# Outlander Books 1-6: Read them all? Post here! SPOILERS!!!! Enter at own risk!



## Betsy the Quilter

Yes, i know we have a Book Klub for Outlander, but we're reading it slooowwwllly. There's a lot of folks out there who have read all the books and are chaffing at not being able to discuss the later books. Consider this your relief valve!

Or maybe you're not in the Book Klub but still want to discuss Outlander! This is the place for you. By definition, this thread assumes you've read all the books. No need to use spoiler text here.

Have fun!

Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington

I think use of spoiler block would be a good idea anyway in case anyone wanders in accidentally. . . especially if it's something MAJOR being revealed.

Ann


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Ann Von Hagel said:


> I think use of spoiler block would be a good idea anyway in case anyone wanders in accidentally. . . especially if it's something MAJOR being revealed.
> 
> Ann


I understand your point, but we could end up with posts that are nothing but spoiler blocks. Most people peek anyway ... like me.


----------



## bosslady402

Thank you Besty and Gertie!  

I was wondering if anyone thinks that Claire, Brianna or Roger actually changed the past - and I don't mean the usual time travel thing about 'they have to do it because they've already done it' thing. For example, we find out that the bones Claire touched in Dr Abernathy's office are in fact Giellis', so that sortof tell us that everything Claire does up to the point of rescuing Ian, she's already done...  that's not what I mean. 

I mean like when Roger goes to Lallybroch for the first time, and he describes it as in ruins - 'plainly abandoned and possibly dangerous', but at the end of the series, which is close to 10 years later, they have just moved in and it seems the only improvements needed are a new boiler and some plumbing. Had something actually changed, or was it just not as bad as he thought it was originally?


Second question - the bones that Claire and Jamie find in the cave in France, in Dragonfly - does anyone think that they are Claire and Jamies' own bones? I know Jamie does not hear the stones, but that doesn't stop them from speculating what Jamie would do if he followed Brianna and Roger into the future. Maybe at some point he does try to go somewhere with Claire, and it goes horribly wrong because he's not suited for it... and the next book is called 'the echo in the bones'? 


Third question - how come neither Claire nor Frank remembers the ghost at the very beginning? And why, assuming the ghost was Jamie, would he have been haunting her anyway - at various times he's said to her that if he died tomorrow, he would still be happy, because she was with him? Was it necessary for him to give her some link to the past - she went through the stones with no preparation or intent, which is usually fatal - so she would make it through to him the first time?


----------



## Anju 

WOO HOO Betsy - 4000


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Anju said:


> WOO HOO Betsy - 4000


You just whizzed through the three thousands. Wow. Have a chocolate.










Not from Scotland, but Irish is close.


----------



## luvmy4brats

I don't think we need the spoiler tags in here. The subject line is a pretty good warning.

Congrats Betsy!!!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Yes, I think in this thread, no spoiler text necessary.  We can only do so much to protect people from themselves.... even with spoiler text, someone could "accidentally" move the cursor over the text and read something...  And Gertie's right, for someone like me who has just barely started Outlander, the whole thing would have to be in spoiler text.

Thanks for the chocolates!  Chocolate is ALWAYS good!

And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread, already in progress...  I won't be peaking in here very often cause I don't want to be "spoiled".  (I haven't read Bosslady's post.)  Y'all behave yourselves....

Betsy


----------



## Gertie Kindle

*Bosslady*, you might want to repost your questions without spoiler tags. It may be too awkward for people to read and respond when it's all blacked out.


----------



## bosslady402

I did remove the spoiler tags already, but it's so far down the thread already that I'll repost up here.

I was wondering if anyone thinks that Claire, Brianna or Roger actually changed the past - and I don't mean the usual time travel thing about 'they have to do it because they've already done it' thing. For example, we find out that the bones Claire touched in Dr Abernathy's office are in fact Giellis', so that sortof tell us that everything Claire does up to the point of rescuing Ian, she's already done...  that's not what I mean. 

I mean like when Roger goes to Lallybroch for the first time, and he describes it as in ruins - 'plainly abandoned and possibly dangerous', but at the end of the series, which is close to 10 years later, they have just moved in and it seems the only improvements needed are a new boiler and some plumbing. Had something actually changed, or was it just not as bad as he thought it was originally?

Second question - the bones that Claire and Jamie find in the cave in France, in Dragonfly - does anyone think that they are Claire and Jamies' own bones? I know Jamie does not hear the stones, but that doesn't stop them from speculating what Jamie would do if he followed Brianna and Roger into the future. Maybe at some point he does try to go somewhere with Claire, and it goes horribly wrong because he's not suited for it... and the next book is called 'the echo in the bones'? Remember, both other times she's touched or found bones, it turned out to be someone she had something to do with - Geilis and Otter-Tooth.

Third question - how come neither Claire nor Frank remembers the ghost at the very beginning? (In Franks letter to the Reverend, he says he has a 'sense - almost a memory' of Jamie - you'd think he'd remember more than that...) And why, assuming the ghost was Jamie, would he have been haunting her anyway - at various times he's said to her that if he died tomorrow, he would still be happy, because she was with him? Was it necessary for him to give her some link to the past - she went through the stones with no preparation or intent, which is usually fatal - so she would make it through to him the first time?

And when Claire dreams of Frank teaching the class, with the painted miniatures of her and Jamie - do you think this actually happened, or was it totally a fabrication of her dream? I thought I remember Brainna painting miniatures of them - trying to find the reference but haven't yet...


----------



## ScrappingForever

No, I don't think they did change the past. In fact, one of the things that Claire and Jamie had been hoping to do was to stop Culloden from happening, and they weren't successful with that. Also, the reason Brianna went back was to stop Jamie and Claire from dying in their house fire. Now, she did stop them, but the paper still reported that they died, so I guess we don't really know if they had really died when Brianna first saw the report. (Forgive me if I have some of my facts wrong. It's been a while since I read BOSAA.)

Guess we don't really know the answers about Lallybroch, tho. It's not really explained at the end of BOSAA, but I would put it down to either missed consistency on the part of DG and the editors, or that it wasn't as bad as Roger thought. Or maybe they had done major repair work already and it's just not mentioned in the book. 

Guess we'll have to wait a while before we find out about the bones in the cave. The next book, An Echo in the Bones, is mostly about Jamie and Claire getting caught up in the Revolutionary war. They were talking about going back to Scotland, so we'll have to see if they make it or not. (You can read excerpts of An Echo in the Bones on DG's website - http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~gatti/gabaldon/gabaldon.html.

Jamie's ghost - one of the many things that's speculated about over and over in Outlander discussion groups. 

Yes, Brianna does paint miniatures of them. She does it while she's staying at Aunty Jocasta's plantation. I can't remember whether it's in FC or BOSAA, tho. As for whether this actually happened, I don't think so, but the miniature connection is rather eerie, isn't it.

Love your questions! All of these things really make a person think, don't they.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

ScrappingForever said:


> No, I don't think they did change the past. In fact, one of the things that Claire and Jamie had been hoping to do was to stop Culloden from happening, and they weren't successful with that.


Claire even talks about that.

One thing that was changed, at least it appears so, is that the men from Lallybroch didn't die at Culloden. Jamie, being forewarned, was able to send them back home before the battle. So I think that maybe small things can be changed, but not something that has such huge consequences as Culloden.

The other thing that was changed is Claire saved Lallybroch from starvation by telling Jenny to plant potatoes.



> Also, the reason Brianna went back was to stop Jamie and Claire from dying in their house fire. Now, she did stop them, but the paper still reported that they died, so I guess we don't really know if they had really died when Brianna first saw the report. (Forgive me if I have some of my facts wrong. It's been a while since I read BOSAA.)


Since the date of the fire was different from the date in the newspaper article, I don't think that was something that changed. The fire happened and Jamie and Claire escaped in the normal course of the event. It wasn't like they knew they had to be out of the house on that day and so stayed away. They had the wrong date.



> Guess we don't really know the answers about Lallybroch, tho. It's not really explained at the end of BOSAA, but I would put it down to either missed consistency on the part of DG and the editors, or that it wasn't as bad as Roger thought. Or maybe they had done major repair work already and it's just not mentioned in the book.


Roger talks about the tower being in ruins, as well as the outbuildings. He doesn't go into the house because he's afraid it might be dangerous. It sounds like the house was visually intact, but because of the condition of the rest of the property, he was afraid of what he would find inside.

Later, when Brianna is talking to the contractor, she mentions that the boiler is at least fifty years old so renovations had obviously be done within the previous fifty years. I would imagine that the house is dilapidated rather than ruined.

I'm going to have to reread the part about the bones in the cave, but we all know that Jamie can't travel through the stones. He doesn't even react to the gems like young Jemmy does.

I hope _An Echo in the Bones features young Ian a lot more._


----------



## bosslady402

I guess what I am trying to find is if there are any places where DG _shows_ something happening one way; then shows later that something different happened as a result of their actions.

I mean, the entire time Claire is in the past, she does nothing BUT change it! But it seems she has to go back and do the things she did because she's already done them.

Other examples; Roger rescues his infant ancestor on the boat. Roger (with his green eyes, by the way) exists in the future before Claire goes back the first time. Therefore, eveything that happened to bring Brianna and Roger back in time has to happen, because it already did.

Geilis' bones are found in the cave and brought to Claire in Dr. Abernathy's office. Therefore, everything regarding Ian's rescue has already happened. yada yada.

I was just trying to find something that didn't  fit this pattern.

Regarding the whole uprising - Claire and Jamie lament that they were unable to stop the uprising, but my theory is that Claire was meant to go back to do exactly what they did - prevent the uprising from succeeding, not to prevent it from happening. I'm thinking that if she and Jamie had not tried so hard to stop it, Charlie would have gotten the support he needed to do the thing right.

I'm actually surprised this doesn't occur to her, but then she left the future before Star Trek and Back to the Future (yes, and HP) taught us everything we need to know about time travel (Kirk was a menace!).

They submitted the article about the fire because they knew they had to. Maybe we'll find out later what they thought they were doing when they gave the real date, though, instead of the date they knew had been published.

The one part of the books where I just sat there LOL with my family staring at me, was when Brianna meets her mother in the past and quotes Monty Python. That was just priceless.


----------



## bosslady402

ScrappingForever said:


> Yes, Brianna does paint miniatures of them. She does it while she's staying at Aunty Jocasta's plantation. I can't remember whether it's in FC or BOSAA, tho. As for whether this actually happened, I don't think so, but the miniature connection is rather eerie, isn't it.


Found it! Claire has the dream about Frank and the painted miniatures in DIA, while they were at the French court. But Brianna doesn't paint them until half-way through BOSAA. So the implication is that Claire has a vision of Frank doing something that really happened sometime during the 3 years she was away. He would have had no reason to think that it was really Claire, he just paid it special attention because it resembled her. And of course the portait of Jamie would have meant nothing to him at all at that point.

It's not the only time DG gives someone dreams of the future - Jamie dreams about B&R and the kids at the mansion with Fiona at the end of BOSAA.

So Frank arranged for the gravestone, with the half-hearted intent that Claire and/or Brianna would eventually see it (assuming he would be dead by then) and ask questions and find out Jamie survived. And at that point he also pretty much believes Claires story, and he feels guilty for keeping them apart. So why all that crap about divorcing her, leaving for England with his latest mistress, pulling Brianna out of school a couple months before graduation to put her in an English boarding school whether she wants to or not?? It just seems a little extreme.

If the reason he never told Claire was that he was afraid she'd chose Jamie over him and go back in time again, all he had to do was tell her, help her go back, and promise her that he would take care of Brianna.

I wouldn't be surprised if a portion of the next two books is written from Frank's perspective. There's too many inconsistencies in what he does and how he thinks.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> So Frank arranged for the gravestone, with the half-hearted intent that Claire and/or Brianna would eventually see it (assuming he would be dead by then) and ask questions and find out Jamie survived. And at that point he also pretty much believes Claires story, and he feels guilty for keeping them apart. So why all that crap about divorcing her, leaving for England with his latest mistress, pulling Brianna out of school a couple months before graduation to put her in an English boarding school whether she wants to or not?? It just seems a little extreme.


I think Frank is a very confused man. Claire disappears for three years, comes back filthy, starved, pregnant and tells a story about being sucked into the past. Then she tells him that he's free to leave her. It seems like Frank never gave up hope that Claire would be found. In his own way, Frank is as honorable as Jamie. He's not about to abandon his pregnant wife.

Frank sticks by Claire through a difficult pregnancy and an even more difficult adjustment, although I don't think she ever actually adjusts. Even though their sexual relationship resumes, Claire is never really _there_. At some point, Frank accepts this and ceases to love Claire. Despite his earlier declaration in 1945/46, love can't flourish under those circumstances.

He keeps his commitment to Claire and stays with her, mainly for Bree. Once Bree is grown, he feels no such compulsion. Events coalesce; Bree is nearly finished with school, he receives a job offer back in England, and his latest mistress is pushing. BTW, I'm not too sure he would have stayed with the mistress, either. He's just had enough.



> If the reason he never told Claire was that he was afraid she'd chose Jamie over him and go back in time again, all he had to do was tell her, help her go back, and promise her that he would take care of Brianna.


Despite the fact that Frank felt Claire neglected Bree, he knew that she would fight to keep her child. As much as Jamie would want Claire back, would he be happy that Claire abandoned their young child to come back to him?

At what point would Claire have found Jamie? When he was living in the cave? When he was in Fort William? When he was in the Lake District?

If Frank had kept track of Jamie, he would know when it was safest for her to go back. Maybe that's what he did and why he was going to leave when he did. He was going to take Bree with him, which could have been the signal to Claire that she could safely leave Bree behind. Maybe he planned at some point after that, to tell Claire what he found so she could go back.


----------



## Anju 

bosslady said:


> Geilis' bones are found in the cave and brought to Claire in Dr. Abernathy's office. Therefore, everything regarding Ian's rescue has already happened. yada yada.


However, Geillis was burned, there should not have been that many bones left, particularly if her feet had been covered in - I forget what - there would have been little left but ashes.


----------



## bosslady402

Anju said:


> However, Geillis was burned, there should not have been that many bones left, particularly if her feet had been covered in - I forget what - there would have been little left but ashes.


Don't know how far you've read, but she didn't get burned at the stake, she lived to die another day.


----------



## Anju 

bosslady said:


> Don't know how far you've read, but she didn't get burned at the stake, she lived to die another day.


I just finished the first book, for the third time - never paid much attention to a lot of the stuff y'all are bringing out  - have to take a break before I start DIA - again, but I'll take your word for it. When you get geezerish your mind starts forgetting things LOL LOL LOL  But old whatshisname - Dougal told Claire she was burned. hrumph what a liar! and a scoundrel to boot!


----------



## tlshaw

I found it interesting after Frank stating that he could not love a child that wasn't his when Claire mentioned adoption in Outlander, that he was apparently devoted to Bree, even though he was not her father, and had no idea who her real father was. When he wanted to take Bree with him to England, do you think it was because her loved her, wanted Claire to have the chance to go back to Jamie, or just wanted to hurt Claire. 

Of course, Claire would never have gone back to Jamie without Bree, she was his daughter. Anyway, she knew he planned to go back to Culledon to die.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw said:


> I found it interesting after Frank stating that he could not love a child that wasn't his when Claire mentioned adoption in Outlander, that he was apparently devoted to Bree, even though he was not her father, and had no idea who her real father was.


There's a big difference between some abstract concept of an adopted child and a new baby that is laid in your arms ... so little, so helpless, and then they look at you with eyes that can't see and hold on to your finger with surprising strength to let you know ... "here I am."



> When he wanted to take Bree with him to England, do you think it was because her loved her, wanted Claire to have the chance to go back to Jamie, or just wanted to hurt Claire.


A bit of all three, I think. Maybe there was still enough love left in him to let her go, but enough hurt to hurt her back. His love for Bree was undeniable.


----------



## bosslady402

All these question are why I think (hope) that DG will write something from Franks perspective. There are too many inconsistencies in what he thinks and does.



gertiekindle said:


> There's a big difference between some abstract concept of an adopted child and a new baby that is laid in your arms ... so little, so helpless, and then they look at you with eyes that can't see and hold on to your finger with surprising strength to let you know ... "here I am."


I agree. I suppose when Bree is born Frank is still under the impression that Claire was raped and made up the delusion about time traveling because she couldn't handle what 'really' happened, and after he realizes that Jamie etc. might be true, he is already devoted to Bree. There also might be some jealousy involved; claiming Bree as his own is sort of getting back at Jamie. Eventually, he has himself tested and finds out he is sterile, so he knows he will never have his own child, with or without Claire.



tlshaw said:


> When he wanted to take Bree with him to England, do you think it was because her loved her, wanted Claire to have the chance to go back to Jamie, or just wanted to hurt Claire.


This is the scene I can't figure out. Remember, Frank heard from his doctor that he had a bad heart, and he only has a number of years left to live. In the same letter, he also admits Bree has a right to know who her real father is - eventually. And he admits that he does still love Claire.

So if he really loves Bree, and really plans on telling Claire and/or Bree the truth at some point in time, to pull Bree out of school and away from her mother and friends, stick her in an English boarding school so he can canoodle with his mistress, then tell her that he is not her real father, then tell Claire that Jamie survived and maybe that it is safe for her to go back, and that he will take care of Bree, then he kicks off from a heart attack and leaves Bree all alone (with or without the latest mistress) just seems like the thinking pattern of a psycopath.

And I can't imagine that, while in England with Bree, he wouldn't have planned on taking her to visit the Reverend Wakefield (who knows everything) and what would that lead to?

He gives one reason for taking Bree away - that he disapproves of her hanging around with the Abernathy family (and here we also find out that Frank is a racist). I also think that if he were 'normal' he would not have waited until that moment to express his disapproval of her and Claires association with Joe and family. But maybe he had, and Claire had just tuned him out.



tlshaw said:


> Of course, Claire would never have gone back to Jamie without Bree, she was his daughter.


Well, she did eventually go back without her - just not till Bree was an adult and supposedly able to take care of herself. I agree she would not have gone back before then - but she would have been tempted if Frank laid it all out for her and vowed to care for Brianna.



Anju said:


> But old whatshisname - Dougal told Claire she was burned. hrumph what a liar! and a scoundrel to boot!


Well, at that point only Dougal (and one or two others that he bribed) knows that it wasn't Geillis that burned, so it's not just Claire and Jamie he is lying to. BUT he tells other lies to manipulate both Jamie and Claire, so yes, he is a rat.

So, how many think that the Raymond who heals Claire in France is the same Raymond who trains the Indian time travelers??

And how many think that once Claire is post-menopause, she will become a healer like Raymond? (as per the Indians, who think that she will be a healer but not while she is still fertile, and as per Raymond who says Claire has the same blue healing 'aura' as he does)?


----------



## tlshaw

Frank is definitely hard to figure out. I guess the best way to describe him is - "He is such a guy."

Claire did wait until Bree was grown to go back, but by then, it wasn't her decision whether Brianna would go or not. Brianna was on her own, and Claire no longer had anything holding her back in the 20th century. Suddenly, she finds out the love of her life is still alive in the 18th century instead of dying at Culledon. I have to say I would have done the same. She had been mourning Jamie for 20 years, only to find she could still get back to him. He was all that mattered to her, especially after Brianna told her she had to go.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> This is the scene I can't figure out. Remember, Frank heard from his doctor that he had a bad heart, and he only has a number of years left to live. In the same letter, he also admits Bree has a right to know who her real father is - eventually. And he admits that he does still love Claire.


It's been a while since I read the whole series and I just don't remember this. Was it in DiA? Please give me a point of reference so I can look it up. Thanks.



> So, how many think that the Raymond who heals Claire in France is the same Raymond who trains the Indian time travelers??


Oh, yes. I think so. He didn't have a vaccination scar, but that doesn't mean anything. We don't know what time period he really belongs to. I think he has a scientific mind and travels from time to time to research the era and see what wrongs he can right.



> And how many think that once Claire is post-menopause, she will become a healer like Raymond? (as per the Indians, who think that she will be a healer but not while she is still fertile, and as per Raymond who says Claire has the same blue healing 'aura' as he does)?


This is why Jamie is worried for her safety if he should die. I think it was in Drums when he was bitten by the snake and he asked Roger to make sure she got back safely to her own time.

I don't mind if we don't hear any more about Frank; he's in the past. I want more about young Ian. I want to know who Laheer is messing around with. I want to know what happens with Lord John and if young Will ever finds out that Jamie is his father. I want to know what happends to the Bugs and all that gold.

So many questions, and only another 2,000 pages to read.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> It's been a while since I read the whole series and I just don't remember this. Was it in DiA? Please give me a point of reference so I can look it up. Thanks.


Yes, it's in DiA. Roger had found the letter in the Reverends things, and memorized it. He recites it to Jamie close to the end of the book, I see it at location 23290, not sure what chapter that's in.



gertiekindle said:


> and if young Will ever finds out that Jamie is his father.


Well, Will probably still has that rosary(?) that Jamie gave him - but if he didn't recognize Jamie as his old groom when they visited at the ridge, it's unlikely he will find out unless someone tells him, or he ends up running into Jamie somewhere. Do those books that DG wrote about Lord John refer to any events in the Outlander series?

And what about that prophecy - the one Geillis was fixated on - about a Fraser ruling Scotland one day? This was the reason Geillis was going to the future and was targeting Brianna.



gertiekindle said:


> I want to know what happends to the Bugs and all that gold.


I've been trying to guess where it was hidden - it has to be somewhere not far from River Run or Frasers' Ridge - Arch took a few bars at a time and never seemed to be missing any amount of time that it would take to go too far.

ah well. How many days until September??


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> Yes, it's in DiA. Roger had found the letter in the Reverends things, and memorized it. He recites it to Jamie close to the end of the book, I see it at location 23290, not sure what chapter that's in.


Then it can't be in DiA. Roger doesn't meet Jamie until Drums. There's no location 23290 in DiA.



> Well, Will probably still has that rosary(?) that Jamie gave him - but if he didn't recognize Jamie as his old groom when they visited at the ridge, it's unlikely he will find out unless someone tells him, or he ends up running into Jamie somewhere. Do those books that DG wrote about Lord John refer to any events in the Outlander series?


I've only read one, _Lord John and the Private Matter_. I can't recall if there is any reference to Jamie and Claire.



> And what about that prophecy - the one Geillis was fixated on - about a Fraser ruling Scotland one day? This was the reason Geillis was going to the future and was targeting Brianna.


We kind of got left hanging there, didn't we.



> I've been trying to guess where it was hidden - it has to be somewhere not far from River Run or Frasers' Ridge - Arch took a few bars at a time and never seemed to be missing any amount of time that it would take to go too far.


Jamies sense of honor in this case has gone too far. He should never have let the Bugs get away with what they did. The gold certainly didn't belong to Jocasta, but it could have done a lot of good.



> ah well. How many days until September??


I'm used to waiting about four years between books. At least the Klub will help us get through.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> Then it can't be in DiA. Roger doesn't meet Jamie until Drums. There's no location 23290 in DiA.


oops, I need new glasses, thought I was seeing and typing DoA not DiA.


----------



## ScrappingForever

I believe there is a reference to Jamie in The Private Matter - something along the lines of the red-haired Scot. That's the only Lord John I've read as well. For some reason, I'm just not interested in those that much. Probably because I didn't really care for Lord John in the Outlander series.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> oops, I need new glasses, thought I was seeing and typing DoA not DiA.


That's what we get for using initials.  I don't have Drums on Kindle, so I'll have to find it in the dtv.



ScrappingForever said:


> I believe there is a reference to Jamie in The Private Matter - something along the lines of the red-haired Scot. That's the only Lord John I've read as well. For some reason, I'm just not interested in those that much. Probably because I didn't really care for Lord John in the Outlander series.


I think Private Matter was the first one with John. It was okay, but didn't leave me panting for more.


----------



## tlshaw

When Raymond first showed up in France, I thought it very likely he was a time traveller, but I don't think 18th century France was the only place he had travelled to. Later on, when Claire meets up with the young Indian who travelled back, it made sense that he had dealt with Raymond. What I did find strange about Raymond was what he did to Claire when Faith was stillborn. Did he give her drugs to make her hallucinate or did he perform some kind of magic on her? Very odd.


----------



## bosslady402

tlshaw said:


> When Raymond first showed up in France, I thought it very likely he was a time traveller, but I don't think 18th century France was the only place he had travelled to. Later on, when Claire meets up with the young Indian who travelled back, it made sense that he had dealt with Raymond. What I did find strange about Raymond was what he did to Claire when Faith was stillborn. Did he give her drugs to make her hallucinate or did he perform some kind of magic on her? Very odd.


I'm sure we're supposed to think that he performed some kind of healing magic, but now that you mention it, he could have also done something less 'mystical' to her. The same situation applies when she is the judge between him and the Count - she didn't see him do anything to the goblet after she and Raymond drank from it, but by the time the Count drank from it, it was poison. Was there something about her and Raymond that made them immune to whatever poison he used, or did he really add something without anyone seeing?

For anyone with Raymonds supposed abilities, and assuming he was an accomplished time traveler - it also seems odd for him to have spent so much effort coaching the Indians for a task that he should have known would be fruitless.

Giellis - as Mrs. Abernathy - mentions that she had met (or knew of) one time traveler in addition to Claire. Geillis was in France at the same time as Raymond - she may have been referring to him.


----------



## tlshaw

Maybe Raymond's work with the Indians was an early foray into time travel.

I agree that the time traveler Geillie had met was probably Raymond.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Raymond is someone we need to know more about. Here's what DG says:



> Who/what is Master Raymond? What is his significance? (SPOILER)
> 
> Who he is, is a prehistoric time traveler. I think he came from somewhere about 400 BC or perhaps a bit earlier (not technically "prehistoric," but they certainly weren't using written records where he started out), and the 18th century is not his first stop.
> 
> He is--or was--a shaman, born with the ability to heal through empathy. He sees auras plainly; those with his power all have the blue light he has--born warriors, on the other hand, are red (so yes, "the red man" is iconic {grin}). He has a rather strong aversion to Vikings, owing to events that happened in his own time; hence his nervousness when he sees Jamie. He's afraid of them, but he also realizes just what a strong life-force they have--that's why he makes Claire invoke it (using the sexual and emotional link between her and Jamie) to heal her.
> 
> His descendants--a few of whom he meets now and then in his travels--have the blue light about them, too; in large degree or small, depending on their talents. So he knows Claire, when he sees her, as one of his great-great, etc. grand-daughters. And Gillian/Geillis is another--you notice she has Claire's sense of plants, though she tends naturally to poison, rather than medicines. {grin}
> 
> We'll see him again--though not in Jamie and Claire's story, I don't think. Master Raymond should get his own series of books, beginning at the beginning (Stonehenge) and going on through his travels. So in fact, we'll see Claire, Jamie, and Geillis again, then-- but as secondary characters in Master Raymond's story (you recall, Geillis mentions having met "one other" (time-traveler) in Voyager, but doesn't tell Claire who it is.
> 
> Heaven knows just when we'll get to that--in about ten years, at this rate--but we will get to it. {grin}


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Yes ... Jamie does give Black Jack the ultimate wedgie.  Hah!!!  I said it.  I don't have to burst.  

It was sure a shock in Dragonfly when Randall showed up.  A relief, too, in a way, since then Frank would be okay.  Then Jamie destroys Randall's family jewels.  Thank goodness for the younger brother.


----------



## tlshaw

I think Jamie showed a great deal of restraint in only giving Black Jack a wedgie, when he really wanted to kill him. I think that showed Jamie's character in that he could not kill in cold blood. Although, when he rescued Claire from Black Jack, I think he could have killed him with no qualms if Claire had been in danger.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw said:


> I think Jamie showed a great deal of restraint in only giving Black Jack a wedgie, when he really wanted to kill him. I think that showed Jamie's character in that he could not kill in cold blood. Although, when he rescued Claire from Black Jack, I think he could have killed him with no qualms if Claire had been in danger.


Now I'm thinking about when Claire found Jamie's hair and she knew where he had gone.  Another very emotional and trying time for these two. I think they are the ultimate example of what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. They go through hell, sometimes together, sometimes apart, and end up with a stronger bond between them than before.


----------



## tlshaw

I have wondered if Faith would not have been born too early and died if Claire had not gone after Jamie. I really cried when I read that part.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw said:


> I have wondered if Faith would not have been born too early and died if Claire had not gone after Jamie. I really cried when I read that part.


In my heart, I knew Faith would have lived. I cried for Faith, and for Claire and Jamie, as well. Especially Jamie. What you said ... he showed so much restraint. He knew if he killed Randall, there would be no Frank, and then he ensures (or so he thinks) there will be no Frank anyway.

Do you think he did what he did to "cut off the offending part" or to destroy Frank's line so Claire would have no way of getting back? They don't know about the gemstones at this point.


----------



## bosslady402

tlshaw said:


> I have wondered if Faith would not have been born too early and died if Claire had not gone after Jamie. I really cried when I read that part.





gertiekindle said:


> In my heart, I knew Faith would have lived. I cried for Faith, and for Claire and Jamie, as well. Especially Jamie. What you said ... he showed so much restraint. He knew if he killed Randall, there would be no Frank, and then he ensures (or so he thinks) there will be no Frank anyway.
> 
> Do you think he did what he did to "cut off the offending part" or to destroy Frank's line so Claire would have no way of getting back? They don't know about the gemstones at this point.


At least we were warned about Faith; we knew that Claire didn't give birth until she went back to her own time, so because of the timing, I knew she was going to lose the first baby.

I think when he cut off Randalls johnson, all he was thinking about was what Randall did to him and Fergus - he recalls that at the time, all he could remember about Claire was that he promised not to _kill_ Randall. And as far as Claire not having a link to get back to the future; if Frank never existed, Claire never would have gone back in time the first place...

(aahh, time paradox causing brain freeze, must watch _Back to the Future_ and _Star Trek _ to get refresher course on Temporal Rules and Regulations...)


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> At least we were warned about Faith; we knew that Claire didn't give birth until she went back to her own time, so because of the timing, I knew she was going to lose the first baby.


Still, it was very upsetting because of all the surrounding events.



> I think when he cut off Randalls johnson, all he was thinking about was what Randall did to him and Fergus - he recalls that at the time, all he could remember about Claire was that he promised not to _kill_ Randall.


Oh, I forgot about Fergus. I'm trying to hold off on reading Dragonfly again until we finish with Outlander.



> And as far as Claire not having a link to get back to the future; if Frank never existed, Claire never would have gone back in time the first place...
> 
> (aahh, time paradox causing brain freeze, must watch _Back to the Future_ and _Star Trek _ to get refresher course on Temporal Rules and Regulations...)


She might have gone back but under different circumstances. If she was destined to go back, it would have happened, but maybe in a different way. Her link to the past was Jamie.

Yes, let's not think about it ... headache.


----------



## ScrappingForever

It's been so long since I've read all of these books (I re-read them all again when ABOSAA came out, so however long ago that was), but I'm afraid to comment because I don't know how accurate my comment will be.  I'm loving all of the thoughts shared here, tho. And glad to know I'm not the only one who cried at all of these spots!


----------



## bosslady402

The Outlandish Companion



Ok, I bought this with a B&N gift card I had to use up, seeing as it's not available in a kindle version and I have no plans of buying any normal DTB's anymore. The book retails for $29. It had to be special ordered, so I did not get a chance to see it first.

About one quarter of the book (125 pages) is just a synopsis of the first 4 books; summaries interspersed with direct quotes. Some of the summaries give a little more insight into _why_ something happened, in addition to _what _ happened, but not a great deal more info.

There are about 30 pages listing all the characters, brief descriptions, and in which books they play a part.

A few more pages with explanations of items or translations of expressions, that you should have been able to figure out by the context, but just in case you didn't...

Links to different online venues. Analysis of characters' horiscopes. Correspondences with people who helped in her research, or gave her advice on all the medical issues Claire dealt with. Some explanations of characters and scenes that go deeper than what is in the books - Gertie, most everything that you have pasted from her website is also in this book.

Backround on how she came up with character names, and the names of the books themselves. The theory of time travel that she uses to guide her story lines. A whole section of reader Q&A. Discussions, with reader input, on her inclusion of adult themes (sex, swearing, wife-beating, homosexuality).

Excerpts from The Fiery Cross, and another that may end up in the next book.

A whole narrative on the realities of surviving as a writer and a member of a family - at the same time. A section on editing errors in each book, and what the corrections should be. A huge bibliography. Advice on conveying dialect and accents in writing. The full texts of the literary references and quotations in the books. References and advice on genealogical research and notes on celtic music. Even a list of authors whom she recommends to those seeking more works of historical fiction and other related genres.

So, coming from someone who almost never spent money on the hardcover editions of anything, I would not have been willing to pay the full $32 it would have cost, but felt it was well worth the $12 I ended up paying. IMHO it is easier to deal with a book like this as DTB rather than on the kindle - easier to just flip it open to the section you are looking for than to do searches and hit-or-miss paging through chapters. But for me it would not have been worth the full DTB price. If it's comes out on Kindle for less than $10, and you are a dedicated fan, then go for it and start clicking!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

ScrappingForever said:


> It's been so long since I've read all of these books (I re-read them all again when ABOSAA came out, so however long ago that was), but I'm afraid to comment because I don't know how accurate my comment will be.  I'm loving all of the thoughts shared here, tho. And glad to know I'm not the only one who cried at all of these spots!


We'll read Dragonfly together in about five weeks. I'm looking forward to it.

I frequently read Outlander, but I don't always continue on. When Fiery Cross came out, I read Drums of Autumn again, but didn't reread for Breath.

When Echo is published, it will be four years since the last one.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Thanks for the review of The Outlandish Companion, bosslady.  I think I would just rather read the books.  I certainly wouldn't pay $32 for it, especially since it hasn't been updated.


----------



## tlshaw

I don't think Jamie was thinking about Frank when he fought Black Jack. He did remember his promise to Claire, but I think the castration was his revenge for Black Jack had done to him and to Fergus. The duel took place because he had caught Black Jack buggering Fergus.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw said:


> I don't think Jamie was thinking about Frank when he fought Black Jack. He did remember his promise to Claire, but I think the castration was his revenge for Black Jack had done to him and to Fergus. The duel took place because he had caught Black Jack buggering Fergus.


Yes, you're right about that. I've really forgotten too much. I really don't want to read ahead, much as I'm champing at the bit.


----------



## ScrappingForever

Yes, exactly Gertie. I have forgotten all of the little ins and outs of this gorgeous HUGE story! And there's too many other things I'm reading right now. So I'll wait till we go along, and experience it all again, then. 

But I agree, Jamie was thinking about all of the things Black Jack had done when he castrated him, and not so much worried about Frank. Gee, imagine that! This whole episode was so gut-wrenching for Jamie and Claire. I remembering wondering how in the world their love and marriage would survive this kind of thing. But Jamie is so much a part of Claire by now, that she really can't live without him, and he her. Sigh....what a love story....sigh.....


----------



## tlshaw

ScrappingForever said:


> Yes, exactly Gertie. I have forgotten all of the little ins and outs of this gorgeous HUGE story! And there's too many other things I'm reading right now. So I'll wait till we go along, and experience it all again, then.
> 
> But I agree, Jamie was thinking about all of the things Black Jack had done when he castrated him, and not so much worried about Frank. Gee, imagine that! This whole episode was so gut-wrenching for Jamie and Claire. I remembering wondering how in the world their love and marriage would survive this kind of thing. But Jamie is so much a part of Claire by now, that she really can't live without him, and he her. Sigh....what a love story....sigh.....


I don't think Claire would have survived when Faith was born without Jamie to hold on to, at least in her mind. Raymond told her to call him to her. I wonder if Jamie felt it, even though he was in prison.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw said:


> I don't think Claire would have survived when Faith was born without Jamie to hold on to, at least in her mind. Raymond told her to call him to her. I wonder if Jamie felt it, even though he was in prison.


I'm sure he did. They felt each other across the centuries. Mere prison walls wouldn't stop them.


----------



## tlshaw

Remembering what had happened with Faith, now I wonder if that is the real reason Jamie was so determined to send Claire back to her own time right before Culloden. Did he feel so guilty about Faith that he wanted to make sure their second child had a chance, one she would only have in the 20th century. Is that why he waited so long to tell Claire he knew she was pregnant?


----------



## bosslady402

You're right. Claire did tell him that she believed she would have lost the first baby anyway, regardless of the trauma of the duel. I think he still would have tried to send her back before the battle, but if it was only her own safety at stake, she would not have gone. Knowing that she was pregnant was his trump card; a way to save her (and the baby) that she could not argue with.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> You're right. Claire did tell him that she believed she would have lost the first baby anyway, regardless of the trauma of the duel. I think he still would have tried to send her back before the battle, but if it was only her own safety at stake, she would not have gone. Knowing that she was pregnant was his trump card; a way to save her (and the baby) that she could not argue with.


I agree with both of you. Without the pregnancy, Claire would not have gone back through the stones. Her strength of character and the depth of her love for Jamie are astonishing. If at that point we didn't already know that Bree had been born, I would have been very concerned that her pregnancy wouldn't have survived the stones anyway.


----------



## tlshaw

gertiekindle said:


> I agree with both of you. Without the pregnancy, Claire would not have gone back through the stones. Her strength of character and the depth of her love for Jamie are astonishing. If at that point we didn't already know that Bree had been born, I would have been very concerned that her pregnancy wouldn't have survived the stones anyway.


That's true. They still did not know enough about the stones to know if the baby could survive, but only had to assume that as long as she was part of Claire, she would be ok. We know Jamie couldn't go, since he had no reaction to the stones and couldn't hear them.


----------



## tarabenet

tlshaw said:


> I don't think Jamie was thinking about Frank when he fought Black Jack. He did remember his promise to Claire, but I think the castration was his revenge for Black Jack had done to him and to Fergus. The duel took place because he had caught Black Jack buggering Fergus.


I think he did it more for Fergus than for himself. And don't forget, he has always said there was a debt owing to the young prisoner who hanged himself after Jack Randall had his way with him. I'm sure Jamie always meant to avenge what was done to the boy and hopefully return the Bible to the boy's mother. And of course, that tie runs deeply, since the reason Jamie had a price on his head was because Randall pinned him with the murder of the officer who knew why the boy had hanged himself.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tarabenet said:


> And of course, that tie runs deeply, since the reason Jamie had a price on his head was because Randall pinned him with the murder of the officer who knew why the boy had hanged himself.


Another little detail I don't remember. I know Randall killed the officer, but I didn't remember why, besides wanting to frame Jamie.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> No, I don't think they are the same. Frank described "a" leaping stag brooch, and MacRannoch's brooch was two stags forming an arch. From the time I read Frank's description, I watched for that brooch throughout the series and never saw it.


I think at some point Jenny sends a stag brooch to Jamie in America, but they didn't describe it much and I don't think it was mentioned very often after that. I'll have to look again for it.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> I think at some point Jenny sends a stag brooch to Jamie in America, but they didn't describe it much and I don't think it was mentioned very often after that. I'll have to look again for it.


Thanks. Let us know. Even if it wasn't described in detail, it's something to watch for.


----------



## bosslady402

I found it; Jenny sent it to him in France (location 7989 in DiA)

"He wore his plaid today pinned with a brooch at the shoulder - a beautiful thing his sister had sent him from Scotland, made in the shape of two running stags, bodies bent so that they joined in a circle, heads and tails touching."

And here's MacRannoch's again;

"a silver-gilt brooch as large as the palm of my hand. It was made in the shape of two leaping stags, backs arched and heads meeting to form a circle. The locking pin was a short, tapered fan, the head of it shaped like the tail of a fleeing deer"

In The Fiery Cross, it's mentioned once as Jamie's "running-stag brooch" location 5746.

So maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Just seems odd to describe the two things as being so similar, and _not_ have them be the same thing. I can't see why MacRannoch would part with it, but he did have a thing for Jamie's mom... I guess we'll find out eventually.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> I found it; Jenny sent it to him in France (location 7989 in DiA)
> 
> "He wore his plaid today pinned with a brooch at the shoulder - a beautiful thing his sister had sent him from Scotland, made in the shape of two running stags, bodies bent so that they joined in a circle, heads and tails touching."
> 
> And here's MacRannoch's again;
> 
> "a silver-gilt brooch as large as the palm of my hand. It was made in the shape of two leaping stags, backs arched and heads meeting to form a circle. The locking pin was a short, tapered fan, the head of it shaped like the tail of a fleeing deer"
> 
> In The Fiery Cross, it's mentioned once as Jamie's "running-stag brooch" location 5746.
> 
> So maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Just seems odd to describe the two things as being so similar, and _not_ have them be the same thing. I can't see why MacRannoch would part with it, but he did have a thing for Jamie's mom... I guess we'll find out eventually.


Why would Jenny have it? Is a matching brooch another thing MacRannoch gave Ellen? Maybe Ellen admired it and he had one made for her.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> Why would Jenny have it? Is a matching brooch another thing MacRannoch gave Ellen? Maybe Ellen admired it and he had one made for her.


Who knows - but one point against it being the same brooch is that Claire should have recognised it if it was.

But maybe DG goofed - I found another inconsistency - in Voyager, when Claire is reminiscing about Frank, she says he hadn't even kissed her until Brianna was 3 months old (and she was dreading anything more than that), but in BoS&A when Marsali is giving birth to Christian, Claire 'remembers' that Frank made love to her the night before Brianna was born. DG has a whole section in The Outlandish Companion pointing out the things that should be 'fixed', but it only goes throught he first 4 books, of course.

Hey!! Trivia Time!! I found _the exact same paragraph_ in both Outlander and DoA. Hint: it is a description of Jamie. any guesses?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> Who knows - but one point against it being the same brooch is that Claire should have recognised it if it was.


But Claire didn't see it. Frank described it, but Claire had other things on her mind at first. Then the fought about whether or not Claire had taken a lover (or three) during the war.



> But maybe DG goofed - I found another inconsistency - in Voyager, when Claire is reminiscing about Frank, she says he hadn't even kissed her until Brianna was 3 months old (and she was dreading anything more than that), but in BoS&A when Marsali is giving birth to Christian, Claire 'remembers' that Frank made love to her the night before Brianna was born.


Hmm, I don't remember that. Good catch. I've only read Breath once.



> DG has a whole section in The Outlandish Companion pointing out the things that should be 'fixed', but it only goes throught he first 4 books, of course.


Yeah, the biggest thing is one nine six seven, which then turns into 1968 in DiA. They should never have made the change from 1945 to 1946 in Cross Stitch. How many people know exactly what Scotland was like in 1945/46? At some point, I'm going to have to let the newbies know about the error. I think I'll wait until Claire tells Roger who Gellie is and she went through the stones in "1968."



> Hey!! Trivia Time!! I found _the exact same paragraph_ in both Outlander and DoA. Hint: it is a description of Jamie. any guesses?


You've got me. I haven't read DoA since FC came out.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> But Claire didn't see it. Frank described it, but Claire had other things on her mind at first. Then the fought about whether or not Claire had taken a lover (or three) during the war.


no, I mean the one Claire saw MacRannoch wearing. If it was the same one Jenny sent to Jamie, Claire should have recognised it.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> no, I mean the one Claire saw MacRannoch wearing. If it was the same one Jenny sent to Jamie, Claire should have recognised it.


Ah, yes. I misread. You're right. Claire should have recognized it.


----------



## robin.goodfellow

So, I just read the description of BOSAA.  I realize I'm a long way off from there, since I'm only on Voyager.  but can I assume that neither Claire nor Jamie dies in the next few books?  Or would that be a wild assumption on my part?


----------



## ScrappingForever

lol Robin. You're good on that assumption.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

robin.goodfellow said:


> So, I just read the description of BOSAA. I realize I'm a long way off from there, since I'm only on Voyager. but can I assume that neither Claire nor Jamie dies in the next few books? Or would that be a wild assumption on my part?





ScrappingForever said:


> lol Robin. You're good on that assumption.


But they wouldn't be Jamie and Claire if they didn't come close a time or two.


----------



## robin.goodfellow

Well sure.  They're much like Harry and Ron and Hermione in that respect.  Just checking.


----------



## tlshaw

robin.goodfellow said:


> So, I just read the description of BOSAA. I realize I'm a long way off from there, since I'm only on Voyager. but can I assume that neither Claire nor Jamie dies in the next few books? Or would that be a wild assumption on my part?


That would ruin the fun. You just have to read to find out.


----------



## bosslady402

bosslady said:


> Hey!! Trivia Time!! I found _the exact same paragraph_ in both Outlander and DoA. Hint: it is a description of Jamie. any guesses?





gertiekindle said:


> You've got me. I haven't read DoA since FC came out.


Forgot I left this one hanging - remember how Claire describes Jamie on their wedding day - "A Highlander in full regalia is an impressive sight - any Highlander, no matter how old, ill-favored, or crabbed in appearance, A tall, straight-bodied, and by no means ill-favored young Highlander at close range is breathtaking."

Well, when she describes him in DoA all dressed up at one of Jocasta's parties, she uses the almost exact paragraph - the only thing that is different is that she says "in the prime of his life" instead of "at close range".

she must have really liked that paragraph.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> But they wouldn't be Jamie and Claire if they didn't come close a time or two.


Didn't some witchy-woman somewhere predict to Jamie how many 'lives' he was going to have, like a cat? I remember him talking to Claire at some point about how many times he's cheated death. Ring any bells?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> Didn't some witchy-woman somewhere predict to Jamie how many 'lives' he was going to have, like a cat? I remember him talking to Claire at some point about how many times he's cheated death. Ring any bells?


Yes, that definitely rings some bells. I think they had an encounter with some gypsies, but I can't remember which book.


----------



## BambiB

Ohhhh...I want to read this thread so badly, but I am only on Voyager and I do so like surprises.    So I will wait another bit while I finish the series.   
I just thought I would pop my head in.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

BambiB said:


> Ohhhh...I want to read this thread so badly, but I am only on Voyager and I do so like surprises.  So I will wait another bit while I finish the series.
> I just thought I would pop my head in.


Looks like it won't take you too much longer. We'll see you here soon.


----------



## bookfiend

So Frank arranged for the gravestone, with the halfhearted intent that Claire and/or Brianna would eventually see it (assuming he would be dead by then) and ask questions and find out Jamie survived. And at that point he also pretty much believes Claires story, and he feels guilty for keeping them apart. So why all that crap about divorcing her, leaving for England with his latest mistress, pulling Brianna out of school a couple months before graduation to put her in an English boarding school whether she wants to or not?? It just seems a little extreme.

[/quote]
I think Frank found Brianna in history somewere, It is revealed several times that as a child, Frank taught her how to shoot and ride, and camp, and fend for herself in many ways. At one point Roger asks her if these were qualities important to Frank, and she admits that he never even owned a gun, but made sure she was a crack shot. I think that he believed, and was trying to prepare her for the harsh reality she would face then, but as she was getting closer to the age that he found her in the past, he got nervice, and thought he could stop it all by taking her away from Clair. He loves Brianna more than life, and I think would go to extremes to keep her safe, even if it means an English Boarding school.


----------



## bosslady402

bookfiend said:


> I think Frank found Brianna in history somewere, It is revealed several times that as a child, Frank taught her how to shoot and ride, and camp, and fend for herself in many ways. At one point Roger asks her if these were qualities important to Frank, and she admits that he never even owned a gun, but made sure she was a crack shot. I think that he believed, and was trying to prepare her for the harsh reality she would face then, but as she was getting closer to the age that he found her in the past, he got nervice, and thought he could stop it all by taking her away from Clair. He loves Brianna more than life, and I think would go to extremes to keep her safe, even if it means an English Boarding school.


I sort of have a theory, that Jamie came home from England (that's when the pardon was granted) parallel to when Frank got all those crazy ideas (then died). I'm going to work on the time lines in DiA and Voyager. Maybe he had plans of telling Brianna himself, then arranging for Claire to return before Jamie remarried.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> I sort of have a theory, that Jamie came home from England (that's when the pardon was granted) parallel to when Frank got all those crazy ideas (then died). I'm going to work on the time lines in DiA and Voyager. Maybe he had plans of telling Brianna himself, then arranging for Claire to return before Jamie remarried.


Good idea. We know that time does run parallel. I'll be very interested to see what you come up with. We should talk about that at the end of the Voyager Klub.

Of course. I never thought of that. Excellent researcher that Frank is (aided and abetted by Scot Search), he would have probably found the record of Jamie's marriage.

Yeah, Jenny wanted to see her beloved brother happy, but Laheer? He would have been better with Mary McNab. On the other hand, his non-marriage to Laheer left the door open for Claire to come back.


----------



## robin.goodfellow

> Yeah, Jenny wanted to see her beloved brother happy, but Laheer?


Very rude comment coming.

Not joking about the rude comment. I'd turn back if I were you.

Really.

Fine. Here goes:



Spoiler



I really wish that Claire had gotten to just bitch-slap Laoghaire into the middle of the next century.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

robin.goodfellow said:


> Very rude comment coming.
> 
> Not joking about the rude comment. I'd turn back if I were you.
> 
> Really.
> 
> Fine. Here goes:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I really wish that Claire had gotten to just bitch-slap Laoghaire into the middle of the next century.


When it comes to Laheer and what she put Jamie through, there is no such thing as a comment that is too rude. I don't think we've seen the last of her. She's about due to rear her ugly head in the next book.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> When it comes to Laheer and what she put Jamie through, there is no such thing as a comment that is too rude.


Perfect agreement here.


----------



## Mnemosyne

I'm slogging through "Fiery Cross" (Um...did the same author write this one? It's okay in spots, but...), and I keep thinking that every time a character turns around and says "What are YOU doing here?" that it will be Laoghaire. Marsali must take after her father.

*is in much agreement with Robin's rude comment*

Can we start a line behind Claire?

Nemo


----------



## ginaf20697

Fiery Cross is definitely the worst. It just goes on and on and ON!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Mnemosyne said:


> I'm slogging through "Fiery Cross" (Um...did the same author write this one? It's okay in spots, but...)


DG changed her writing style. It's really a series of short stories that she strings together with Jamie and Claire. She didn't even write the stories in order. "Slogging" is the word I use to describe that book, too. Even so, many people love _Fiery Cross_ as much as the rest of the series. It's still about Jamie and Claire and we all love them.

Keep going. Then you can get to _A Breath of Snow and Ashes_ which is much, much better. Obviously, DG listened to her fans and got back on track. I have high hopes for _An Echo in the Bone_.


----------



## robin.goodfellow

> Can we start a line behind Claire?


Excellent idea. Maybe we can get one of those things installed like at the bakery? You know, "Now slapping: 656".


----------



## tlshaw

robin.goodfellow said:


> Very rude comment coming.
> 
> Not joking about the rude comment. I'd turn back if I were you.
> 
> Really.
> 
> Fine. Here goes:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I really wish that Claire had gotten to just bitch-slap Laoghaire into the middle of the next century.


How did you know what I thought of her?

I guess great minds think alike.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw said:


> How did you know what I thought of her?
> 
> I guess great minds think alike.


I was just thinking about the incident in the alcove. We've talked about Jamie's motivation, but what about Laheer? She likes to fool around and doesn't care about the consequences.

I have no doubt she sought out Jamie and dragged him into that very un-private alcove (not that he resisted). She put Jamie in a lot of danger for her own gratification. Did she hope that if they were caught he would be made to marry her? Jamie isn't much of a catch (according to him) and it's doubtful her father would make them marry. He probably has higher hopes for Laheer.

At the very least, they might both have taken a whipping in the Great Hall. Jamie might have been banished from Castle Leoch, and it's not safe for him at Lallybroch.

Right from the beginning, Laheer was a danger to Jamie and then later to Claire.

Who's worse? Laheer or Gellie?


----------



## tlshaw

I found it interesting though, that when Jamie did actually marry Loaghaire, she wouldn't let him touch her. She was even chasing him then, when everyone thought Claire was dead. Then, according to Jamie and Marsali, she was afraid of him. It makes you wonder what her previous marriages had been like.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> Who's worse? Laheer or Gellie?


You've read the whole series, right? Geliie murdered husband count is at at least 2, possible 3; then all those young boys she kidnapped... Laheer is a


Spoiler



bitch


, and she indirectly tried to get Claire killed, but Gellie is a certified psychopath.


----------



## robin.goodfellow

> Who's worse? Laheer or Gellie?


Personally, I think Laheer is worse. Gellie is at least looking at the global picture, and she wasn't actively plotting Claire's demise. Probably. Not in Outlander, anyway. Probably she'll show up again. But even then, Gellie's fixation seems to be on the house of Stuart, not on the house of "Look at me! I don't understand consequences as they apply to myself or my actions!"

As Gertie pointed out, Laheer is an "all for one and more for me" kinda girl.

Harpy.

Laheer. Not Gertie.


----------



## bosslady402

tlshaw said:


> I found it interesting though, that when Jamie did actually marry Loaghaire, she wouldn't let him touch her. She was even chasing him then, when everyone thought Claire was dead. Then, according to Jamie and Marsali, she was afraid of him. It makes you wonder what her previous marriages had been like.


Jamie wondered that too. I think there were two more things though - Jamie was always dreaming about Claire and calling her name, and then Laheer found out that Claire's 'ghost' or whatever they called it, was standing between them at the wedding. That would freak anybody out!


----------



## tlshaw

bosslady said:


> Jamie wondered that too. I think there were two more things though - Jamie was always dreaming about Claire and calling her name, and then Laheer found out that Claire's 'ghost' or whatever they called it, was standing between them at the wedding. That would freak anybody out!


You're right. I forgot about that part. I wonder if Claire, in her time, was dreaming about Jamie when that happened. Remember when he told Claire about seing Roger and Brianna and the children at the old manse?


----------



## bosslady402

tlshaw said:


> You're right. I forgot about that part. I wonder if Claire, in her time, was dreaming about Jamie when that happened.


I've wondered the same thing - and if the dreams took place near to the times of the year when the stones would be 'open'. I think the first time she talks about dreaming of Jamie was when she and Brianna returned to Scotland, so if they did have parallel dreams, it's not going to be easy to prove it.



tlshaw said:


> Remember when he told Claire about seing Roger and Brianna and the children at the old manse?


oh, yes. And when Claire dreamed about Frank doing a lecture in which he had the miniatures of Jamie and Claire, When Brianna hadn't even painted them yet.

Another odd thing. When BRJ&A go back through the stones for Amanda's surgery, Amanda is just a couple months old, and not a very active baby due to her condition. By the time they move into Lallybroch, she is old enough to talk, hit her brother with a stick, and play with the other kids without adult supervision, so she's got to be 3 or 4? So it had been at least 3 years since Jemmy has seen Jamie. But Jemmy tells them 'She's a 'feisty wee baggage'... My grandda said so". I could not find anywhere this happened before they went back, so do you think that Jemmy is also dreaming real dreams about Jamie?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> Another odd thing. When BRJ&A go back through the stones for Amanda's surgery, Amanda is just a couple months old, and not a very active baby due to her condition. By the time they move into Lallybroch, she is old enough to talk, hit her brother with a stick, and play with the other kids without adult supervision, so she's got to be 3 or 4? So it had been at least 3 years since Jemmy has seen Jamie. But Jemmy tells them 'She's a 'feisty wee baggage'... My grandda said so". I could not find anywhere this happened before they went back, so do you think that Jemmy is also dreaming real dreams about Jamie?


Maybe we'll see more of them through that connection. Maybe in the last book, Briana will let us look at the letters Jamie left for her.


----------



## tlshaw

gertiekindle said:


> Maybe we'll see more of them through that connection. Maybe in the last book, Briana will let us look at the letters Jamie left for her.


I hope so. I was so disappointed that the book ended there.


----------



## ScrappingForever

Boy, I am loving all of your speculations here! I never came up with these ideas! I really have to get caught up more on my reading so I can take part more! ACK! 

Oh, and Robin, I agree with you. Now slapping: # 667.


----------



## bosslady402

bosslady said:


> I sort of have a theory, that Jamie came home from England (that's when the pardon was granted) parallel to when Frank got all those crazy ideas (then died). I'm going to work on the time lines in DiA and Voyager. Maybe he had plans of telling Brianna himself, then arranging for Claire to return before Jamie remarried.





gertiekindle said:


> Good idea. We know that time does run parallel. I'll be very interested to see what you come up with. We should talk about that at the end of the Voyager Klub.


OK - I found it.

Dates: with the confusion between Claire leaving 1945 vs 1946 - DG says it should be 1946. ok. We know that she ends up in 1743, and that she stays there for 3 years, leaving in 1746, and that she comes back in 1948, because that's when Brianna is born (in the Outlandish Companion, DG says that she was born in November of 194.

So what ends up happening, is that even though they keep saying that she was gone 3 years from Frank, she was really only gone 2 years (46 to 4, so the time difference in parallel in Voyager is only 102 years, not 103. (The stones are funny that way)

Frank died in January, and during the argument, Claire states that Brianna is 'almost 18'. She would turn 18 in the year 1966. And, Claire tells Roger in 1968 that Frank died two years ago. So Frank died in January of 1966. Parallel year would be 1764.

Jamie's pardon was dated September, 1764, and he left England for home. He was dancing with Laheer at New Years 1765. But sometime later in 1765, he had the print shop in Edinburg, so he must have married Laheer pretty early in the year and left 6 months or so later.

So.... Frank came up with the weird divorce/move to England with Brianna plan, 8 months before Jamie was pardoned, and a year before he was re-married. hmmm.... (I still think he was putz, if that plan was the only thing he could come up with).

Frank had told the Reverend that he thought Brianna deserved to know the truth. If he had changed his mind, and decided not to tell her, I don't think he would have been trying to move her to England.

So it is at least possible that he had plans that were interrupted by his untimely death! Whether DG agrees - perhaps we'll never know...


----------



## Gertie Kindle

When I'm not falling asleep at the computer, I'll reread your timeline, bosslady.  There's a couple of things I want to check.

That little time discrepancy between the U.S. and U.K. editions of Outlander has caused a lot of problems.


----------



## bosslady402

Have any of you read the Echo excerpts that DG has posted on her website? I just did!

I was right about the dream connection between Jem & Jamie!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> Have any of you read the Echo excerpts that DG has posted on her website? I just did!
> 
> I was right about the dream connection between Jem & Jamie!


Fantastic.

I try to stay away from her excerpts since Drums. Too confusing.


----------



## robin.goodfellow

I finished Voyager last night.  It was weird.  I mean, the whole book was weird.  It was like Treasure Island broke out in the middle of a time-travel novel.  I haven't read The DaVinci Code, but Voyager reminded me of the Dave Barry parody of it, where every time something exciting happened, the chapter ended.  lol, I was exhausted by the end of the book.
Onward now, to Drums of Autumn.  Is it more reasonably paced?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

robin.goodfellow said:


> I finished Voyager last night. It was weird. I mean, the whole book was weird. It was like Treasure Island broke out in the middle of a time-travel novel. I haven't read The DaVinci Code, but Voyager reminded me of the Dave Barry parody of it, where every time something exciting happened, the chapter ended. lol, I was exhausted by the end of the book.
> Onward now, to Drums of Autumn. Is it more reasonably paced?


Too many weird coincidences. In the middle of a hurricane, Claire comes face to face with the body of the lieutenant? Jamie ends up being captain of the guard on the island so he can rescue Claire and the others? I haven't read it in a while, so I may be a little off on the details. Yes. It was weird.

What made the book worth reading was when Claire walks into Jamie's print shop. There were some other good parts. Gellie showing up, Jamie with accupuncture needles, young Ian, Laheer shooting Jamie and that big, brave Scot being afraid of needles, Gellie's death.

_Drums of Autumn_ ... I'll let someone else talk about that one because it's been even longer since I read it.


----------



## robin.goodfellow

Steed Bonnet the _pirate_? Are you _kidding_ me?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

robin.goodfellow said:


> Steed Bonnet the _pirate_? Are you _kidding_ me?


*Steven *Bonnet, the pirate. Not the same as "Stede" Bonnet. This Bonnet is hardly unsuccessful, but he's definitely a bad penny.

I wonder if DG knew about the other Bonnet pirate?


----------



## robin.goodfellow

You mean that "Steve" wasn't just a spur of the moment alias?  B/c the actual pirate is buried just beyond the low watermark in Charleston.  And since they've run into so many other historically improbable people, why not the Gentleman Pirate?

ah, b/c he died in 1718.  That's why it's not him.  Oh well.  Back to reading.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> There are two theories of time travel and that's one of them; a continuous time loop.
> 
> The other is that, yes, events can be changed by going back in time. Then when you go back to the future, you will see that events have changed.
> 
> Back to DiA. Claire gave Roger a list of names to research, and they all survived Culloden. In 1945/46, Claire didn't know anything about those people. In that case, she has no idea if she saved them with her foreknowledge, or if Jamie, seeing they were doomed, decided on his own to send them home.


She had to have saved them with her foreknowlege, because there would have been no reason for Jamie to act otherwise.

As far as whether she was 'fated' to save them (continuous loop) or actually changed their fate (events can be changed), DG doesn't seem to give us any clues _in the books_, but in the Companion, (and I think you've quoted her before on this) she says;

"A time-traveler has free choice and individual power of action; however, he or she has no more power of action than is allowed by the traveler's personal circumstances"

and

"I decided to have it both ways - to allow free choice, but not to change major historical events"

So she does not intend that they are pre-destined to do such-and-such, but that they are limited in the scope of what they can change. So I guess that explains how she has Claire affecting Jamie and his family, but having no real effect on the rising itself.

I still think it would have been fun if Frank and the Rev had thrown out some little tidbit of history that we find out ended up being different because of Claire!


----------



## robin.goodfellow

Was it me, or were we a LONG way into Drums of Autumn before DG revealed why Marsali was nowhere to be found?  I thought I had imagined her.  Or she died in the hurricane and I somehow missed it.  Or she'd gone back to Scotland and I somehow missed that.  It was disconcerting to discover her whereabouts more than halfway up the Eastern Seaboard.  And how on earth do they plan to fetch her back?

Back to reading!


----------



## bosslady402

robin.goodfellow said:


> Was it me, or were we a LONG way into Drums of Autumn before DG revealed why Marsali was nowhere to be found? I thought I had imagined her. Or she died in the hurricane and I somehow missed it. Or she'd gone back to Scotland and I somehow missed that. It was disconcerting to discover her whereabouts more than halfway up the Eastern Seaboard. And how on earth do they plan to fetch her back?
> Back to reading!


no, you are not alone. I was like, what? Didn't they stay behind because she was pregnant? Then where did Fergus come from? Did she die? I read back through the beginning (and the end of the last book), thinking I missed something, but we didn't. She does show up eventually.


----------



## tlshaw

I wondered about that. I was reading along and realized Jamie, Claire and Fergus were all there, but no mention of Marsali. I was afraid she had died, but then wondered why Fergus wasn't mourning her. I was relieved to find they had only left her behind because of the pregnancy.


----------



## k_reader

I just wanted to say, I am so happy to have found this thread and these books!  I am thoroughly OBSESSED with these books.  I just finished Drums of Autumn (In a week) and the week before, I read Voyager.  For those of you who initially read this series many years ago, how long before you stopped obsessing over them?  I think about the story all the time!  Its crazy.  It took my a while to get through Outlander, but now I'm hooked.  Anyway:

I think Drums of Autumn was much better than Voyager (although I do love the reunion scene in Voyager).  Another weird thing about Drums of Autumn was how Willy and John were at the cabin and then suddenly they were gone, with no explanations!  I was dying to know what happened to Roger, so I skipped ahead quite a bit...  I need to go back and read the parts I missed.

The only time I cried during the reading of the first 4 books was when they left Young Ian with the Mohawks.  I couldn't believe they did that!!!!!!  It really touched me, I was really sad (I am such a geek, this is only a story).

I am looking forward to Fiery Cross being more low key.  There are way too many different adventures in these books.  I guess its because I'm reading the books too quickly and  I really want to know about the characters and the relationships vs. about the logistics of so many different "action scenes".  

I wish Diana had done a better job with Bree and Rogers "Love story"... you don't FEEL their love for each other like you did with Jamie and Claire in Outlander.


----------



## bosslady402

k_reader said:


> I am thoroughly OBSESSED with these books.


Do you have any jewelry yet??



> For those of you who initially read this series many years ago, how long before you stopped obsessing over them?


Well, I only discovered them a few months ago, and obsessed quite a bit. But I've actually read several books _since_ then, so there is hope of life after Outlander...



> I was dying to know what happened to Roger, so I skipped ahead quite a bit... I need to go back and read the parts I missed.


Don't know what parts you skipped, but it's possible you missed some important scenes - better go back!



> I wish Diana had done a better job with Bree and Rogers "Love story"... you don't FEEL their love for each other like you did with Jamie and Claire in Outlander.


They are just starting out - and with a rougher start than anyone deserves. Their story develops more throughout the next books. And it's probably unrealistic to expect lightning to strike twice in the same family - Claire and Jamie are unique.

ps Welcome to the Klub!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

k_reader said:


> I just wanted to say, I am so happy to have found this thread and these books! I am thoroughly OBSESSED with these books. I just finished Drums of Autumn (In a week) and the week before, I read Voyager. For those of you who initially read this series many years ago, how long before you stopped obsessing over them? I think about the story all the time! Its crazy. It took my a while to get through Outlander, but now I'm hooked.


I read Outlander when it first came out in 1991. It was the first book where I discussed the characters as if they were real people. They are real, right? No, the obsession never ends. You will read other books, and love them, too, but Jamie and Claire are unique.



> Anyway:
> 
> I think Drums of Autumn was much better than Voyager (although I do love the reunion scene in Voyager). Another weird thing about Drums of Autumn was how Willy and John were at the cabin and then suddenly they were gone, with no explanations! I was dying to know what happened to Roger, so I skipped ahead quite a bit... I need to go back and read the parts I missed.


The reunion scene in Voyager was fantastic. Of course there was that one tiny little detail Jamie omitted. The great thing about Kindle is I can easily highlight scenes like this and not have to read the entire 1050 pages if I just feel like having a happy cry.



> The only time I cried during the reading of the first 4 books was when they left Young Ian with the Mohawks. I couldn't believe they did that!!!!!! It really touched me, I was really sad (I am such a geek, this is only a story).


I'm hoping there's a lot more of young Ian in the next book.

You didn't cry at the scene in the crofter's cottage just before Claire went back through the stones? That was a real tear jerker for me. There are many more for me, but that one gets to me the most.



> I am looking forward to Fiery Cross being more low key. There are way too many different adventures in these books. I guess its because I'm reading the books too quickly and I really want to know about the characters and the relationships vs. about the logistics of so many different "action scenes".


Let us know how you like Fiery Cross.



> I wish Diana had done a better job with Bree and Rogers "Love story"... you don't FEEL their love for each other like you did with Jamie and Claire in Outlander.





bosslady said:


> They are just starting out - and with a rougher start than anyone deserves. Their story develops more throughout the next books. And it's probably unrealistic to expect lightning to strike twice in the same family - Claire and Jamie are unique.


So true.

When we first started talking about doing the Klub, us old-timers were talking about Jamie and Claire, Jamie and Claire, Jamie and Claire. The newbies were so excited to find out who they were.

Feel free to join our discussion in the Book Klub. We're discussion Dragonfly in Amber, now.


----------



## k_reader

Thanks for the warm welcome. 


bosslady said:


> Do you have any jewelry yet??


I'm not quite there yet!!! No jewlery yet!

I purchased 4 copies of outlander for friends and also made 2 of my other friends buy it on their e-readers! I can't wait for everyone to catch up.

I will go back and re-read the second half of Drums... I think the Ian part was a shock to me. As you can see, I don't mind the spoilers so much, therefore I was not as shocked with the scene where Claire says goodbye to Jamie.

Alot of reviews of Drums said that Bree was annoying and obnoxious... I didn't think so. She's still young and a product of her time. She didn't live through war and marriage like when we met Claire. I hope her personality is developed more fully in Fiery Cross.

I borrowed the outlandish companion from the library... not too impressed. I will be reading it more in depth now that I've finished book 4. Its nice to be able to look up the characters if I can't remember who's who. I love the search feature on the kindle also! I knew I had seen the name "morag" before, but determined very quickly it was not in Voyager with a quick search. It was in DiA.


----------



## k_reader

I was just reading the "errata" section of the Outlandish companion... I hadn't noticed many of these errors while reading.  HOWEVER, it did remind me of an error that I had noticed in Dragonfly in Amber.  She doesn't mention it in the outlandish companion.  

As far as I know, the drinking age in Massachusetts in 1968 was 18.  It only went to 20 in 1981.  I grew up in Massachusetts and remember in the early 80s people talking about being "grandfathered in" to the new drinking age... very odd that this wouldn't have been mentioned as a typo before.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I was reading the part about La Dame Blanche and decided to google the legend. This is what I found.

La Dame Blanche


> An Opera by François Adrien Boeildieu
> 
> The story of "La Dame Blanche" (The White Lady) is founded on incidents taken from Scott's "Monastery" and "Guy Mannering." The Laird of Avenel, a zealous Jacobite, was exiled after Culloden. He left his estates, and considerable treasure which he had amassed for the Stuart cause, in the care of his steward, Gaveston. The treasure was hidden in a statue called the White Lady, "lady," according to local tradition, being a benevolent genius attached to the Laird's family, and accustomed at times to haunt the castle. The Laird having died in exile, and there being no tidings of his heir, Gaveston announces the sale of the castle and lands, hoping himself to obtain them at a low figure, under the assumption that nobody will outbid him from dread of the White Lady.


There was more to the story (opera), but this is the part I found interesting. It really doesn't tell us anything about an actual La Dame Blanche, but it does seem to parallell the hiding place of the Stuart gold in _A Breath of Snow and Ashes_.

I'm watching a show on the history channel about the geological origins of Scotland, particularly Loch Ness. Scotland and the U.S. were once connected, then it got jammed up against England and separated from the U.S. Later, Scotland drifted 2,000 miles south and was once in a tropical climate.


----------



## ScrappingForever

k_reader said:


> I just wanted to say, I am so happy to have found this thread and these books! I am thoroughly OBSESSED with these books. I just finished Drums of Autumn (In a week) and the week before, I read Voyager. For those of you who initially read this series many years ago, how long before you stopped obsessing over them? I think about the story all the time! Its crazy. It took my a while to get through Outlander, but now I'm hooked. Anyway:
> 
> I think Drums of Autumn was much better than Voyager (although I do love the reunion scene in Voyager). Another weird thing about Drums of Autumn was how Willy and John were at the cabin and then suddenly they were gone, with no explanations! I was dying to know what happened to Roger, so I skipped ahead quite a bit... I need to go back and read the parts I missed.
> 
> The only time I cried during the reading of the first 4 books was when they left Young Ian with the Mohawks. I couldn't believe they did that!!!!!! It really touched me, I was really sad (I am such a geek, this is only a story).
> 
> I am looking forward to Fiery Cross being more low key. There are way too many different adventures in these books. I guess its because I'm reading the books too quickly and I really want to know about the characters and the relationships vs. about the logistics of so many different "action scenes".
> 
> I wish Diana had done a better job with Bree and Rogers "Love story"... you don't FEEL their love for each other like you did with Jamie and Claire in Outlander.


Yeah, for me, I have never gotten over the obsession. I put it this way - Jamie and Claire are good friends of mine, I just don't get to see them very often. 

And oh yeah, I cry in so many places in this story, it's silly. I cry when Claire leaves Jamie, and when she returns. Jamie falling down when he sees her just gets me every time. But you're right, Roger and Bree's story isn't nearly as compelling. It's good, but it's not all-encompassing like Jamie's and Claire's.

I think you hit the nail on the head with The Fiery Cross. I think DG was getting a lot of emails saying "Why can't these two just live a normal life?! Why does it have to be one crisis after another?" But then when she wrote The Fiery Cross that way, people complained because it was so hard to get through it. Ya can't win, ya know! 

Anyway, I am so far behind of the Klub now, I don't know if I'll ever get caught up. Since becoming a Beachbody coach, I barely have time to read, let alone read multiple books. I still have to get the rest of the questions done for the In Her Name book klub! At least I finished with my re-reading of the bloody thing!  (Mike doesn't read this thread, so I can say that! Now Gertie, don't tell! )


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> I'm watching a show on the history channel about the geological origins of Scotland, particularly Loch Ness.


Yeah, we've been watching the same series! I was disappointed to learn that Loch Ness is only 10,000 years old, and therefore couldn't have been harboring and marine dinosaurs for the past million years... I guess a time portal is the only  answer now...


----------



## bosslady402

ScrappingForever said:


> And oh yeah, I cry in so many places in this story, it's silly.


Does your family laugh at you, like mine does to me?? My sons (not DH, he knows better) gauge how good a book it is by how big the pile of tissues is next to me. What's really annoying though, is that it's so hard to keep reading when all the words are blurry.



> Since becoming a Beachbody coach


whatever that is, it sounds like what I need right now; I've got 2 1/2 months to lose 15 pounds so as not to scare anyone when I put on a bathing suit when we go on vacation in June.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

ScrappingForever said:


> And oh yeah, I cry in so many places in this story, it's silly. I cry when Claire leaves Jamie, and when she returns. Jamie falling down when he sees her just gets me every time. But you're right, Roger and Bree's story isn't nearly as compelling. It's good, but it's not all-encompassing like Jamie's and Claire's.


I cry just thinking about some of those things. It's worse when I read them.



> I think you hit the nail on the head with The Fiery Cross. I think DG was getting a lot of emails saying "Why can't these two just live a normal life?! Why does it have to be one crisis after another?" But then when she wrote The Fiery Cross that way, people complained because it was so hard to get through it. Ya can't win, ya know!


200 pages of mud, rain and diapers was a bit too much. 



> Anyway, I am so far behind of the Klub now, I don't know if I'll ever get caught up. Since becoming a Beachbody coach, I barely have time to read, let alone read multiple books.


We miss you, Jan. Drop in when you can. You probably know the books pretty well and can contribute to the discussion from time to time without reading.

I'm hoping we can finish the rest of the books before the next one comes out. Then maybe we can read it straight through before discussion. Nothing formal at that point. Just a free for all. What do you guys think? We have until mid-September, I think.



> I still have to get the rest of the questions done for the In Her Name book klub! At least I finished with my re-reading of the bloody thing!  (Mike doesn't read this thread, so I can say that! Now Gertie, don't tell! )


Trust me, you fool!!!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> Yeah, we've been watching the same series! I was disappointed to learn that Loch Ness is only 10,000 years old, and therefore couldn't have been harboring and marine dinosaurs for the past million years... I guess a time portal is the only  answer now...


If Claire said it, I believe it.


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> 200 pages of mud, rain and diapers was a bit too much.


...and don't forget the feminine products (or lack thereof).


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> I'm hoping we can finish the rest of the books before the next one comes out. Then maybe we can read it straight through before discussion. Nothing formal at that point. Just a free for all. What do you guys think? We have until mid-September, I think.


How about a poll, to see how many people have already finished each book? If the vast majority are reading ahead (or have already finished) maybe we could speed up - more questions per week, or maybe fewer questions for more chapters. There were only 6 of us who posted this past week.


----------



## ScrappingForever

bosslady said:


> Does your family laugh at you, like mine does to me?? My sons (not DH, he knows better) gauge how good a book it is by how big the pile of tissues is next to me. What's really annoying though, is that it's so hard to keep reading when all the words are blurry.


Oh yes, they laugh at me. And as soon as they hear the slightest sound of a sniffle, they peer at me to see if I'm crying - this is in movies. As I was finishing reading In Her Name at dinner at lunch today, Mike kept looking at me to see how I was doing. Yes! I'm crying! If you hadn't written it like this, I wouldn't be crying right now! I'm in the middle of a restaurant crying! The waiter is going to think I don't like the food!



> whatever that is, it sounds like what I need right now; I've got 2 1/2 months to lose 15 pounds so as not to scare anyone when I put on a bathing suit when we go on vacation in June.


Well, if you want to hear more about Beachbody and the wonderful workout programs they offer, visit our site at fitclubtoday.com. There is a great program called Slim in 6 that takes you through a 6 week schedule to shed those pounds. I've been doing various Beachbody programs since last June. Today, Mike took me on a shopping spree for my birthday, because my clothes are getting too big. When I started, I was in a size 10. I'm now in a size 6, and I'll be hitting a size 4 by the end of the summer. This is absolutely amazing to me! I have never been a size 4 in my life, and here I am, at the age of 45, getting into a size 4! And believe me, if I can do it, and stick with it, anyone can!

If you want more info, just PM me or come to the site and contact us. We'd love to help!


----------



## ScrappingForever

gertiekindle said:


> I'm hoping we can finish the rest of the books before the next one comes out. Then maybe we can read it straight through before discussion. Nothing formal at that point. Just a free for all. What do you guys think? We have until mid-September, I think.


I think this is a great idea! I love the idea of reading through all of the books and being ready for the new one when it comes out. I don't know how well I'll be able to follow-through, but I would love to!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> How about a poll, to see how many people have already finished each book? If the vast majority are reading ahead (or have already finished) maybe we could speed up - more questions per week, or maybe fewer questions for more chapters. There were only 6 of us who posted this past week.


Just about everyone is reading ahead. Most are at least on Voyager and many have finished the whole series. That's one of the reasons I increased the weekly reading to seven chapters instead of five. The way I have it broken down, we have only four more weeks of reading.

If we do a poll, what do you suggest we ask?


----------



## PraiseGod13

Great idea to read the books we have so far and be ready for the new book in Sept!  I don't get to post often due to personal health and the declining health of my middle son..... but I'm reading with you and read every one of the posts!!  I've already read DIA and am currently re-reading and catching up with all of you - I'm also in the In Her Name, Distant Cousin and One Year Bible book klubs and have been able to get current with them this week-end..... so I'm reading DIA tonight and tomorrow.  I'll try to do more posting when I get caught up with you!!


----------



## bosslady402

gertiekindle said:


> Just about everyone is reading ahead. Most are at least on Voyager and many have finished the whole series. That's one of the reasons I increased the weekly reading to seven chapters instead of five. The way I have it broken down, we have only four more weeks of reading.
> 
> If we do a poll, what do you suggest we ask?


hmm. How about;

- I'm behind on the assigned reading
- I only read the assigned reading (or not too far ahead)
- Finished DiA
- Finished Voyager
- Reading beyond Voyager and will keep going till they pry my kindle out of my cold dead fingers
- Even though I'm reading ahead I still like to read the questions/answers and I post when I can 
- I'm reading at my own pace (fast or slow) but not checking out the klub threads very often

Another option, would be to publish all the questions at once (separate threads by chapter group) so if they are reading ahead they can post right away instead of waiting then forgetting too many details to answer the questions?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

bosslady said:


> hmm. How about;
> 
> - I'm behind on the assigned reading
> - I only read the assigned reading (or not too far ahead)
> - Finished DiA
> - Finished Voyager
> - Reading beyond Voyager and will keep going till they pry my kindle out of my cold dead fingers
> - Even though I'm reading ahead I still like to read the questions/answers and I post when I can
> - I'm reading at my own pace (fast or slow) but not checking out the klub threads very often


We already know those things. Knowing that people are ahead or behind isn't going to make a difference in how fast or slow we go. We have to set a pace, and allow posters to catch up when they can.



> Another option, would be to publish all the questions at once (separate threads by chapter group) so if they are reading ahead they can post right away instead of waiting then forgetting too many details to answer the questions?


We had talked about that initially, and decided that it would scatter the discussion too much.

Even though only a few people posted this week, we have had 140 views. People are following the discussion even though they might not post. That's just as important as joining in the discussion. Hopefully, I have made it clear that it isn't necessary to answer the questions.

I think we are doing okay based on the number of views for each thread. I'm reluctant to change the format at this point. I'm going to set a faster pace for Voyager since it is over 1,000 pages.


----------



## tlshaw

I like the idea of continuing the series. I have so far been just doing the assigned reading for DIA. I read ahead in Outlander and was always afraid of spoiling. But, I have also read the entire series fairly recently. Now I am off the read my chapters for the week. I think I need to put on Claire's ring before I start though.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw said:


> I like the idea of continuing the series. I have so far been just doing the assigned reading for DIA. I read ahead in Outlander and was always afraid of spoiling. But, I have also read the entire series fairly recently. Now I am off the read my chapters for the week. I think I need to put on Claire's ring before I start though.


I'm sure wearing the ring will help you get in touch with your inner Claire.


----------



## k_reader

I have been following all the posts in the DiA klub, but certainly have skipped ahead since I read really fast when I get into a book!  Its been almost a week since I finished Drums, and I've been re-reading some of the parts I read too quickly.  I really love Drums... I've also been re-reading Outlander...  My favorite (so far).  I am trying so hard not to order Fiery Cross, because I want to let all my friends catch up and read Outlander and I don't want to get so far ahead.

It makes me sad to think that the stories will end. They must at some point.  Diana says there will be a happy ending... I really don't want to see Jamie step into his grave in Scotland.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

k_reader said:


> I have been following all the posts in the DiA klub, but certainly have skipped ahead since I read really fast when I get into a book! Its been almost a week since I finished Drums, and I've been re-reading some of the parts I read too quickly. I really love Drums... I've also been re-reading Outlander... My favorite (so far). I am trying so hard not to order Fiery Cross, because I want to let all my friends catch up and read Outlander and I don't want to get so far ahead.
> 
> It makes me sad to think that the stories will end. They must at some point. Diana says there will be a happy ending... I really don't want to see Jamie step into his grave in Scotland.


It takes DG about four years to write one of these heavyweights. The next comes out in September, and then you will have to join us in another looooog wait. Unfortunately, that should be the last one. The series was originally scheduled for five books, but has expanded to eight.

Hopefully, DG will go on to write her long-planned series about Maitre Raymond.

I'm glad you are following the discussion. That must mean you are enjoying it.


----------



## k_reader

I wanted to resurrect this thread to let everyone what I thought about Fiery Cross.  I would have to agree with most that this is my least favorite book... mostly because it is very "choppy"... There are a lot of good parts, but they don't seem to consistenly flow together.  "The Gathering" was WAY too long and there were too many new characters... I was having so much trouble figuring out who was who.  I liked the Mystery at Jocasta's wedding and the fact that a young "gentleman" was attracted to Clair and chasing her around like a puppy.  It must have made her feel great also!  

Jamie just keeps getting better and better with age.  He was just amazing throughout this whole book.  He has certainly changed and matured since Outlander and continues to be the most sensitive man ever!  I was so so sad for Roger's loss of his voice!  That was his "thing"... I'm really upset Diana took that away from him.

When everyone was saying that the book was slow and dull, I was expecting to see more of "inventions", discussions between Bree and Roger of what they miss about modern day life etc... The book touched on those subjects, but not in great detail.

I was so happy to see Young Ian again!!!!!!  All in all, this is certainly a MUST READ.  I started reading Outlander in January and now have read 5 books!  I have read nothing but Outlander... I will read through book 6 to put me out of my misery and then I will have to move onto something else.  I'm going to burn out.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

k_reader said:


> I wanted to resurrect this thread to let everyone what I thought about Fiery Cross. I would have to agree with most that this is my least favorite book... mostly because it is very "choppy"... There are a lot of good parts, but they don't seem to consistenly flow together. "The Gathering" was WAY too long and there were too many new characters... I was having so much trouble figuring out who was who. I liked the Mystery at Jocasta's wedding and the fact that a young "gentleman" was attracted to Clair and chasing her around like a puppy. It must have made her feel great also!


The reason it was choppy is because of the way DG now writes. She thinks of a situation, writes it, and then when she figures she's got enough of these bits, she puts them in some kind of order and strings them together. There is no character development and no situation development, either.

_A Breath of Snow and Ashes_ is better.



> Jamie just keeps getting better and better with age. He was just amazing throughout this whole book. He has certainly changed and matured since Outlander and continues to be the most sensitive man ever! I was so so sad for Roger's loss of his voice! That was his "thing"... I'm really upset Diana took that away from him.


I didn't like anything about the way Roger was treated once he went to the past to find Bree.



> I was so happy to see Young Ian again!!!!!! All in all, this is certainly a MUST READ. I started reading Outlander in January and now have read 5 books! I have read nothing but Outlander... I will read through book 6 to put me out of my misery and then I will have to move onto something else. I'm going to burn out.


I love young Ian. I hope we see more of him in the next book.

You have until 9/22 to recuperate.


----------



## tlshaw

> I didn't like anything about the way Roger was treated once he went to the past to find Bree.


I found that part very upsetting too, but then you have to look at it from Jamie's point of view. He is a Scot, with a real temper, and meets up with the man he thinks raped his daughter. He didn't know Roger at all, he only knew that Bree was suffering and all his fatherly instinct came out. Bree still had not told anyone that Stephen Bonnett was the rapist. Jamie did have a habit of letting his Scottish temper rule his actions, rather than sense.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw "Padded Cell 511" said:


> I found that part very upsetting too, but then you have to look at it from Jamie's point of view. He is a Scot, with a real temper, and meets up with the man he thinks raped his daughter. He didn't know Roger at all, he only knew that Bree was suffering and all his fatherly instinct came out. Bree still had not told anyone that Stephen Bonnett was the rapist. Jamie did have a habit of letting his Scottish temper rule his actions, rather than sense.


Yes, I agree with that. Jamie was definitely the outraged Scottish father. But it was also the way Bree treated him, as if he wasn't any use at all. Then he was hanged and lost his voice. Just too many bad things happened to Roger. I was glad when they went back home and he could find his own place again. I like to think that modern surgery would help to restore his beautiful voice.


----------



## tlshaw

Your right Gertie. Roger seemed to be the person who was least successful at making the transition. He was used to a more sheltered life in academia, and was not prepared for roughing it. And you are right in that Bree did tend to ignore him or not give him credit. Maybe that is why she is not one of my favorite people. She shows a selfish side on several occasions. Attempting to blackmail Lord John Grey was one of her most stupid stunts. She tended to create problems for other people.


----------



## k_reader

I agree that Roger was handed the short end of the stick, but that was from the author, not Brianna.  The poor guy was almost killed by Jamie, then the Mohawk,  then he was hanged (no fault of his own, or Brianna's)...  That, plus the fact that Brianna was raped and they didn't know the father of her baby.  Nothing went well for Roger!  He's also in a cultural limbo, being a Scot and living in the 18th century, but at the same time having normal 20th century ideas.  I hope Diana gives him some happiness and strength in the next book.


----------



## k_reader

All,
I'm now reading a Breath of Snow and Ashes and wanted to know if someone can provide insight into this scene and what this means for William in Echo:

"Well, she's dead, anyway, and the earl--do you know why Da killed him? Did he tell you that?"
"Your father has never spoken of the matter--of Geneva, of the earl, or even directly of William's parentage--to me." He spoke precisely, eyes fixed on a pair of gulls probing the sand near a clump of saw-grass. "But I know, yes."
He glanced at her.
* "William is my son, after all. In the sense of common usage, at least." In a great deal more than that, but that was not a matter he chose to discuss with Jamie's daughter.
Her eyebrows rose.*

Please don't tell me that William is Gay. Please, say it ain't so.........


----------



## Gertie Kindle

k_reader said:


> All,
> I'm now reading a Breath of Snow and Ashes and wanted to know if someone can provide insight into this scene and what this means for William in Echo:
> 
> "Well, she's dead, anyway, and the earl--do you know why Da killed him? Did he tell you that?"
> "Your father has never spoken of the matter--of Geneva, of the earl, or even directly of William's parentage--to me." He spoke precisely, eyes fixed on a pair of gulls probing the sand near a clump of saw-grass. "But I know, yes."
> He glanced at her.
> * "William is my son, after all. In the sense of common usage, at least." In a great deal more than that, but that was not a matter he chose to discuss with Jamie's daughter.
> Her eyebrows rose.*
> 
> Please don't tell me that William is Gay. Please, say it ain't so.........


Whew. Okay, let's find a way out of this conundrum. Let's say that Lord John has made William his heir since he's obviously never going to have any heirs. How does that sound? Or maybe he formally adopted William, but that doesn't make sense, as then William would lose his Earldom.

At this point, we have no way of knowing exactly what John meant. Guess we'll have to wait until September.


----------



## tlshaw

No, Lord John agreed to raise Jamie's son William out of his love for Jamie. William doesn't know that Jamie is his father. He would not have inherited the earldom from Geneva's husband if it was known that he was the illigetimate child of the stable groom. When Geneva died, her sister became Williams adopted mother, and Lord John married Geneva's sister in order to adopt and take care of William.


----------



## k_reader

I guess we will have to wait till September to find out. I guess no one has asked Diana G about this?

"In a great deal more than that, but that was not a matter he chose to discuss with Jamie's daughter"

I like the idea that John made him his heir... but I think we all already know that he is his heir since he is his "official guardian". I don't think he would give up his Earldom by being John's heir as it does not take anything away from his paternity (son of Ellsmere) by becoming another person's heir. I hope this is what Diana was referring too. I don't think I can handle it if William is Gay. This would really stink.


----------



## bookfiend

tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> No, Lord John agreed to raise Jamie's son William out of his love for Jamie. William doesn't know that Jamie is his father. He would not have inherited the earldom from Geneva's husband if it was known that he was the illigetimate child of the stable groom. When Geneva died, her sister became Williams adopted mother, and Lord John married Geneva's sister in order to adopt and take care of William.


I agree with tishaw. Lord John raised William, he is the only father William has ever known, and William is the only son John will ever have. He regards William as his son.


----------



## AnelaBelladonna

k_reader said:


> All,
> I'm now reading a Breath of Snow and Ashes and wanted to know if someone can provide insight into this scene and what this means for William in Echo:
> 
> "Well, she's dead, anyway, and the earl--do you know why Da killed him? Did he tell you that?"
> "Your father has never spoken of the matter--of Geneva, of the earl, or even directly of William's parentage--to me." He spoke precisely, eyes fixed on a pair of gulls probing the sand near a clump of saw-grass. "But I know, yes."
> He glanced at her.
> * "William is my son, after all. In the sense of common usage, at least." In a great deal more than that, but that was not a matter he chose to discuss with Jamie's daughter.
> Her eyebrows rose.*
> 
> Please don't tell me that William is Gay. Please, say it ain't so.........


When I read that passage, I took it to mean that he was referring to his forbidden love for Jamie, not William. I believe he loves William as a son and nothing else.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

AnelaBelladonna said:


> When I read that passage, I took it to mean that he was referring to his forbidden love for Jamie, not William. I believe he loves William as a son and nothing else.


Reading what you said leads me to believe that John feels like William is his son by Jamie. When a marriage breaks up or a spouse dies, many times people will say, "At least I have his son to remember him by."

Is that what you mean? John couldn't have Jamie, but he does have Jamie's son.


----------



## AnelaBelladonna

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Reading what you said leads me to believe that John feels like William is his son by Jamie. When a marriage breaks up or a spouse dies, many times people will say, "At least I have his son to remember him by."
> 
> Is that what you mean? John couldn't have Jamie, but he does have Jamie's son.


Exactly!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Just found this. Microsoft has released Jamie Fraser 1.0 (MS Jamie Fraser).

Here's the link.  Wish it were real. 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2533/MSJFraser.html


----------



## AnelaBelladonna

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Just found this. Microsoft has released Jamie Fraser 1.0 (MS Jamie Fraser).
> 
> Here's the link.  Wish it were real.
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2533/MSJFraser.html


That is awesome! Great find!


----------



## bookfiend

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Just found this. Microsoft has released Jamie Fraser 1.0 (MS Jamie Fraser).
> 
> Here's the link.  Wish it were real.
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2533/MSJFraser.html


I think Im out of luck, it didnt say anything about mac compatable


----------



## tlshaw

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Just found this. Microsoft has released Jamie Fraser 1.0 (MS Jamie Fraser).
> 
> Here's the link.  Wish it were real.
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2533/MSJFraser.html


I love this. Now if it will only create a holographic image of Jamie - with the appropriate "dignity" under the kilt of course


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> I love this. Now if it will only create a holographic image of Jamie - with the appropriate "dignity" under the kilt of course


Did it say anything about battle mode? As in dropping the plaid and swinging his "broadsword?"

I wouldn't mind him harvesting the barley in nothing but his shirt.


----------



## tlshaw

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Did it say anything about battle mode? As in dropping the plaid and swinging his "broadsword?"
> 
> I wouldn't mind him harvesting the barley in nothing but his shirt.


Actually, I think it does, and I also saw something about bare skin


----------



## Gertie Kindle

tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> Actually, I think it does, and I also saw something about bare skin


You're right:

*What interface options are included in MS Jamie Fraser 1.0?
A broad range is provided, and new libraries are constantly made available. In addition to the basic Bare Skin display, you have a choice of: Kilt & Plaid, Shirt & Breeks, High Heels & Wig, Red Flannel Drawers, Captain's Uniform - and many more! *

And I do like the "plug and play" feature.


----------



## tlshaw

I am so glad my Hubby doesn't read this board. I think he would be very jealous.


----------



## Angela

That was hilarious!


----------



## k_reader

For anyone following this thread, last month I was concerned that William might be gay because of a comment of Lord Johns.  Subsequently, I have been trolling the Compuserve website (where Diana Gabaldon posts) and she was specifically asked if William was gay, and she said "No, of course not, its not catching".  I am relieved!


----------



## tlshaw

I knew he wasn't. Lord John took care of him and loved him because he was Jamie's son.


----------



## danfan

I'm not peeking at all the previous posts yet because I'm not quite done with all the books - almost finished Fiery Cross though, and am dying to talk about part of it & it'll be a while before the book klub gets there...

anyhoo.... I am feeling so sad for poor Roger!! That poor man has been through hell and back, over and over. Hellish journey chasing Brianna across the ocean, beaten to a pulp by Jamie & Ian (who I miss terribly) upon his arrival, slave to the Mohawks for months then finding what happened to Brianna with Bonnet, a _horrific_ hanging... and now I've just reached him running for his life from a forest fire, saved by Fanny Beardsley and rightly saying no-one would come looking for him. When Jamie & Claire found his mule, I thought they'd go looking but no - Roger was right, they didn't. Poor Roger!  I'm surprised that poor man hasn't gone running to the stones already!

There. That's off my chest now. I tried to tell my husband last night but he just flat-panned with "It's a book." ggrrrr.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

danfan said:


> I'm not peeking at all the previous posts yet because I'm not quite done with all the books - almost finished Fiery Cross though, and am dying to talk about part of it & it'll be a while before the book klub gets there...
> 
> anyhoo.... I am feeling so sad for poor Roger!! That poor man has been through hell and back, over and over. Hellish journey chasing Brianna across the ocean, beaten to a pulp by Jamie & Ian (who I miss terribly) upon his arrival, slave to the Mohawks for months then finding what happened to Brianna with Bonnet, a _horrific_ hanging... and now I've just reached him running for his life from a forest fire, saved by Fanny Beardsley and rightly saying no-one would come looking for him. When Jamie & Claire found his mule, I thought they'd go looking but no - Roger was right, they didn't. Poor Roger!  I'm surprised that poor man hasn't gone running to the stones already!


I know exactly how you feel. It's what I absolutely hated about DoA. When Roger lost his beautiful voice, I was so mad, I had to put the book down for a bit.

And I love Young Ian. I can't believe he stayed behind with the Indians. So, so heart-breaking.



> There. That's off my chest now. I tried to tell my husband last night but he just flat-panned with "It's a book." ggrrrr.


Yeah, well, what does he know.  There are books and there are BOOKS.


----------



## danfan

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> I know exactly how you feel. It's what I absolutely hated about DoA. When Roger lost his beautiful voice, I was so mad, I had to put the book down for a bit.
> 
> And I love Young Ian. I can't believe he stayed behind with the Indians. So, so heart-breaking.
> 
> Yeah, well, what does he know.  There are books and there are BOOKS.


I'm hoping we see Ian again; it was a shock to lose him. 

Oh, yes and Roger's voice   what a tragic storyline!

LOL The great thing about the kindle is no-one can see you re-read the same book over and over again & think you're obsessed


----------



## tlshaw

danfan said:


> I'm hoping we see Ian again; it was a shock to lose him.
> 
> Oh, yes and Roger's voice   what a tragic storyline!
> 
> LOL The great thing about the kindle is no-one can see you re-read the same book over and over again & think you're obsessed


Obsessed? Not us  We only discuss our mutual friends Jamie and Claire ad infinitum.


----------



## danfan

tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> Obsessed? Not us  We only discuss our mutual friends Jamie and Claire ad infinitum.


Of course!! 
A while ago, I was bewitched by the Twilight books & on the 3rd reading, he said it was getting a bit creepy to see me reading it yet again 

Well, I'm outta this thread until I've finished #5 and #6! Be back in about a week or 2!


----------



## ScrappingForever

Been a while since I posted here, and what do I find but that you've come up with a non-mac compatible Jamie software! Sigh, what's a Mac and Jamie lover to do?? 

Now to find the Voyager thread and actually try to answer some questions. I'm on Drums of Autumn right now, so hopefully I can remember things rightly.


----------



## CegAbq

danfan said:


> I was bewitched by the Twilight books & on the 3rd reading, he said it was getting a bit creepy to see me reading it yet again


I and a friend are still bewitched by the Twilight & Outlander series. I read them (and listen to the audiobook versions) over and over and continue to search for other series that might come close. It's a very hard search - mostly unfruitful. (I have found one new one: Wicked Lovely by Melissa Marr).


----------



## Bella

I finished the series this past week.  I really felt like I was left hanging with a lot of questions at the end of ABOSAA.  I want to know what Clair wrote in those letters.  I was so happy to see that she found a way to communicate across the years.  From the beginning of the series I was longing for DG to write of a way they could communicate across time.  Of course I am now irritated that I have to wait until the next book to find out what Clair had to say in her letters. 

It was nice to see Roger and Bree at home again.  I never felt like Roger never fit in when they were in the past.  He did not seem to belong in that time period and sometimes it made me feel as though he didn't belong with Bree.  Is it creepy that I actually felt myself drawn to seeing Bree and young Ian together?  I mean yuck they are cousins!!  It was so heart breaking to read the scenes when they went off together and Ian confided what had happened with his wife and child.  I felt like that same chemistry didn't exict between Bree and Roger the entire time they were in the past.  They seem to be a better fit in modern times.  

Now I have to pass the time until September.  I am hoping to go back and re-read along with the book club.  I have loved reading everyone's thoughts but could not post when I was books ahead of the discussions.  I was missing Jamie and Clair this weekend so I read Gertie's Ariana's Pride.  Wounderful book Gertie.  Jeremy took my mind off of Jamie.  How lucky we are to have talented authors in the house at KB.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Bella said:


> I finished the series this past week. I really felt like I was left hanging with a lot of questions at the end of ABOSAA. I want to know what Clair wrote in those letters. I was so happy to see that she found a way to communicate across the years. From the beginning of the series I was longing for DG to write of a way they could communicate across time. Of course I am now irritated that I have to wait until the next book to find out what Clair had to say in her letters.


When the handwriting was described, I thought the letters were from Jamie.



> I was missing Jamie and Clair this weekend so I read Gertie's Ariana's Pride. Wounderful book Gertie. Jeremy took my mind off of Jamie. How lucky we are to have talented authors in the house at KB.


Glad Jeremy took your mind off Jamie. Notice how similar their names are?


----------



## tlshaw

I had the same feeling that Roger was the one who did not fit in the past. While Roger was with the Indians, I wondered if Bree and Ian would get together as well. It was not unheard of during that time for cousins to marry, but yeah, it would have been weird. In the colonies, Bree seemed in charge, and she would not really let Roger be in control, even when they made love, she held back. I think Bree was very much a woman of the 1960's and felt she had to prove herself to be independent and in control. I think Roger and Bree were both much better off in the 20th century where they knew the rules and were at home.


----------



## CegAbq

tlshaw *Padded Cell 511* said:


> In the colonies, Bree seemed in charge, and she would not really let Roger be in control, even when they made love, she held back.


I think Bree was also still dealing with her rape; that is egregious loss of control, so even though it seems like years had passed, I think it was her way of working through that personal violation and outrage.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

CegAbq said:


> I think Bree was also still dealing with her rape; that is egregious loss of control, so even though it seems like years had passed, I think it was her way of working through that personal violation and outrage.


Bree certainly had a lot of anger, and the rape no doubt had something to do with that. Being stuck in the 18th Century didn't help any, and neither did not knowing who was the father of her son.


----------



## danfan

Finally able to join in here! I'm reading through a bit at a time, and maybe I'll just throw out some of my thoughts on some of the past posts...

Changing the past... You know, up until Roger recited the letter from Frank to Rev. Wakefield, I had always hoped that the dateless gravestone of Jamie's had meant that changing the _known _past was possible. Finding out that it was a fake was a real blow. 
As for the fire - wow, too many questions now! Why was it still reported, even though we know the date is wrong? What did that report say?

[I'd also love to know all that was in the wooden chest left for Jemmy, and the full letter that was written to Brianna. I thought we'd get to see it and was so disappointed that we didn't! I'm assuming it was written by Jamie since it said in difficult writing, or similar words. I started to cry when they opened the chest, so locked myself in the bathroom so my kids wouldn't laugh at me, but let myself out a minute later when we didn't get to see the letter LOL]

Certain things I didn't think had changed. For example, I never thought Randall was dead before his time. Not knowing that Mary Hawkin's baby was really Alex's baby, I figured that if he had died early, Frank couldn't have been born, Claire couldn't have married him & so wouldn't have been in Inverness to go through the stones in the first place. So, if she'd changed the past enough for Randall to die, then she couldn't have been there - and he wouldn't have died... and it would be a weird loop of the past & future constantly changing.

As for the Bugs and the gold - I was furious. Sure, Bug was right - it wasn't Jocasta's to keep and use. But the Bugs were using it, and not doing anything "noble" with it. They definitely got off too lightly for that!! All the great things that could be done, and now Jamie & Claire are having to almost start over again! If he's getting his printing stuff back, presumably that means he's giving up the backcountry living?? Too many questions, and I can't bring myself to read excerpts from Echo.

---

I didn't dislike any of the books. I know some disliked Fiery Cross, but I didn't. The Gathering was dragged out a bit, but on the whole I enjoyed it. 
The timeline changes in the books confused me - 67 changing to 68 etc. Why did DG do that? Some other things confused me too. I had tried to keep track of time in Outlander and Voyager, when they were in France etc. At one point, Jamie says he'd loved her since he'd met her a year earlier but by that time they'd been married 18 months by my reckoning... and a few other examples like that. In the end, I tried to ignore timing up until the last book. It seemed more important then, what with the revolution and the fire looming in the future.
I enjoyed reading about the lead up to the rebellion though - like Claire, I only know that history through my kid's schoolbooks so that was really interesting!

For me though, reading historical fiction makes me so darn grateful to be born in present times!! How barbaric they could be! And jeez, that fine line to tread to avoid being condemned a witch! Oh, it was okay for many of them to have charms and spells but annoy the wrong person and get hunted down for a good witch burning. I got mad so many times in the books at people calling Claire a witch, and of the settlers on the Ridge to turn against her so quickly after she & Jamie took them as tenants.

I have a bunch of notes and highlights that I made from the last few books. I'll have to get them off my Kindle and get some thoughts together about them.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

danfan said:


> Finally able to join in here! I'm reading through a bit at a time, and maybe I'll just throw out some of my thoughts on some of the past posts...
> 
> Changing the past... You know, up until Roger recited the letter from Frank to Rev. Wakefield, I had always hoped that the dateless gravestone of Jamie's had meant that changing the _known _past was possible. Finding out that it was a fake was a real blow.


I know, that was quite a shock. So was the fact that Frank trained Bree to live rough in case she went to the past to find Jamie.



> As for the fire - wow, too many questions now! Why was it still reported, even though we know the date is wrong? What did that report say?


The explanation didn't make sense to me. I can understand Jamie wanting everyone to believe they are dead. It gave them a chance to start over. He could have just sent in the story with an incorrect date, but if I remember correctly, the newspaper changed the date, too.



> I'd also love to know all that was in the wooden chest left for Jemmy, and the full letter that was written to Brianna. I thought we'd get to see it and was so disappointed that we didn't! I'm assuming it was written by Jamie since it said in difficult writing, or similar words. I started to cry when they opened the chest, so locked myself in the bathroom so my kids wouldn't laugh at me, but let myself out a minute later when we didn't get to see the letter LOL]


I still cried. Just the fact that Bree and Roger heard from Jamie, got to me. I would have liked more, too, but I think we'll get more in the next book.



> As for the Bugs and the gold - I was furious. Sure, Bug was right - it wasn't Jocasta's to keep and use. But the Bugs were using it, and not doing anything "noble" with it. They definitely got off too lightly for that!! All the great things that could be done, and now Jamie & Claire are having to almost start over again!


Oh, yeah. That really made me mad. Jamie just got way too honorable there. The gold was meant for Charles Stuart and his Jacobite followers. Since Charlie was responsible for getting the Scots into their situation, the gold should have been used to help the survivors. So, what are the Bugs going to do with it? Send it off to Italy to Charlie? By this time, he was a complete alcoholic and absolutely worthless.



> If he's getting his printing stuff back, presumably that means he's giving up the backcountry living?? Too many questions, and I can't bring myself to read excerpts from Echo.


Since Echo has already gone to the printers, spoilers would probably be safe to read. For the future, the spoilers she posts don't always make it into the book.



> I didn't dislike any of the books. I know some disliked Fiery Cross, but I didn't. The Gathering was dragged out a bit, but on the whole I enjoyed it.


200 pages of rain, mud and diapers. The whole book could have been 400 pages shorter.



> The timeline changes in the books confused me - 67 changing to 68 etc. Why did DG do that? Some other things confused me too. I had tried to keep track of time in Outlander and Voyager, when they were in France etc. At one point, Jamie says he'd loved her since he'd met her a year earlier but by that time they'd been married 18 months by my reckoning... and a few other examples like that. In the end, I tried to ignore timing up until the last book. It seemed more important then, what with the revolution and the fire looming in the future.


The original book started in the spring of 1945. When it was about to be published in England as Cross Stitch, it was pointed out to DG that the conditions she described were in 1946. This was after Gellie told Claire she went back in 1967. The English publishers made the change and the American publishers wouldn't correct the date.

I noticed in the Kindle version of Voyager, both 1967 and 1968 are mentioned. No wonder it's confusing.



> I have a bunch of notes and highlights that I made from the last few books. I'll have to get them off my Kindle and get some thoughts together about them.


We'll look forward to it. 

You didn't mention the twin and Lizzie.


----------



## danfan

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> The explanation didn't make sense to me. I can understand Jamie wanting everyone to believe they are dead. It gave them a chance to start over. He could have just sent in the story with an incorrect date, but if I remember correctly, the newspaper changed the date, too.
> 
> I still cried. Just the fact that Bree and Roger heard from Jamie, got to me. I would have liked more, too, but I think we'll get more in the next book.


Now, there's a point I pondered too, let it be thought they were dead.... the news story goes ahead but Jamie left a letter for Bree dated Dec 31st so she knows they made it out safe.



Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> You didn't mention the twin and Lizzie.


OMG I thought that was a hilarious storyline. Part of me wanted to slap Lizzie - sneaking off and getting Roger to handfast her & Jo. And her poor father!! There were so many times in the books that I thought, TG women aren't treated that way anymore, but quite honestly if that were my daughter in the future, I'd be just as horrified.


----------



## danfan

Oh a few things from my clippings of DoA:

Location 1626 _"My father always said that was the difference between an American and an Englishman. An Englishman thinks a hundred miles is a long way; an American thinks a hundred years is a long time."_ 
That made me laugh because it's very true. Highlighted because I think I'll use that one.

Something I didn't get: when Jamie makes the decision to apply for a land grant from the Governer & for Duncan to marry Jocasta and have him manage River Run, they were concerned about Jamie's religion giving the Tryon too much leverage with Jamie's allegiance in the future. In a conversation with Duncan, Jamie says:

location 8032 _"It's only right ye should be paid. Now, what I am thinking-if ye should find it fair, mind-is that I shall make the claim for a homestead in your name, but as ye willna be here to work it, Ian and I will see to putting a bit of your land to corn, and to building a wee croft there. Then come time, you shall have a place to settle, if ye like, and a bit of corn put by. Will that suit ye, do ye think?"_
I assumed that meant all the land of the Ridge was granted to Duncan but with Jamie running it, thereby releasing him from any awkward obligations to Tryon in the future. But that didn't happen - he still ended up having to fight against the Regulators. Did I completely misunderstand that one?

And one that just made me laugh!
location 11461
_"You can knit?" 
"Well, of course I can," he said, staring at me in puzzlement. "I've known how to clickit wi' needles since I was seven years old. Do they not teach bairns anything in your time?"_


----------



## danfan

and one final missing piece I thought.... did anyone else keep expecting the reappearance of Morag McKenzie and her husband, after what happened with Roger?  I know it mentions that they ask about them and they seemed to have disappeared but I still kept thinking that we hadn't heard that last of them. Now with Roger back in the future, I'm not sure they are relevant again. 
I still feel sad for Roger though. I did feel that he had finally settled into his position in the past, with his church & with Jemmy, and eventually gaining the love & respect of Jamie.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

danfan said:


> Oh a few things from my clippings of DoA:
> 
> Location 1626 _"My father always said that was the difference between an American and an Englishman. An Englishman thinks a hundred miles is a long way; an American thinks a hundred years is a long time."_
> That made me laugh because it's very true. Highlighted because I think I'll use that one.


Yes, I liked that one, too.



> Something I didn't get: when Jamie makes the decision to apply for a land grant from the Governer & for Duncan to marry Jocasta and have him manage River Run, they were concerned about Jamie's religion giving the Tryon too much leverage with Jamie's allegiance in the future. In a conversation with Duncan, Jamie says:
> 
> location 8032 _"It's only right ye should be paid. Now, what I am thinking-if ye should find it fair, mind-is that I shall make the claim for a homestead in your name, but as ye willna be here to work it, Ian and I will see to putting a bit of your land to corn, and to building a wee croft there. Then come time, you shall have a place to settle, if ye like, and a bit of corn put by. Will that suit ye, do ye think?"_


I don't remember that part, but it doesn't make much sense to me just reading the quote. I guess we'll get to that in Fiery Cross? Can't remember.



> I assumed that meant all the land of the Ridge was granted to Duncan but with Jamie running it, thereby releasing him from any awkward obligations to Tryon in the future. But that didn't happen - he still ended up having to fight against the Regulators. Did I completely misunderstand that one?


I think that was a separate claim from Fraser's Ridge. Or maybe part of it so that Duncan would count as one of Jamie's settlers. In any case, I think Duncan was Catholic, too, or am I wrong about that. It's been a while since I've read anything past Voyager.



> And one that just made me laugh!
> location 11461
> _"You can knit?"
> "Well, of course I can," he said, staring at me in puzzlement. "I've known how to clickit wi' needles since I was seven years old. Do they not teach bairns anything in your time?"_


Don't you just love that term ... clickit. That's what it sounds like, so that's what it's called.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

danfan said:


> OMG I thought that was a hilarious storyline. Part of me wanted to slap Lizzie - sneaking off and getting Roger to handfast her & Jo. And her poor father!! There were so many times in the books that I thought, TG women aren't treated that way anymore, but quite honestly if that were my daughter in the future, I'd be just as horrified.


It was pretty creepy, but funny, too.


----------



## danfan

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Yes, I liked that one, too.
> 
> I don't remember that part, but it doesn't make much sense to me just reading the quote. I guess we'll get to that in Fiery Cross? Can't remember.
> 
> I think that was a separate claim from Fraser's Ridge. Or maybe part of it so that Duncan would count as one of Jamie's settlers. In any case, I think Duncan was Catholic, too, or am I wrong about that. It's been a while since I've read anything past Voyager.


Yes, when we get to FC in the klub I will have to re-read about the homestead grant again & why Jamie brought that up with Duncan. I may have got 2 things confused. Duncan wasn't Catholic, he & Roger talk about both being protestant (Duncan hadn't thought to tell Jocasta) which is why I thought the grant would work that way.


----------



## Magpie

Okay, I've finally done it!  I have gotten the outlander books for my kindle. I noticed there are some books called Lord John. Do I need to read these books, if so where do they fit in? Will I need the Outlandish Companion? Which by the way I think is the best named companion I've ever heard of.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

lindsaygator said:


> Okay, I've finally done it!  I have gotten the outlander books for my kindle. I noticed there are some books called Lord John. Do I need to read these books, if so where do they fit in? Will I need the Outlandish Companion? Which by the way I think is the best named companion I've ever heard of.


Don't bother with the Lord John books. They're very bland to say the least.

The Outlandish Companion only goes up through the fourth book. Some people like it, some don't. I've never gotten it. I'll let those who have the OC give you their opinions.

Hope you can catch up with us and join the Book Klub. We're about halfway through Drums of Autumn.


----------



## Magpie

Thanks, I can't wait to get started!


----------



## Anju 

I am not all that enthralled with the OC - I don't recommend getting it as it is too expensive and it has a lot of "stuff" in it but like Gertie said it only goes through the first 4 volumes so it leaves a lot to be desired.

The Lord John's are pretty crummy, like someone else wrote them.

Welcome to the Book Klub!


----------



## Vegas_Asian

Reading the books I keep picturing Roger to look like James McAvoy:








No need to fake the accent. He's already scottish


----------



## Anju 

hmm looks more like a dark-haired Lord John to me.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Anju No. 469 said:


> hmm looks more like a dark-haired Lord John to me.


He's pretty short to be Roger, but I agree he'd make a good Lord John.


----------

