Book 8: Written in My Own Heart’s Blood

[WatchrTina]

 

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.

Oh no, I agree that one of John's motivations in telling Jamie about the "carnal knowledge" was a desire to be chivalrous toward Claire and bear the brunt of Jamie's initial reaction to the information (which John suspects is going to be anger with high probability of violence.)  He knows Jamie, ye ken.  He knows about his temper.  He knows about his devotion to Claire.  And he's enough of a man of the world to know that no matter what Claire's reasons were, Jamie is going to be upset with her.  So yes, full marks to John for telling Jamie immediately rather than letting it become a toxic secret between him and Jamie or between Claire and Jamie.  Very honorable.   

 

 

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.

This is what makes the John/Jamie relationship so interesting.  The scene you mention (from Lord John and The Brotherhood of the Blade) takes place while Jamie is a paroled prisoner at Helwater and includes a nasty fight where Jamie takes strong offense at John's assertion that the love between two men can be real love and no less real (and honorable) than the love he, Jamie feels for his wife.  John takes strong offense at Jamie's assertion that homosexual love is not only not honorable, it's akin to pedophilia.  It's a nasty fight because both men are feeling very strong emotions.  John's comment about making Jamie "scream" is a REALLY bad choice of words. Jamie doesn't hit him then -- he veers off at the last second and punches the wall beside John's head -- but it's a near thing. (Later, in this book, Jamie tells Claire that when he hit John the first time that punch had been a long time coming and I'm pretty sure he's specifically referring to his having abstained from hitting John way back in that Helwater conversation.)  Jamie has a negative, PTSD-induced reaction whenever John says anything that hints at John's feelings for Jamie and that particular comment was the biggest trigger of them all.  John has been careful to NOT mention his feelings for Jamie for many many years -- ever since he agreed to marry Isobel and look after William.  But after mourning Jamie's death in Book 7 John is just DONE with that.  To use Diana's words, he kicks over one of the pillars of their friendship by admitting what his motives were when he had "carnal knowledge" of Claire.  He hasn't been lying about his feelings all these years, he has simply abstained from mentioning them.  And what we discover from this scene in book 8 is that Jamie's memories of Wentworth still plague him, that any mention of John's attraction to Jamie is STILL a trigger, and that going back to their unofficial don't ask / don't tell policy on that particular topic might be wise. They basically agree to do just that in the much later scene in book 8 when John & Hal visit Claire during her recuperation.  Jamie and John are both a bit sharp with each other during that conversation but once it is revealed that William is in jeopardy they do exactly what they did 15 year earlier -- they put those troublesome emotions aside and focus on working together to protect William.  It's a nice resolution (of sorts) to the whole "carnal knowledge" story-line.  

 

It is also, IMHO, the end of the best part of book 8.  I enjoyed the double wedding that follows (and by "enjoy" I mean I laughed and cried through the whole thing) but I found myself not very interested in continuing to read much further in this book.  There are tragic deaths that follow in the book and I don't really want to read about them again.  William's efforts to find Ben and John's efforts to find Ben's wife don't engage me the way the Claire-Jamie-John storyline does.  Claire's story dips into some particularly gruesome medical treatments that Diana describes in loving detail and I really don't want to read about them again.  I'm just chronically irritated by the 20th century and 1730's storylines.  So I might be done with this re-read.  But damn I enjoyed those "best parts."

Edited August 14, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Athena]

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.

 

Sometimes, it's difficult to compartmentalize quotes from the same post. The best way to do it is in the format mode (the light switchbutton in the editor). If you still find it difficult, feel free to PM me or let me know and I'll help or can edit your post for you. I'll be glad to help. If at any time anyone needs help with formatting or making changes after the fact, they can also use the Report button and a mod can help.

 

I find John's torch a bit too much sometimes as well and often, I feel it is to serve plot purposes more than anything. In general, I do find it realistic because I think Jamie was probably one of the first real crushes John had. He saw Jamie in a very intense and pedestal light from the beginning. Coupled that with their frequent encounters, he's grown to love Jamie. They have an odd and unique friendship to the point where John has raised Jamie's son; this reinforces their connection in John's mind. It's hard to let go of that. John knows realistically that Jamie would never reciprocate, but he does get carried away whenever they are together. I think John is less repressed and more socially liberal compared to others in his time, but he is still a man who must hide his identity lest he be ostracized or even murdered for who he is. John is impulsive and reactionary as a result even with his upper crust background.

 

If I were one of John's family members or close friends and knew how he felt about Jamie, I'd tell John to just avoid him altogether. Yes, they are friends, but you need distance from people you are that attracted to but know it can't be. However through circumstances or "because of plot," he's has been around Jamie on and off the last 20 years often in highly emotional situations. 

 

I hope John finds some love. He'll always love Jamie as a friend and definitely be attracted to him on some level, but John needs a significant other to truly get over it.

[mary2013]

 

I hope John finds some love. He'll always love Jamie as a friend and definitely be attracted to him on some level, but John needs a significant other to truly get over it.

 

Anybody else hoping John and Percy eventually get back together?

Edited August 14, 2015 by mary2013

[GHScorpiosRule]

Aaaand I am back in 1739 after a brief visit to 1980 from the end of 1778, after Claire was shot! I'd like to know whose gun it was that went off? It was so...random.

 

And we returned to where Lord John and His Grace (Hal) came to see Jamie, only to learn that Claire had been shot, and I see now that Lord John managed three more "My dears" and where Jamie didn't care for it the second time, and not really caring for it the third and last time, to the point where he told Lord John to "stop calling her that."

 

I"m not even going to get into the whole farce that was Jane and Fanny running away from William every time he caught up with them, because the whole sub-sub-subplot is so verra STOOPID.

 

Denny and Dottie's wedding--it was so...zzzzzzz, I'm sorry, did you say something?

 

I only enjoyed reading Jamie and Claire's scenes during the double wedding, and what Wee Ian, or Ian òg had to say--especially when he removed those conch shell thingies from his arm.

 

I did enjoy Willie remembering what "Mac" told him as a child coming back to him while he was chasing Jane/Fanny. So at least most of his anger has been purged, I hope. What with sort of making up with Lord John. Kind of.

 

And I loved, LOVED how Jamie resigned his commission. I hope Lee choked on it.

 

My Kindle is a weird thing. Unless I did something to it. As I posted yesterday, it stated I had 3 hours and 41 minutes left until the end of the buik.  After reading for four and a half hours last night, I'm up to 3 hours and 21 minutes! At 64%.

 

Ahem.

 

I'm glad that Bree got Roger's letter, telling her when he actually ended up, so she doesn't end up in 1778 and can't find him.

 

Speaking of, why couldn't Roger leave it alone? Why does he, or rather, Bree, insist that Buccleigh should know who his birth parents are, when he never knew them, and it's not as if they'e alive during his adult lifetime to know them? Okay, well, Dougal died when he was about 3 or so. Geillis was off in Jamaica.

 

I hope never to see Black Jack again.

Edited August 14, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[bearcatfan]

I think I'd purged the nonsense of Fanny and Jane running from my mind. Fanny has so much more sense than her sister. I was not annoyed at William during those scenes, rather I was annoyed for him. Like he doesn't have enough on his plate.

[WatchrTina]

 

Anybody else hoping John and Percy eventually get back together?

NO!  Just NO!  Percy is a scoundrel and he's up to no good where Fergus is concerned and he just needs to GO AWAY!

 

Sorry for the shouting.  Feeling a bit protective of John just now.  I just read the scene where Claire tells John what Richardson said -- that he knows what John is.  That is not a good thing for Richardson to know.

 

Ooooh, I've just had a thought for the next book.  I don't want Percy and John back together but I wouldn't mind it at all if Percy's scoundrel-skills allowed him to help John get the upper hand with regard to Richardson.  That would be excellent.

[lianau]

I think I'd purged the nonsense of Fanny and Jane running from my mind. Fanny has so much more sense than her sister. I was not annoyed at William during those scenes, rather I was annoyed for him. Like he doesn't have enough on his plate.

But he was looking for something to get THAT out of his mind ,so he leached onto Jane and Fanny and tried to safe them . It's easier to solve somebody else's problems than your own .

[bearcatfan]

But he was looking for something to get THAT out of his mind ,so he leached onto Jane and Fanny and tried to safe them . It's easier to solve somebody else's problems than your own .

I see your point but Jane didn't have to make it so hard for him. It wasn't the trying to save them that I found annoying. I rather liked that about him. It was the fact that Jane kept running from him when he was only trying to help. Even Fanny knew she shouldn't be running. In fact, she decided to stop running and sat down and refuse to run anymore.

[lianau]

Well Jane killed someone and probably wasn't too keen on staying in one place for long. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well Jane killed someone and probably wasn't too keen on staying in one place for long.

 

Then she shouldn't have approached Willie to begin with in the first place then. Unless it was her plan to just use him as a cover, and then run. Like I said, the whole subplot was stupid.

 

FINALLY. Roger, Bree, Jem and Mandy are together, and EWWWWW, you guys were right with the whole Buccleigh and Geillis meeting. I really don't recall her being so out and out evuhl as she's portrayed and turned out to be in Voyager and this buik, as she was in Outlander. Well, except for the part where she murdered her husband. 

 

So, is that the last we see of Brian? That he thinks he's seen Ellen and his Willie and faints? And that's it? It's like showing a shocking cliffhanger on a soap on a Friday with no follow up on Monday!

 

I just want them all to reunite again, though I'm wondering how they manage it--to get from 1739 to 1778.  I won't lie, I'm looking forward more to Gem and Jamie reuniting the most. Especially since I still remember how Jem was crying and looking back toward Jamie when they "left."

Edited August 15, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[bearcatfan]

I just want them all to reunite again, though I'm wondering how they manage it--to get from 1739 to 1778.  I won't lie, I'm looking forward more to Gem and Jamie reuniting the most. Especially since I still remember how Jem was crying and looking back toward Jamie when they "left."

I know. Jamie didn't get to raise either of his children and even his step daughters were teens when he married hosebeast. Fergus was 10 or 12 I think. I loved that he had such a close relationship with his grandchildren. I know he considers Fergus and Marsalis' crew his grandchildren too but Jem looks like Jamie and Jem and Mandy don't have another set of grandparents back in 1980. Plus, I want Jamie to have a relationship with Bree.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I know. Jamie didn't get to raise either of his children and even his step daughters were teens when he married hosebeast. Fergus was 10 or 12 I think. I loved that he had such a close relationship with his grandchildren. I know he considers Fergus and Marsalis' crew his grandchildren too but Jem looks like Jamie and Jem and Mandy don't have another set of grandparents back in 1980. Plus, I want Jamie to have a relationship with Bree.

Exactly. Also, even though he didn't know Jamie was his father, Willie was "raised" by Jamie. Like he told Hal, when Hal told him that Jamie hadn't seen Willie since he was 6 (15 years), Jamie retorted that he "had the making of him since he was six."  All done to point out that Willie wasn't stupid. And also was raised by another man who had the making of him, and though Jamie didn't outright say it, was telling Hal, that Lord John wouldn't have raised Willie to be stupid, either. All of this to figure out how/why Willie had disappeared from camp.

 

But back to Jem and Jamie--I could see there was just something...I don't want to say more, because I believe Jamie loves all his grandchildren equally, and does consider Germaine, Joanie, Felicite and Henri Christian his grandchildren...maybe it's because DG showed us more, but there is just something so special about Jamie and Jem.  And the love Jem has for his grandda. We saw how even when he was in the 20th century, he remembers what his grandda told him about things he learned from him.

[bearcatfan]

I wonder if Jem tells Jamie about Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader and lightsabers and Jamie's reaction to that!

[lianau]

And Michael the giant mouse 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I am nearing the end, I know I am. But Kindle has got to figure out a more accurate way of telling me how much time I have until I reach the end! Last night, it told me I had about 2 hours and some minutes before I reached the end. After reading for about five hours today, I'm still at 30-some minutes left!

 

That said, I am heartbroken and furious. No, not just furious, but disgusted. I cried when Rollo passed (even though I kent it was coming), and at least he wasn't killed. And it tore me up, when Wee Ian realized what had happened when Rollo didn't wake him up in the morning with his cold nose. I mean, I get it-he was over 10 years old, and he's been with Wee Ian for about 12? But this is fiction! We're talking time travelers here in this world! Why couldn't Rollo live a longer life?! And I won't get into how we I didn't get to see Jamie and Claire's reaction to Rollo's passing, considering how he wasn't just Wee Ian's wolfhound. He and Claire had their moments as well. DG is such a wordy wordster, she couldn't add a few more lines?

 

Now to my rage and disgust. While Rollo gets a peaceful death (*sob*), Henri Christian gets the worst kind. And DG just had to describe in detail that there was no way for him to survive. And poor Germaine. To have to live with it--to feel as if he's responsible for his baby brother's death.  There's is so much...inside me...and I can't put it into words so that I can express it.

 

I hope Richardson finds a well someone can throw him down. The two-faced, blackmailing, disgusting piece of filth.

 

And Willie. Oh Willie, Willie, Willie! Er, sorrrry, WILLIAM. Why he continues to be angry with Jamie is now beyond my understanding, when he seems to have forgiven Lord John.  And that ungrateful pup, coming to Jamie, late at night, to ask for his help, and Jamie helps him with no questions, and still he makes assumptions. For a moment there, when he said "you...you...you..." I thought he would have ended with "you SCOT!"  And proved to him, that Jamie was the smarter and was doing this for Willie, because Willie asked him to; didn't question Willie's reasoning. Just did it.  And I did love Jamie cupping Willie's cheek and telling him he wasn't sorry. For how could he be sorry for that night, when it gave him his son? Igit.  And now "Nothing matters." Wah, wah, wah...

 

Don't care about Ben or his wife, or the search for him. Don't care.

Eeep! And Claire sees one of her rapists! Will she ever tell Jamie? And of course Maggie had to have been raped too, so that Jenny could provide Claire with a reason NOT to tell Jamie. Stupid plot point.

 

Jeebus Cripes. I hope that by the time this buik ends, I see at least the reunion with Roger, Bree, Jemmy, Mandy and Jamie and Claire.

[bearcatfan]

And Willie. Oh Willie, Willie, Willie! Er, sorrrry, WILLIAM. Why he continues to be angry with Jamie is now beyond my understanding, when he seems to have forgiven Lord John.  And that ungrateful pup, coming to Jamie, late at night, to ask for his help, and Jamie helps him with no questions, and still he makes assumptions. For a moment there, when he said "you...you...you..." I thought he would have ended with "you SCOT!"  And proved to him, that Jamie was the smarter and was doing this for Willie, because Willie asked him to; didn't question Willie's reasoning. Just did it.  And I did love Jamie cupping Willie's cheek and telling him he wasn't sorry. For how could he be sorry for that night, when it gave him his son? Igit.  And now "Nothing matters." Wah, wah, wah...

Thank you!

 

By the end of the book I wanted to slap Willie for his attitude.

[GHScorpiosRule]

And this is my FINAL FINALLY! I finished this buik around 12:30 this morning!

 

And it will be nitpicking all the way around...

 

After all the miscarriages and the stillborn birth of Wee Ian's daughter, we I wanted to see him, learning that not only did Rachel survive, but that he now had a living child. And no, having Claire tell Jamie he had a "living son" is no' the same thing. At. all.

 

And I kent it was coming, but it was still satisfying to know that Jamie had gone and killed Claire's rapist, that "Fat Lumpkin"--whose name we'll never know, and I was wrong about who he was. I thought he was that one Highlander we'd met at the Gathering in The Fiery Cross who had spoken of his dead wife.

 

And we don't see how Roger, Bree, Jem and Mandy come through to 40 years in the future to reach Fraser's Ridge, though I did smile at the "Hallo The House!"

 

What about Buccleigh? Did he remain? Try to go back to Morag?  I really enjoyed his friendship with Roger.

 

Jamie. Well of course he'd go kill for Claire.  And he didna lie. He accepted Claire telling him she couldn't talk about it and forgave the turd; or tried to.  And he accepted it. Didn't mean he wouldn't go to Jenny to ask her and he did.

 

So there are a few loose ends, which I'm assuming will be tied up in the next buik and of course I went into that thread and read that

there will be a 10th buik--though not sure if that will be the last.

.

 

I would say, if I had to rank them, Fiery would be the first, then Voyager (Hello! Lotsa Jamie and his POV! In spite of all the ship shenanigans), Outlander, Drums of Autumn (ROLLO!), A Breath of Snow and Ashes, Written in My Own Heart's Blood, Dragonfly in Amber, and Echo in the Bone.

 

I managed to read the entire series in about five months, I think it was. I think I started the first a month before part II of the first season began.

 

I'm EXHAUSTED. Don't know how so many of ye can re-read these buiks.

 

And I still think Rollo should still be alive as Henri Christian.

[nodorothyparker]

I reread a lot of stuff.  Doesn't mean I actually reread every single word or even every chapter.

 

I see William's attitude in those scenes as an evolving work in progress, so nothing he says or does really bothers me too much.  It would be unrealistic to go from ripping rails off of banisters and smashing walls kind of angry to being perfectly fine with it and calling Jamie "Daddy" in the course an encounter or two.  And that may never happen.  Anger doesn't just go away like that.

 

An argument can made that by the time he goes first to John and then Jamie for help in trying to save Jane that he's put them on almost equal footing.  He's civil with John, but he hasn't really given any indication that all is forgiven there either.  It's just easier from long familiarity.  As Jamie remarks, rescuing Jane is something William clearly realizes he can't do all by himself, and despite all his blustering something in him recognizes that Jamie is trustworthy and willing to put himself out there to help him without even questioning it.  It's a start.  I especially like the little beats where for the first time since the big reveal he's able to find comfort in his memory of Mac melding with Jamie and later in recognizing that their shared kinship goes beyond just the two of them.  It's also a huge act of trust afterward for William to hand Fanny over to Jamie.

 

Sure there's still anger in the final talk too, but a lot of that is residual.  It's pretty obvious that a lot of it is about the family who raised him having never told him much about his birth mother at all beyond her being "reckless."  He has no real context for that and not much concrete he can base it on.  So finally being able to see how it may have happened and learning that no, she had courage at roughly the same moment that Jamie is able to let his carefully controlled reserve slip enough for William to see that no, he isn't sorry for everything that happened because he does love him is a huge thing to process.  All in all, I think it bodes well for the next book, especially now that Brianna has returned.

[GHScorpiosRule]

nodorothyparker, 

 

I agree with some of what you are saying. I don't expect Willie to open his arms to Jamie and yell "DA!" and all is forgiven.  And fair point about the familiarity with Lord John--but when I saw Willie clap Lord John on his shoulder and call him Papa, that to me, said he'd forgiven Lord John. And of course, since His Grace, Duke of Pardloe, didn't know, no reason for him to be angry with his uncle.

 

And seeing how he was raised--he is the Earl--how he is still angry with Jamie--for not telling him, knowing that Jamie was not "just a groom" but a prisoner...I get a disconnect. It would be different if Jamie had been a free man and moving around in the same social circle.

 

What irked me about Willie by the end was his "nothing matters" mantra.  The door is open to him to get to know Jamie--if he wants. But clearly he isn't ready.  But while still angry with Jamie, he has no problem going to him to ask Jamie to help him free Jane.  And when he thinks Jamie won't, gets all het up. Though it's toned down almost right away, the attitude bugs me.  But, I realize there are readers who have no issue with it and others that do, and I'm kind of in the middle, because I liked Willie in the beginning, and thought his anger very much justified.

 

And maybe this should go in the unpopular thread, but I don't like Fanny. Why do we need her? It better not be for what I think it might be based on spoilers I've read.

 

Oh! And I would have also have liked to have seen Bobby again. If only for half a page or so. So much telling toward the end there.

[lianau]

Well , William can always visit them on the ridge under the pretense of checking up on Fanny's well being .

[WatchrTina]

 

 

And we don't see how Roger, Bree, Jem and Mandy come through to 40 years in the future to reach Fraser's Ridge <snip> What about Buccleigh? Did he remain? Try to go back to Morag?

I'm assuming that thrilling tale will be told in the next book.  Or it will be explained away in a paragraph stating that "we all held hands and focused on getting to you and here we are."  I'd actually be fine with that because I was not a big fan of the 1730's magical mystery tour.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yeah, other than that other time traveler doctor who healed Roger's throat, I don't see what the point of making Roger go back to 1739 was.

[Laurie]

To meet his dad.  And if you get a chance to read "A Leaf on the Wind of all Hallows" you'll find out why it was so important that Roger sent his dad back through the stones.

 

While it's not necessary to read the novellas, they sure do add some interesting wrinkles to the big books.

[AD55]

Sometimes, it's difficult to compartmentalize quotes from the same post. The best way to do it is in the format mode (the light switchbutton in the editor). If you still find it difficult, feel free to PM me or let me know and I'll help or can edit your post for you. I'll be glad to help. If at any time anyone needs help with formatting or making changes after the fact, they can also use the Report button and a mod can help.

 

I find John's torch a bit too much sometimes as well and often, I feel it is to serve plot purposes more than anything. In general, I do find it realistic because I think Jamie was probably one of the first real crushes John had. He saw Jamie in a very intense and pedestal light from the beginning. Coupled that with their frequent encounters, he's grown to love Jamie. They have an odd and unique friendship to the point where John has raised Jamie's son; this reinforces their connection in John's mind. It's hard to let go of that. John knows realistically that Jamie would never reciprocate, but he does get carried away whenever they are together. I think John is less repressed and more socially liberal compared to others in his time, but he is still a man who must hide his identity lest he be ostracized or even murdered for who he is. John is impulsive and reactionary as a result even with his upper crust background.

 

If I were one of John's family members or close friends and knew how he felt about Jamie, I'd tell John to just avoid him altogether. Yes, they are friends, but you need distance from people you are that attracted to but know it can't be. However through circumstances or "because of plot," he's has been around Jamie on and off the last 20 years often in highly emotional situations. 

 

I hope John finds some love. He'll always love Jamie as a friend and definitely be attracted to him on some level, but John needs a significant other to truly get over it.

 

Athena, thank you for explaining about the quotes. I'll give it a try and PM you if I can't figure it out.

 

What you say about John makes a lot of sense. If I were in the same position, I'd stay away from Jamie until I got to a better place, but he can't do that because of William. It can't help that William looks so much like Jamie so that his love for William gets all confused with his attraction to Jamie.

 

WatchrTina wrote:

 

This is what makes the John/Jamie relationship so interesting.  The scene you mention (from Lord John and The Brotherhood of the Blade) takes place while Jamie is a paroled prisoner at Helwater and includes a nasty fight where Jamie takes strong offense at John's assertion that the love between two men can be real love and no less real (and honorable) than the love he, Jamie feels for his wife.  John takes strong offense at Jamie's assertion that homosexual love is not only not honorable, it's akin to pedophilia.

 

 

This is some pretty nasty stuff. I realize it's anachronistic to expect Jamie to view homosexuality through a C20th/C21st lens, though there are plenty of anachronisms in the Outlander-verse so it wouldn't be completely out of the way. DG is inconsistent when it comes to whether characters behave in ways that are consistent with the C18th. It's somewhat wrongheaded of me, but it does make me think a little less of Jamie even though I do understand that his PTSD would make it impossible for him to be open minded even were he otherwise predisposed to be accepting. Plus, this fight takes place before they had reconciled.

 

I'm very protective of John. One can't say for sure how one would act in a particular situation, of course, but I believe someone telling me that I was no more than a pedophile would kill my love. To give a modern example, if I were in love with someone who told me that it's only "real rape" if a woman can demonstrate that she fought like hell and carries the scars to prove it, I'd get over my crush pretty damn quick, especially if I had myself been a victim of rape.

 

I stress that I do understand where Jamie is coming from, but for me, that's not really the point. I don't find John's continuing to love someone who has contempt for his very nature believable. I can see John accepting Jamie's views as the prejudice of the times and even wanting to remain friends with him, but his continuing to love him is a bridge too far for me. I think it's even more serious than their being on opposite sides in the American revolution.

[AD55]

I interpreted William's "nothing matters" statement as being first, despair over his not being able to save Jane, and second, his belief that he doesn't matter. He's neither the earl nor Jamie's son. In case it's not okay to speculate about the next book, I'll put the following behind spoiler tags:

I think he has a decision to make that will be dealt with in the next book. Does he give up his title or live a life that he views as inauthentic? So long as he keeps the title, he can't be Jamie's son in any real sense. I believe William would find that too much of a contradiction. Having his cake and eating it too, as it were.

 

I actually found his willingness to ask for Jamie's help in the circumstances to be admirable. I don't think he would have done so were it his own life that was at risk, but he is willing to eat crow in order to save Jane. I think his snarky remark to Jamie has to do with his sense of humiliation over having to ask for Jamie's help. I would feel the same way under the circumstances.

 

What irked me about Willie by the end was his "nothing matters" mantra.  The door is open to him to get to know Jamie--if he wants. But clearly he isn't ready.  But while still angry with Jamie, he has no problem going to him to ask Jamie to help him free Jane.  And when he thinks Jamie won't, gets all het up. Though it's toned down almost right away, the attitude bugs me.  But, I realize there are readers who have no issue with it and others that do, and I'm kind of in the middle, because I liked Willie in the beginning, and thought his anger very much justified.

 

I interpreted William's "nothing matters" statement as being twofold: first, despair over his not being able to save Jane, and second, his belief that he doesn't matter. He's neither the earl nor Jamie's son. In case it's not okay to speculate about the next book, I'll put the following behind spoiler tags:

I think he has a decision to make that will be dealt with in the next book. Does he give up his title or live a life that he views as inauthentic? So long as he keeps the title, he can't be Jamie's son in any real sense. I believe William would find that too much of a contradiction. Having his cake and eating it too, as it were.

 

I actually found his willingness to ask for Jamie's help in the circumstances to be admirable. I don't think he would have done so were it his own life that was at risk, but he is willing to eat crow in order to save Jane. I think his snarky remark to Jamie has to do with his sense of humiliation over having to ask for Jamie's help. I would feel the same way under the circumstances.

 

ETA

Even if William gives up the title, the question of authenticity/identity will still pertain. To his mind, he's been living a lie even if unintentionally. What does renouncing his title mean for his sense of self? Among other things, it must be galling that Jamie has few if any self-doubts about who he is. How do you live up to that and why would you even want to try?

Edited August 19, 2015 by AD55

[Dust Bunny]

 

I don't like Fanny. Why do we need her? It better not be for what I think it might be based on spoilers I've read.

 

I actually like Fanny. I think she's a young firecracker. Even more, I think she gives us an opportunity to see what it would have been like if Jamie had had the opportunity to raise Bree. We've seen Jamie parent (or grandparent) young boys; we haven't seen him parent young girls, yet. (We haven't seen his interactions with Joan and Felicite to the same degree as Germain and Jem.) I look forward to seeing Jamie as a protective and devoted father figure to Fanny, as well as a grandfather to Mandy. 

Edited August 19, 2015 by Dust Bunny

[GHScorpiosRule]

 

 

I interpreted William's "nothing matters" statement as being twofold: first, despair over his not being able to save Jane, and second, his belief that he doesn't matter. He's neither the earl nor Jamie's son. In case it's not okay to speculate about the next book, I'll put the following behind spoiler tags:

I think he has a decision to make that will be dealt with in the next book. Does he give up his title or live a life that he views as inauthentic? So long as he keeps the title, he can't be Jamie's son in any real sense. I believe William would find that too much of a contradiction. Having his cake and eating it too, as it were.

 

I actually found his willingness to ask for Jamie's help in the circumstances to be admirable. I don't think he would have done so were it his own life that was at risk, but he is willing to eat crow in order to save Jane. I think his snarky remark to Jamie has to do with his sense of humiliation over having to ask for Jamie's help. I would feel the same way under the circumstances.

 

ETA

Even if William gives up the title, the question of authenticity/identity will still pertain. To his mind, he's been living a lie even if unintentionally. What does renouncing his title mean for his sense of self? Among other things, it must be galling that Jamie has few if any self-doubts about who he is. How do you live up to that and why would you even want to try?

 

 

See, I didn't see Willie going to Jamie to ask for his help as eating crow. All Willie had done when Jamie confirmed that he was Willie's father and that he was also Mac, was having Willie throw the rosary Jamie had given him, in Jamie's face.  There were no words (at least I don't remember any) of Jamie saying he hated Jamie and he wished he were dead, and he never wanted to see him ever again.  I have the words in my head about what Willie did, and then turns around and just wakes Jamie up in the middle of the night, as if there was no anger between them and the attitude--that's what bothered me.  And his "nothing matters" started before they discovered that Jane was dead.  He was muttering that after he learned of his true paternity.

 

Whether it gets picked up or explored in the next buik or not, I don't care.

 

But I did like that Willie again, called Claire "Mother Claire" at the end.  And that Jamie, so off-handedly, told him that he has a sister too. I wonder if Willie made the connection with Bree.

[bearcatfan]

 

See, I didn't see Willie going to Jamie to ask for his help as eating crow. All Willie had done when Jamie confirmed that he was Willie's father and that he was also Mac, was having Willie throw the rosary Jamie had given him, in Jamie's face.  There were no words (at least I don't remember any) of Jamie saying he hated Jamie and he wished he were dead, and he never wanted to see him ever again.  I have the words in my head about what Willie did, and then turns around and just wakes Jamie up in the middle of the night, as if there was no anger between them and the attitude--that's what bothered me.  And his "nothing matters" started before they discovered that Jane was dead.  He was muttering that after he learned of his true paternity.

 

Whether it gets picked up or explored in the next buik or not, I don't care.

 

But I did like that Willie again, called Claire "Mother Claire" at the end.  And that Jamie, so off-handedly, told him that he has a sister too. I wonder if Willie made the connection with Bree.

 

Didn't Jamie tell Willie that he had met his sister? I would think that it would cause Willie to wonder who might be his sister.  If he then remembers Bree's hair? I gues we'll find out in the next book. Maybe.

 

[Clawdette]

Well I'm 20% into buik 8 - not bad considering I had never heard of this series until Starz decided bring it to the screen.  But, I started this book with sadness because I'll be at the end of the currently written saga.  As I came late to the books, I had the good fortune to be able to start one right after another.  I have sympathy for those of you who have embraced the series from the beginning and had to wait years between books. 

 

I may go back to work part time to fill the hours until Season 2 premiers.

[Clawdette]

I have just encountered what may be my favorite piece of dialog in all eight books.  Germain is speaking to Jamie about Lord John:  "You musn't hit him again, Grand-pere," Germaine said earnestly, breaking the silence.  "He's a very good man and I'm sure he won't take Grannie to bed any more, now that you're home to do it."

 

BWAH!

[WatchrTina]

Germaine and Lord John.  That is a pairing that is made of win.

[Clawdette]

I've finally finished the buik and am sad but also relieved that I've reached the for-now-end.  I had a different reaction to William from many other posters.  I thought his behavior was a plausible reaction to such startling news and look forward to reading about his developing relationship with Jamie.  I'm glad Jamie and Claire are back home in North Carolina and Bree and family are there, too.  

 

I haven't decided whether to read the wee-er books.  If I do, it won't be right away.  I'm tired!

[chocolatetruffle]

So it’s early Saturday morning and I’m in the mood to write, so here we go:

 

First of all, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.  I also enjoyed reading the comments, which took a couple of days.  Rather than repeat a lot of what’s been said already, I’m just going to put down random thoughts and hopefully, won’t meander too much.

 

Lord John became interesting once he got to Savannah because of the way he handled the whole Jane situation. Prior to that he reads like a cliché of the stiff-upper-lip, stick-up-his-ass Brit that you see in those movies from the 30’s and 40’s about British Colonialism.  I don’t believe for one second that he loves Jamie, based on his behavior.  For one thing, he doesn’t really know Jamie.  He knows nothing about most of the character-defining events in Jamie’s life like Wentworth or sending a pregnant Claire back through the stones or surrendering the Lairdship of Lallybroch or the loss of his family and the life he created for them on the Ridge.  And the way he’s behaved towards Jamie since his return from the dead has been extremely disrespectful of Jamie’s marriage.  John’s impulse to tell Jamie the truth about what happened between him and Claire was a good one, but he did it in a way that was designed to cause maximum damage to Jamie and Claire’s relationship.  Whatever his motives were for saying it the way he did, he didn’t do it out of love for Jamie.  Then later when he meets Claire & Jamie again, the honorable, caring, loving thing to do would have been to distance himself from them a bit, apologize for the pain he inflicted, knowing that the wound was still raw.  Instead, he chooses to rub salt into the wound (all the “my dears” and subtle intimacy towards Claire), still trying to insinuate himself into their relationship. He was acting like it was all a game and it came off petty.  I see no love for Jamie.  Real love makes you mindful of the other person’s happiness, especially when you know that your affection will never be returned.  I didn’t see one impulse to do that in John’s behavior. 

 

At best, he behaves like he is fixated on "the one that got away."  But the fixation doesn’t stop him from fantasizing about sticking his tongue into his bunkmate’s ear while nursing a severely injured eye.  I remember in Voyager, when he first met Claire and, out of jealousy, insinuated that there was a shared intimacy between him and Jamie that she would never understand.  I’ve had no use for him ever since. However, I freaking LOVED witty, ascerbic, warm-hearted brother Hal!!  He can come to visit the Ridge anytime.

 

Oh, and although I thought “the talk” as Jamie and Claire cleared the air was decent, I really wanted him to mention that after her “death” he waited 7 years before he touched another woman, while she held out for about 7 days.  Heeee!

 

William’s woe-is-me tour grated.  It was self-indulgent and went on too long for this reader. I know that self-indulgence is often a part of one’s youth, but I can only take a small amount of “why did this happen to meeee?” and “everyone knew about it except meeee?” (which was NOT true: people may have suspected but only 3 people knew for sure).  The low point was his being a total dick to Ian:  dick move # 1 – the sucker punch for no reason; #2 – having Ian arrested; and #3 – NOT telling Ian that his uncle (and by association his mother) was still alive!  That was epic levels of wrong and I’m glad Jamie gave him some tough love 18th Century style, because he more than deserved it.  Don’t mess w/ Jamie’s nephew.

 

However, when William came to ask for Jamie’s help I saw him taking the first steps towards coming to terms with who he is and that makes him much more interesting to me.   Although, I have no idea what he thought he was going to do with Jane had they rescued her.

 

Otherwise, I loved the 1980/1739 Buck & Roger’s Excellent Adventure time travel story.  I was riveted through most of that, and am dying to know how Roger & Bree et al made it back to 1779.  I ended up loving the character of Buck and really hope that he didn’t stay there waiting to disappear upon his conception, because that would really be a tragedy.  The story only came to a screeching halt when it veered into Roger finding his father.  There was no point to it and it was totally anti-climactic.  If there was something from another book that would have made that story resonate then it should have been included in this one (or at least there should have been a disclaimer at the beginning saying "if you want to make sense out of a brief story 2/3 of the way through the book, then read XYZ novella first").

 

I was also riveted throughout the adventures (good and tragic) that carried them through the war and relocation leading up to the return to the Ridge.  And I was sooo happy that they came home.

 

Now my most favorite part centers on what I believe is the theme of the book - the establishment of a new and strong community of women.  All of the female characters shined for me: Older but wiser, Marsali and her devastating loss; Claire finding a friend (finally) in Jenny; Rachel and Dottie, the newest generation.  As men break & destroy, it is the women who mend.  We are coming out of wartime. The women are the givers of life and will nurture the present and future generations (there were a lot of women pregnant in this book). And Bree is a part of this community, she (and her family) belongs here.

 

Jenny, though underused, is a welcome addition.  Her friendship w/ Claire is a welcome addition.  The scene between the two women on the road back from the trading post was amazing; and the scene when Claire was rubbing Jenny’s shoulders while they were speculating on “pregnancy watch” was both warm and funny.  We haven’t had scenes like this between women since Claire was with Mother Hildegard, Louise and Jenny in DIA. 

 

However, I missed Jenny having one intimate conversation w/ her son (you know, her youngest and favorite and one of the reasons she traveled across the Atlantic).  The book opens w/ Ian at the cairn he built for Jamie & Jenny.  It was a beautiful scene and I wanted an emotional payoff when he learned they were still alive.  Why must moments like this happen off page?  It’s very frustrating.

 

And I think I understand why the Ian/Rachel coupling works.  In the past, she has been put out of 2 Quaker societies because of her brother’s convictions. Out of love for him, she has uprooted herself to follow him off to war in order to aid an army of violent men. She understands Ian’s violent nature and she also understands the emotional price he’s paid for it.  He has no problem putting a tomahawk thru the skull of a threat (and in so doing, delivered one of the best lines of the book), but emotionally it is wearing on him.  He sees her as his salvation and she is willing to be that if that’s what he needs.

 

Finally (whew, I hope ya’ll  are still with me :-)), I have just a couple of nitpicky type details that took me out of the story.  Annoying moment(s) #1:  the unending parade of Revolutionary figures.  I guess Jefferson & Paul Revere will show up in Book 9. Annoying moment(s) #2:  how is it that EVERYONE kept managing to end up EVERYWHERE (from the battlefield to Philadelphia to Savannah) at the same freaking time?

Edited September 26, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[WatchrTina]

 

[Dick move by William] #3 – NOT telling Ian that his uncle (and by association his mother) was still alive!

Weeel, in fairness to William, at that point in the story he doesn't know that Ian still thinks Jamie is dead.  He's overwhelmed at that moment by the discovery that both Ian and Rachel knew (or suspected) that he was the bastard offspring of JAMMF so he probably thinks Ian knows everything (including that JAMMF has returned, miraculously from the dead.)  I have to give him a pass on not being focused on Ian's well-being at that point in time.  (jBut yeah, having him arrested for assault when he (William) threw the first punch WAS a dick move.)

 

 

Lord John became interesting once he got to Savannah because of the way he handled the whole Jane situation. Prior to that he reads like a cliché of the stiff-upper-lip, stick-up-his-ass Brit <snip> I see no love for Jamie.  Real love makes you mindful of the other person’s happiness, especially when you know that your affection will never be returned. 

 

I'm sorry you don't like Lord John because I freaking LOVE him.  And I disagree that he does not "know" Jamie.  They got to know each other pretty damn well during the Helwater years.  No, he does not know about Wentworth or all the pain that Jamie has been through but you can love someone without having lived inside their head.  I've read both Lord John novels that cover the Helwater time-period and include Jamie, so that may inform my impression of Lord John, but I think even if I hadn't I'd be on John's side when it comes to his making Jamie feel guilty about the beating.  John raced to Claire's aid and saved her from arrest at a time when Jamie's "death" had left her extremely vulnerable.  What could John possibly have hoped to gain from that?  Jamie was dead as far as he knew -- talk about knowing your affections will never be returned.  What he did was an act of pure chivalry and I maintain that he did it out of a pure, disinterested love of Jamie.  I think he confessed to Jamie about the sex immediately because his code of honor required that there be no secrets on that score and also he knew Claire would tell Jamie so he sought to take the brunt of Jamie's reaction (assuming it was going to be bad) on himself and spare Claire.  Again, very chivalrous.  His admitting to having been thinking about Jamie during the sex?  Not so smart.  Honest.  But not smart.  Hey, he's not perfect.  But in my opinion, he's a terrific character and a wonderful counter-point to Jamie's more macho brand of heroism.  I also think he is a much-needed source of humor in the book.  JAMMF is my literary boyfriend but when he screws up I rather enjoy someone like John being around to make him suffer just a wee bit for his sins.  So John can call Claire "My dear" as often as he wants as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

Annoying moment(s) #2:  how is it that EVERYONE kept managing to end up EVERYWHERE (from the battlefield to Philadelphia to Savannah) at the same freaking time?

It's book 8 of the series . . . haven't you gotten used to this yet?  I crossed that Rubicon in book 3 when they run into that crazy naturalist that Jamie just happens to know on a remote island in the middle of the Caribbean.  Hmmmmm, was that before or after Claire is press-ganged by a ship that just happens to contain Lord John on his way to a new post in the Caribbean? <insert eye-roll>  And don't even get me started on Ian running into William in the middle of Dismal Swamp in Book 7.

[chocolatetruffle]

Yeah, my problem isn't that he told Jamie, it's the way he did it that irks. Surely he would have known how much the news would hurt, right? How about delivering the news with care?

[WatchrTina]

 

How about delivering the news with care?

I've written a lot about this point but my conclusion (beyond the obvious plot necessity) is that John, who has been genuinely mourning Jamie's death, is just so emotionally carried away by Jamie's miraculous return from the dead that his attitude is "Fuck it, I'm going to be completely honest about my feelings and you, James Alexander Malcolm Mackenzie Fraser, can just deal with it, by God!"   Which, alas, is not a good attitude to take with PTSD-scarred JAMMF.

Edited September 26, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

A slow start for me with this one. I was just so confused by the timeline of the last book and then to start this one at a screwy place, too--It was mid-May when Jamie showed up at Lord John's house at the end of the last book and this one starts in mid-July, but apparently it's the same day?--I decided to take a bit of a break and clear my head of all that nonsense and start fresh.

 

Anyway, I laughed so hard at how Lord John just blurted out "I have carnal knowledge of your wife." Oh, the things we say when where in the thick of it, aye? And then almost fell off the couch laughing later when Jamie, still full of rage and was going over it in his mind, asked "What the devil did ye tell me for, you wee idiot? What did ye think I'd do?" I'm pretty sure ye did what he thought ye would do. ;)

 

Actually, I've been chuckling quite a bit with this one, so far. Claire's little charade in kidnapping the Duke, "Time flies when you're having fun"; Jenny being able to read Claire's thoughts; Lord John's singing when he heard Dottie's laugh, waking to find Denny Hunter standing over him and their subsequent charade about him having bleeding on the brain; and Germain...what is there not to laugh about when Germain is present?

 

I also really enjoyed Ian and Rachael's talk of how Ian was married before. And, how he had not actually proposed marriage, but they were betrothed anyway. Have I mentioned how much I really like the Hunter's and their quick wit?

 

And, William is acting like a child. He is of Jamie's temperament and a very proud young man, too. I'd expect nothing less. 

 

So, not too bad of a start. Even if all this nonsense with Jamie's back going out, Lord John taken prisoner then taken as fellow soldier and young Ian and Rachael off on their own to only have Ian taken prisoner is only designed to keep the characters isolated so they can't resolve anything too quickly. It is the way of these books, after all, and I've long made my peace with it. ;)

[DittyDotDot]

GASP!!! Roger and Buck went too far back. Was not expecting that...not at all! Must read-on now.

[DittyDotDot]

Guys, can I just say how much I'm loving this book right now. I wasn't sure I was going to like Roger separated from Bree and both of them separated from the rest of the crew, but I do. I'm not really one for the big conspiracies and all, but I do love how everything is coming back around again.

 

And, I adore seeing some of the old gang again. When those horses started coming down the road, I was almost giddy in the hopes it was was Dougal--and it was! Of course, I realized long before there was a mention of the strange woman whose croft was burned after her "husband" was found hanging from the rafters that Geillius would be around in this time period, so it was no surprise when her name was mentioned. And, meeting Brian Fraser and seeing Jenny before...that's been ever so much fun. And now it seems we might get to meet Roger's father. My only other hope is we'll see Murtagh again soon. I can't remember if it was mentioned, but where was Murtagh when Jamie was being educated in Paris?

 

And that bastard Jack Randall is there. Oh, will we meet this Alex whose bible Jamie acquired at Fort William? That could be interesting. It is all starting to come together, isn't it?

 

So, this healer whose hands glowed blue? This must be the person Geillius mentioned as being the only other traveler she had ever met. If it wasn't for how he was described, I might have thought he to be Master Raymond--another person I hope to see again some day.

 

Okay, enough babbling, off to read some more.

Edited October 11, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

Bwah, ha, ha...Gemain and Lord John; too cute for words. "You mustn't hit him again, Grand-pere. He's a very good man, and I'm sure he won't take Grannie to bed anymore now that you're around to do it."...HA! And Fergus calmly strolling into the midst of the circus Gemain had created and taking charge; that's what makes me love Fergus so. Too bad we don't see more of him, though.

 

Gawd, that battle went on forever! I know it's historical fiction and there's a lot of characters and a lot of plot, but maybe we could leave out a few things here and there? As I always say, less is more!

 

And, Claire got shot. Which, TBH, I'm kinda shocked hasn't happened sooner in the books. But, knowing she wouldn't die I wasn't too pulsed by it. I was verra worried for Ian though. And, what happened to Rollo? Ian says he left him with Rachael, but he isn't mentioned as being with Rachael anytime during the battle and I'd think he would've been helpful in her search for Ian. Plothole? Or, did something happen to him that will be revealed later? I've been feeling Rollo might die in this book--which will be verra sad, indeed, but also a dogs life is just only so long--with Ian pointing out how he's not so young and him getting injured a couple times. I just hope it doesn't (or didn't) happen off-camera.

 

So, I didn't get why William wouldn't have taken Jane and Fanny with Rachael and Ian? I get there was a need for Ian to speak of Jamie to William, but I thought it was silly he let the three women head off in another direction unprotected when he's chased them down for two days worried that they weren't protected. And, it seems like it would've been smarter to have taken them to Jamie and Claire. Granted, he wouldn't want to talk with Jamie, but he knows Claire and leaving the girls with a bunch of random Quakers--again, unprotected--seemed kinda silly. 

 

On another note, there seems to be Quakers everywhere. Yes, I know it's probably somewhat historically accurate, but it feels more like someone became enthralled with Quakers and couldn't help but insert them all the time. I, myself, and fascinated with the Friends too, but it's starting to become a bit tiresome.

 

Also, why'd it take Hal and Lord John so long to get to Philadelphia when everyone else appeared to beat them there when they had a head start and no injured persons to care for? Whatever, time is irrelevant, right?

 

Anyhoo, on to the weddings shenanigans. Oh, I haven't read it yet, but all weddings in these books have shenanigans. ;)

[DittyDotDot]

Okay, I don't get it...why'd Roger send his father back through the stones when he knew he wouldn't make it? Why not take him with them north? Why bother rescuing him at all if he was just going send him to his death anyway? Unless he'll come back into play in another time period later, I just didn't get the point of it at all. Hmmm?

[Keeta]

Anyhoo, on to the weddings shenanigans. Oh, I haven't read it yet, but all weddings in these books have shenanigans. ;)

 

I really liked the wedding section in this book. After the battle that never ends, it was nice to have some long-awaited nuptials and a chance to breathe. Claire's conversation with Jenny was lovely as well. 

[WatchrTina]

 

Okay, I don't get it...why'd Roger send his father back through the stones when he knew he wouldn't make it?

He didn't know that.  He took a huge risk sending his father back because it could have completely altered his own personal history.  Imagine if Roger's father had survived the war -- Roger would never have gone to live with Reverend Wakefield, he would likely have never met Brianna, his children would never have been born.  By attempting to rescue his father he risked losing his wife and children.  If you want to know what happened to Roger's dad meet me behind the spoiler bar.

 

In the novella that tells the story from the point of view of Roger's dad, we learn that when he returned to 1940's England he hitchhiked to London, desperately trying to get back his wife and child.  As he approached their home, an air raid siren sounded.  He followed the crowds down into the subway air raid shelter.  Suddenly a bomb strikes the shelter, a stairway begins to collapse.  He looks up and sees his wife on the stairs, holding their son, young Roger.  He screams her name.  She sees him below -- and tossed him their child.  He catches Roger, saving his life.  The stairwell collapses.  Roger's mother is killed.  His father is fatally injured as well.  But Roger survives -- only because his father was there to catch him and shelter him from falling debris.

 

If you think about it too hard the time-travel paradox (the bootstrap paradox that Doctor Who talked about just this past Saturday) will make your head explode.  But it's a pretty damn poignant tale.  Rogers saves his father, risking his own happiness (his wife and children) by doing so and in doing so, saves his own life (and those of his children.)  Pretty nifty.

Edited October 13, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

He didn't know that.  He took a huge risk sending his father back because it could have completely altered his own personal history.  Imagine if Roger's father had survived the war -- Roger would never have gone to live with Reverend Wakefield, he would likely have never met Brianna, his children would never have been born.  By attempting to rescue his father he risked losing his wife and children.  If you want to know what happened to Roger's dad meet me behind the spoiler bar.

 

Thanks, WatchrTina, I'm not going to jump behind that spoiler bar just yet, though. Curiosity may get the better of me before I get a chance to get to the novella, but for now I'm holding strong. ;)

 

Anyway, when Buck asked Roger "Why'd you say a daft thing like that," after Roger told his father he loved him, Roger replied that it would be his last chance because he wasn't going to make it back. Clearly Roger believed Jerry would die instead of making it back to the future.

 

I get the whole point was to make sure Jerry didn't make it back so Roger's life would play out like it did. My point more being though, why send him back through the stones right then anyway? Jerry didn't have to die right then and there for him to have never come back to the future. He could've lived a life in the past or went to a different time.They could've taken him north with them instead of hastily shoving him through the stones unprepared. The future still would be waiting, so it wouldn't matter if he'd stepped through the stones then or six months later. Why the desperate urgency with the running and the chasing and all? Ahh...I just realized it was just about at the 70 percent mark--stupidity portion of the book, then? I was thinking Claire getting shot was the stupidity portion of the book...both maybe? Yeah, that's what propelled Roger back north to meet with Bree--I'm assuming now they can start to head back to the Ridge. And, Claire getting shot forced Jamie to suddenly resign his commission so they could head back to the Ridge, too. Hmm...I think it makes sense now.

 

Maybe I should clarify what I mean by stupidity portion of the book? I mean the portion of the book where it seems Gabaldon realizes she wants the book to end in a certain place, but she's been writing them heading in a different direction. So, lots of crazy action happens to force the characters to make sudden decisions--and there's usually a lot of running around like chickens with their heads cut off for a bit--that will shift them to a new direction. Then, usually a gap in time with little explanation as to what happened in between and we're suddenly in the middle of that new direction. 

 

I first noticed this pattern in Voyager when they all randomly end up on Hispanola and Jamie comes strolling down the beach as a French officer. They get the boat fixed and throw the French soldiers into the hold and the next thing we know they're hauling bat dung with no explanation what they did with those soldiers or how it was Jamie was able to become a French soldier overnight. Doesn't matter, they were back on-point looking for wee Ian and heading toward Lord John and Geillius. Actually, I guess the true stupidity portion of the book was probably wee Ian getting kidnapped in the first place. That's what forced them towards the West Indies and away from Scotland. Honestly, there's probably three or four stupidity portions in Voyager, though. 

 

I started thinking about it and looking back, the duel would be the stupidity portion of Dragonfly in Amber. That's what propelled them away from the Paris intrigue and back to Scotland so they could be drug into the fight without warning later. Outlander would be the witch trial, IMO. It forced Claire to tell Jamie what she was and sent them away from Leoch and towards Lallybroch where they needed to be when Jamie gets arrested. Anyway, it just seems like there's a sudden and somewhat inorganic shift in all the books and maybe that's why it stood out to me as being somewhat nonsensical. 

 

In other news, Rollo just died. Awww! At least he lived a long life and had some great adventures with Ian. 

 

 

ETA: I don't begrudge Gabaldon her stupidity portion, she usually does pay them off and they usually do have an impact on the characters going forward, it's just hard to read them, is all. ;)

Edited October 13, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[peacefrog]

Regarding Roger and his father: I think I get what you are saying about why help him back then. However, Roger does not know what happened to Jerry, if he was supposed to try or if Jerry was supposed to stay,or go with Roger and Buck. He still is unsure if the past can be changed. Not sure if I'm explaining myself clearly though, lol.

I look at it this way, Roger always met and helped Jerry, he just did not know that yet because he(Roger) has not lived it yet. He uses free will to chose what to do, but because of the time travel it is done already. Whatever happened, happened, we just don't know what happened until we experience it. I'm sorry if this wasn't what you were getting at and I was off!

Also read the novella! It may be my most favorite thing in the series.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, I plan to read the novella...well, I plan to read them all, actually.

 

 

I look at it this way, Roger always met and helped Jerry, he just did not know that yet because he(Roger) has not lived it yet. He uses free will to chose what to do, but because of the time travel it is done already. Whatever happened, happened, we just don't know what happened until we experience it. I'm sorry if this wasn't what you were getting at and I was off!

 

Um, not really what I was getting at. It's not really about the time travel aspects. I was just speaking to the writing of that sequence feeling like a bunch of forced melodrama---with the running and dogs chasing and the yelling "I love you" at the last moment--as though there would never be another chance to send Jerry back. Or if they didn't do it right then and there Roger or the kids would cease to exist or something. I just didn't get what all the fuss was about and it had me sighing while reading it. 

Edited October 14, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

GULP! Henri Christensen. snif. Oh, Germain.

[Laurie]

GULP! Henri Christensen. snif. Oh, Germain.

 

 

When you wrote yesterday about Rollo dying my first thought was, "Just wait...if you think that was hard..."

[DittyDotDot]

Well, it wasn't hard to take Rollo dying...he had lived a long life and died peacefully in his sleep. It's always harder when they die young, though. And, I thought Rollo might die in this book, so I was somewhat prepared for it. I did not see Henri-Christen coming, not at all. Poor Germain, he's never going to forgive himself.

 

On a totally different note: Should I find it quite so amusing how many medical kits Claire has lost to shipwrecks, fire and such, but she still manages to have one when she needs it?

[Laurie]

Yes you should find it amusing because I've thought the same thing many times. She could equip a whole hospital with what she's lost over the years.