Outlander Series discussion
miscellaneous
>
Things that make me go hmmm....
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Jessica
(new)
Oct 31, 2010 10:01PM
I have another thing I'm curious about - when Claire goes back through the stones why does she never confirm Jamie died? She seems 100% positive that he died, however she never bothered checking? It just seems strange to me that she didn't look into at all but just "knew" he did.
reply
|
flag
I always accepted that because she knew his plan was to die. He intended to walk back out and get himself killed. She didn't want to look back and see it actually printed, it was too painful.She was in the 20th century anyway, and with Bree born she couldn't have left anyway.
Theresa wrote: "One thing that bothered me was in Drums of Autumn, they kept emphasizing how Bree and Roger needed to think about the person they were trying to reach in order to get to the right time. If that is ..."Sorry to answer this question so late in the thread, but I think Claire and Frank were so involved in the study of his family tree, that all that information was in her mind very strongly. and the first person that she sees is Black Jack Randall. I think Jamie showed up just because he was alive in that same time. Also there is a possibility that Jamie's ghost (I know it was because of some spoilers that I read) had some influence in her thought waves!
Thanks for the hedgehog explanation, that was one thing that I until now I couldn't understand. Still sounds a little weird.
I think some of you might have already seen this. But for those who hasn't, this may explain some of the lingering questions -- we have discussed among ourselves -- straight from DG herself. http://voyagesoftheartemis.blogspot.c...
Again, Diana's way with words just seals it for me. Perfectly said.And it makes the point that Jamie and Claire's love is equal and they continue to save and help each other. Not Jamie more then Claire, or Claire more then Jamie.
Thanks for posting that Wan. It's a good answer for those questioning why the author created such a dark passage in her story! And like Wendy said a great reminder of how reciprocal Jamie and Claire’s sacrifices, for love and each other, are.I have a friend who just started O and I know she will probably be questioning this part too. I will be sending her this link when the time comes.
Thanks Wan for posting the link for DG article. It is really interesting to see how much thinking goes into writing a book. It is not just the feeling that he had to go through the rape in the prison, but she felt that she needed 3 strong events, the third being so strong that it would seal their fate forever.
The Outlander is still the best, it has a freshness, a clarity, that it is hard to follow.
Ok, here are thing that bugged me since I read Diana’s story in Songs Of Love and Death. *spoiler* Roger and Jamie sent Roger’s father back to the future, but they did this together, in Scotland. Since they didn’t do it before the family went back to the future does it mean Roger will come to the past and that they will all be in Scotland? Where exactly in the timeline does the event fit? Also, it was mentioned Jamie’s hair was red-does that mean it will happen soon, before it turns grey?
Another thing, there was a comment Roger’s father(can’t remember his name) made about this not being his time and how he felt alone, to which Jamie looked grim and(maybe?) replied something that suggested he thought Claire felt that way too. Did that really happen or am I not remembering it correctly? If I am do you think Jamie really believes Claire doesn’t feel like she belongs there?
Mimi wrote: "Ok, here are thing that bugged me since I read Diana’s story in Songs Of Love and Death. *spoiler* Roger and Jamie sent Roger’s father back to the future, but they did this together, in Scotland. ..."
SPOILER
Sorry Mimi, but you are mixing up things a bit: It is Roger and his ancestor (child of Dougal and Geilis) William Buccleigh Mackenzie, who meet Jerry (Jeremiah), Roger's father. Sorry, if I got the spelling wrong.
I do not understand the sentence with Jamie's hair, I'm pretty sure that Jamie is not mentioned in "A leaf on the wind of all hallows". This is what you are referring to, isn't it?
Reading DG's postscript, this tells us that Roger and William "went back" too far, before 1752. At this time Jamie was either still sitting in his cave near Lallybroch or even not met Claire yet, depending when the two ended up, no date given.
Ok, I obviously mixed up A LOT of things, lol. Haven't read the story attentively enough, I guess and I don't have the book here to check.But I got the impression it was Roger because he hugged Jerry, mentioning he wouldn't get the chance to do it ever again. And there were two men, and the other one gave me the impression of Jamie, even though names were not mentioned. The hair(it was mentioned it was red), the expression of a man who has survived at all, the fact that he knew about the stones. I just assumed I guess. Didn't really think about the timeline...
Thanks for the response though.
Mimi wrote: "Ok, I obviously mixed up A LOT of things, lol. Haven't read the story attentively enough, I guess and I don't have the book here to check.But I got the impression it was Roger because he hugged J..."
Mimi, I had the chance to re-read it, at least till the point when Jerry is about to make it back through the stones. There are just 3 pages of the whole short story, when he - getting aware that he must be somewhere in the past - he meets two people he can talk with and who seem to know about him. There are no names mentioned, these two being described as "biggish buggers ... one fair, one black-haired .... not much alike... a similarity of expression". In the words of the fair-haired one Jerry hears a note of desolation, when he answers the question about time: "A lang way from you, ... from now .. lost"
We can tell that these two must be Roger and William B. of course. I wonder what people would make out of this, who just read "Songs of Love and Death" and never knew of Outlander and the characters involved there.
Wait, does that mean Roger ended up in 1750-ish after Echo?
Mimi wrote: "Wait, does that mean Roger ended up in 1750-ish after Echo?"Did you read Echo yet? It does not seem so. I do not want to leave any spoilers here for you. In the postscript to A Leaf... DG not only explains why Jerry could walk through the stones in either direction near Samhain, but ends with "And those of you who's like to know more about the two men who rescue him, more of their story can be found in An Echo in the Bone."
Yes, but it has been awhile and I guess a reread is in order, lol.*SPOILER* So I know Roger was planning on going back after Jem, with William B. maybe. But the timeline doesn't quite add up for the 200-year jump, so I got a little confused, I guess. Thanks for your answers.
It's not always 200 years. If you think about what happened with the activists who went through, some went farther some went less.
Mimi wrote: "Yes, but it has been awhile and I guess a reread is in order, lol.*SPOILER* So I know Roger was planning on going back after Jem, with William B. maybe. But the timeline doesn't quite add up for th..."SPOILER
Oh, yes, that's it. This is one of the many cliffhangers in Echo. We know that Roger and William B. - and Bree, of course - assumed that Jemmy has been made to go back by this nasty guy in Bree's company (a Cameron of sorts).But nothing is definite in Echo, we only know from this short story about Roger's father that he and William B. did. Why they ended up so far back in time (see the postscript) and how they made it from the Inverness area to Northumberland in England (that's quite a distance, even more so in the 18th century) still is a mystery. I do hope we'll get detailed info in the next book!
I guess I'm going to have to read both stories again.
While blowd rying my hair this morning, I was thinking... why would Jamie take young Ian to a brothel to lose his virginity when he himself cherished his own. Well he at least took his dads advise which was to wait till marriage and not leave any accidental get for a woman to raise alone.Why would he so nonchalantly let Ian lose his??? Perhaps cause he had experience so much adversity he was now embracing carpe diem?? This just seemed out of character to me.
Ladyhawk wrote: "While blowd rying my hair this morning, I was thinking... why would Jamie take young Ian to a brothel to lose his virginity when he himself cherished his own. Well he at least took his dads advise ..."If memory serves me well I don't think Jamie took Ian to the brothel for that purpose. Young Ian comes looking for him the first time because he knows he has a room there but I think they were meeting at the printers or somewhere else but after the fire they all came back to the brothel. It was actually Fergus that took him in hand when young Ian was trying to be discreet and leave Jamie and Claire alone, Fergus having introduced Ians brothers at a similiar age to the brothel and Jamie did protest but as he explains to Claire he couldn't stop him and he thinks that perhaps it was right to let him , young as he is so that he would not be fashing himself and fretting over the seaman he killed. He also says to Claire that only a women can heal in a situation like this.
Coralie wrote: "Ladyhawk wrote: "While blowd rying my hair this morning, I was thinking... why would Jamie take young Ian to a brothel to lose his virginity when he himself cherished his own. Well he at least took..."Yes I remember that didn't Ian just kill someone? I am pretty sure that is why Jamie didn't protest.
yeah, he'd just killed or thought he'd killed the guy who was trying to break into Jamie's shop...
Yep, and Jamie said how after taking a life the best medicine is laying with a woman, and it's best if you love her.
Boy, you ladies are good! I had fogotten those surrounding circumstances! I posed the question to my coworker who just read that part and she said the same thing. You have great memories!
Wendy: How could we any of us forget what Jamie has done? :)
