Outlander Series discussion
This topic is about
Drums of Autumn
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived
>
Drums of Autumn Group Reread! Topic Question, post 113 page 3
message 51:
by
Carren
(new)
Jul 16, 2012 04:25PM
I never liked him. There is not one redeeming quality about the man.
reply
|
flag
I agree, he is a dispicable person, but he did save Brianna and Lord John from the prison fire.
At first I was gld Jamie helped him because his charges were not really worse than Jamie had been accused of. I soon grew to hate him when he turned around and robbed them. My opinion of him turned to disgust with the whole Brianna incident. I have to say though he has moved the plot a lot and created some very interesting and tense situations.
There was only one moment in the series when I truly hated him and that was in a later book when (view spoiler). But for most of it I felt that ere was something inside him that was the man he used to be. I will gladly admit that perhaps I was reading too much into him, but it was different than Geillis or BJR for me, sometimes he would talk and you'd see something vulnerable in him. Bree (view spoiler). He seemed more of a villain that life created, vs someone who was just crazy or evil.
Diane wrote: "At first I was gld Jamie helped him because his charges were not really worse than Jamie had been accused of. I soon grew to hate him when he turned around and robbed them. My opinion of him turned..."I agree with that... he certainly does add some interesting aspects to the story!
I always thought of him as a rotten villain and didn't like him at all. But I thought it was very clever of Diana to show him having some weaknesses and doing at least a couple good deeds. It gave a deeper dimension to his character.... was he really all evil??? or did he have some redeeming qualities???
I still didn't like him though! :)
I agree with Laura: Stephen Bonnet is one of the better characters/villains (IMO) that DG imagined. He's a quintessential Bad Boy, all the way. There are moments when I liked him, felt for him... but those moments were quickly gone when his true colors shown through. YOu almost can't help but smile and like him at times; that is, until, like the scorpion on the back of the frog taking him across the river, he stings and destroys. It's just who he is - what he does.At the very beginning of the book, I was horrified that Jamie allowed him to escape - even helped him. Bonnet just seemed like such a sociopath, able to be whoever he needed to be to get what he wanted. And yet, I did feel, like Diane describes above, that Jamie was showing him mercy partially because Bonnet wasn't accused of worse than he (Jamie) had done himself. But when even Jamie said to Claire that "sometimes they get it right", I KNEW that Jamie KNEW Bonnet wasn't really good.
And perhaps, because of that decision that Jamie made, for the first time, I doubted Jamie... disliked him. Because that "merciful" decision cost so many so much; Jamie wasn't the only one to pay for it, but I do believe that Jamie felt each and every offense that Bonnet caused as a result. Jamie's actions shook my belief in him, and I think that's why I don't like this book. I *know* Jamie did what he did with the best of intentions; and if Jamie truly believed Bonnet was capable of being someone good, I could have forgiven him more easily for what happened later. But because Jamie knew and made that remark to Claire... tough when your idols have feet of clay, I admit it.
Sorry, I don't mean to beat a dead horse here... I'm still working out some of my responses/emotions to this book. I get that Jamie's human, but I don't think it sunk in until this book. And I didn't like it.
But Bonnet surely provided a good bit of entertainment and a good villain to hate. The other villains who come along in later books are just despicable - nothing to like about them, no redeeming qualities. Bonnet has enough of a 'mix' of qualities in him, that even though I hated him, I couldn't help but smile a little even as I cringed whenever he was around.
BTW, Sawyer, the character that Josh Holloway played on "Lost" seems to be a lot like Bonnet, although they made him "good" in the end. But I can so see Josh Holloway playing Bonnet - tall, good looking, but still a little skanky... con man, smooth and suave, but definitely dangerous.
Love your insight Lori. I agree with many of your points. Wasn't sure how to feel about Bonnet when we first meet him, and at first I like that Jamie saved him, but then later in the story we see the horrible implications that Jamie's actions have on his family. Even though Jamie was accused of similar crimes, he was a completely different person and he learns that he can't always cheat the system, that it has consequences. I also felt bad for Bonnet at times, I don't think I ever liked him, but also with BJR, I would pity him and wonder how he became that way. He could have had some redeeming qualities, I can't remember which book this is but (view spoiler) He's not pure evil, no true villain ever is, everyone has redeeming qualities.
And oh man a Lost reference, one of my favorite shows! I can see the connection you made. Sawyer was a mystery. You couldn't tell which path he would take until towards the end of the series. He eventually sought redemption, and we the audience understood where he was coming from because we knew his background.
Josh Holloway has always been who I picture in my head as Bonnet. I loved that Jamie made mistakes. It's those characters that do make mistakes that I think I have an easier time relating to. I tend to always give people the benefit of the doubt myself, even if I sometimes wonder if it is misplaced.
I think it showed that besides being a 'bloody man', he was also a compassionate man.
I agree with you Wendy. Jamie was never the perfect "hero" of the story, he is human, he has many great qualities that make him a leader, but he also has some negative qualities that can lead to his downfall if he isn't careful, such as his decision to rescue Bonnet.Bonnet was an interesting character, Brianna seemed to feel bad for him at times, but most of the time she hated him. As I was reading DOA the first time I remember I didn't exactly hate him, not as much as I hated BJR for example, but I did find him despicable. I don't think I ever liked him though, ever!
I agree with Bonnet being a bad man with some possitive qualities but what I disliked most about him was when he robbed them. He did not need to do it. He was showing a great deal of ingratitude to someone who gave him his life back. I was just reading the part where Jamie and Claire are on the river after the party Jocasta held in their honor. It nearly broke my heart when he said "I am more than forty and five. ...A man should be settled at that age, no? ...Well, I dinna have a house. Or land. Or money. Not a croft, not a tattie-plot, not a cow or a sheep or a pig or a goat! I havena got a rooftree or a bedstead, or a pot to piss in!...I dinna own the clothes I stand up in!" Bonnet's actions that early morning made Jamie pay for his kindness long after the things he stole were gone.
Even though I haven't gotten to Voyager yet in my re-read of the series; have to comment on Bonnet. He's such a complicated character and my favorite villian in the books. Also think that the actor from Lost would look perfect for the part. First time I read Voyager I pictured the British actor Sean Bean as Bonnet as he does a great Irish accent; but alas he's much too old now :(
I agree, Peggy, about a young Sean Bean portraying Bonnet - with his blonde hair and an Irish accent - he's who I pictured while reading. But I can see how Holloway from Lost could perfectly fit the role also.The character Bonnet is such a complicated, multi-faceted villain and that's what I love about him. The villain that you love to hate and we'll see other aspects to his personality later in the series. So far, I think he's despicable and a cad.
What's interesting, is he offered Bree money, along with Claire's ring, after he raped her. I don't think that he thought of it as rape but as "services rendered", in trade for what Bree wanted. That's how evil he is - to make Bree think that she "asked for it" and/or like she was no better than a prostitute. I believe that's how he treats all women.
What I found verra chilling was how he treated Roger onboard the Gloriana. The whole "heads you live, tails you die" scene.
Lisa wrote: "I agree, Peggy, about a young Sean Bean portraying Bonnet - with his blonde hair and an Irish accent - he's who I pictured while reading. But I can see how Holloway from Lost could perfectly fit th..."oohhh...forgot about the scene with Roger on the ship! Am getting anxious for the summer library program to end the middle of Aug so can get back to reading the Outlander series!
Tina wrote: "Bonnet does a few "human" actions [spoilers removed] But most of them are indispicable."After just finishing DOA this morning and having read that particular scene last night, remembered how I felt after the first time I read DOA, in regards to Bonnet. That perhaps he wasn't so evil after all, but then he nonchalantly slices somebody's throat (even if it was a really bad person) while trying to urge Bree out the building. Having read or listened to that scene again, I believe Bonnet may have had some sort of feelings for Bree...maybe. Why else did he risk his life to return to the burning building to get Bree out? And, kept arguing with her, not leaving without her. Was it only because he was thinking of "his child" she was carrying? His heart may not be completely shriveled after all. It seems that Bree sparked it back to life. Maybe. He's still a cad.
Susan wrote: "I agree with Bonnet being a bad man with some possitive qualities but what I disliked most about him was when he robbed them. He did not need to do it. He was showing a great deal of ingratitude ..."Well said Susan, I agree. Something Bonnet reminds us all is that an evil person isn't always an ugly mean monster looking person. He is good looking and charming at times. We tend to forget that really bad people are usually someone people like and trust. (ie: Scott Peterson who killed his pregnant wife. Most pedophiles are someone loved and trusted) I think that is how Diana is able to suck us in to these characters They seem so real.
OK...1. Lizzie heard the name "MacKenzie" when both Lizzie and Bree and Roger were in the bar where Roger first located Bree in America. But that was the only time the name was mentioned. Bree must've heard it, but she was likely in shock at the time; remember, she started screaming at Roger, because she was afraid they'd never get back into their own time without someone in their own time to go back to.
2. Bree never mentioned to ANYONE that she & Roger were hand-fasted; she only told Claire about having sex with him, because Claire asked how they did it. When Bree said he'd pulled out, Claire said that there's a word for people who use that method of birth control - parents. Bree didn't say much about Roger at all to Ian or Jamie until the big reveal, when everyone realized how wrong they all were.
3. I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND! Amazing, huh? But this read through (3rd or 4th time?), I separated everything else from the scene between Jamie, Ian, and Roger and just read the scene. I realized that Jamie was acting as a father on behalf of his daughter, believing Lizzie's story that MacKenzie was the man who raped Bree and caused her so much pain. Perhaps, as a father, he over-reacted, but... Jamie was protecting Bree. Especially in their barn scene, where they discuss rape and she sees she couldn't have fought Bonnet, I realized that Jamie's concern was all about Bree. I think that the start of that conversation threw me; but I realized that when Jamie said something about perhaps Bree hadn't been raped but covering up and then Bree started attacking Jamie, that Jamie was simply teaching Bree a lesson. He didn't really believe it.
And even when they all realized the truth, Jamie's doubts were what kept him from killing Roger. So sending Roger to the Iroquois was Jamie's choice of mercy. Realizing how he feels about BJR and all that he has to do to keep that ghost from affecting him, I also realize how much mercy was in Jamie's decision.
I don't know why... but somehow, I got the impression that Jamie became harsher with punishments and less merciful after letting Stephen Bonnet get away, realizing that SB was the one who robbed them. Of course, I see the added effect of the truth from Bree - that it was Bonnet who raped her.
WHICH MEANS, ya'll were right the whole time, of course! And I finally see the light!
I'm a much happier camper. Can't explain how/why this tore me up, but it did. It totally ruined this book for me. I still hate what Roger had to endure because of all tragedy of errors and non-communication, but I think that in some ways it a) toughened Roger up to this new life in this new time, and b) gave him a chance to truly choose Bree of his own free will. It also helped Jamie accept Roger, in a way, because Jamie felt guilty over his actions towards Roger; IMO, even though Jamie mourned the loss of Ian, he made some allowances for Roger's adapting to this time - perhaps more than he would have.
Lori wrote: "OK...1. Lizzie heard the name "MacKenzie" when both Lizzie and Bree and Roger were in the bar where Roger first located Bree in America. But that was the only time the name was mentioned. Bree mu..."
:D
I just finished the part when Roger was on the ship traveling to America. I had totally forgotten that Stephen Bonnet was almost the person that was burried under the building in Inverness. I remember it being mentioned in the beginning of Outlander that it was rumored that a body was burried under it because that is how they kept bad spirits away or something like that. I think it was cool that particular tidbit was brought back up and interesting that Stephen Bonnet was almost the victim. I wonder if DG planned on revisiting that topic and know she would tie it to another character or if when she was writing Stephen Bonnet it hit her that she could tie him to the first book that way. For all the people that despise SB think of how the story would be different if he had been the sacrifice to the buildings foundation.
Gosh, it's a good thing Bonnet wasn't the sacrifice for that building foundation! He would've cursed it! Or haunted the occupants. I think it was hearing that story and how he was an orphan, had a rough life, that the reader (or at least I did) felt for him a bit.
I don't know, Lisa... might have saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of trouble is Bonnet had died young.
But the story would not have been as interesting.
Diane wrote: "But the story would not have been as interesting."yes...and all stories need a bad boy. With BJR gone, SB is the new bad boy.
Have to say that I wasn't really a Lord John fan until his interactions with Bree in this book. So much subtext that Bree just didn't get... But they were so cute together! I giggle when I picture them walking together - LJ being a good 6 inches shorter than Bree.It was an opportunity to see LJ outside his obsession with Jamie; even though it's still there, it's not the focal point. Like Bree says, I do like the way he talks! And such an English gentleman.
I've always liked Lord John, even that first young meeting when he was in the war. Many new characters are introduced in this book; Jocasta, Duncan, Lizzie, Stephen, I believe Wylie is introduced in this one too... just to name a few, which ones do you enjoy, which ones do you think could have been left out... and why?
Boy Wendy, that's a tough one!I'm not sure I'd leave any character out. They all intermingle with each other and only add more dimension to the other (main)characters.
Hahaha, I feel like that too. I love even the badguys because they add something important to the story. But I'm trying to be impartial because I know there are others who have disliked a character enough to wish they weren't around.
I agree..they all bring their own story to us and then they all tie in together, but if I had to choose, I would say Lizzie. She is a cute character but maybe not necessary? I know she starts the whole Roger i.e.. rape story, and where would that all go, but she isn't an "important" character. Or am I forgetting anything?
She may be important later on.....
Enjoyed* Jocasta - Another aspect of Jamie's family and a good example of the MacKenzies.
* Meyer - Funny, funny, funny!
* F Campbell - Always helpful and loyal
* Nayawenne (sp?) - Not enough time with her
* Duncan - who doesn't love him? (although, technically, we met him in Voyager, we didn't really get to know him until DoA)
Unnecessary?
* Lizzie - Just never a favorite of mine, and she became less so in later books. I know she has a part to play in this book, but it's not flattering. Later books? Well, that was all just an invention of DG, IMO, to make Lizzie worthwhile and give her something to do. (Although I do like her dad.)
* Wylie - A lot to like, but (view spoiler) He's another one who makes more of a splash in latter books. Hate his prancing and foppishness in this book though. Contrast with Lord John, a true gentleman, not a poser.
On The Fence
* Ulysses - I could never quite make up my mind about him, even in later books. I always suspected he was up to more than what we saw or knew.
UGH!
* Hodgepile, Murchinson - I realize they have roles in this book, but I dislike them intensely - even more than Bonnet. Bonnet at least has some charm and his own brand of morals; these guys don't seem to.
* Navy guy who hit on Jocasta - He has more of a role in the next book, but he's annoying, and some might say, unnecessary.
I can agree with the Navy guy, he was unnecessary.I hate Hodgepile and Murchison, for sure!
I have to say, I like the comparison you drew between Wylie and LJG. You are so right, they are like two sides of the same coin. LJG is what Wylie likes to act like he is.
How about Phadrea? I do enjoy her character. If I remember correctly she has a bigger roll in later books.
Have to agree with the general consensus--I would also choose Lizzie as my least favorite character. Stirred up too much trouble and (view spoiler). But oh I loved Jocasta, reminded me of the much missed Dougal and Colum Mackenzie brothers. The whole MacKenzie clan was so interesting!
By Wylie, you mean William (Willie)? I'm scratching my head here :) I'm thinking, what a brat! But he really can't help the way he was raised and I feel that Jamie's alone time with him had helped him be less rude. Jamie and Claire are a good influence for him.I agree with all the above comments, nothing new to add and to throw in my fav for Phaedra, Jocasta, Duncun. The first time I read this book I was wondering about the butler Ulysses but as I got further in, he seemed to have true feelings for Jocasta and not out to rip her off, taking advantage of her blindness. I believe Jamie cleared that up while talking with Claire because she had concerns along those lines also. So Ulysses was another fav of the side characters.
I am trying to figure out why Philip Wylie is even in the books except to make Jamie crazy and he annoys me.
OH, Wylie is Philip Wylie, not Willie! LOL Thanks Patty. But I can't remember who the heck Philip Wylie is so I think the book can do without that character :D
Over the course of the first four books, what were some of the hardest scenes to read? Scenes that you dread rereading even now? (We will revisit this topic again at a later date, during Echo reread.)for me, it was Jamie's rape, obviously. However, another scene that was always very hard for me to get through are the slave scenes, for instance the man who was pierced by the hook. The brutality and violence of it was shocking and makes me cringe every time.
Of course the scene when Claire leaves Jamie to go back to her own time with their unborn child. That scene breaks my heart everytime I read it.The story of Jamie being flogged by BJR and of Brian, their father watching and then he dies. Jamie never gets to see him or say goodbye :(
Lisa wrote: "OH, Wylie is Philip Wylie, not Willie! LOL Thanks Patty. But I can't remember who the heck Philip Wylie is so I think the book can do without that character :D"He was the younger man hat kept comming on to Claire even though she told him she was old enough to be his mom. He was a dandy and wore a powder wig, lots of lace and had a fake beauty mark on his face the shape of a heart or star.
I don't know why this "scene" gets me everytime I read it, it's really pretty small. It's the part in Outlander right after Jamie spanked ( I hate to use the word "beat") Claire and she had to come down to breakfast a face all the men. It wasnt' the facing all the men that bothered me, but the small part where she looks over at Jamie and he doesn't look up, concentrating on his breakfast, trying to ignore Claire, but knowing he can't. I think at that moment he did regret doing what he did, but he'd never admit it then.
Another small part that I have a hard time reading, and it's only one sentence. Right before Claire goes back through the stones, she thinkgs to herself " I stood still, vision blurring, and in that moment, I heard my heart break. It was a small,clean sound, like the snapping of a flower's stem."
They get me everytime.
Carren, that quote about her heart break sounding like the small clean sound of a snappy flower stem, it gets me every time. I think that line is one of the best in fiction for describing something perfectly.
It's one of those lines that when you read it, it almost breaks your own heart.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you Diane, now I know exactly who he is. What a strange character. It's so easy to forget characters from each book because so many are introduced.Oh Carren! Yes I agree that was the hardest to read, especially because as you're reading the beginning of DIA you're not thinking about Claire ever leaving Jamie.
For me it was hard to read the parts in Dragonfly and Voyager when we find out Claire and Jamie have been separated for 20 years. I guess it wasn't one scene exactly, but just reading about all that time spent apart was so painful. I remember thinking oh my god 20 years apart, that is so long! That's most of the life I've lived! I mean I think I understand why it had to be 20 years, because Brianna had to grow and become an adult so that she can understand why Claire had to leave, but still, 20 years!!!
I was on my way to work listening to DOA and was at the part when Roger did the blood of my blood thing with the baby saying from this point forward this was his son. I had forgotten all about this part and got all teary eyed also thinking of when Jamie did this at his wedding with Claire. It was quite a touching moment too bad it happened in the parking lot and I didn't have time to savor it. Another thought I had at this point was that Jamie and Roger started to connect a bit. Roger was from the future but he understood the Highland traditions and Jamie respected that. He also respect the fact Roger was hand fast to Bree even though he believed a church wedding was important. It amazed me that Roger knew and believed in these old traditions even though they were not part of his modern life.
Thank you Diane, now I remember who Wylie is. A very strange character and seems to be unimportant at this point. But he may prove useful later? Or a nearly-useful player, perhaps.(view spoiler)
I'm trying to remember when did Claire get kidnapped but the only time i'm coming up with, i think happened Voyager when she boards the british ship to help the crewand the captain takes dail and leaves Jamie behind,that wad hard to read but, did it happen again in Fiery Cross? maybe it was so trumatic i blocked it :-D
Layali wrote: "I'm trying to remember when did Claire get kidnapped but the only time i'm coming up with, i think happened Voyager when she boards the british ship to help the crewand the captain takes dail and l..."I don't remember which book its in..... but later on Fraser Ridge....
Lisa, It's (view spoiler). Please be careful and spoiler tag stuff like that, ladies. I'm not sure that everyone has read that far yet. I know for sure Layali hasn't. Please stick to only DOA and before.
I have to say that all the very emotional parts like Claire and Jamie's separations and the rapes are like that first intense hill of a roller coaster and I actually look forward to getting all worked up. I am more likely to skim the slower descriptive parts that I remember and don't need to read each detail.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
