Outlander Series discussion
This topic is about
Outlander
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived
>
January Outlander Reread - See post 642 on page 13 for this weeks TOPIC!
message 401:
by
Sue
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 20, 2012 04:52PM
Consider them crossed!!
reply
|
flag
In Chapter 2 the vicar & Frank Randall were digging around his family history. It was mentioned that BJR was the "agent provocateur". "He was entrusted with the job of stirring up Jacobite sentiments, if any existed..."Then what caught my eye this reading, in Chapter 13, when Claire makes
her way down the stairs after seeing BJR., Dougal rushes upstairs etc, but when Dougal comes back down BJR is in pursuit. He looks at Claire & stops. (why?). Then BJR gets a glare from Dougal & he lets them go? BJR had soliders in the bar. He could stopped them.
I haven't gotten to Claire's 3rd encounter with BJR & I know she drops a bomb shell on BJR re: the Duke of Sandringham. Whether he had Jacobite sympathys or nor not was not clear as far as I read.
In Chapter 2 the vicar & Frank Randall were digging around his family history. It was mentioned that BJR was the "agent provocateur". "He was entrusted with the job of stirring up Jacobite sentiments, if any existed..."Then what caught my eye this reading, in Chapter 13, when Claire makes
her way down the stairs after seeing BJR., Dougal rushes upstairs etc, but when Dougal comes back down BJR is in pursuit. He looks at Claire & stops. (why?). Then BJR gets a glare from Dougal & he lets them go? BJR had soliders in the bar. He could stopped them.
I haven't gotten to Claire's 3rd encounter with BJR & I know she drops a bomb shell on BJR re: the Duke of Sandringham. Whether he had Jacobite sympathys or nor not was not clear as far as I read.
He was entrusted with the job of acting like a jerk so that any men who had Jacobite leanings would push for the Jacobite cause more, thats how I read it. And I was to understand that BJR and Sandringham were never clearly stated as Jacobites, they were under the radar so to speak, so I'm not sure Dougal even knew what BJR was doing.I figured that Dougal came down the stairs angry because he had just gotten into an argument with BJR upstairs after Claire had come down looking abused. THen when he saw her sitting there he stopped as he got his anger under control and decided on the plan of action. (Taking her to the well and questioning her.)
BJR didn't stop them because nobody was under arrest. Dougal was allowed to take her because he was instructed to deliver her back on a specific day for questioning. Dougal wasn't breaking any rules or taking her without permission.
Dawn wrote: "In Chapter 2 the vicar & Frank Randall were digging around his family history. It was mentioned that BJR was the "agent provocateur". "He was entrusted with the job of stirring up Jacobite senti..."I do think BJR played both sides English/Jacobites to his advantage when he could (DIA) & he definitely had something (I wish I knew what!) with the Duke of Sandringham...but I don't think he was in cahoots with Dougal. Dougal comes down the stairs and looks at Claire and knows that she is NOT an English spy. It is his moment of decision to take Claire and protect her. Randall could not stop Dougal and Claire. He had no right to AND Dougal is a very powerful man...and intimidating/ruthless/etc with very loyal clansmen close at hand. Were they meeting on MacKenzie lands? If so, more power to Dougal.
Dawn - I see what you're saying now... and how it could look as if BJR and Dougal were in cahoots. IMO, Dougal and BJR weren't exactly enemies, but I don't think they were friends or frenemies. Each was using the other to figure out who or what Claire was. When BJR hit Claire, I think that was the last straw for Dougal; he might be chauvinistic (or a man of his times), but Dougal wasn't the type of man who'd allow women to be abused that way. That's when I think he made up his mind to take Claire to the St. Whowever's pool and test her. When she passed the test, Dougal decided to "save" Claire the only way he knew how - with his own and Column's best interests in mind. Jamie & Claire be damned! It just worked out for them.
I always figured that BJR was under Sandringham's thumb, and, as Wendy said, Sandringham was trying to figure out who was on which side, so that he (Sandringham) knew on which side he was going to land. Did Randall know that the Duke was trying to decide which side to choose? I don't know. But Claire knowing that BJR was tied to Sandringham certainly made him (Randall) nervous - enough to decide she was dangerous.
Now that I think about it, did Sandringham ever choose? I suppose he did, in a way in DiA... but that's a topic better discussed when we get to that read/re-read.
That's why this discussion is so wonderful! It's great to have others to discuss and explore the story with.
Lori, good insight into Dougal.
FINALLY am starting the re-read of Outlander. Have really enjoyed everyone's comments. The first thing I remember from my first read years ago was how much detail DG brings to the story and how she doesn't rush the plot along. Right from the beginning, even before Claire goes back through the stones, I was hooked!
I'm a huge fan of Charles Dickens and DG writes in much the same style. Her characters are truly "fleshed" out with all the traits of humanity: love & passion, hope & honor, but also despair, guilt, jealousy, etc.
I'm reading this on a Kindle but I have my paperback copy on the table next to me as I read. Is definitely easier to read a large book on a e-reader but I still love the comfort of having the physical book near by! :D
Hahaha, that's wonderful! There is something comforting about the physical book. I actually wrote in mine this time. It was fun to mark passages and add notes in the margins.
This weeks question was brought to us by Dawn! It is such a great question, so thank you Dawn!Because Claire was able to work her way into clan/castle as healer, Could you use your current profession some how in the 16th century?
If anyone else comes up with a weekly question, please feel free to PM your suggestion to me and I'll add it to my list. I'm always open to suggestions. (Teresita, I do have your song question down. I'm waiting until later in February for that one.)
Unfortunately I don't think I could. I work as a accounts manager on the computer for a publishing warehouse. So I guess as a stretch I could do something clerical but it's REALLY stretching it. I definitedly don't have a profession that would be beneficial to me if I was sucked back in time.
I guess if you consider being a stay-at-home mom a profession, then I'd be useful. LOL! I can cook too. My pre-momma job was a bit impractical (environmental engineer) for the 18th century. I think given our common knowledge of basic things, hygiene and such, we'd be helpful regardless. Unless of course, someone decided it was witchery.
Although I haven't worked for a while I'm a nurse which would obviously be beneficial if I went back in time!
I am a psychiatric advanced practice nurse. I would likely be laughed out of the pubs....or burned....
My husband and I own a small textile firm. So the answer would likely be no. Unless they wanted me to identify the fabric, which I could probably do.
Well I doubt I would qualify since I work at a call center for Coca Cola and I know that wasn't invented til 1886. and I have mostly call center experience, having worked for a bank call center before that for nearly 10 years. Work a lot with a computer.
I'm a graphic designer, but studied painting. I also have a fair knowledge of printing! But realistically would probably have to out my culinary skills to work as a cook:)
Hahahaha! Great Question, Dawn! Well, like Mary i'm a stay at home mom to my busy boys. Before kids, I worked for a private company that provided support for People with Disabilities. I loved my job but that does not transfer over to that time. I have a ton of respect for Mrs. Fitz, she had her hands full. I'm a smart girl, I learn quick and can do anything - I hope I would be able to find something to do. :)
Well I am a teacher which could be usefull but that profession was usually heald by men. Also I teach art which was something that was usually apprenticed back then and again most women were not seen as artists. It would be hard to just slide into life in the past.
Healers were usually men too, so I think with the right people those could be useful. I think that and the nurse and a teacher could be possible.
Wendy F wrote: "This weeks question was brought to us by Dawn! It is such a great question, so thank you Dawn!Because Claire was able to work her way into clan/castle as healer, Could you use your current pro..."
Nope! lol I own my own company doing marketing and public relations for other companies. Not sure how that would translate in her time.
LOL, it's funny how many of us work in very modern fields.
Well... I'm a technical writer for a large international hardware and software company; I write users' materials for a particular software solution. So nope - not that one! I don't even think scribes were much in demand, and certainly not a woman.But, like Mary, I do know something about cooking, so I suppose I could be useful as a cook. I'm not much of a gardener or herbalist, but I'm sure if I found myself in that time, I could probably figure out how to grow things, harvest honey, etc. In the context of Claire and Jamie's story, I wouldn't be of much help, except for being of some help to Mrs. Fitz at Castle Leoch and Jenny at Lallybroch.
while I do spend a lot of time in front of a computer right now at my current job, a lot of my initial military stuff was about tactics and scenarios applying all those things, so while they aren't on the water, I could probably use the skills...however, being a woman, I doubt they would accept my knowledge
I'm not sure what were possible venues for a woman, any woman. She could be a wife and a mother. Maybe a cook/everything, like Mrs. Fitz and...What else? Even being a healer was difficult and it's useful skill. Just look at today's professions. What use would a businesswoman, a scientist, a writer, a programmer or a secretary be? Even the skills of a doctor or a lawyer, which are applicable wouldn't be appropriate for a woman.So, really. Very few of us could make do.
Maybe a midwife or a herbalist?
Just remember that Claire's nursing knowledge wasn't widely accepted. I mean, I'd say Dee's skills would be as servicable to her as a woman as Claire's would. I mean, we have to bend the rules of logic a bit, as DG did.At best, it owuld make you more of a survivor then someone like me who has none.
Just think if we could have just taught everyone to just wash their hands - wow! Modern medicine does not revolve around herbs at all. You would just have to lean quick and keep your mouth shut. lol!
A lot of what claire did was just teach them to brush their teeth and eat green food, hahaha.
True - I'd never thought about the things we know about food preservation, hand washing, and personal hygiene might be handy. Then again, as Leea says, it might make us suspicious enough to be labeled as witches. I mean, it still makes me laugh that that Father who was bitten by the dogs outside Castle Leoch was a witness against Claire! All she said to him was that if he didn't treat the bites, his leg would get infected... and he took that as a curse! And it seems the Father died as a result of the infection - ay!
My whole point was to think outside the box. Yes, a woman in today's military would most likely would not be asked to join Colum/Dougal's military, but they are trained in first aid, hand to hand combat, depending on how far their skills are they learned to live off the land etc. At the very least they can read & write.
I figure this woman would have kneed BJR and been home in bed with Frank by now.
Exactly! That's what I thought too, lol. Dee, i think you would probably be the best off out of all of us.
don't worry, i'll save you guys!! hehe!
I would be a Witch as well. A nurse by profession I have worked in Emergency Medicine so I could be a bit like Claire in that sense.
However my unpaid profession is a Guide Leader (Girl Scouts) that would probably be a lot more use.
We have two survivors, lol.
Looking at all the professions listed here, we may not be able to incorporate some of them into everyday living in the 18th century, but I think we're strong enough of women (any maybe some men?) to overcome the adversities and adapt to life there. We're all intelligent people. I mean, look at what some of you are doing? You didn't get where you are by not using your brain. You're doing great stuff!!
I could use my former profession, teaching, I suppose. I would have to be careful not to make reference to literary works that hadn't been published yet! OK, just wanted to mention this, and I'm not sure if it's been brought up before (I haven't read all the posts). I LOVE DG's writing, I think she is phenomenal, and this is not a critique, more of an observation...but...one minute Geilie's eyes are grey and the next they are green. When I first saw her mention grey eyes, I was startled because I am a huge Roger fan and he has beautiful green eyes that I thought were inherited from Geilie. I'm just wondering if anyone else noticed the inconsistency and why didn't the editor? Or maybe I missed something, is it somewhere mentioned that Geilie's eyes change color? Again, I am not criticizing DG... I wish a had an iota of her talent!
Thats interesting! I only remember her eyes being green. The first time Claire meets her she mentions her pale straight hair and startling green eyes... I'll have to pay attention to that next time I read.
In chapter 24 there are references to grey and green. I highlighted it on my Nook b/c I kept going back to cross-check and make sure it was Geilie being discussed and not someone else.
I'm going to go home and check it out. Thats a good catch.
Sandy, yes, DG is an excellent writer, but I've seen several details that seem to "change" within a book or from book-to-book... such as, how tall is Frank? In book 1, he's just a few inches taller than Claire (she's 5'6"), but in later books, he's mentioned as being 6'?Good catch on Geilie's eyes. I hadn't noticed that one, and it would bother me because of Roger.
I am pretty sure Diana talked about some of the discrepancies in Outlander in the Outlander Companion. I don't have it in front of me right now, but will look that up later.
Fawn, I know she addressed the differences in the year that Geilie stepped thru the stone circle to go back to the 1700s - 1967 or 1968. But I'd be interested in others that she addressed - thanks for looking it up!
Lori wrote: "Sandy, yes, DG is an excellent writer, but I've seen several details that seem to "change" within a book or from book-to-book... such as, how tall is Frank? In book 1, he's just a few inches taller..."I noticed the grey eyes too. But I'm sure it was not during my first reading of Outlander (not knowing the significance then!). I think this is also the explanation for the editor(s) missing it: How ofter would they read a book? You will find this error in "The Outlandindish Companion", though: Appendix I, Errata, page 502.
I am wondering about 2 other things: When will "The Outlandish Companion, part 2" be out, does anybody know? And why does everybody make excuses when mentioning such things like the "grey eyes", if it were a sacrilege? Of course these are great books, otherwise, would we (many, many people) spend so much time reading and discussing them?
I don't think anyone was making excuses. It seemed like we were all just talking about them normally. I hadn't noticed it, and others were saying that DG mentions it herself in the compaion. There's almost always discrepencies in long books.
For me, it was a disclaimer because I have seen people attacked on these boards for daring to point our errors. :-)
I do remember that conversation, and from my perspective, people weren't getting upset that the discrepencies were getting pointed out, they were upset because people were using the discrepencies as reasons why 'DG must not care about her characters or her fans'. It became an author bashing thread, instead of chalking them up to most all 800+ books having discrepencies and just having fun with it.
Good point, Wendy.And, as Lotte stated, no one interested in author-bashing would bother to re-read the series.
Absolutely. I definitely agree with that.I think thats why people were upset. It's hard to read someone continuously bash our favorite author, lmao. Eventually you lose your temper.
There's a reason Sara Donati calls DG fans 'rabid'. :)
I find the discrepencies fun. It's like watching my favorite movie and looking for those mess-ups. They're bound to happen everywhere, and I'm terrible at catching them in books. I tend to not pick up on those small discrepencies for some reason.
I agree...it's like watching a bloopers reel.I'm really enjoying re-reading Outlander. The first time I read it I really wasn't a huge fan...it took the other books to make me appreciate it.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Outlander Series
Books mentioned in this topic
Lover Avenged (other topics)Dragonfly in Amber (other topics)
Timeline (other topics)
The Outlandish Companion (other topics)
