[Toby]

Hi Gertie, K1 goes out with me. K2 stays home. Right now, I have the K2 fitted in the bottom 2 corners & upper right stretching corner of my K1 red M-edge. The K2 sticks out at the top, but at least the glass is protected for now.Then, next month, I plan to order the Oberon cover & Decalgirl skin for the K2. When I get the cover, the K2 will go out with me & the K1 will stay home. It's basically the same weight, but being thinner, the K2 will take up less room in my handbag. The Outlander Series will be read on the K2, because of the new dictionary feature on the K2. I don't use the dictionary as much as the Outlander. Which reminds me there was a scottish words I wanted to ask here, but now I forgot.  I plan to read on both Kindles as I like both.

 

[Gertie Kindle]

hmm, good question, I don't remember specifically, unless they realized when they got there that the solution was by trickery (pretending someone stole the cows) rather than strength of arms?

Exactly. Murtagh and Claire really didn't have a plan for getting Jamie out of Wentworth. It wasn't until Murtagh realized that Rupert had lifted MacRannoch's cattle that the solution occurred to him.

I guess some things are just assumed to have happened; after all, MacRannoch knows that Jamie is at the abbey, because he sends the wolf-pelt there; so it makes sense that Jenny & Ian have been kept up to date as well, even if you don't actually see it written.

I don't think Jamie would have wanted Jenny told that he had escaped. The English are bound to question Jenny and Ian, and the less they know, the better. He would have wanted them protected.

hoo boy so of most of this stuff was planned this way, then it's pretty Byzantine! I'm not quite in the middle of "DiA" so I guess... I"ll find out.

I'm with bosslady on this. Kinda keeps you on the edge of your seat.

 

[tlshaw]

I don't think Jamie would have wanted Jenny told that he had escaped. The English are bound to question Jenny and Ian, and the less they know, the better. He would have wanted them protected.

I agree. It was much safer to Jenny to assume Jamie had died at Wentworth Prison. In this case, ignorance was definitely bliss. Although I hate to think that Jenny was mourning Jamie for a second time when he was still alive. The first time Randall arrested him, she thought he had been hanged, but Dougal had helped him escape.

 

[bosslady402]

I don't think Jamie would have wanted Jenny told that he had escaped. The English are bound to question Jenny and Ian, and the less they know, the better. He would have wanted them protected.

If the English came to question them, that would have told her right off that he escaped - no purpose in questioning a dead man's family.

I agree. It was much safer to Jenny to assume Jamie had died at Wentworth Prison. In this case, ignorance was definitely bliss. Although I hate to think that Jenny was mourning Jamie for a second time when he was still alive. The first time Randall arrested him, she thought he had been hanged, but Dougal had helped him escape.

If he had died, she would have found out about it. I know he purposefully did not give the warden any next-of-kin info, but there were at least a half-dozen men (plus Claire) that knew he was there, and knew he was to hang. If he had died, they would have claimed the body for burial, or at the very least sent word that it was over.

And I don't think Jenny even knew he was in prison; Claire found out about that from Dougal, weeks after Jenny had left to go back home. The span of time between when Claire found him in Wentworth, and them escaping to France, was I think less than a week.

So as long as Jenny wasn't told anything, and didn't hear from any of the guys, and no word from Claire, and no body, she would have assumed he was still hiding. Once he got to France, he was safe, and had no need to hide; there would be no danger then in letting them know he was ok.

 

[Gertie Kindle]

If the English came to question them, that would have told her right off that he escaped - no purpose in questioning a dead man's family.

Yes, Jenny would have known that Jamie was still at large, but she still wouldn't know if he was safe.

If he had died, she would have found out about it. I know he purposefully did not give the warden any next-of-kin info, but there were at least a half-dozen men (plus Claire) that knew he was there, and knew he was to hang. If he had died, they would have claimed the body for burial, or at the very least sent word that it was over.

Claire couldn't claim Jamie's body. She was in as much danger from Randall as Jamie. Dougal has too much to hide from the English. Even though he defied Randall for Claire, he would have put the Stuart cause before a dead body.

And I don't think Jenny even knew he was in prison; Claire found out about that from Dougal, weeks after Jenny had left to go back home. The span of time between when Claire found him in Wentworth, and them escaping to France, was I think less than a week.

Considering that Dougal lied to Jamie about Jenny and Randall, he might not have gotten involved even to tell Jenny anything he knew about Jamie.

So as long as Jenny wasn't told anything, and didn't hear from any of the guys, and no word from Claire, and no body, she would have assumed he was still hiding. Once he got to France, he was safe, and had no need to hide; there would be no danger then in letting them know he was ok.

There was still a danger to Jenny and Ian even though Jamie was safely in France.

louisev, thanks for starting this discussion. There is so much in these books. We appreciate that you brought up things we missed. Keep it up.

 

[Anju]

Chapter Six:

1. What are your impressions of Claire and Jamie in this chapter?
just an old fashioned love story

"Oh, Claire, ye do break my heart wi' loving you." - Jamie

2. Was it difficult to imagine Jamie as an attendant to royalty (Charles Stuart)?
my imagination completely left me - no way Jose

3. What did you think of the scene where Jamie returns to the inn completely drunk?
no surprised, after all he was checking out a "wine merchant"

4. First impressions of Jared Munro Fraser?
shrewd

5. What did you think when Claire decided to examine the sick sailor from The Patagonia?
a little dangerous and risky and dumb

6. First impressions of Monsieur le Comte (St. Germain)?
typical adversary with more money than caring for the people, wants more money

7. Do you think Claire is more aware of the danger posed by St. Germain than she has been of other dangers?
this is an area where she is completely naive

Chapter Seven:

1.. Do you think Jamie and Claire seem natural in Paris Society?
no

2. Impressions of the King's lever?
realistic at the time - but

3. What did you think of Charles Stuart?
pompous twit

4. Forgetting what you know about history, do you think Jamie and Claire have any chance of at least altering history, if not changing it completely?
realistically - no

"It leaves me selling wine to bankers, Sassenach," he said, yawning." And you talking to parlormaids. And if we blow enough smoke, perhaps we'll stun the bees."

 

[Gertie Kindle]

3. What did you think of Charles Stuart?
pompous twit

 

[k_reader]

Hi everyone,  I just wanted to bounce something off you guys re: Dragonfly in Amber:

While reading the early chapters of Dragonfly in Amber, I had noticed something that really threw me off. The multiple references to Brianna's turning 21 soon and how you can't drink in Massachusetts until you are 21.

As far as I know (I'm pretty sure, I just googled it), the drinking age in Massachusetts in 1968 was 18.  It only went to 20 in 1980, then to 21 in 1984.  I grew up in Massachusetts and remember in the early 80s people talking about being "grandfathered in" to the new drinking age of 21.... It threw me for a loop because it seems so obvious (to me, and I'm only 36) that the drinking age would have been much less than 21 in 1968.  Diana didn't mention this as an error in the errors section of the Outlandish Companion.

 

[Gertie Kindle]

Hi everyone, I just wanted to bounce something off you guys re: Dragonfly in Amber:

While reading the early chapters of Dragonfly in Amber, I had noticed something that really threw me off. The multiple references to Brianna's turning 21 soon and how you can't drink in Massachusetts until you are 21.

As far as I know (I'm pretty sure, I just googled it), the drinking age in Massachusetts in 1968 was 18. It only went to 20 in 1980, then to 21 in 1984. I grew up in Massachusetts and remember in the early 80s people talking about being "grandfathered in" to the new drinking age of 21.... It threw me for a loop because it seems so obvious (to me, and I'm only 36) that the drinking age would have been much less than 21 in 1968. Diana didn't mention this as an error in the errors section of the Outlandish Companion.

It's quite possible that no one has brought it to her attention before. DG obviously used it as a device to alert Roger as to Briana's date of birth so he would see she couldn't be Frank's child.

Another thing that bothered me is that surely Roger would have seen Frank Randall either at The Manse (I think Frank did travel to Scotland several times) or on the back of his books. As a history professor, and someone who has grown up with a Jacobite scholar, wouldn't he have read Frank's books? Wouldn't he notice that Briana looks distinctly different than either of her parents?

Ah, little mistakes.

 

[bosslady402]

It's quite possible that no one has brought it to her attention before. DG obviously used it as a device to alert Roger as to Briana's date of birth so he would see she couldn't be Frank's child.

I remember her saying sometimes she writes things that she's not sure about, meaning to change them later - and then she forgets. She may have meant to check on the legal age, but never got around to it. I cought an error too, but it would be a spoiler if I mentioned it here.

And also, in the Companion, DG says Brianna was born in Nov of 1948 - so she is only 19 when she meets Roger in the spring of 1968. DG meant to say that she'd be 21 in a year and a half.

Another thing that bothered me is that surely Roger would have seen Frank Randall either at The Manse (I think Frank did travel to Scotland several times) or on the back of his books. As a history professor, and someone who has grown up with a Jacobite scholar, wouldn't he have read Frank's books?

I don't remember having learned what Roger's specialty was? But it does seem odd that, knowing that Frank had visited several times (although the most recent was 10 years prior, I think) Roger wouldn't have at least gotten some autographed copies... And now that you mention it, Roger was there when Claire disappeared - and, assumably, when she re-appeared - things like that are not something you can hide (or have need to hide) in a household that small. How come he doesn't remember it?

Wouldn't he notice that Briana looks distinctly different than either of her parents?

Maybe he wasn't a suspicious/gossipy kind of guy - Fiona would have noticed!! (if she thought to look)

 

[k_reader]

And also, in the Companion, DG says Brianna was born in Nov of 1948 - so she is only 19 when she meets Roger in the spring of 1968. DG meant to say that she'd be 21 in a year and a half.

Diana does mention this error in the companion. She said it was a math mistake mistake....

I'm just surprised I'm the first one to notice it (regarding the drinking age)... Dragonfly in Amber was written over 10 years ago and the Companion was written well after Dragonfly. Most of the errors mentioned in the Companion were so unimportant (to me, I guess) (like herbs that wouldn't have existed at the time) etc... But the drinking age thing was so obvious to me! Obviously, this is not a big deal to the story, just a bit of trivia I guess.

 

[bosslady402]

But the drinking age thing was so obvious to me! Obviously, this is not a big deal to the story, just a bit of trivia I guess.

Now that you mention it, I doubt there was anywhere in the country where it wasn't 18 in 1968 - In NYS I remember having to go dry for about 2 weeks when it went from 18 to 19 at the end of 1982. So everybody missed this one!

You should pursue a career in proof-reading.

 

[k_reader]

I'm not a good proof reader, really!  I just totally REMEMBER the whole drinking age thing vividly!  The minute I saw it in the book, I thought... uh in 1968, no way the drinking age was 21 (anywhere in the US).  I get what she was trying to do, She talks about it in 2 separate passages about how you have to be 21 to drink in Massachusetts. She was trying to let Roger (and us) know what Brianna's age was.  I just can't believe no one (editors) else picked it up and the readers didn't mention it to her before writing the Companion.  They seemed to have found a bunch of other insignificant details.