Outlander Series discussion
miscellaneous
>
Least Favorite Character?
message 201:
by
Gwennie, biblioholic
(new)
Oct 05, 2010 12:21PM
It's great to see others who have two copies of these books. I have hardcover and trade paperback. I'm working on getting them all on Audio too.
reply
|
flag
I lent my trade paperback edition to my mother (who still has it and hasn’t read it *grumble*) and picked up a mass market paperback found in a used book store! I then l lent the mass market paperback to a friend... and now I’m stuck with the Kindle edition.I’d love to own the hard covers, but right now that isn’t possible, at least the trade paperbacks are nice and big!
I dream of that too, especially since we know that they both wish they could face each other. Jamie has said repeatedly how he wishes he could fight Frank for her, and Frank says it in the letter that Roger tells Jamie.My mother bought me the hardcovers for Christmas as my present. I had bought myself Fiery Cross, and she got me Outlander, Dragonfly, Voyager, and Drums. Otherwise I wouldn't have them either.
I'm on my second hardback (I got it again from Poisened Pen Press, signed). And I believe my third paperback.
I read Twilight, and I think that Outlander is so much better. Diana is a much better writer then Stephanie.
Twilight. Wow. I’m not sure I could do it! I think being forced to sit through the movies is plenty enough for me.I did start to read the Into the Wilderness series by Sara Donati but gave up when the focus shifted from Nathanial & Elizabeth.
I had a hard time with the Wilderness series when it pulled away from Nathanial and Elizabeth too, Kate.Outlander is different. The Wilderness Series didn't really have anything to do with Nathanial and Elizabeh after the daughter grew up. DG is bringing other characters forward, but she still focuses on Claire and Jamie. It doesn't bother me the same way. Plus, I love Ian. He's my second favorite after Jamie. If I have to read more about someone other then Jamie, I want it to be Ian.
Yeah, that is the one thing about the Romance genre that really bugs me! The two main characters in one book are almost never the focus in the second, third etc. That’s what I absolutely love about Outlander. I have a one track mind!! ;)I do have a hard time with the LJG sections (as does everyone else in this forum, lol), and sometimes with the Bree & Roger sections. I did sort of get a sick enjoyment from the William chapters, and am looking forward to how his character progresses since the Echo in the Bone.
At least when you reread, you know which chapters/sections to skip!
I had a hard time with the LJG sections only because they were so dry and political. I had a hard time with some of William's for the same reason. I loved Bree and Roger though.
Moni, I definitely recommend you read some of the excerpts that DG has released recently for the next book. One of them explains why LJG slept with Claire.He was in love with a fellow 18-year-old before Culloden, but you find out in Echo in the Bone who that is/was, so I don’t think that love was like the kind between Jamie & Claire. (Forgive me if I am spoiling people)
I think men had a different sort of... sexual frustration threshold than women do. I can see why a man might think he NEEDS to have sexual relations, more so than a woman might? I mean, it explains a few things, ie Mary McNabb, for one.
Well and I think that LJG was pleasantly surprised to find himself actually attracted to Claire.
Kate, I did read and re-read that dang part of the divorce settlement and my first and last thought continues to be, "why does Jamie owe L. anything? The marriage wasn't really valid. I don't understand whey Jamie would still be legally obligated when his marriage to L. should have been annulled on the grounds that his first wife was still alive. Unbeknownst to him at the time he re-married. Even when L. was making demands, its seems everyone including Claire just gave in! Oh well, sorry to beat a dead horse. I think I'm done now.It's just an injustice that won't go away!!
For Jamie it's not about legality. It's about his vow and his honor. He promised to take care of her and so he will take care of her. Not to mention that he loved her daughters. They called him Da. That means something.
Well, he's keeping that too. That's why there's such a tangled mess.
He's honoring his vow to Claire. He immediately chose to be with Claire despite the fact that he remarried. One has nothing to do with the other. He thought Claire was gone forever. I'm glad that he wouldn't just throw a woman and her children to poverty, it makes me love him more.Claire has put Frank over Jamie before. How about when she asked him to not kill BJR because it could potentially mean the loss of Frank. Loaghaire plotted to have Claire burned as a witch, BJR raped Jamie. They both honored their other marriages in these small ways even though they chose to be together despite them.
Wendy wrote: "He's honoring his vow to Claire. He immediately chose to be with Claire despite the fact that he remarried. One has nothing to do with the other. He thought Claire was gone forever. I'm glad th..."I really believe L. took advantage of the situation. She was not destitute. She owned a small estate. I did not expect Jamie to just abandon them, at least not the girls...sorry, here I go again!
She explained that she was worried about losing her property. Technically the property belonged to Jamie and that's why she didn't want to get remarried and why she kept her hold on him. I can understand that.
L. came into the marriage with a house and some money from her marriage to Simon MacKimmie of Clan Fraser, her second marriage. It would have technically still been hers if her marriage to Jamie was not valid right? Page 457 Voyager. So she would not have been left so high and dry if Jamie hadn't agreed to such a hefty parting sum. Someone should have negotiated half of what she was asking! IMHO LOL!But I guess that large sum keeps her tied to him, which i thinks she likes, and keeps her a perpetual thorn in his side. I just have to learn to live with it.
Ladyhawk wrote: "I really believe L. took advantage of the situation. She was not destitute. She owned a small estate. I did not expect Jamie to just abandon them, at least not the girls...sorry, here I go again! "I am pretty sure Laoghaire couldn't afford the taxes or something having to do with her estate, which is why she did not want to remarry. They explained that in Echo.
Again, if Jamie could be understanding about Claire wanting BJR to live after he sodomized Jamie then I would explect Claire to be understanding about Loaghaire. (BJR was ten times worse then Loaghaire)That compassion and respect between each other is one of my favorite things about them. Maybe they don't like the decision that the other makes but they at least honor it.
That's what's great about this group though, our differing opinions and the fun we have debating them.
Yeah, I love debating these things! ^_^Just a few things: Moni: I would have liked to see Claire beat the crap out of her, and go off on Jamie for his heartlessness towards her feelings!! -- I don’t think Claire really cared that much, to be honest, if she had I am sure she would have spoken to Jamie about it. He and Claire were extremely secure with each other at that point and she trusted him to come back to her. Which he did. Maybe, also, I need to reread these scenes! *starts to feel separation anxiety from her Echo copy*
Also, Claire is just not the type of person to inflict physical violence on someone, or go off on a tirade. She’s really really mellow, I guess, unless she’s drunk.
Moni: In Echo i think, Jamie mentions sometimes he receives wet dreams from the rape from BJR. -- I am pretty sure he just wakes up with cockstands sometimes, and he said that he would never use that on Claire.
And Wendy, you bring up really good points about comparing Laoghaire to BJR! Also, with Jamie being understanding about Tom Christie. I mean, the man kissed her, and Jamie had also walked in on Thomas Weylie kissing Claire. I think it’s pretty understandable for Claire to give Jamie some leeway in the other direction. (Not to mention Claire with Louis in book 2, which we do know Jamie was NOT happy about)
That did all happen, but I don't see how that justifies her asking him to let BJR live in Dragonfly. What BJR did to Jamie was so much worse then what Loaghaire attempted to do to Claire. That would be comparible to Jamie asking Claire to let her gang-rapists live.I think Jamie will remember, but I don't think its going to be anything sexual. Wait, he already did remember. Right? I remember an explanation that I don't want to type because it's a spoiler.
Kate wrote: "Also, with Jamie being understanding about Tom Christie. I mean, the man kissed her, and Jamie had also walked in on Thomas Weylie kissing Claire. I think it’s pretty understandable for Claire to give Jamie some leeway in the other direction."Exactly!!!
Moni wrote: "Kate wrote: "Yeah, I love debating these things! ^_^Just a few things: Moni: I would have liked to see Claire beat the crap out of her, and go off on Jamie for his heartlessness towards her fee..."
You're right, but this is just more proof to me that they both give and take in their relationship and they are always understanding. One does something, the other does something. It's a partnership.
Wendy wrote: "That did all happen, but I don't see how that justifies her asking him to let BJR live in Dragonfly. What BJR did to Jamie was so much worse then what Loaghaire attempted to do to Claire. That wo..."I think asking Jamie not to kill BJR was reasonable, because Claire thought that if Frank didn’t exist, then there was a chance she’d never have made it to Jamie. It wasn’t discussed in the books, but I saw that as a pretty good reason.
Wendy wrote: "I think Jamie will remember, but I don't think its going to be anything sexual. Wait, he already did remember. Right? I remember an explanation that I don't want to type because it's a spoiler."Yeah, he does remember some of Culloden. In Voyager, he talks about how he cut across the field several times, wishing to die, and didn’t. And he talks about how he got through the line of cannons, went through a blood lust/killing spree, but then ran back across the field to reach his men. He also brings up how Murtagh died, and how Jamie found Murtagh sitting on that hill, & Murtagh telling him about how when you die you don’t feel anything.
I think in Breath of Snow & Ashes, he also remembers his last confrontation with BJR, but I won’t spoil you on the details.
Kate wrote: "Wendy wrote: "That did all happen, but I don't see how that justifies her asking him to let BJR live in Dragonfly. What BJR did to Jamie was so much worse then what Loaghaire attempted to do to Cl..."I can understand Claire's point of view, though I don't think it was because she wouldn't have met Jamie. She was worried that it would kill Frank. I understand that, my point though was asking him to not do it was at least comparible to his feeling as though he should still take care of Loaghaire and the girls. They've both asked the other to temper their pride for ex lovers.
OMG! Since we are debating!! Interesting to compare Claire not letting Jamie kill BJR after what he did to him, to being understanding about L. mmmmm...Claire was trying to save Frank from possibly never existing. If that was not a factor Claire would have never hesitated to let Jamie kill BJR!
Although I have not yet read Echo, even though I purchased it on release day and it is sitting right next to my bed, after everything I have heard about it, I don't think I want to. Is that blasphemy??
SO if there is further explanations in Echo then, you all know more than I do! But I do agree with Moni about wanting a much more climactic confrontation between Claire and L.
I think it’s pretty understandable for Claire to give Jamie some leeway in the other direction
Kate, you are much too forgiving! ;0)
Spoiler!!Ha..ha. This issue with Frank/BJR came full circle. I remmember this debate in the old posts.
Yes, that's what Claire thought that Frank was directly descent from BJR. But DG put a HUGH twist into it. As some of you may already know that BJG was not at all Franks' 6th time-great-grandfather. It was his brother, Alex. --- If Claire would have known that, I bet she would have let Jamie kill him in the first place.
Ladyhawk wrote: "Kate, you are much too forgiving! ;0)"I know, I know, it’s my big flaw, along with being Devil’s Advocate.
I think you guys did clear up a lot of my OWN confusion. Although, Wan, if Claire did allow Jamie to kill Black Jack, then the child Mary had might have grown up in poverty (But BJR did make sure to provide for her after they were wed), and it might have resulted in Frank not being who he was.
*coughdevilsadvocatecough*
Played us like fiddles you two, (Kate, Moni!)Never thought of; if Jamie killed BJR, Claire and Jamie may have never met??? That is a crazy thought!
And I am sure some truth to it, but I never got the feeling that was what Claire was thinking when she refused to let Jamie kill BJR. I got the feeling she just did not want to have Frank not existing, on her conscience. But character motives are multi-layered in this story and ya just never know!!
Moni wrote: "ps-2, just a thought, Jamie is Marisali's children’s granddad on both sides, hahah."Hahaha, during the entire wedding scene, I was thinking, doesn't anyone want to point out the fact that Jamie is father of the Bride AND the Groom???
I love the way the conversation starts on one subject and goes off on a tangent! Going back to the least favorite character, there is one that I can't understand very well and is Bree. The way she treats Roger is really kind of weird. She has such a wonderful example in her mother right in front of her of somebody that treats her husband and life with so much humor. Why can't she relax a little bit?
There is something that keeps coming back to my mind and I don't even know which discussion it would be inserted. It seems to me that in the Dragonfly, Fergus was a guy that was present in many situations. From Drumms of Autumn on, he hardly says a word. For somebody that takes Jamie as a father he is pretty much nonexistent.
Yeah, I don't like Bree, and I don't understand Roger very much either. What on earth was he thinking when he kissed his great-great mother on the lips. That was so weird, I thought he was under the influence of some wild mushrooms or something like it. Boy, that was a dumb decision.They are definitely the odd couple.
I wish we knew more about Fergus. He was such an interesting little boy, and I love intercultural marriages.
I love Fergus too. Fergus, Ian, Jamie, and the Beardsleys, lol.
Me too. I love Ian. He is a complete character.I just finished Fiery Cross, so I know some good stuff is coming involving the Beardsleys... :)
Yeah, I have a feeling we’re going to learn a *lot* more about Fergus in the next novel! :D
Was the rape in Dragonfly in the brothel where Fergus used to live in? I remember that rape, but not that it was by BJR. That explains a lot.Now, you are going to think I am NOT a true Outlander fan, but I forgot how poor Fergus lost his hand. I remember him saying to Jamie something like: Well, now you will have to take care of me according to your promise.
But the circumstances are not clear in my memory. Can anybody remind me? Thank you!
Not that it would make any different but Furgus wasn't raped by BJR. He was a child prostitute by chance. He was to take some (perverts) customers who prefer young boys. Don't want to go into explicite detail but he cried out becasue BJR was too large. (though he asked him if he would take him different way). Poor thing, he blaimed it on himself that he was the reason that Jamie went to the prison.
And to think that Jamie had to take him...
Latinlandish wrote: "Was the rape in Dragonfly in the brothel where Fergus used to live in? I remember that rape, but not that it was by BJR. That explains a lot.Now, you are going to think I am NOT a true Outlander fan, but I forgot how poor Fergus lost his hand. I remember him saying to Jamie something like: Well, now you will have to take care of me according to your promise.
But the circumstances are not clear in my memory. Can anybody remind me? Thank you! ."
Yeah, Jamie rescued Fergus, it was the scene with the verra large sausage. I love that line when Jamie is explaining the situation to Claire, as to why he was in the brothel!
Fergus lost his hand when Jamie was hiding in the cave by Lallybroch. Fergus was bringing Jamie a cask of ale, when dragoons randomly showed up and they found Fergus after he dropped the cask. Then they cut off his hand to punish him.
Jamie had promised back in France that if Fergus lost a hand, Jamie would provide for him for the rest of his life. So Fergus was a good sport about it, and when Jamie went to him later, he smiled and said something like, milord promised he’d care for me, or something like that.
That good looking devil is always having to find excuses about being in the craziest situations!This whole thing just makes me wonder how could DG forget to mention Fergus in the next 3 books (Voyager, Dof A, F.C.). I haven't read the others, but maybe Fergus will come back.
He was in those books, but definitely much of of a side character.Kate, I think Fergus's words were something along the lines of, "I'm lucky. I new get to be a man of leisure."
BJR was going to Sodomize Fergus, but it wasn't rape. Kate was saying that Fergus was a child prostitute when Jamie first found him, and that day he was just planning on doing it again. He wasn't being raped.
When I say that Fergus was not in the following 3 books, didn't mean not at all, but a very far way side character.Well, now to my next doubt.(you are the best Oulandish consultants. I love it) I really don't understand why Claire gives so much importance to the damned gold ring given to her by Frank. In many of other situations in her life she has been so detached of material objects, she has given up so much for Jamie, so why now make a big deal for a ring. Maybe is because I myself don't care at all for a ring, especially if it were a ring given by my older significant.
That's has been a Mystery to me. I don't think that we have ever come up with the good explaination (to my satisfaction anyhow!).
I think it's because she already broke her wedding vows and to just easily give up her ring feels like a worse betrayal. Plus, she loved Frank. Before she met Jamie she was happy with Frank. After she left Jamie, while she would rather have been with him Frank still did the best he could for her and her daughter. I think it was her way of continuing to honor him even though she fell in love with someone else.
These complex characters give us so much to talk about, lol.
Yeah. Also, that little ring is the only link to her past (or future!!) life. She had a very successful life in the 1960's, and maybe that little piece of gold is remembrance of all that she left. I had never thought about it, but maybe now I can understand her. Imagine, there you are, no shower, no nice shoes, no tampons, no telephone, etc, etc,. All you have is this little ting from the other side. I guess I understand her.
