The Lord John Books and Other Stories

[Athena]

This is a thread for the Lord John Grey series and other stories in the Outlander universe (the graphic novel, the companion, non-published "canon" works) by Diana Gabaldon.

 

Here is a Chronology.

 

All book spoilers are welcome here so no tagging unless it's for unpublished excerpts or unaired TV show information. Thank you.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Thanks for creating this, Athena.

 

So, as I stated in the Voyager thread, based on WatchrTina's recommendation, I checked out both The Brotherhood of the Blade and The Scottish Prisoner from my library.  I started Brotherhood on Friday.

 

Putting on flak jacket/helmet.

 

It's soooooo BORING! I am skimming, skimming, skimming, because Gabaldon continues to be ambiguous about the SEKRIT!!, and I've no clue what it is that Hal or Lord John's mother are intent on not telling him about. The note from his father's diary that was burned. That he wasn't a Jacobite sympathizer after all? That he was? That he, also, was a homosexual? That he wasn't? Why all the SECRECY? Especially about the father of a secondary character? And then the copius, and numerous lines of how "hot and bothered" Lord John gets every time he sees Percival, or thinks about Jamie. Yes, I get it. Lord John lusts after, is in love with Jamie, this perfection of manhood.  Then trying to determine that Jamie is Willie's father. And how COULD Jamie SEDUCE poor Geneva?!

 

I had to go back here to find out if I should bother finishing reading this because all I've seen of Jamie took up three lines and two scenes. BUT, apparently, Jamie and Lord John have a BIG fight near the end. So I'm sticking. Because I'm anal that way.

 

And I'm biting my tongue by not mentioning the WRONG tense used for a certain word, even when it's referring to more than one person.

[Pestilentia]

I agree that some of the Lord John series are tedious- the droning on and on of military and battle details bores the crap out of me.
Try The Space Between- it was excellent, the best of any of them IMO!!

[AheadofStraight]

I've only read The Scottish Prisoner and that one is a lot of Jamie and told in his POV along with John's. You're not making me want to read the Brotherhood book, lol. 

[mary2013]

GHScorpiosrule, I would recommend trying to finish it. Like you said, there is a BIG fight between Jamie and John at the end that leads into The Scottish Prisoner. And you should definitely read that. Also, Percy shows up in books 7 and 8, so you get the necessary background of the character.

[GHScorpiosRule]

GHScorpiosrule, I would recommend trying to finish it. Like you said, there is a BIG fight between Jamie and John at the end that leads into The Scottish Prisoner. And you should definitely read that. Also, Percy shows up in books 7 and 8, so you get the necessary background of the character.

 

Thanks mary2013.  Like I said in my initial post, I will finish this, because I'm anal that way, and I know, despite not enjoying this one, if I stopped now, it would bug me to know what the SEKRIT is and the big fight.  I already have The Scottish Prisoner checked out as weel. They're both due back at the library on June 14. I'm sure I'll be finished with both of them by then. If not, I can always re-check out.

[mary2013]

I ended up enjoying the book. Maybe you will too. I think John comes of as a better character in his stories rather than in the Big Books. And I did like the romance between John and Percy.

[peacefrog]

I like John well enough. These books are really boring and I could barely even skim them. Brotherhood of the Blade and The Scottish Prisoner were the best of them, and by that I mean i still skimmed them but not as much as others. 

[nodorothyparker]

I've only read Brotherhood and Scottish Prisoner because while I like John and his family well enough, I don't find any of them interesting enough to carry a book without Jamie.  I can only read so much military stuff or political intrigue.  Scottish Prisoner was decent enough on reread because it really does fill in the blanks on how they got to be the friends they are by the end of Voyager. I ended up doing so much skimming of Brotherhood that I honestly couldn't tell you what the main plot is even about.  The fight at the end is pretty bad and lays a lot of the groundwork for another fight that happens all the way into the last book.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Exactly. I don't think there is a plot; I mean, I just finished the part where John was attacked-stabbed, punched, pulverized, and he doesn't know why. And now, after he's all patched up, he's gone to Newgate to talk with Captain Bates (who I don't have ANY idea who he is? (I know that sentence is grammatically incorrect, but I'm taking a wee break between editing a motion that we're filing tonight and me brain's Swiss Cheese aboot now) who is scheduled to hang for being a Sodomite; which he isn't; He's a traitor, but not a Sodomite; and now he's told John, that of course, Lord John is an officer and a gentleman, but that he's also homosexual. Bates didn't come right out and say it, he's implying it, and John's playing dumb right now.

 

Is the plot to demonstrate to the readers that it was illegal to be homosexual during these times? That one could be executed for it? And maybe that's why John was attacked? In addition, is the plot to bore me with military stratagems? Who belongs to what infantry or whatever? I mean, Gabaldon has a acknowledgements and a note explaining what all the derogatory phrases mean, and how this one military outfit was fiction, blah, blah...zzzzz......

 

That said, the only thing I'm looking forward to is the FIGHT.

[WatchrTina]

 

 

based on WatchrTina's recommendation, I checked out both The Brotherhood of the Blade and The Scottish Prisoner from my library.  I started Brotherhood on Friday. Putting on flak jacket/helmet. It's soooooo BORING!

Weel, I do recall saying that you should read those books if you are interested in understanding John & Jamie's relationship -- not because they were great reads in and of themselves.  And I know I warned you about the ludicrous coincidence that is at the center of The Scottish Prisoner.  But I still think The Scottish Prisoner is fairly entertaining.  I love the John/Jamie relationship.  It is SO complicated.  And so rich.

 

For example: (wee spoiler ahead) there is a scene in The Scottish Prisoner where Jamie has been brought to the home of John's brother Hal, Duke of Pardloe.  He is (obviously) still John's prisoner (it's set during the Helwater years).  At one point there is just too much activity in the house and Jamie can't stand it -- he needs to be alone somewhere to sit and think.  He finds an upsidedown bucket in a narrow space between the garden shed and the garden wall and gratefully sits himself down.  John finds him there and each is shocked to see the other.  Both get angry (they're generally pissed off with one another at this point in the book.)  Snarking ensues.  But as they walk back to the house Jamie demands "Why did you follow me?" and John tells him that he didn't -- that sometimes he finds the house just too noisy and busy and when that happens he goes and sits behind the garden shed for a moment of peace.  You can just read between the lines at how much it kills Jamie to realize how much ALIKE he and John are -- both warriors, both honorable men, very similar personalities.  It freaks Jamie out a bit each time that truth is confirmed.  I love that.  However, your milage may vary.

Edited June 9, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

That is verra trrue, WatchrTina and I think I fergot tha' part. It's kind of picking up now (after Bates' hanging). But I call shenanigans on Gabaldon-she's the one using the deragatory words. Again the use of Hindoo, and this time NOT in dialogue, but in describing how Olivia, John's pregnant cousin, approaches going up the stairs to find out why John's mother has called off the wedding. Something to the effect of her being determined as she approached a "Hindoo Kush"-Kush being a mountain/region. No excuse for that. But what do I know?

Edited June 9, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[sara217]

Haven't read that particular book, but was it "a" or "the" Hindu Kush, which is a specific mountain range in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I think that was considered one of the most difficult to cross ranges historically.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Haven't read that particular book, but was it "a" or "the" Hindu Kush, which is a specific mountain range in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I think that was considered one of the most difficult to cross ranges historically.

 

It was "a" and it should have been spelled Hindu, and not Hindoo, which is a derogatory term. And yes, I know the Hindu Kush is a specific mountain range.  It's the use/spelling of Hindu I'm having issues with, as it's the second time she's used it.

 

ETA:

 

So. I just finished Brotherhood of the Blade this morning. Man, I should have just gone to the end to read the fight John and Jamie had, because it was one big long snoozefest.  John is quite the...well, I don't want to say the 'w' word, but gives me the vibes of horndog. Every man he meets, he has the hots for. Percy, that German officer with the missing left arm, Jamie, and there was someone else, too, I think.

 

Anyhoo, so the big SEKRIT was his father was murdered, and didn't commit suicide. And that Percy's death was faked and he's in Rome. Safe. Even though he blackmailed John into saving him.

 

That said, I'm not sure if Gabaldon forgot what she wrote in Voyager when she wrote this book, especially the fight between John and Jamie. I mean, it takes place shortly after Willie is born, so when Willie is 3 and Jamie is pardoned to be able to go back home (in  Voyager), no FUCKING WAY would he have kissed John on the lips for John agreeing to watch over Willie without Jamie having to give himself to him. NO.WAY.

 

And while on the train, I started The Scottish Prisoner and my jaw dropped and my mind screamed 'SOAP OPERA TROPE!!!!' when I read the Preface by Gabaldon that Compte St. Germaine isn't dead after all. Since he shows up in the other Lord John book/novella.

 

It's just nice to be in Jamie's head again, let me just say. Because now I can see and hear Sam. That is all. And that is all I need to please me and get me through this novel/novella.

Edited June 10, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, guess I'll just be "talkin'" to m'self here.

 

I'm really enjoying The Scottish Prisoner. Awesome Copy Editor must have snuck in for most of this, because there is hardly any wordy wordy words, or the kind of nonsensical prose that Gabaldon writes in her regular novels, and it's a vast improvement over Brotherhood.

 

My heart breaks for Jamie, who still grieves and misses Claire. And aches for her.

 

But then I read phrases such as John doing his "researches" when it should be research, singular! and "griefs" when it should still be "grief" even if it is referring to more than one person grieving.

 

So far, I've come away with this: Hal is an Asshole; his wife is another asshole, and Quinn needs to learn the meaning of "No."

 

And my heart melted reading the scenes with Jamie and Willie.  Oh! And I love Tom, and all his "Me Lord"s! 

 

I'm now at the part where Jamie is going to save John, who has been arrested.

[WatchrTina]

I'm really enjoying The Scottish Prisoner.

Snerk.  Told you so!

 

 

That said, I'm not sure if Gabaldon forgot what she wrote in Voyager when she wrote this book [The Brotherhood of the Blade], especially the fight between John and Jamie. I mean, it takes place shortly after Willie is born, so when Willie is 3 and Jamie is pardoned to be able to go back home (in  Voyager), no FUCKING WAY would he have kissed John on the lips for John agreeing to watch over Willie without Jamie having to give himself to him. NO.WAY

Yes way.  Keep reading.

 

One of the things that Diana gets right is that her characters learn from their experiences.  Jamie, in particular, evolves over time.  The man who spanks his wife in Book 1 -- thinking it is the right, just, appropriate, even honorable thing to do -- learns to never ever ever do THAT again.  And the PTSD-afflicted rape survivor who reacts (understandably) with disgust to any discussion of homosexual attraction and with rage to any hints of any such attraction toward him is forced to reconsider his position (slightly) when he becomes well-acquainted with and even friends with a man who, besides being a soldier, a leader of men and an honorable man, also happens to be gay.

 

Keep reading.

 

PS:  Let's be clear about that kiss.  Jamie did it to be nice to John.  He (Jamie) didn't enjoy it.  I'd say it was rather like a little kid being forced to kiss his elderly great aunt who smells funny.  You just do it quickly and forget about it.

Edited June 12, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Snerk.  Told you so!

Aye, ye did. It's why I stuck with it, despite not being impressed with Brotherhood.

 

 

Yes way.  Keep reading.

 

One of the things that Diana gets right is that her characters learn from their experiences.  Jamie, in particular, evolves over time.  The man who spanks his wife in Book 1 -- thinking it is the right, just, appropriate, even honorable thing to do -- learns to never ever ever do THAT again.  And the PTSD-afflicted rape survivor who reacts (understandably) with disgust to any discussion of homosexual attraction and with rage to any hints of any such attraction toward him is forced to reconsider his position (slightly) when he becomes well-acquainted with and even friends with a man who, besides being a soldier, a leader of men and an honorable man, also happens to be gay.

 

Keep reading.

 

PS:  Let's be clear about that kiss.  Jamie did it to be nice to John.  He (Jamie) didn't enjoy it.  I'd say it was rather like a little kid being forced to kiss his elderly great aunt who smells funny.  You just do it quickly and forget about it.

 

Yes, way.  Because I see it now.  And I am keeping reading! (And yes, I realize that last sentence is grammatically incorrect!)

 

I may just buy this one, because I can see myself re-reading it down the road.

[AD55]

PS:  Let's be clear about that kiss.  Jamie did it to be nice to John.  He (Jamie) didn't enjoy it.  I'd say it was rather like a little kid being forced to kiss his elderly great aunt who smells funny.  You just do it quickly and forget about it.

Wow, could he be anymore patronizing? Sometimes I really don't like Jamie. If some guy kissed me "to be nice," I would (a) want to throttle him, and (b) wonder what I did to seem so pathetic that I would welcome him throwing me a bone. I haven't read the book, so it's not very fair for me to criticize. Maybe John leaned in like the smelly aunt -- if so, I find that out of character. He knows how Jamie feels about homosexuality, an attitude that would be consistent with the period even had he not been violated. I really hope that John is not portrayed as so dense that he thinks Jamie would welcome his gesture of affection or doesn't understand why Jamie is kissing him or is shown to be so needy that he welcomes any display of affection, regardless of how condescending, from Jamie.

 

I want John to get over his infatuation with Jamie. It doesn't strike me as realistic. Love depends to some extent on its being reciprocal. Most of us move on eventually when we realize our affection is not returned even if we are able to remain friends with the person.

[lianau]

I think John's love for Jamie is also sort of a protection mechanism , as long as he's in love with unattainable Jamie he doesn't have to go through potentially losing someone again like he lost Hector . And knowing how he reacted to "dead" Jamie , that had to be pretty hard .

[GHScorpiosRule]

Wow, could he be anymore patronizing? Sometimes I really don't like Jamie. If some guy kissed me "to be nice," I would (a) want to throttle him, and (b) wonder what I did to seem so pathetic that I would welcome him throwing me a bone. I haven't read the book, so it's not very fair for me to criticize. Maybe John leaned in like the smelly aunt -- if so, I find that out of character. He knows how Jamie feels about homosexuality, an attitude that would be consistent with the period even had he not been violated. I really hope that John is not portrayed as so dense that he thinks Jamie would welcome his gesture of affection or doesn't understand why Jamie is kissing him or is shown to be so needy that he welcomes any display of affection, regardless of how condescending, from Jamie.

 

That's just it, though. The kiss that took place in Voyager? We're not told that Jamie did it to be nice. I was shocked that he did do it, considering what had happened with Black Jack. Jamie initiated the kiss, and did it, to thank John for agreeing to watch over Willie since Jamie was leaving Helwater.  And that John agreed to do it, without expecting Jamie to "give himself over." That scene wasn't patronizing at all; Which is why the fight in Brotherhood, which took place before that scene in Voyager, is all the more confusing, as my initial comments here upthread.

 

And for all of John being in love with Jamie, it certainly hasn't stopped him from having sex with every man he meets.  Frankly, I'm surprised he's able to keep his homosexuality a secret, with all the sex he has.

[AD55]

 

That's just it, though. The kiss that took place in Voyager? We're not told that Jamie did it to be nice. I was shocked that he did do it, considering what had happened with Black Jack. Jamie initiated the kiss, and did it, to thank John for agreeing to watch over Willie since Jamie was leaving Helwater.  And that John agreed to do it, without expecting Jamie to "give himself over." That scene wasn't patronizing at all; Which is why the fight in Brotherhood, which took place before that scene in Voyager, is all the more confusing, as my initial comments here upthread.

 

And for all of John being in love with Jamie, it certainly hasn't stopped him from having sex with every man he meets.  Frankly, I'm surprised he's able to keep his homosexuality a secret, with all the sex he has.

 

I don't see how his "having sex with every man he meets" has anything to do with the fact that he apparently hasn't fallen out of love with Jamie after several decades. He's not being unfaithful, and I don't blame him for seeking comfort where he can find it. One advantage John has is that he's from the aristocracy and is also an officer, both of which would protect him to some extent from legal action. I also assume he's discreet. Persecuted groups have always had to learn to keep who they are a secret, which is not to say individuals never get caught and suffer terrible consequences.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't see how his "having sex with every man he meets" has anything to do with the fact that he apparently hasn't fallen out of love with Jamie after several decades. He's not being unfaithful, and I don't blame him for seeking comfort where he can find it. One advantage John has is that he's from the aristocracy and is also an officer, both of which would protect him to some extent from legal action. I also assume he's discreet. Persecuted groups have always had to learn to keep who they are a secret, which is not to say individuals never get caught and suffer terrible consequences.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he was cheating; it was meant more as a response to all the comments I'd read before of how John was in love with Jamie, and it made it seem, (besides Hector and Percy), that John was pretty much celibate...and had sex with Claire, because both thought Jamie was dead.  Not that there's anything wrong with him having sex with other men; As for discreet? The couple of times he's let the man he ended up with, know how he feels? Well, it wasn't in private.  With Namtzen (sp?), when John kissed his arm, where it was amputated, the manner of the kiss, was out in the open, where anyone could have seen them, for example. That doesn't sound discreet to me.

[AD55]

As for discreet? The couple of times he's let the man he ended up with, know how he feels? Well, it wasn't in private.  With Namtzen (sp?), when John kissed his arm, where it was amputated, the manner of the kiss, was out in the open, where anyone could have seen them, for example. That doesn't sound discreet to me.

 

Nope, not discreet at all! I've only read one of the Lord John books and none of the other ancillary stories. It was 4 years ago, and my memory is wretched. Not that it keeps me from wrongheadedly weighing in.

[lianau]

Every man he meets ? I tried to list them . Feel free to add others I might have forgotten .Hector ,George Everett ,  unnamed guy in the Lavender House , Percy, von Namtzen (can't remember if they had sex or just heavily flirted around the issue ), Charlie Carruthers, Manoke, unnamed slave of Jocasta ,

[WatchrTina]

 

And for all of John being in love with Jamie, it certainly hasn't stopped him from having sex with every man he meets.

 

von Namtzen (can't remember if they had sex or just heavily flirted around the issue )

Oh he and von Namtzen have sex alright.  It's one of the funniest sex scenes I've ever read.  Von Namtzen is inexperienced at homosexual sex but he is undaunted and quite endearing as he requests direction from John in the most unambiguous of terms.  It made me laugh. It was so real.  

[lianau]

ok , I think that rings a bell.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Finished The Scottish Prisoner this morning. A very good read.  There were a few places where it dragged at the end, but all in all,  may just buy this one.  I did like how it ended.

 

But I didn't like how Edward Twelvetrees turned out to actually be working against the Irish Rising. He was such a vile enough character, I would have preferred that Jamie was right in calling him a traitor.  But that's just me.

 

Though Gabaldon has in the "Author Notes" explanations for  why "Plan B" isn't anachronistic, the way she explains. meaning, the words she uses to explain, are definitely archaic. And then also adds in the communication between herself and her editor that led to the decision to keep that title.  And I have to laugh, because her notes make it seem that normally, she doesn't use excessive words in her regular novels, or that she hardly ever needs to edit the product that actually gets published.  But, whatever.

 

Now, I'm going to take a break and read something else before I tackle Drums of Autumn.

Edited June 14, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[DittyDotDot]

So, I finished Written In My Own Heart's Blood two days ago and thought I'd just take a wee break and read something different as I've been pretty solidly reading only these books for a few weeks now. But, could I focus on anything else? Of course not!! I kept thinking about these damn books. It's so weird how I felt like I was forgetting something all day yesterday and realized I had missed my daily dose of Jamie and Claire and Co. How long till the next book will be published? Sigh.;)

 

Anyway, I read A Leaf on the Wind of All Hallows this morning. I really liked this short story. Still don't get what Roger's urgency was to send Jerry back through the stones when he did--whether Jerry went through right then or six months later, he still could've ended up right where he did--but it did fill in the gaps quite nicely of what happened to Roger's parents.

 

I really liked the voice of Jerry--at times he sounded much like Roger to me-- and I really liked Dolly and her mum. They really felt like they fit perfectly. It being a short story, I was surprised at how I started tearing up a bit when Dolly was being frank with Frank. Gabaldon did really well with these characters with very little time to develop them. Oh, and can I just say I gasped, once again, at the sight of Dolly tossing wee Roger. I knew what was coming, as I've already heard Roger tell Bree the story, but something about that image...

 

Speaking of Frank, I'm now wondering if he realized that the boy Reverend Wakefield adopted was Jerry's little boy who'd put his greasy hands all over Franks pants? I'm also wondering if Roger will, at some point, remember who his mother tossed him to? It'll be interesting to see if Gabaldon ties this back to something in some future book.

 

Anyhoo, I think Gabaldon should write more of these short stories. She didn't seem to get distracted by detailing some historical battle or a random surgery of Claire's. The story was tight and kept on point. I loved it!

Edited October 18, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[Laurie]

Gabaldon has posted daily lines this past week from a novella about Hal and his wife Minnie that I think she said might come out next year. And she's mentioned two others she's been slowly working on...one on Master Raymond and the other on Jamie's parents.

[DittyDotDot]

Ooh, those sound promising. ;)

[auntlada]

I'm pretty sure I've read lines from a story about Master Raymond.

[CalamityBoPeep]

 

Anyway, I read A Leaf on the Wind of All Hallows this morning. I really liked this short story. Still don't get what Roger's urgency was to send Jerry back through the stones when he did--whether Jerry went through right then or six months later, he still could've ended up right where he did--but it did fill in the gaps quite nicely of what happened to Roger's parents.

 

I suppose if time keeps moving, on both ends, in parallel... then if Roger had waited to send his father back, then his father wouldn't have been where he was to catch Roger during the air raid.  But, then that explanation doesn't take into account the offset years, when Geillis, and later Roger & Buck, head back in time.  All I can do for that is just explain to myself the various ways of navigating.  Stones, fire, blood, thinking of people, what have you.  I figure the natural motion of time is followed pretty closely for the accidental crossings. 

 

With all the timey-wimey stuff, sometimes I end up just having to draw a picture. Wish we could do that here...

[DittyDotDot]

I suppose if time keeps moving, on both ends, in parallel... then if Roger had waited to send his father back, then his father wouldn't have been where he was to catch Roger during the air raid.  But, then that explanation doesn't take into account the offset years, when Geillis, and later Roger & Buck, head back in time.  All I can do for that is just explain to myself the various ways of navigating.  Stones, fire, blood, thinking of people, what have you.  I figure the natural motion of time is followed pretty closely for the accidental crossings. 

 

With all the timey-wimey stuff, sometimes I end up just having to draw a picture. Wish we could do that here...

 

Well, considering that Jerry showed up two years after he intended--because he was thinking of Dolly and Roger rather than just Dolly--I'd say it wouldn't matter when he went through the stones, it only matters how you navigate to come out the other side.  

 

But, it's not the physical nature of how time travel works in this universe that I'm questioning. I'm just wondering why Roger thought he had to send him back right then. Roger didn't know that sending Jerry back was going to save him in that stairway and it seems clear in Written In My Own Heart's Blood Roger thinks he's not going to make it at all. But for some unknown reason it's so very important to Roger to send Jerry through the stones right then and there, unprepared. It's rare for me not to understand the characters motivations in this series, but I don't get what Roger was thinking or trying to achieve here. It seems like he did it, for no other reason than, Gabaldon had written this novella first and she couldn't take it back. 

Edited October 18, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

Just as a sidenote: There's lots of things that don't make sense or line up in this series, but I can usually ignore them as long as they aren't important to understanding the characters.

 

Like for instance: It seemed like Jerry went through the stones and was sent back in a short space of days--maybe 10-14 days. Which makes it, if not impossible, at least unlikely the dog tags traveled North, being traded and gambled a couple of times, ending up in the possession of a random British officer who then sent them to Black Jack Randall at Fort William who then sent on to Lallybroch to await Roger's return in that space of time. Let alone the days it took Roger and Buck to travel to Hadrian's Wall and the two or three days they spent traversing the wall asking questions, not to mention the days it took them to travel to Fort William and then to locate the lady that sent them south to the wall in the first place.

 

But, I ignored it and decided the time frame was at least a month, because in the grand scheme of things, it didn't really matter. 

[CalamityBoPeep]

Well, considering that Jerry showed up two years after he intended--because he was thinking of Dolly and Roger rather than just Dolly--I'd say it wouldn't matter when he went through the stones, it only matters how you navigate to come out the other side.  

 

 

 

Like for instance: It seemed like Jerry went through the stones and was sent back in a short space of days--maybe 10-14 days. Which makes it, if not impossible, at least unlikely the dog tags traveled North, being traded and gambled a couple of times, ending up in the possession of a random British officer who then sent them to Black Jack Randall at Fort William who then sent on to Lallybroch to await Roger's return in that space of time. Let alone the days it took Roger and Buck to travel to Hadrian's Wall and the two or three days they spent traversing the wall asking questions, not to mention the days it took them to travel to Fort William and then to locate the lady that sent them south to the wall in the first place.

 

But, I ignored it and decided the time frame was at least a month, because in the grand scheme of things, it didn't really matter. 

 

Yeah, it's been a while since I read MOBY and then the novella, and those readings were spaced reasonably far apart.  When you put it all out here like this, the problems really are glaring.  My head's spinning now, just looking at these two posts! LOL  You're right... it makes no sense.

[DittyDotDot]

Oops, I just realized I had An Echo In The Bone and Written In My Own Heart's Blood confused, I edited my posts to correct that.

 

 

Yeah, it's been a while since I read MOBY and then the novella, and those readings were spaced reasonably far apart.  When you put it all out here like this, the problems really are glaring.  My head's spinning now, just looking at these two posts! LOL  You're right... it makes no sense.

 

Well, like I said, in the grand scheme of things the physical stuff didn't really bother me too much. It is fiction, so I can usually find a workaround for that kind of stuff. I just haven't figured out Roger's mindset yet. I guess, that doesn't really matter either, but now that I'm fixated on it, I can't stop wondering.

[DittyDotDot]

So, I just read The Space Between. While the kidnapping of Joan-who-hears-voices didn't do much for me, there was a whole lotta time travel reveals--and questions--in this little novella. 

 

So, Claire is one of Master Raymond's folk, hu? I wonder who the lost daughter he was searching for is? Also, that means the healer Roger met in 1739 is also one of Master Raymond's as well as Gellius since they both glowed blue...hmm? I wonder if we've met a traveler who isn't one of the blue-glow folk? I'm now wondering about Otter Tooth and Donner, I wonder what color their "auras" were? 

 

I also wonder what the Compte St. Germaine was going to do with a baby? Considering it sounded like something Gellius told him, it's probably nothing good. Oh, and Fergus could be St. Germaine's son? Does that mean Fergus could travel? That could be interesting. Which probably means I was right in thinking that Percy is up to no good in trying to find Fergus, hmmm? 

 

 Oh, and it's very dangerous to travel forward in time...is that why it almost killed Buck? 

 

Oh, oh, oh, and the Native medicine woman who told Claire she wouldn't come into her full power until her hair was white...does that mean Claire will develop the ability to heal by touch?

 

Anyway, this little novella was very unexpected. It's really too bad the characters weren't more vibrant, though. I think I could get interested in Michael, but Joan just didn't do much for me at all. Nice to see Master Raymond again, though. 

[Petunia846]

Oh, oh, oh, and the Native medicine woman who told Claire she wouldn't come into her full power until her hair was white...does that mean Claire will develop the ability to heal by touch?

 

I don't know the answer (obviously) but it does seem like Diana is heading that direction if you look at some of the sneak peek scenes for book 9 that she's been releasing lately.

[DittyDotDot]

I'm trying to stay strong and not peek. We'll see how long that lasts, though. 

 

It totally makes sense that's where the story would go. Claire's always had an intuitive sense when diagnosing her patients. And her being able to just hold the bones of Geillis and Otter Tooth and tell how they died...I guess I just never really thought about her having a special power before. 

 

Now, I'm thinking of delving into the Lord John books. Anyone have a suggestion on the order I should read them?

[Laurie]

Well....technically you can read them in any order because there isn't a specific plot that runs through all of them.  But you'll find that sometimes one book will refer to an event in a previous book.  You might start out with Lord John (LJ) and the Hand of Devils which has three novellas: LJ and the Hellfire Club, LJ and the Succubus, and LJ and the Haunted Soldier.

 

According to Gabaldon's website, here is the actual chronology of all the LJ books:

 

LJ and the Hellfire Club

LJ and the Private Matter

LJ and the Succubus

LJ and the Brotherhood of the Blade

LJ and the Haunted Soldier

LJ and the Custom of the Army

LJ and the Scottish Prisoner (lots of Jamie in that one)

LJ and the Plague of Zombies

 

I enjoyed them all.

[DittyDotDot]

Thanks Laurie! I have a couple other things on my reading queue for the next couple days. Thinking I might delve in early next week. This definitely helps with the decision-making, though.

[DittyDotDot]

So, I finally delved into the Lord John stories this week. They've been interesting reading so far.

 

I started with The Hellfire Club: I found it a bit underdeveloped, but considering it was Gabaldon's first short story I think she did well. In fact, I'm quite surprised she could write a "short" story at all. I wouldn't have minded knowing a bit more about what the actual purpose of the Hellfire Club was and why they would bother inducting members without knowing if the members actually wanted to be inducted--seems a bit of a foolish way to run a secret club--but then we would've had to loose the lengthy description of how the red haired man's red hair drifted across it's face and reminded John of Jamie...so, whatcha gonna do? 

 

Ironically, I found The Private Matter a bit too long. Not being limited by a word count this time, seems Diana went back to her regular want of repeating things and dragging things out to the point of tediousness. However, an interesting glimpse into espionage of that time. I really took a liking to Tom Byrd. So much so that it inspired me to dig out my old Jeeves and Wooster DVDs as Tom and John have a bit of a Jeeves and Wooster thing going on. I also am finding I like Harry Quarry rather a lot too.

 

Being the Goldilocks that I must be, I thought The Succubus was just right, though. Interesting twist on history with and interesting little case and interesting characters to bring it to life. I might be getting a little tired of how everyone John meets reminds him in some way of his love for Jamie Fraser, though. But, that's minor in an otherwise enjoyable little read.

 

Should start into The Brotherhood of the Blade tonight. Am I correct in thinking both The Brotherhood of the Blade and The Scottish Prisoner are regular-length novels--I mean to say, regular for most other authors whose names are not Diana Gabaldon ;) --and not short stories? It's hard to tell because I downloaded a compilation version that has all the stories except The Custom of the Army and The Plague of Zombies. It's also weird that they are out of chronological order in the compilation so I have to skip all around to read them in order. I'm guessing they are in written order, but it seemed odd they didn't compile the volume in chronological order. Ah well, I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for it though.

[DittyDotDot]

I'm now reading The Brotherhood of the Blade--just started it last night--and I'm surprised to learn Percy is introduced sometime after John returned from Ardsmuir. I thought that was the scandal that got him sent to Ardsmuir in the first place? So now I'm wondering what it was John did do to get him "exiled" to Scotland--there was something, right? I'm going to have to re-read that section of Voyager now, aren't I? Sigh.

[WatchrTina]

I was almost certain that the reasons for John's banishment to Ardsmuir have never been revealed so I went hunting for info. I found the following at the Outlander Wiki. I'm putting it behind spoiler bars even thought I don't really think it's a spoiler. But it does shed some interesting light of the question of what Hal does or does not know about John's sexuality.

"On the matter of John's sexuality, Gabaldon has suggested that Hal almost certainly knows of John's preference for men, but that the brothers would never speak of it. She has hinted that even if Hal wasn't directly responsible for John's exile to Ardsmuir (in the wake of a near-scandal involving George Everett), he almost certainly had a hand in it."

The Wiki suggests that the events that occurred in the "Lord John and the Hellfire Club" were what triggered his assignment to the prison.

Edited November 28, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

Thanks Watrtina! I just re-read Lord John's first day at Ardsmuir and, yes, it was a near-scandal involving George Everett. I had totally gotten my scandals mixed up! And, yes, it's not told in detail what the scandal exactly is, but heavily implied Hal does know of John's predilections. I had totally forgotten Everett was mentioned in Voyager...The Hellfire Club is now clearer to me, as is Lavender House in The Private Matter. Vera interesting!

 

I'm looking forward to learning the backstory to Percy and John.

 

My re-read reminded me of something else, though. Harry Quarry was John's predecessor at Ardsmiur, so, he'd be the man who brought Jamie in as a Mason? I hadn't really made that connection before. Hmmm? 

[WatchrTina]

 

Harry Quarry was John's predecessor at Ardsmiur, so, he'd be the man who brought Jamie in as a Mason?

I always assumed the Masons who initiated Jamie were fellow prisoners, not any of the English.  I know that Masons are never supposed to allow political differences to come between them and their brothers but somehow I can't imagine that Harry Quarry -- they guy who put Jamie in irons and left them on the whole time he ran the prison -- would have any incentive (or the sheer cheek) to then invite Jamie to join him in a fraternal society while remaining his prisoner.

 

Speaking of Harry -- one of my favorite scenes in "The Scottish Prisoner" is the one where Jamie walks into the study in Hal's house, sees Harry, and then turns right around and walks out again -- right out of the house into the park across the street (even though technically he's under house arrest and should not go out alone.)  Hal lets him go too because everyone knows he needs a moment to collect himself if violence is to be avoided.  Jamie hasn't forgotten those irons.

[DittyDotDot]

I always assumed the Masons who initiated Jamie were fellow prisoners, not any of the English.  I know that Masons are never supposed to allow political differences to come between them and their brothers but somehow I can't imagine that Harry Quarry -- they guy who put Jamie in irons and left them on the whole time he ran the prison -- would have any incentive (or the sheer cheek) to then invite Jamie to join him in a fraternal society while remaining his prisoner.

 

Jamie says that it was the governor of he prison at Ardsmiur who made him when Jared asks him when he was made in Voyager. He doesn't specifically say it was Quarry, but he says it was a man he routinely had meals with--there was another governor before Quarry, though, but it sounds like he was a bit of a tyrant and I don't imagine he would've had regular meals with Jamie. Basically, Jamie says they were short a man to be able to have meetings and none of the English officers seemed to suit so Harry chose Jamie seeing as he was an educated man and all. Which ended up suiting Jamie's needs as a way to bring in all the prisoners and unite them. It's confirmed later in The Fiery Cross--I believe it's Kenny Lindsay who tells it to Roger after Roger invites the Christie's as tenants.

 

Wasn't it the previous governor who put Jamie in chains, though, I thought Quarry just chose not to remove them? IMO, Harry had a very good reason for leaving Jamie in irons--he says in The Hellfire Club that he liked Jamie and respected him, but didn't trust him after the death of Sgt. Murchinson. And, the fact he didn't pursue the matter, saying he liked Fraser more than the sergeant, kinda spoke volumes to me. Harry understood, chains or no, Jamie was dangerous, so I think he left them on mostly to remind Jamie that he may be chief to the prisoners, but Quarry was the governor.

 

Anyway, I just got the impression both Harry and Jamie knew where each other stood and it wasn't personal, just the way things were--it being a prison and Harry being banished to govern it and all. The prisoners say they preferred "Handsome Harry" to his predecessor, so I don't think he was a tyrant as governor. It was Harry who started having meals with Jamie every week as a way to help keep a lid on the prisoners and it was he who suggested John should continue the tradition if he was to run the prison successfully. If John hadn't needed some inducement to get Jamie to translate for him, John might not have removed those chains either. That's what started it all for John and Jamie was John trying to find the Frenchman's gold.

[WatchrTina]

Anyway, I just got the impression both Harry and Jamie knew where each other stood and it wasn't personal, just the way things were--it being a prison and Harry being banished to govern it and all.

I think you may be right and I do think that your diagnosis of "it wasn't personal" is something that men generally can wrap their brains around better than women. Okay maybe not all women -- maybe just me. Because Jamie's anger at Harry at his having kept him in irons (which we do see in the Scottish Prisoner) makes MUCH more sense to me than Jamie being able to set aside his feelings of humiliation and attend a freaking lodge meeting at the prison while in irons. That Jamie was able to do it says a lot about the character's self-control and pragmatism (this is, after all, the same guy who lived in a cave for several years and then voluntarily gave himself up to the authorities to protect his family and to allow them collect the reward.) So I guess I can buy into the idea of that character deciding to accept an invitation to join the Ardsmuir chapter of the Masons in the belief that it will enhance his ability to take care of his "men" in the prison. And it makes sense to me again that with that motivation gone (with his men having long ago been transported to America), and with the sight of Harry coming as a complete surprise, that Jamie would have a strong, negative reaction to seeing his lodge brother unexpectedly in The Scottish Prisoner. Edited November 28, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

I think you may be right and I do think that your diagnosis of "it wasn't personal" is something that men generally can wrap their brains around better than women.  Okay maybe not all women -- maybe just me.  Because Jamie's anger at Harry at his have kept him in irons (which we do see in the Scottish Prisoner) makes MUCH more sense to me than Jamie being able to set aside his feelings of humiliation and attend a freaking lodge meeting at the prison while in irons.  That Jamie was able to do it says a lot about the character's self-control and pragmatism (this is, after all, the same guy who lived in a cave for several years and then voluntarily gave himself up to the authorities to protect his family and to allow them collect the reward.)  So I guess I can buy into the idea of that character deciding to accept an invitation to join the Ardsmuir chapter of the Masons in the belief that it will enhance his ability to take care of his "men" in the prison.  And it makes sense to me again that with that motivation gone (with his men having long ago been transported to America), and with the sight of Harry coming as a complete surprise, that Jamie would have a strong, negative reaction to seeing his lodge brother unexpectedly in The Scottish Prisoner.

 

I haven't gotten to The Scottish Prisoner yet, but I really look forward to the meeting of Harry and Jamie. I've long-wondered what the former prisoners, now tenants, on the Ridge would make of John showing up to visit Jamie. It took years for Jamie to accept John as a friend, and not just because of John's desires, but just to let go of the fact that John was Jamie's jailer even after they left Ardsmuir, and he's a damn English Protestant to boot! So, it makes perfect sense to me he would not welcome Quarry's presence, whether he considered it to be personal or not. I also am very interested in seeing Jamie meet Hal again, too, since he held a great grudge for a long time against Hal for not shooting him after Culloden. 

 

But yeah, I assume Jamie was mostly inclined to become a Mason under Quarry only because he needed a way to usurp Christie in order to unite the prisoners. I doubt he felt any particular loyalty to Quarry, though. 

Edited November 28, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[WatchrTina]

 

I've long-wondered what the former prisoners, now tenants, on the Ridge would make of John showing up to visit Jamie.

Hmmmm.  Didn't John only visit the Ridge once, when William was 14 or so?  Were the Ardsmuir men already living on the Ridge at that point?  It's been a long time since I read those books but I definitely do not recollect John coming in contact with anyone else from Ardsmuir, so that makes me think that Jamie had not found any of them yet.  Alternatively, they could have simply elected to keep their distance from a visiting Lord John out of respect for Jamie's friendship with the man, inexplicable as it may have been to them.  He was Mac Dubh, after all -- the man who watched over them while in prison and who had sought them out to give them a home in the new world.  They might be amazed by Jamie's friendship with John but they certainly would not openly express any disapproval of it.  

 

ETA:  I just recollected that when John comes to visit he falls ill with measles fairly quickly and Jamie has to take William off into the woods to keep him safe.  If there were any Ardsmuir men on the Ridge at that point they'd have to stay away from the big house because surely Claire would have imposed a quarantine.  They may have been quietly praying for the disease to take him, but no one was going to come calling at that time.

 

 

I haven't gotten to The Scottish Prisoner yet, but I really look forward to the meeting of Harry and Jamie.

Well you've seen my comments upthread about that book.  I really enjoyed it even thought there is a Dickensian-style coincidence at the heart of it that I have a hard time swallowing.  If you enjoy the John/Jamie relationship, you will enjoy that book.

Edited November 28, 2015 by WatchrTina