anyway.  At that point, even with everything that's happened, I think John is so happy that Jamie isn't dead and gone forever that he just doesn't care.  He can't have the big reunion of falling into each other's arms that Claire gets, but he can have his moment of honesty about how deep his own grief ran.  For once, Jamie's continual need to pretend that that element of their friendship doesn't exist is less important than John's own to acknowledge that it does.  Everything he says afterward indicates he knew exactly what he was doing and considers the punch a fair tradeoff.

 

My book copy does say he was hit in the left eye.  I went back and checked to be sure because I have a whole laundry list of continuity things, especially in the later books, and thought I must have missed one.  I do sometimes notice odd things like that in kindle versions of books I'm familiar with.

[peacefrog]

John and Jamie also interacted when Claire was recovering from the gunshot wound. He kept calling her "my dear" and Jamie got mad. He also offered his house to them. I think they also both at the double wedding but can't remember if they exchanged words.

[bearcatfan]

There was a few scenes when John is a prisoner in the camp because I remember Claire fixing his eye. I just remembered that. I wasn't't sure of the chapter so thanks nodorothyparker for that as I'm sure it would have taken me a while to find it.

Now I'll have to read "The Brotherhood of the Blade."

[WatchrTina]

 

bearcatfan, I believe it's  The Brotherhood of the Blade.

Yup, that's the one.  The full title is "Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade."  The scene I described above happens near the end of the book and it sets the stage for "The Scottish Prisoner" which is also a Lord John novel but one in which JAMMF plays a huge role, serving as narrator for about half the chapters, as well as being the title character.  The angry dynamic set up in the quote above makes for a very interesting situation in "The Scottish Prisoner", in which John and Jamie are forced to work together to deal with a difficult situation.

 

I think John is so happy that Jamie isn't dead and gone forever that he just doesn't care.  He can't have the big reunion of falling into each other's arms that Claire gets, but he can have his moment of honesty about how deep his own grief ran.

I love this comment.  I hadn't thought of it that way before but yes, it does go a long way toward explaining these moments when John-the-diplomat says the most provoking things to Jamie.  Excellent analysis!

Edited August 12, 2015 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

 

Now I'll have to read "The Brotherhood of the Blade."

Well, I don't want to over-sell it.  It's not my favorite Lord John book -- that would be "The Scottish Prisoner", but if you really want to understand the Jamie/John relationship -- that scene in The Brotherhood of the Blade, coupled with the whole of The Scottish Prisoner is a must.

 

Thanks for the all the tips on the Jamie/John scenes. I'll go looking for them today.  I had forgotten John's habit of calling Claire "my dear" in front of Jamie.  Hee!  You just know he's doing it to goad Jamie -- small recompense for all the shit Jamie put him through.  I just love Lord John.

 

Oh and I'm weighing in late on the whole question of how can Rachel as a Quaker accept Ian's "wolf" ways.  For me the moment of truth happened in the last book -- when Arch Bug came to the print shop to kill Rachel.  She pleads with Ian NOT to kill Arch (even as she pleads with Arch not to her HER). Arch, of course, doesn't listen to her at all.  In fact his attitude toward her ("Just come here lass and I'll make it quick") is one of the most chilling exchanges in the book.  But I think Rachel's Quaker beliefs are knocked on their head when Ian gets in front of her and says to Arch "Kill me instead."  That's NOT what she wanted but it is the only option she gave Ian.  I think she learned a hard lesson about the world in that moment and that made it possible for her to accept Ian the way he is.  The fact that it was William who actually killed Arch while Ian was seriously injured defending her was also a boon to the Rachel/Ian match (clever plotting actually).  Poor William -- he rescues a damsel in distress and only succeeds in driving her into the arms of his romantic rival.  Really, the guy can't catch a break.

Edited August 12, 2015 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

I found Brotherhood of the Blade dull dull dull except for the chapters Jamie was in.  Again, with the too much military stuff and while I do like John and Hal too, they just don't carry a book by themselves very well.

 

I love how layered the Jamie-John-Claire relationship is.  While I know there were fans of the romance outraged by the John-Claire pairing, I love what it adds, from John's subtle little "my dears" that clearly annoy Jamie to Claire's for fuck's sake attitude about their prickliness with each other afterward. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't know. I just don't see any nefarious motives on Lord John's part. His calling Claire "My dear", isn't something exclusive to just her. He called Dottie "dear" and I believe, he also said it to Henry when he first saw how bad Henry's state was.

 

Now do I believe he meant it when he said he wasn't sorry for telling Jamie what he did? I do, absolutely I do.  He doesn't consider his love for Jamie a dirty little secret, and so I think he just wanted it out there, so that they can't pretend that they're just friends, and that Lord John isn't in love with him, and can remain friends in spite of how Lord John feels.

 

Honestly, I don't think too hard about such things when reading--either this series or any other buik or when I watch a show. I don't want to have to think, let alone analyze. I have to do more than that when I'm at work.

Edited August 12, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[WatchrTina]

 

I love how layered the Jamie-John-Claire relationship is.

Oh me too.  I think it adds enormously to the book series as a whole.  And I remain convinced that the introduction of John, a gay "hero," into the series was a serendipitous reaction to the back-lash over the main villain of book #1 being a gay sadist.  I doubt Diana had any idea just how much John was going to add to the tale.  I think he was introduced primarily as the lynch-pin that allowed Jamie to survive Culloden (Hal's debt of honor for Jamie not killing John.)  The boy in the woods in book 2 didn't have to be gay but I'm so glad he was because it makes for such a fascinating dynamic in the later books.

 

 

His calling Claire "My dear", isn't something exclusive to just her. He called Dottie "dear" and I believe, he also said it to Henry when he first saw how bad Henry's state was.

Dottie and Henry are members of his family so using the term with them implies a level of intimacy.  John is a diplomat and he is perfectly capable of revising his language with Claire and referring to her only as Mrs. Fraser in front of others.  I think he refuses to do so mostly because he refuses to pretend the marriage (and all the related intimacy) never happened but also, in a small way, to send a quiet "fuck you" to Jamie for the second punch.  Even Jamie admits he shouldn't have hit John the second time, which was over Claire (he says "I ken that now!" after talking to Claire about it in the garden.)  It was the second punch that broke John's eye socket.  So yeah, I remain convinced that when John calls Claire "my dear" in front of Jamie he experiences a small bit of satisfaction that he CAN call her that -- that he earned the right to call her that by saving her from arrest by marrying her -- and that Jamie just needs to swallow his discomfort and endure it.

Edited August 12, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

ARGHHHH!!!!! Noooo!!!!

 

I knew it! I just knew when I posted in the Echo thread, that when I picked this buik up, I did NOT want to see that fucking sadistic piece of shit rapist arsehole Jonathan Wolverton Randall--I would! And to show him in the light? Fuck that shit.  And Roger praying for him, that he doesn't do what he ends up doing? Fuck that too.  Not that I'm saying I want what happens to Jamie in a couple of years to happen, but why did we I have to see him again?

 

That said, I'm thoroughly enjoying Roger and Buccleigh's relationship.

 

Oh...joy. Dougal. And luik--he's sae charming, too!

 

So Bree is taking Jemmy and Mandy back to 1778--the only place she'll be safe apparently from those greedy kidnapping bastards--because of course, ye canna trust the polis.

 

I did like that moment when Bree found Frank's letter though.

 

Now I'm starting to wonder if Roger and Bree/Jemmy/Mandy will be apart for the rest of this buik, repeating the pattern of her parents. If so, how..redundant of DG.

 

But I'm glad to be back in 1778, even if I have to deal with William's woe is me tour, even though I can understand it. It's only been a few days. And I hope he takes Denys Randall's advice to avoid that Richardson bastard.

 

FERGUS!!!!!!

 

And I hope that Germaine heeds what Jamie told him. I dinna want tae lose that wee one. Did I mention how I loved Germaine screaming at the crowd about how Claire was his "GRANNIE!!"? Because I did.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about how Henri Christian is being portrayed as this bouncing, juggling, acrobatic person at only 4 years old--and makes me think, really? And not in a good way.

[WatchrTina]

 

I did NOT want to see that fucking sadistic piece of shit rapist arsehole Jonathan Wolverton Randall--I would! And to show him in the light? Fuck that shit.

Wait, what?  What chapter are you on?  Did I even READ this book?

 

Okay, while I wait to hear back from GHScorpiusRule can I just report yet another entertaining lunch -- this time reading the chapter when John and Germain show up in the rebel camp and get assigned to General Fraser (our own JAMMF).  So very funny.  John does absolutely everything he can to mortify Jamie -- both by surrendering to him PERSONALLY (so that he becomes his responsibility) and then with those needling comments in the tent while Claire is working on him, causing Jamie to flush with guilt. And of course Jamie is pressed into service helping Claire tend to John during an excruciating procedure that leave them all sweaty and breathless from the strain. Yet another opportunity for John to demonstrate his "intestinal fortitude" in a manner that Jamie cannot help but respect, or at least sympathize with.  Sigh.  I just love John. I love Jamie and Claire more but he is a wonderful foil for our hero.  I was laughing out loud in a restaurant. Again.

[peacefrog]

Lol remember Roger in the past gets to see the Outlander All Stars? BJR, Geillis, and Dougal!

 

Roger thought he could pray away the evil with BJR. I love Roger but... 

 

It will be interesting to see if this scene is relevant in the future.

[nodorothyparker]

I guess if you're going to have bring back every other character from the early books for a cameo during Roger's magical mystery tour of the 1730s, you have to bring Black Jack back too.  But yep, that's a moment you just want to smack Roger in the back of the head.  Maybe more than once.  Roger, dear, you're in book 8 of this long long series.  You aren't going to be able to pray away all the really awful shit from book 1 and trying to justify it as being worried about screwing with the timeline and thus taking Jamie and Claire's first meeting and subsequently Brienna out may make you feel better but ...  

 

I guess we're supposed to see it as a neutral kind of thing because Black Jack was acting like a human being there, but still, Roger, really.

 

I'll be honest that this whole middle section bouncing between the McKenzies in the '80s and Roger's aformentioned tour of the wayback starts to bore me after awhile.  It's hard to imagine any of the 1730s stuff really leading to much and I want to get back to the action in the revolution.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Wait, what?  What chapter are you on?  Did I even READ this book?

 

YES!!!! I dinna pay attention tae chapters! It's in Part II, toward the end, before we get back to 1778. Apparently, someone gave Randall, Roger's father's dog tags, and then he sent it to wherever Roger was staying--with that family, and so Roger and Buccleigh go to Fort William to ask Randall where he got the tags from. Blech.

 

Lol remember Roger in the past gets to see the Outlander All Stars? BJR, Geillis, and Dougal!

 

Roger thought he could pray away the evil with BJR. I love Roger but...

 

Exactly what I said above! As if Roger could pray away all the evil deeds he will do.  And AFTER he told Buccleigh why they couldn't kill him--because then, no Claire and Jamie, and no Bree, and Jemmy, etc. As if he did manage to pray him out of it, same outcome!

 

 

 

I guess if you're going to have bring back every other character from the early books for a cameo during Roger's magical mystery tour of the 1730s, you have to bring Black Jack back too.  But yep, that's a moment you just want to smack Roger in the back of the head.  Maybe more than once.   <snip> I guess we're supposed to see it as a neutral kind of thing because Black Jack was acting like a human being there, but still, Roger, really.

 

 

More like 1739, a couple years before Jamie gets flogged the first time. But yes, I wanted to smack Roger.

 

Nothing will make me thing of that piece of shite as human. Ever.

 

I've read up to the part where Germaine has found himself with Lord John. Boy, is he in for a whippin', disobeying Jamie.  And I stopped where William decided to take a skinny dip and is discovered by Jane/Arabella and her sister Fanny.

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Thanks for the all the tips on the Jamie/John scenes. I'll go looking for them today.  I had forgotten John's habit of calling Claire "my dear" in front of Jamie.  Hee!  You just know he's doing it to goad Jamie -- small recompense for all the shit Jamie put him through.  I just love Lord John.

 

 

I love how layered the Jamie-John-Claire relationship is.  While I know there were fans of the romance outraged by the John-Claire pairing, I love what it adds, from John's subtle little "my dears" that clearly annoy Jamie to Claire's for fuck's sake attitude about their prickliness with each other afterward. 

 

Well, I've gotten to the point where John and Germaine show up--and hooboy, is Germaine gonna be in trouble!!!!! Because, FERGUS! and Jamie has also promised him a whippin' for disobeying.

 

And Claire and Lord Lord John had the "conversation" about why he told Jamie what he did. During all of these chapters, the times where John called Claire "my dear", Jamie wasn't around, so I'm left confused as to how it annoys Jamie when he hasn't been there to hear Lord John address Claire as such. And it was Fergus who held Lord John down when Claire irrigated his eye. Yes, Jamie was there at first, to hold the 18th century version of a magnifying glass while Claire "grabbed" Lord John's eyeball to get it to move. Ewww.

 

But these "military" scenes are so much more enjoyable because it has Jamie, Claire, Wee Ian, Germaine, ROLLO (!) and now Fergus. I loved how Claire treated the teamster Belden so unsympathetically for his wound--courtesy of Clarence biting him--since he was the asshole who stole Clarence from Germaine.

 

I didn't think anyone could annoy me more than Rachel. But DG gave me someone else who irks me and makes me want to just slap her upside the heid, and just kick her arse. Like Bree, there is no characterization for Arabella/Jane.  When we first meet her, she's like this sympathetic prostitute, who then gets mad at Willie because he spilled wine on her petticoat or whatever; then when she and her sister escape the brothel, she treats and acts as if she's better than Willie; and then gets all insulted because he won't fuck her the night before battle and accuses him of being a coward for not fighting. Shut yer trap and just disappear, why don't you?  And just like he did with the prostitute that Lord John took him to when he was 16, seems like Willie is now attracted/attached to this beast, Arabella/Jane.

 

Puir Jamie. Feeling guilty for not releasing Lord John from his parole so he could escape. Will they ever become friends again? Or was Lord John's confession the one thing that they can't come back from--what Lord John was thinking--when he had sex with Claire.  Too bad if so, because I really did like their friendship. I'm still at a loss as to why Lord John is admitting to what he told Jamie so "cheerfully" and even if he doesn't regret it, there is this sense of...I don't know what--but...It's like a "so what?" attitude and he doesn't give two shits. OR...it could be that he's just so happy that Jamie is alive, and he doesn't care anymore, because...Jamie is alive. I don't mind that he doesn't regret it (even if it was stupid to confess it to Jamie), he did know Jamie would kill him--why did he want that? Why did he do it? And does he regret the loss of the friendship this confession caused? Or, if not loss, but a huge rift? I'm not seeing any of that. Regret or sadness regarding the friendship, that is.  And I'm not skimming over those scenes.

 

And I'm also enjoying the small, intimate moments between Jamie and Claire--her combing and brushing his hair, braiding it...giving him his shirt...Jamie "helping" Claire remove her leather stays...

 

But I'm at 50-something-percent, and now my Kindle says I've only 3 hours or so to go before I reach the end. Which is odd, because in previous buiks, when I've reached this stage, I still have like 10 hours to go.

Edited August 13, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[WatchrTina]

 

 

Roger, dear, you're in book 8 of this long long series.  You aren't going to be able to pray away all the really awful shit from book 1 and trying to justify it as being worried about screwing with the timeline and thus taking Jamie and Claire's first meeting and subsequently Brienna out may make you feel better but ... I guess we're supposed to see it as a neutral kind of thing because Black Jack was acting like a human being there, but still, Roger, really.

I'll be honest that this whole middle section bouncing between the McKenzies in the '80s and Roger's aformentioned tour of the wayback starts to bore me after awhile.  It's hard to imagine any of the 1730s stuff really leading to much and I want to get back to the action in the revolution.

Yes to all of this.  I think that's why I had forgotten this completely.  I'm popping in and out of the book in response to the comments on this board and I read this section last night and I was like "Oh.  Yeah.  That DID happen.  So when do we get back to Jamie and Claire?"  I was mildly interested in the "way back" section of this book because I could guess that it was going to dovetail with the novella about Roger's father and tell us the story from Roger's point of view (the novella is from the point of view of Roger's father) so that interested me some but only mildly.  It was a bit of a stunt by Diana in my opinion.  And Buck's behavior toward Geillis was just so weird . . . yeah this section of the book was not my favorite so that must be why I just forgot it (including the cameo by BJR).  As for Roger struggling with the time-travel paradox  -- if I change the past will I ruin my own version of the future or hurt the ones I love?  Ugh.  I hate that aspect of time-travel stories.  I'm glad Diana almost never focuses on that.  And I don't even want to talk about the box of plot-convenient letters from the past that Brianna & Roger read in book 7, but only occasionally and never ahead of the action in the 18th century America portion of the book.  I can't even . . .

 

So, back to the American Revolution.  I re-read the scene that causes Jamie to resign his commission (this is me trying NOT to spoil GHScorpriusRule) right up to the next appearance of Hal & John.  What an amazing, gripping section. Dottie puts in a brief appearance demonstrating that she HAS got some skills in the winning friends and obtaining necessaries department.  And then of course William is mentioned and Jamie refers to him as "my son" right there in front of Hal and John who are quite taken aback.  Ooooh, that was a moment.  John had called him "my son" only a few moments earlier in the conversation. 

 

Yeah the American Revolution portions of this book are some of my favorite sections in the whole series.  The Roger/Brianna sagas are decidedly less so.

 

 

During all of these chapters, the times where John called Claire "my dear", Jamie wasn't around, so I'm left confused as to how it annoys Jamie when he hasn't been there to hear Lord John address Claire as such.

Keep reading.  :)

 

 

I'm still at a loss as to why Lord John is admitting to what he told Jamie so "cheerfully" and even if he doesn't regret it, there is this sense of...I don't know what--but...It's like a "so what?" attitude and he doesn't give two shits. OR...it could be that he's just so happy that Jamie is alive, and he doesn't care anymore, because...Jamie is alive.

 

I'm actually loving that characterization of John in the aftermath of his beat-down by Jamie and I think both you and nodorothyparker have it right that John is just so happy Jamie is alive and that -- in this one small circle of people -- he doesn't have to hide his feelings about Jamie.  He did the honorable thing, told the truth, took the punch(s) and suffered greatly.  Now he's flat our refusing to act ashamed of the feelings he revealed.  He behaved honorably, both in rescuing Claire and in confessing to Jamie.  Jamie's behavior was less honorable and they both know that. John suffered a lot of physical pain as a result.  He's not letting Jamie off the hook for his behavior.  But . . . keep reading.  That conversation is not over.

Edited August 13, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Keep reading.  :)

 

 

I'm actually loving that characterization of John in the aftermath of his beat-down by Jamie and I think both you and nodorothyparker have it right that John is just so happy Jamie is alive and that -- in this one small circle of people -- he doesn't have to hide his feelings about Jamie.  He did the honorable thing, told the truth, took the punch(s) and suffered greatly.  Now he's flat our refusing to act ashamed of the feelings he revealed.  He behaved honorably, both in rescuing Claire and in confessing to Jamie.  Jamie's behavior was less honorable and they both know that. John suffered a lot of physical pain as a result.  He's not letting Jamie off the hook for his behavior.  But . . . keep reading.  That conversation is not over.

 

I can accept that Lord John feels he doesn't have to hide his feeling for Jamie any more with the "circle of people" as you stated. However. it's not him feeling that way that has me raising my eyebrows, if you will--it's his whole "I don't give a shit" attitude.   Sure, he did the honorable thing and confessed to Jamie, knowing how Jamie would react and I'm not downplaying how he's suffered.

 

BUT...

 

I don't think (and this must may be my Jamie bias, and like Lord John I dinna care!) Jamie's behavior was less honorable. We know about Wentworth prison, even though Lord John doesn't--so Lord John saying "we were both FUCKING YOU!" was not going to be received favorably. And then there's the fact--Lord John had sex with Claire, his (Jamie's) wife. Yes, they were drunk and grieving. But that's logical and cerebral thinking. What Jamie did, how he reacted, was very much a primal and reactive action. I don't see the two as comparable--in that oh, Lord John was so honorable--he confessed to Jamie knowing Jamie would probably kill him v. Jaime-that bluidy Scot/Neanderthal, punching and injuring Lord John, who did the honorable thing in marrying Claire to save her and what happened with them was due to their grief and drunkenness. None are at fault as far as I'm concerned.

 

However...

 

Yes, yes, however, this "cheeriness" with how Lord John continues with admitting he knew very well what he was doing when he did it, almost, almost seems like Lord John rubbing Jamie and Claire's faces in it--his feelings for Jamie.  I may be wrong, and DG may have the characters explain it, but as of right now, I'm not liking it.

 

Oh great. Now I have Geillis to look forward to?

 

ETA: OH! And I loved the moment when Willie remembered how he got the rosary. Puir Willie. Still, all he gets from that memory, was that he was sad and that Jamie had left him! And he gets all angry again. It's extremes with this fellow.  Though I do like how he doesn't blame Claire and continues to refer to her as "Mother Claire."

 

ETA II: Or when Percy stalks into the tent, how Claire looks between Percy and Lord John and goes Oh. Looks again and then Ohhhh.

 

Me: Hee!

Edited August 13, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[bearcatfan]

I could have done without the Gellis scene. It's very, um, creepy? I'm not sure of the word but it wasn't good.

 

I actually almost laughed when Willie remembered how he got the rosary and instead of thinking "oh yeah, I loved Mac" he immediately gets angry about Mac leaving him. Even though he left because he was trying to prevent the very thing that's happening now, although I don't think Willie has realized that yet.

 

It is interesting how WIllie isn't angry with Claire but is with everyone else who knew or suspected, and I'm not talking about John or Jamie. I wonder why she gets a pass from him but Hal, Ian, Rachel et al do not?

[peacefrog]

I remember how surprised I was that I really liked the NJ battle sequence. Usually I'm bored but this one was fantastic. Good job on juggling all those point of views. 

 

I think the Jamie, John, Claire relationship is really evolving here, into what I'm not sure. John and Claire have the stronger relationship now(opposed to Jamie/John, not figuring Jamie/Claire of course). John's confession and Jamie's reaction could be the catalyst that finally allows John to realize it's never going to happen with them. 

 

I loved the 1739 stuff and time travel dilemmas, it's the main reason I started to read these books and found the series lacking in it. This whole book if I recall correctly has Jamie stating at times that he would not change anything because it would change who he is right now. It's a nice parallel to what Roger is experiencing with regards to warning the Fraser's. I loved, loved, loved the novella with his father and how it ties into his story. 

 

That being said I really hope there is a cool payoff with the 1739 story as well as Frank's letter to Bree.  Bree read all the letters now, including that last one with a different handwriting. 

 

Now I need to check but is the last name of someone in Fiona's group or the nutters Wymass? (Or however Lizzie spelled her last name). I thought something like that stood out to me at the time, connecting knowledge of the Ridge(maybe the gold even) to a 80's descendant?

[GHScorpiosRule]

I think the Jamie, John, Claire relationship is really evolving here, into what I'm not sure. John and Claire have the stronger relationship now(opposed to Jamie/John, not figuring Jamie/Claire of course). John's confession and Jamie's reaction could be the catalyst that finally allows John to realize it's never going to happen with them.

(Bolding emphasis mine.) What? Did he really, I mean really think there was even a hint of anything happening between them? After his first pass in Voyager, Jamie told him to take his hand off him or "I will kill you." Then there was another moment in The Brotherhood of the Blade.

So no, I don't buy this reasoning. Not with what we know.

 

[nodorothyparker]

I've never thought John held out any hope on that front either.  He's pretty clear that it would never ever ever happen except maybe in a situation of extreme duress and he already took a pass on that because he was able to see that it would cost him the regard and friendship Jamie has for him.  I think John just wants acknowledgement that the feelings do exist and that he's not disgusting or perverted for having them.  Jamie has more or less treated it like an entirely separate thing that as long as they don't talk about it doesn't really exist.  I sometimes think that's maybe WHY John has such a hard time moving on from him.

 

As far as John's attitude in this book, I think for John it's that all the "worsts" have already happened, i.e. William finding out the truth, Jamie being "dead," John finally voicing the elephant between them that's been in the room for more than two decades, Jamie knowing yet NOT killing John, John escaping being hanged by the rebels. Through it all, everyone is still alive and more or less still speaking to each other.  So at that point he can tell Claire that "everything will come out all right provided we all live long enough" and actually mean it.  John's always been a character to find his own amusement in the situations they find themselves all in, and there's really quite a lot to be amused by in the aftermath of the John-Claire marriage.  I'm not really sure what other attitude he should be taking, given the circumstances.   Jamie's return invalidates his marriage to Claire, and Jamie and John are very obviously never going to happen.  Why shouldn't he at least get a chuckle about it?

[peacefrog]

No I think he always knew deep down it would never happen. But I think he used the idea of Jamie to hold himself back from fully loving someone else. John's feelings for Jamie were "safe", in that it was never going to happen.

[bearcatfan]

John is sure that Jamie is going to kill him and it's theorized that he thought that by he telling Jamie, he would prevent Jamie from taking out his anger on Claire. Maybe John actually thought this. My question is, does anyone really think that Jamie would have killed John if they weren't interupted or that he would have physically hurt Claire? I remember thinking that there's no way either of those things happen. Even less likely if John had kept the "we were both fucking you" out of it.

Edited August 13, 2015 by bearcatfan

[peacefrog]

I remember thinking that there was no way Jamie would kill John and definitely not hurt Claire. Honestly though I don't think John knows as much as he thinks he does about Jamie. I think he really thought that Jamie would do that. I'm also starting to think he doesn't really get how deep Jamie and Claire's relationship is. He knows Jamie pined for Claire and spoke of her with love and longing, but he also kept William from her also. We know because we are in their heads but John is on the outside looking in.

 

Every time John and Jamie have had something go wrong between them Jamie is pretty viscous! Sometimes physically, sometimes with words or other actions(like making John have him flogged). I think it was legit for John to think he would be killed or at the very least severely beaten.

[WatchrTina]

 

My question is, does anyone really think that Jamie would have killed John if they weren't interupted or that he would have physically hurt Claire?

If John had ever tried to have sex with Jamie  -- even that one time Jamie offered -- I do think Jamie would have killed him.  At this point, I think it is extremely unlikely that Jamie would kill him on purpose but John was playing with fire when he said "We were both fucking you!"  I think Jamie was genuinely taken out of himself for a moment -- a dangerous moment.  He later experiences dismay at how those feelings from Wentworth came rushing back at John's words.  I think Jamie's feelings toward John afterward include a fair amount of resentment at John unknowingly unlocking those feelings again.

 

As for Claire, no.  Jamie will never hurt Claire.  But that doesn't mean there can't be some really uncomfortable moments between them -- and Claire knows it. 

 

So . . . during today's jaunt down memory lane as I hop-scotched through the book (stopping when the pairing of characters got interesting) I stumbled upon an "easter egg" from Diana.  Ian wakes up from an illness, not sure where he is, and Rachel explains that he is the guest of a  Mr. Heughan.  Awwwwww.  I spent the whole scene thinking of Sam being on just the other side of that wall, hard at work doing blacksmithy things at the forge.  It made me feel all happy inside.

 

I was laughing in a restaurant again this evening.  And then I got to the wedding.  Teary eyes and snuffling ensued.  Seriously, it was embarrassing.  This book . . .

 

I do have a theory why certain characters delight me (Jamie, Claire, John, Ian, Fergus) and others not so much (Brianna.)  I think it's all about the humor.  The first five I named, plus (lately) Hal, Duke of Pardloe, are just so damn funny.  But I cannot remember the last time Brianna made me laugh.  Even Roger, who I generally like, is seldom a source of mirth for me.  I think that's why I don't much like the sojourn in the 1730s in this book or the 20th century parts.  No humor at all.  Meanwhile, during the American Revolution, I'm cracking up right left and center (when I'm not crying.)

[bearcatfan]

Agreed if John ever actually tried to have sex with Jamie, Jamie might kill him. He did push it with what he said because it triggered a PTSD reaction. In his normal mind Jamie would not kill John and John thinking that he would means that John doesn't know Jamie as well as he think he does as someone mentioned.

 

Claire would have made sure Jamie was fed first (I laughed at that) and she would never had told Jamie about what John was thinking because she knows what kind of reaction that would get.

 

 

I spent the whole scene thinking of Sam being on just the other side of that wall, hard at work doing blacksmithy things at the forge.

That made me think of an interview I saw with Steven Cree where he talks about he and Sam fixing the wagon and how they didn't know what they were doing. They spent most of the time trying to keep from cracking up.

 

Good point about the humor. I enjoy the characters with humor more as well. I hope they infuse more of that into the show going forward.

[AD55]

I'm not sure I've fully followed the discussion about John and Jamie, so apologies if this has all been made clear. I never thought that John told Jamie he and Claire were both fucking him because he wanted to escort the elephant into the backyard. That elephant wandered off a long time ago. I thought it was more that he wanted to make it clear to Jamie that Claire had zero interest in fucking John. Jamie knows that John is gay -- there's no danger of his thinking that John suddenly started playing for the other team even if Claire is the awesomist woman in North America -- make that the world. But Claire is straight. As book readers, we know it's ridiculous to imagine Jamie might suspect that Claire let her libido get the better of her, but John's interactions with them have been sporadic. As someone said, he doesn't know that theirs is a love that makes Abelard and Heloise's look like watered-down rosé.

 

I also agree with those who think he told her to give Jamie time to cool down before he reunited with Claire. John  knew damn well that Claire would tell Jamie. I seem to recall either Claire or Jamie having an internal monologue about this. It makes sense to me. John is not only honorable, but sweetly protective of the people he cares about.

 

Frankly, I'm sick to death of the John's-undying-love-for-Jamie saga. I love John, and I want him to find true love. I also just don't think it's realistic. People can carry a torch only so long. Eventually, love fades if it's not reciprocated. Plus, Jamie is kind of an asshole where John is concerned. I haven't gotten the impression that John is a masochist, but The Spanish Prisoner is the only one of the Lord John novels I've read. I may have missed something.

 

Re: John's devil-may-care attitude about these events, one of the things I love about him is that for the most part, he is not given to self-delusion. He is absolutely clear about his motives for marrying Claire and being honest with Jamie. I hope he's pissed off that Jamie isn't at least a little grateful (at least, I don't recall Jamie's acknowledging that he is) that John saved Claire from imprisonment. It's also no small thing that John raised Jamie's son so that Jamie would have peace of mind. I'd be pretty sick of Jamie about now if I were John and would not be averse to needling him. John's not a mean person. I think this whole situation appeals to his sense of the absurd.

 

ETA. Those of you who are closer to the books can correct me on this, but it sometimes seems to me that Jamie is somewhat petty towards John. That is, instead of appreciating John's devotion to William, he resents that John got to be with him and Jamie didn't; instead of being grateful that John saved Claire, he has to focus on them fucking. I don't blame him for being resentful that he didn't get to be a father to William in an angry at the world way, but it's unfair that this spills over onto John who also wished that Jamie could have been a father to William.

Edited August 14, 2015 by AD55

[lianau]

Frankly, I'm sick to death of the John's-undying-love-for-Jamie saga. I love John, and I want him to find true love. I also just don't think it's realistic. People can carry a torch only so long. Eventually, love fades if it's not reciprocated. Plus, Jamie is kind of an asshole where John is concerned. I haven't gotten the impression that John is a masochist, but The Spanish Prisoner is the only one of the Lord John novels I've read. I may have missed something.

Jamie is a pretty safe torch to carry for John . Jamie can't betray him like Percy did or die like Hector (I don't want to imagine how bad that was for him, knowing how he reacted to Jamie's "death" )

Edited August 14, 2015 by lianau

[WatchrTina]

 

The Spanish Prisoner is the only one of the Lord John novels I've read.

Pssst, it's The Scottish Prisoner.  The Spanish Prisoner is a Steve Martin movie.  :)

 

 

I hope [John is] pissed off that Jamie isn't at least a little grateful (at least, I don't recall Jamie's acknowledging that he is) that John saved Claire from imprisonment.

Actually Jamie thanks John for taking care of Claire and protecting her from arrest just before John blurts out the whole "I've had carnal knowledge of your wife" thing. That happens at the end of book 7.

 

 

I thought it was more that he wanted to make it clear to Jamie that Claire had zero interest in fucking John. Jamie knows that John is gay -- there's no danger of his thinking that John suddenly started playing for the other team

If that's what he wanted he could have said "We were both drunk, we were both grieving, and I was just trying to be nice because it gave her come comfort to pretend I was you."  But that's not what he chose to say -- because that would not have been true and John is just done with lying on this particular topic.  John wasn't trying to clarify Claire's motives -- Claire can speak for herself (and will, eventually).  He was declaring his own motives, honestly.  Not, perhaps, the smartest thing he ever did, but it was honest.

[AD55]

Pssst, it's The Scottish Prisoner.  The Spanish Prisoner is a Steve Martin movie.  :)

 

Oops, fixed.

 

Actually Jamie thanks John for taking care of Claire and protecting her from arrest just before John blurts out the whole "I've had carnal knowledge of your wife" thing. That happens at the end of book 7.

 

If that's what he wanted he could have said "We were both drunk, we were both grieving, and I was just trying to be nice because it gave her come comfort to pretend I was you."  But that's not what he chose to say -- because that would not have been true and John is just done with lying on this particular topic. John wasn't trying to clarify Claire's motives -- Claire can speak for herself (and will, eventually).  He was declaring his own motives, honestly.  Not, perhaps, the smartest thing he ever did, but it was honest.

 

By the same token, if he had no interest in protecting Claire and only wanted to be honest about his own feelings, he could just have said "I was fucking you" and left Claire out of it altogether. What you suggest would have been an outright lie and that's not something that I would expect of John. I just reread that scene and the one immediately after Jamie gives John up to Woodbine. Jamie acknowledges that John told him figuring if he did violence to anyone, he'd rather it be him than Claire. Why would John think there was a chance that Jamie would be violent towards Claire if he was sure that Jamie would know why they had sex? John, as Jamie realizes, knew Claire would tell Jamie the truth. I don't see why protecting Claire, however unnecessary, can't be a motive even if it's not the only one.

 

Has John been lying all along? I inferred from reading The Scottish Prisoner that they had some big scene in another book in which John tells Jamie he could have made him scream in ecstasy, at which point Jamie hits him. How many times does he need to be hit before he knows Jamie gets it? John hasn't been lying even if he hasn't said  the words "I love you," which he also doesn't say explicitly here.

 

Every one of John's actions testifies to his love.  That he has also told Jamie he'd like to fuck him, assuming that's how the earlier scene went down -- maybe he was just trying to get Jamie's goat -- shows his feelings are not platonic. Jamie's internal monologue does imply that he hadn't previously known John loves him, but to me that shows that Jamie has been lying to himself and not that John has been lying to him. I would say that doesn't exactly testify to Jamie's powers of perception were it not that he has every reason to suppress the knowledge that a gay man loves him after his violation by Randall. If anyone has been lying, it's Jamie. He could have told John, "look, I know you love me and ordinarily I would be able to brush that off or even pity you, but I was raped and tortured by Jack Randall and I will never be able to accept this with equanimity so back off." I can't imagine Jamie doing that, but if there is an elephant in the room, I think it's that and not John's love for Jamie.

 

BYW, I don't know how to compartmentalize quotes so I've had to resort to italics.

Edited August 14, 2015 by AD55