Outlander Series discussion
Archived
>
Just finished Echo in the Bone (spoilers included)
I totally miss-read it. Thank you Lotte! I read the sentence as though Mrs Bug to shoot at Jamie because she thought they are Arch. Now that you explained it I read it the right way. Yes, Ian thought Mrs Bug was Arch and that's why he fired back. He was distraught to have killed Mrs. Bug thinking she was Arch... I'm with everyone, back on track, lmao.I think Malva gave her menengitis for the same reason she told the lie about Jamie. She was afraid of her brother and pressured. She grew to care more about Claire after that and felt bad. But I guess it could have all been a lie.
I was so upset when I was reading the Jenny Claire part too. I was so sad for Claire to have those accusations flung at her and not be able to fix it. It must have been heartbreaking to feel like that is what Jenny thought about her. I also was broken hearted for Jenny. Ian's death was so horrible. To watch the man you love deteriorate like that, to die among so much blood and waste away in front of her eyes... I truly truly believe that she was almost insane with grief when she attacked Claire like that.
Karen wrote: "Thanks Lotte, the insight about Mrs. Bug already having killed before... yes I can see why they would go after the gold out of some kind of sense of honour. About Malva... if she really loved ..."
Not at all - and I giving you the wrong name of the victim. In fact in was LIONEL BROWN being killed by Mrs. Bug. I don't know why, but I'm always mixing up these two families, the Muellers and the Browns. Maybe it is due the plain names or rather to their "unconventional" behaviour. Brown took part in Claire's kidnapping and their way of arranging life in their village, dealing with the indians is all very sinister. Mueller was the one who killed Claire's indian friend and her female relatives - in this case I'm giving up, will never get their relation and least of all their names straight!
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 ..." SPOILER SPOILERl agree , l do like Jenny but l'm thinking that she has it in for Claire not only for leaving Jamie , but for not helping Ian. Jenny thinks Claire is a witch/faerie . In saying that l do very much like Jenny so it should be fantastic reading. Strangely l also like that Bugs but really glad Arch is gone because l adore Ian and loved his remorse for Mrs.Bug.I loved Echo but l can't get over the whole Jamie dying scenerio l just refused to believe it LOL LOL, much to the annoyance of others LOL LOL...The only person l don't like is Gellis l even (strangely again like Stephen Bonnett)...
I think Diana said in late 2012 book 8 will come out
Diane wrote: "Lotte wrote: "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 pr..."
Diane, at first reading your comment left me even more confused, considering the matter once again, however, left me a bit clearer! That's an excellent idea: Jamie having published/printed another article about the fire on Fraser's Ridge. Though he made sure that Brianna and Roger learned about the actual date of the fire as well as their surviving it - see his and Claire's letter at the end of ABOSAA at the beginning of Echo - he cannot rely on this letter making it to the 20th century. Wanting to have a second option, he placed another article with the same wording; he was told it over and over again. This still leaves the puzzle with the dates, though. It is the plural DATES on purpose, because in my opinion he had to change both the date of the fire and the publishing date of the newspaper to make sense. In DG's conception of timetravelling the time lines run parallel, if times goes on in the present it does so in the past. Would this be the explanation that in DOA in 1970 Roger could only find the well known article (Jan. 21, 1776, dated Febr. 13, 1776) and in 1980 in Echo only the one with the altered DATE. This is singular, no reference which one is meant.
It's diffcult to assume that the altered article could not be found in 1970, when it has in fact existed for almost 200 years. Any suggestions?
NO! Having gone on with the thought of my previous comment, would this not leave the MacKenzies to think Claire and Jamie did die in the fire despite the letter stating contrary. Bree and Roger are both sure that JUST THE DATE changed. I'm giving up and wait for the next book(s) to be published, in 2012 alas!
Diane wrote: "Do you remember where Roger found the orginal article, was it in England at Oxford? Brianna found her article in the US... This could be significant. Also, Brianna is her father's daughter and I ..."Roger found the article in Oxford, in September 1970. "He had been looking for the lyrics of old ballads to add to his repertoire...An illustration had shown the original newspaper page on which one ballad had first been published, and Roger, idly browsing, had glanced at the archaic notices posted on the same newspaper page, his eye caught by the name FRASER." He then destroyed the resp. page.
When Roger found Brianna in Wilmington, she told him why she had gone back to the 18th century. As the last thing they had found reported was the burning of Jamie's print shop in 1766, Brianna - after a dream of her mother "drinking tea with a crocodile in the wilderness" - went to the Indies at Easter 1771 and not only found reports of her parents having stayed there in 1767, but also a newspaper with the death notice; she just confirms "it said 1776".
I just re-read this part and came across something else to wonder about: Brianna and Roger meet in the taproom of the inn in which Brianna is staying with Lizzy, and they are not delighted to see each other. They start a quarrel and Roger shoutes "... you'll come with me...." A seaman he was on the cargo boat with intervenes "what you doing to the lass, MacKenzie". This - and especially the name MacKenzie - will be very well remembered by Lizzy. Brianna will not note that Roger does not call himself Wakefield in the colonies, though. That would have saved much trouble indeed!
I love this thread it makes me LOL, how passionate are we about J & C and all things Outlandish....I have actually just been reading Book 8 threads because l can hardly wait for the next book. OMG they are fantastic, but no spoilers here.I'm with you Diane,(as Jamie would say, dinna fash Moni), l truly think it is all good and l certainly always feel the warmth regardless of what l post....
Moni wrote:I don't believe that I am allowed to question DG books or have any opinions’ about them "Moni, please don't let heated responses get you down! A good discussion group must have those willing to question and go against the grain! I know I am one of many members who enjoys your good natured antagonism!
That’s the spirit!! Diehard fans like all of us here must have an outlet and this group is one of the most enjoyable I've found!
I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt, Moni.I'm pretty sure it was just your sentence that said that Diana must not care. I think that some of us got insulted FOR her... lol.
Plus I think it's that the people who are offering different opinions on why there are inconsistencies seem to be brushed off.
But it's all just a matter of opinion, so if I hurt your feelings then I apologize.
LOL! Man, I know those days.
I think DG sometimes feels she has to write about certain things in the books to move the story along. She always ends her books with us wanting more so we'll read the next book. Things such as dates don't matter too much to me as long as it doesn't change the storyline. I was really upset about LJG and Claire at the end of Echo, but it sets up the next book for us to run to.
Agree with a couple of you that the section about Claire's grief was disappointing! Honey, if I had had Jamie and lost him, I would be hysterical, distraught, comatose ...all at the same time. Sure she contemplated suicide, but not really, it seemed to me. I understand the scene with John better than I understand the mutedness of Claire's reaction to Jamie's supposed death.
Hysteria is not Claire's style. She is more the type to be slowly whithering and dying inside. She never reacts to a crises with hysteria; but, continues to function and keeps her feelings to herself. She ususlly only breaks down after the fact and in Jamies's embrace. But, as far as she knows, he is gone and nothing will ever be alright again. She is numb and that state does not present itself with alot of outward emotion. She doesn't allow herself to show the depth of her grief until she is alone at night and then it is devistating.
she is also a doctor and trained to not let her emotions take control of her actions and so over the years has probably taught herself to do that with everything
I think, also, that it's a personal coping mechanism. Some people have grief and they explode in anguish. Some people go inside themselves...
that's true. Also i think her grief was too overwhelming to let it take over her. She would be completely useless and a slave to her emotions. When you have someone like Jaime as the love of your life, i can't imagine what it would be like to lose him, i don't think I would have reacted any different. It would just be too much to handle. A tornado, a hurricane. not something one person can handle all at once. Not even Claire.
Plus she found out that She, Fergus and Marsali were all about to be arrested, she needed to keep her wits.
When I read Echo I did question why Claire didn't have some hope that Jamie was still alive. Lets face it Jamie is like a cat with 9 lives as he has escaped death so many times. I do understand why she sought comfort with LJ but felt it was a bit too soon to be believable but that wouldn't have made for quite so dramatic a story line. As for Jenny's attitude towards Claire I felt very indignant for Claire's sake but I think the problem is that Jenny doesn't grasp the fact (at the time) that Claire is only from the future not a possessor of magical powers. Of course her thinking is clouded by grief understandably. The story did skim over how much she was told about Claire and the future so I agree with earlier post that this needs to be expanded upon.
(Spoiler alert) I think it is important to remember that LJ was rescuing Claire (for Jaime), since she was about to be arrested for spying. As someone mentioned above, she was not really thinking too clearly, having lost her family, home, Jamie, etc. LJ seems to be good at rescuing ladies, and is likely bi-sexual, although with a preference for men. I wish Claire had remembered that the fortune teller years earlier had told Jamie that he had a bunch of lives! If she had counted, she would likely have had more hope. Also, if she had recalled her own experience in the hurricane and other disasters....I trust that all will be well in the end! I am still waiting to see what DG does with the comment, I think from Voyager, where Claire is told by the Indian medicine woman, that she will 'come into her full powers when her hair is white". We keep getting references to her hair having some silver in it, but we are not all the way to white yet! How will this signify with the end of the book, Ghost of Jamie, etc?
Well even if she remembered the Fortune Teller that doesn't mean she actually believes the Fortune Teller. Claire is very practical, so likely while they talk about it she doesnt honestly believe that the Fortune Teller would be right.(I think she's right, I'm just saying Claire may not get much comfort from that. She's a woman of science.)
Also, the evidence was so very compelling. LJ was obviously devistated; he had no doubt and that level of certainty would be difficult to dispute.
It's always hard to not believe something that terrifies you. As much as it sucks, we tend to easily believe things we fear.
Very, true. And, that was a fear she lived with constantly. She did tend to believe the worst at times to protect herself.
Wendy wrote: "It's always hard to not believe something that terrifies you. As much as it sucks, we tend to easily believe things we fear."Great point, Wendy!
ChristinaRae wrote: "Kelly wrote: "Early on in Echo Claire says that she wishes she had the ability to say what lay in her heart, in a way that Jamie would know. I think it is very hard for Claire to show her e..."
ChristinaRae, I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote about Claire. Losing children and good friends can make a person pull inside themselves - it becomes a risk to "lead with your wounds". And maybe she doesn't want Jamie to take on any more burden - he lost them, too.
Hi All!Ok, I know this has been discussed time and time again, but one of the above comments I just read reminded me of it again. The ghost of Jamie scene in Outlander...I am almost scared to learn how that comes about! If you remember, the ghost of Jamie is looking into Claires window with a sad or upset look on his face and then he turns and walks away. What if the whole story ends with Claire back in her original time and no recollection of her entire life with Jamie?! I don't know how this would happen...but what if? Why would Jamie look upset and why would he turn and walk away like he was frustrated? Just a thought...
Wow what an intriguing storyline that would be!!! My poor Jamie (woops "our" poor Jamie) hasn't he suffered enough!! I will have to read the later books again to see if there are any clues but it does appear that you guys have gone over the books with a fine tooth comb! I always thought his ghost visitation was a sort of out of body/dream visit during their 20 yrs apart but as someone pointed out Jamie definitely described modern lighting not candlelight so I am stumped.....Just reread the passage in Outlander to see if there was much time delay between the lightning strike blackout and Frank coming through the door and there doesn't appear to be much. Here's a question - what if Jamie had been standing there for some time watching Claire, don't forget she was brushing her hair before the blackout. Maybe Jamie was so entranced with Claire brushing her hair he failed to register the transition from electricity to candlelight in his later description of the dream to Claire. Hmmmm....What do you think?
I think it means that jamie will pass over first and be looking for Claire, but she'll eventually join him. Diana would never leave us with them seperated. Plus I heard she said it would have a happy ending.
I think that if Jamie dies first Claire will come back to her time...if Brianna, Roger and the children are still in the 20th century...because if Jamie is dead she won't care if she doesn't survive another try at going through the stones.
I think you're right. But only because of Jamie's vision of her.
I think his vision is from the time that Frank saw him staring up at her....I don't think it is a separate vision...unless she does go back through the stones because he is dead....and survives going through again.
It can't have been the time that Frank saw his ghost. When Frank saw him Claire was in candlelight brushing her hair. Jamie's vision was of Claire in artificial light (like a lightbulb) and she was sitting behind a desk. I think she was in her office at the hospital.
I don't think that she would be working as a doctor again in her mid to late 60s...but I guess it is possible. The happy ending DG has promised us may be that their spirits reconnect after they are both dead...which is good too. :)
it could have been a vision of when she was working as a doctor during the 20 years they were apart. I can't remember but I don't think he mentioned that her hair was grey/white in his dream, so it could have been earlier
She asked him if her hair was like that and he responded by saying that he doesn't notice that kind of stuff, that it was just her as he always sees her. So it left it open-ended.
I will have to read that part of Outlander again, I don't actually own a copy, I got it from the library ( I swear I am a die hard fan! Just haven't finished the series yet, I intend to buy all of the books in hardback someday). Also, what book is the scene where Jamie discusses his vision with Claire? I remember reading it just not what book it was in. I think the ending will be bittersweet. I think it is a very real possibility that Jamie and Claire will die at separate times. Also, they are buried together right?? Diana can do anything with the time difference...it will be interesting. And maybe the candlelight vs. Artificial light is a typo?? Diana admits it does happen quite often. She just mentioned it in a blog entry concerning a typo in Exile where Jamies injured arm changes.
Wendy wrote: "It can't have been the time that Frank saw his ghost. When Frank saw him Claire was in candlelight brushing her hair. Jamie's vision was of Claire in artificial light (like a lightbulb) and she w..." Just reread Outlander again, the sequence of events is that Claire is brushing her hair before the electricity goes out, she then lights the candles and here's the clue for the passage of time "the candles had burned no more than a half-inch when the door opened and Frank blew in" Any one know how long it takes for a candle to burn half an inch. Don't forget that when Frank saw Jamie's ghost he first tried to speak to him and then watched him walk down the road and disappear. Just read another quote when Frank tells Claire ghost was watching her"yes I could see you myself from below. You were brushing your hair and cursing a bit because it was standing on end" again this was before the electricity went off. Surely this has to be the dream Jamie remembers later, I must re read that part when I get hold of the later books again.
Yep, thats what I am thinking Coralie...I still think it is one and the same vision/dream. But maybe not if Jamie said she was sitting at a desk writing and Frank said she was sitting and brushing her hair...and she herself said she was brushing her hair because she put LeHuer Blueh on it to calm it down.
What is with William getting lost all the time? You would think being Jamies son he would be smarter than that.
Well, I would imagine they were raised differently...Jamie didn't have grooms, and servants to do everything for him...William probably wasn't allowed to wipe his own butt with all those titles he has! :)
Sharonh wrote: "Well, I would imagine they were raised differently...Jamie didn't have grooms, and servants to do everything for him...William probably wasn't allowed to wipe his own butt with all those titles he ..."Very true Sharon! I just thought maybe William would inherit some common sense at least...but I'm not judging:)
Sharonh wrote: "Yep, thats what I am thinking Coralie...I still think it is one and the same vision/dream. But maybe not if Jamie said she was sitting at a desk writing and Frank said she was sitting and brushing ..." Thanks Sharon good point. I must re read the later books because there are big holes in my memory. I've read the 1st 3 books about 3 times but only read BOSAA & Echo once. I don't know why I thought Jamie was dreaming about Claire brushing her hair. Put it down to yet another of my senior moments. So if Jamie saw her writing at her desk then the mystery is still out there to be solved still...Thanks for putting me straight.
I think he has common sense, he's just also inherited his mother's impulsivness. Mix Jamie and Geneva together and you've got a hot mess, lmao. Jk, I love William, just not as much as Ian.
Oooh, makes my teeth sharp to think about Jamie and Geneva mixed...screeeeech...can't stand the thought of Jamie with anyone but Claire!
Every time I think of Jamie with any woman other than Claire...its like a dagger through my heart!!!!! Of course, unless it were me! :)
About Malva... if she really loved Claire (which I always thought was the case since Claire treated her so kindly) why did she try to kill her with the menengitis bacteria???
I was disappointed in how Jenny and Claires relationship developed as the books progressed. I enjoyed their friendship and giving Claire a feeling of family. I was hurt when Jenny said Claire had 'no soul' towards the end of AEITB.
And why the heck wasn't more written about Claire telling all the Murray's about her travel through the stones?!?!? There's a big gaping hole in the story for me there:0(
Must be pretty good writing for me to be so perturbed!!!