Outlander Series discussion
Archived
>
Just finished Echo in the Bone (spoilers included)
It's been a while, but I seem to have the impression that Ian recognized William as being Jamie's son, and that was the reason for his on-going relationship. Wasn't the reason Jamie wouldn't show himself to Wm. because they were so much alike that anyone would conclude they were related?
ChristinaRae wrote: "It's been a while, but I seem to have the impression that Ian recognized William as being Jamie's son, and that was the reason for his on-going relationship. Wasn't the reason Jamie wouldn't show ..."That was my impression as well. Ian recognized the uncanny resemblance between William and Jamie and knew that William had to be Jamie's son. I'm not sure about the letter salutation though--I read Echo way too fast, LOL!
Welcome, Nancy, we're glad you're here. I think Ian did recognize William as Jamie's son. He was suspicious and then saw confirmation on Claire's face when he first met William in DOA. William thought Ian was claiming him as kin to keep him safe from the other Indians. Wm may not have reacted to salutation because he thought Ian was just continuing the pretense. I'm not sure why Roger's father was introduced then, but, knowing DG it will all come clear in one of the next books; and, then we'll all go "That's what that scene was all about!"
I also have a feeling Wm Buccleigh will become more developed as the story continues. It will be interesting to see if he becomes a good guy or not so good.
Mary wrote: "Welcome, Nancy, we're glad you're here. I think Ian did recognize William as Jamie's son. He was suspicious and then saw confirmation on Claire's face when he first met William in DOA. William t..."Thanks, Mary, for going back to Ian's first meeting of William in DOA. I don't have a copy of the book, and didn't remember the details. Good point regarding Ian claiming William as kin to keep him safe - it makes sense.
Another story line relating to Ian Murray and William - both are attracted to Rachel - at the end of Echo, it seems Rachel has made her choice clear - but I wonder if there will be some further developments. Will they compete for her at some point?
Nancy wrote: "Mary wrote: "Welcome, Nancy, we're glad you're here. I think Ian did recognize William as Jamie's son. He was suspicious and then saw confirmation on Claire's face when he first met William in DO..."With DG anything is possible, and then, she may throw in something else out of left field. But, I kind of think she likes this pairing and keep Rachel and Ian together as anchors of the story. Rachel really makes her choice clear. I'm sure Wm may come to their rescue several more times and vice versa.
What does everyone think of Rachel? I love Ian so much I'm a bit over-protective, LOL! She seems like a nice girl, but she certainly didn't blow me away...
I like Rachel. I think there is a lot of hidden strength there... I think she will be a good match for Ian and can't wait to see how DG continues their story.I don't know that Rachel really had any feelings for William? It seemed like she was into Ian from the get go. I think from William's perspective she may have come across differently but I don't think there was ever anything there for her.
I agree that there was never a thing between Wm and Rachel--like Wm. said, she just encounters a lot of men with axes, and he being a gallant gentleman, intervenes. I had forgotten that Wm and Ian had already met; I love how Ian drily reminds him of the outhouse incident.I also think that there will be more to "Uncle Bucc" than we have heard; I'm really hoping there's a whole big story to unravel regarding his time travel.
The real question with Rachel is, will Jenny like her?
I love that part as well. I cannot wait to see a relationship develope between Rachel and Ian... Let's hope they have a house load of kids to take care of since Ian has been so hurt in the past... Love it!!!
Yeah, they better pop out a dozen or so.
That is a good question whether Jenny will like Rachel or not.....I used to like Jenny and in the begining of the series she was fairly predictable...but since the Leghair/return of Claire incident ...not so much.I think Rachel will get on better with Claire, I see their personalities being similar.
That is when I quit like Jenny, SHE caused the problem and she is gonna have to do a lot to redeem herself in my eyes anyway.
I have finally got some time to comment. I did love Echo (as l have love all things Outlander). but l cannot for the life of me understand how Claire just accepted Jamies death. Geeeeez you would think she'd need to see the body. With everything they have been through and the fact that they seem to keep getting through it all, l am amazed that Claire did not want to see Jamies body... Ec wrote: "spoilers ******************************I finished Echo yesterday. I have mixed feelings. For me there was too much about battles and not enough about Jamie and Claire. And Ian falling in love..."
I think Claire accepted Jamie's death because John was so convinced of it. And, he had it on good authority. They had no way of knowing Jamie wasn't on that ship. It went down, what's not to believe? She couldn't see a body because of the whole lost at sea thing. If she could have had any indication that there was room for any doubt she would have grabbed onto it and not given up. But, with the information provided there was no room for doubt. Also, because of all that they had been through, she would feel that the odds were against them and their luck had finally run out. I can totally see how she could come to this conclusion and then be completely devistated by it.
sorry Mary l can't agree lol ...My goodness they have been through soooooo much....Come to think of it l cant believe LJ didn't go looking for the body ? Geeeez there reported death in ABOSAA (l mean did she not learn from that)I know it's at sea but helllo we are talking about Jamie Fraser ???? Hope your not offended, but it was all just to cut and dry...Still loved the book tho !
No, of course, not offended. I can see your point. I guess I put myself in her shoes and went with the emotion she was going through without questioning. I really like Echo and for me it is more emotional than the others, not sure why. I know Claire always has faith in Jamie; but, this situation was like her worst nightmare come true.Anyway, that's what makes this series so much fun. We can have differing points of view. I always learn something from everybody else.
LOL LOL good on you Mary. Yes l agree how good are the books l am so addicted . SADLY l couldnt accept that Jamie had died LOL LOL...I'm verra sad....its nice to chat with another diehard fan...
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILERDid Claire really have any other choice that believing Jamie were dead when she learned that the ship had sunk in the middle of the Atlantic ocean? How could she expect to see his body? In the 18th century with the lack of communication there was not chance of checking wether he had really been on this ship. Even nowadays - due to security - it would be difficult if not impossible to get details of the passenger chart; but of course, you would call and inform your loved ones that you missed the ship and tell them which you would finally take. I also had to think of the plane crash of some years ago when a plane flying from South America (Brazil?) to you Europe (France?) went down into the Atlantic due to a heavy thunderstorm. Despite modern equipement the were able to just recover few bodies and if memory serves me right the black box could not be found either. These relatives and friends have to accept their death, though they could not burry them.
Now finally to my spoiler: Do you remember the scene in ABOSAA when Jamie recalls his time as a student in France and he has had his hand read by a fortune teller. The old woman compared him with a cat and told him: "You'll die nine times before you rest in your grave." (Chapter 10, Duty Calls) On page 131 Claire and Jamie decide that so far he has nearly died 5 times. Being a firm believer that in these books everything will be put down to further use, we should always be aware of the number 9! Did anything drastic happen to Jamie between April 1773 (about the time of above scenes) and May 1778 (ending of Echo)? I would not count the shipwreck as a near death as Jamie was not on board.
I remember that J&C were discussing that but wasn't sure. 1. Dougal axed him in the head
2. He was shot (by Dougal again!) after he got back from France
3. BJR rapped him in prison
4. Cullodon
5. Snake bit
No the shipwreck doesn't count since he wasn't on board. See if I've gotten this right.
I think that's it Wan... that's all I can remember.Aghhh I just can't wait for the next book! The unanswered questions are killing me and I am anxiously awaiting the character development of everyone :D :D I can't handle the stress!
MTA: While I don't think that Claire was wrong in not waiting to see the body, because there wouldn't have been a body to be found, I do think she was very hasty jumping in the sack with LJG- even though they were making love to Jamie in their minds... I can also understand her not remembering the 9 times thing in her despair. I don't have a problem with her marrying LJG (because I really like him, for one :) )but the sex was just a little too much and too sudden for me. I'm pretty sure I shrieked when they did it!
Wan wrote: "I remember that J&C were discussing that but wasn't sure. 1. Dougal axed him in the head
2. He was shot (by Dougal again!) after he got back from France
3. BJR rapped him in prison
4. Cull..."
These are the 5 times Claire and Jamie agree upon:
1. OK, axwound by Dougal
2. Jamie says no, this "was no but a wee scratch", as smallpox in childhood were a mild case
Instead they agree on being shot by Laoghaire and the resulting fever cured by Claire and her shots of penicillin
3. OK, being fevered in the abbey in France after torture by BJR (along with the rape)
4. OK, another fever caused by the festering bayonet wound afflicted at Culloden - agein BJR
5. OK, the snake bite (Fiery Cross)
Ha! 4 out of 5, ain't bad. - this is totally out of my memory.
I've been thinking about the 9 lives thing a lot lately (I'm re-reading the series right now), so it's funny you all are talking about it. Since Jamie & Claire agreed on those 5 incidents, I'm guessing that's all that we should count too? There are other near misses like when Geillis sends a shot out in the cave before she dies and it grazes Jamie's head and then in Drums when Jamie is attacked by the black bear. In those situations, he wasn't mortally wounded by any means, but Jamie has A LOT of near misses that's for sure.As Lotte says, is there anything that happens to Jamie after his and Claire's conversation in ABOSAA that would count as another near-death?
Kimberly wrote: "I've been thinking about the 9 lives thing a lot lately (I'm re-reading the series right now), so it's funny you all are talking about it. Since Jamie & Claire agreed on those 5 incidents, I'm gue..."I tried to remember and cannot find anything being near-death in ABOSAA later on. In Echo there is just when Jamie is wounded in battle and first Claire rescues him from the assault by this woman and her son and later has to remove the stiff finger on his right hand. I do not think he was in danger of his life, however.
Wan wrote: "Ha! 4 out of 5, ain't bad. - this is totally out of my memory."
Congratulations, that's the advantage of reading and re-reading all these thousands of pages!
He better not die! If he does, I'm burning my books! Jamie CANNOT die....at least not without Claire. They should die together at the VERY END of the series...the last page of the last book! JMO. :)
Sharonh wrote: "He better not die! If he does, I'm burning my books! Jamie CANNOT die....at least not without Claire. They should die together at the VERY END of the series...the last page of the last book! JM..."Amen to that Sharonh!
If they die before the very last page I'm going to be so freaking angry!If Jamie dies before Claire... I honestly don't think I could take it. The grief just might kill me.
Me too Wendy! I am so attached to Jamie it is pitiful!
I must agree that LJG is not one of my favorite characters, and I think it is weird that he almost married Brianna and now married Claire. Its like Poor Jamie is always tied to this guy who in many ways creeps me out as much as Black Jack Randall did, because he is so in love with Jamie. I am also not a fan of them sleeping together, just weird...If there is any character I dislike more than LJG its Jenny Murray! What is with her being so crappy to Claire? I just think she has been a big pain in the butt since she made Jamie wed Laoghaire. I think Jenny Murray in America is going to cause so many more new problems for Jamie, Claire and Ian.
Catie, I absolutely agree with you.LJG is in love with Jamie, but he also cares for him and respects him. I personally like LJG, i think he has always been a great friend to Jamie and I hope that they can get past what happened with Claire.
Iam 66 and if I were on a ship with a bunch of pirates who were trying to kill me I could and would definitely climb anywhere I could to get away from them. I sure wouldn't stand around and say "have at it buster...I'm too old to fight". It isn't totally impossible and at my age I could out climb and out swing many younger women...just because you are old doesn't mean you can't defend yourself in any way necessary....no offense meant to your statement Diane...I'm just certain I'd fight any way I needed to in order to survive.
Diane wrote: "Finally finished EITB, bought it when it first came out and was excited to get reaquainted with some my favorite characters. However, ended up putting it back on the shelf because I didn't like wh..."I fully agree with you. Yes, the pages and pages about battles and how they attacked each other, wasting of time (or rather paper) when you have to hurry in the end, and the many cliffhangers to boot. We've been through this for several times yet, I think.
The first tendency of rushing towards the end was to be found in ABOSAA, though. How Brianna and Roger prepared to return to their own time e.g., was only told in glimpses. Their stay in Wilminton even had to be ended or better extended in the next book, when in fact they were back in the 20th century. (I know, there are other opinions about this.)
What I'm really annoyed about, is the date discrepancy in the 2nd epilogue in ABOSAA and how it is dealt with in Echo. Not many seem to care, though. As the article in the newspaper about the house burning and the death of Jamie and Claire, which both Roger and Brianna have found, is THE reason for them ending up the 18th century, this is a key scene for more than one book. I would have expected more than Roger's: "The date has changed." No further reference, very unsatisfactory for me.
Sorry Diane, I have to agree with Sharonh. I am 54 and in pretty good shape. I think the older you get you realize the importance of maintaining strength and flexibility. I would at least like to think I could keep up with Claire; especially her sexual prowess.
Carla wrote: "Sorry Diane, I have to agree with Sharonh. I am 54 and in pretty good shape. I think the older you get you realize the importance of maintaining strength and flexibility. I would at least like to t..."Considering the latest comments in the thread "Things that bother me..." I hardly dare, but anyway, I'll give it a try:
Carla, do you remember chapter 48, Away in a Manger, (page 806, mass market paperback)where Jamie demonstrates to Brianna - in a very drastic way - that she never could have fought her rapist, because she is a woman. It way not matter of age, Brianna then being about 23/24. I never very much liked this scene, but obviously Jamie is right: just being told would not do, you need to be shown.
Far from starting another inconsistency line, I remember everything is different with Claire, she must have, along with her courage, also special skills and a good amount of strength, in her late twenties she was able to fight off a pack of wolves.
...and yes I do remember when Jamie showed Brianna a woman's weakness, whether she wanted to acknowledge it or not. I compulsively read and/or listen to each book,(as most do on this site) with such pleasure & abandonment to responsibilities that I don't pay attention to storeyline inconsistencies or events that might stretch one's imagination. I am single, full time student, have a business and run after a grandson every opportunity I'm given. Being single I can't afford to acknowledge a weakness until I've tried and failed, which is probably why I made the comment I did regarding Claire's above average skills. I have never come across an author that is so captivating and makes you come back to any one of the books, chapters or quotes again and again and enjoy it as much as the first time read. Again further proof that these books are loved & enjoyed by people with a variety of interests, personalities and individual reasons for adoring the books.
Carla said:Sorry Diane, I have to agree with Sharonh. I am 54 and in pretty good shape. I think the older you get you realize the importance of maintaining strength and flexibility. I would at least like to think I could
keep up with Claire; especially her sexual prowess. (how do you quote someone here?)
Well, I can definitely keep up with her sexually...girls there is hope...your lagging libido comes back with a vegenance after menopause...or at least it has for me. My hubby is a happy camper! :)
Re: Jamie showing Brianna that she couldn't defend herself against Stephen Bonnet or any man...that isn't necessarily so...I know of several women who can whip a man's butt without breaking a sweat...there are just some really strong women. But, for me...if the man were up close and personal....like had his hands on me and meant to do me harm I am not sure I could beat him...but I could choke him to death with heel dust if I get half the chance..in other words...give me a tiny break and I could out run him....and maybe even out climb him! :)
Lotte wrote: "Diane wrote: "Finally finished EITB, bought it when it first came out and was excited to get reaquainted with some my favorite characters. However, ended up putting it back on the shelf because I ..."I think the significance of the date changing is this:
When Roger and Brianna came back with the news that everyone would die in a fire, Jamie and Claire moved everyone out of the house on that date to stay in the cabin (in ABOSAA). The fact that the fire occurred a month LATER is an indication that you really can't change history, try as you might. At least that's what I got out of it.
And the point of Roger finding that out was to shake his belief his ultimate belief. That life is preordained. It's why he had a hard time going back to his religion.
I wonder if it also shows you can't change an event; but, individuals within that event can change their circumstances. Jamie and Claire could not stop Culloden, but, could get his men away. The house fire could not be prevented, but, they were able to save themselves. Also, when Tom Christy put the notice in the paper he didn't know exactly when the fire occurred, only that there was a fire and the Frasers were suppoaed to have died.
Kate wrote: "Lotte wrote: "Diane wrote: "Finally finished EITB, bought it when it first came out and was excited to get reaquainted with some my favorite characters. However, ended up putting it back on the sh..."Sorry, this was a misunderstanding, I meant something else.
In DOA, page 413, Roger by chance finds the article about "...the deaths by fire of James MacKenzie Fraser and his wife, Claire Fraser, in a conflagration...on the night of Jan. 21 last", in a newspaper dated -Febr. 13, 1776-. By the way, later he took quite pains to destroy this copy. As we learn later, Brianna found another copy of this paper and it is this article that brought them both to the 18th century. In the following books this article is referred to several times, thus being a very important element of the story.
In ABOSAA we can read how the Frasers spend Jan. 21, 1776 in Brianna's cabin to avoid the burning of the "big house" - but nothing happens on this night. Towards the end of ABOSAA the house is on fire, on -December 21, 1776-, the Fraser-family still alive, thank God. EpilogueII tells why: The printer, not having the right type to set December, changed it to January. This does not solve a puzzle, however, it leaves a bigger one: How could anybody on -Feb. 13, 1776- have known what would happen on -Dec. 21, 1776-?
This has been annoying me since I finished ABOSAA, to find a reference in Echo, which left me even more disturbed: In chapter 21 of Echo Roger leaves for Oxford to check the "document" and the "date has changed". Where did he find the "document" he had destroyed, were there several copies, and much more important: which date, that of the burning or that of the newspaper? For me only the one of the newspaper makes sense or otherwise it must have been both dates (see above). It also leaves the question how anything printed 200 years ago might change, might have been changed.
Hi, I just finished the whole series in one great read. I'm so happy to find you because I feel so sad that I've read them all and am finding it difficult to return to my own time. lol. Anyway what really bothered me in this last book was when Jamie returned and it didnt occur to Claire to go with him when he had to run. She wouldn't leave him in the most trying circumstances and now that he's back from the dead she doesn't try to go with him?
I agree with all the storylines just left hanging and hope it won't be too long until the next book because I really am having withdrawal. I read them on my kindle but now have ordered them
Lotte wrote: "Kate wrote: "Lotte wrote: "Diane wrote: "Finally finished EITB, bought it when it first came out and was excited to get reaquainted with some my favorite characters. However, ended up putting it b..."I think it was probably a typo... to be honest, I didn't even notice.
Wendy, this was my first thought as well, but unfortunately it does not work: - If the newspaper's date were Febr. 13, 1777, Jan. 21 last would have to be in 1777 as well = no preparing for the fire as they did in 1776 and in Jan. 1777 the house truly had been gone for a month.
- There is not way of an error with the date "Jan. 21", see Epilogue II and the explanation there.
The final proof seems to be in Echo with "the date has changed", why this reference for a typo? I tried to figure this out in several ways, with no satisfying results. Maybe they (DG and her acolytes) do not know how to solve this either and therefore this vague reference? There seem to be 2 more books to get answers!
I'm totally confused. I need the book in front of me to sort it all out.
@Wendy, I remember vaguely about the Fraser's Ridge fire -- I think the was explained in the Tom Christie kissing Claire part, try that.
Did anyone else feel dissatisfied by what happened with the Bugs? Arch Bug went on to hunt Ian down to avenge the death of his wife. What bothered me was that Mrs. Bug turned from digging to fire a gun at Jamie and Ian, acting out of instinct, shot at her in defense, thinking that it was Arch. And...
When it came to Malva... did she love Claire and feel bad about the made up story to hide the real father of her baby (ie. her brother) OR was she really a calculating 'evil witch' who did try to kill Claire and her father by infecting them with menengitis germs?
I'm also filled with anxiousness to see how things are going to play out in the next book with Jamie being in the middle of Jennie and Claire. It just seems so unreal that Jennie would leave her whole family of support when she had never been more than 10 miles from Brach Taurach.
Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinions about these things!
I don't think Mrs Bug thought she was shooting at Arch. I think she was trying to get the gold out and was shooting back to stop Ian and Jamie from shooting her. I wasn't dissatisfied, I thought it was sad and touching how Ian was so distraught because he had loved Mrs. Bug.As far as Malva... I would hope that what her brother admitted to Claire was the truth. That she was going to confess because she loved Claire. Not only do I believe this is true, she spent alot of time with Claire who always treated her with respect and cared for her, but also because it was the angry brother who said it. At that point, why would he lie? Making Claire feel better about Malva's death and betrayal didn't serve him in any way.
I'm nervous about how things are going to go down when Jenny finds out that Claire marred and SLEPT with LJG! If she thought Claire's leaving when Jamie was arrested as betrayal she shouldn't be able to tolerate this!
Wendy wrote: "I don't think Mrs Bug thought she was shooting at Arch. I think she was trying to get the gold out and was shooting back to stop Ian and Jamie from shooting her. I wasn't dissatisfied, I thought ..."I think that is a misunderstanding: Wendy obviously meant that Ian thought it to be Arch when he shot Mrs. Bug.
I was not so surprised that Mrs. Bug defended her actions, getting the/some of the gold. She and her husband were under each other's spell, very devoted to each other, one defending the other, another close married couple. And she killed before, this awful Mueller, and also to protect the gold!
(2) Why do you think DG introduced the ghost of Roger's father observing the family? It was just a brief scene. When the children talked of the Nuckelavee - I thought it would be him, not the William Buccleigh character. (And I thought Buccleigh could have been developed a lot more - at least more of his astonishment at what he encounters in modern times)
I am happy to find this group - it helps with the withdrawals on finishing the last book of the series so far!