Kindle Forum banner

1 - 20 of 181 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
63,461 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Yes, i know we have a Book Klub for Outlander, but we're reading it slooowwwllly. There's a lot of folks out there who have read all the books and are chaffing at not being able to discuss the later books. Consider this your relief valve!

Or maybe you're not in the Book Klub but still want to discuss Outlander! This is the place for you. By definition, this thread assumes you've read all the books. No need to use spoiler text here.

Have fun!

Betsy
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
67,251 Posts
I think use of spoiler block would be a good idea anyway in case anyone wanders in accidentally. . . especially if it's something MAJOR being revealed.

Ann
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
Ann Von Hagel said:
I think use of spoiler block would be a good idea anyway in case anyone wanders in accidentally. . . especially if it's something MAJOR being revealed.

Ann
I understand your point, but we could end up with posts that are nothing but spoiler blocks. Most people peek anyway ... like me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
Thank you Besty and Gertie! 

I was wondering if anyone thinks that Claire, Brianna or Roger actually changed the past - and I don't mean the usual time travel thing about 'they have to do it because they've already done it' thing. For example, we find out that the bones Claire touched in Dr Abernathy's office are in fact Giellis', so that sortof tell us that everything Claire does up to the point of rescuing Ian, she's already done...  that's not what I mean.

I mean like when Roger goes to Lallybroch for the first time, and he describes it as in ruins - 'plainly abandoned and possibly dangerous', but at the end of the series, which is close to 10 years later, they have just moved in and it seems the only improvements needed are a new boiler and some plumbing. Had something actually changed, or was it just not as bad as he thought it was originally?


Second question - the bones that Claire and Jamie find in the cave in France, in Dragonfly - does anyone think that they are Claire and Jamies' own bones? I know Jamie does not hear the stones, but that doesn't stop them from speculating what Jamie would do if he followed Brianna and Roger into the future. Maybe at some point he does try to go somewhere with Claire, and it goes horribly wrong because he's not suited for it... and the next book is called 'the echo in the bones'?


Third question - how come neither Claire nor Frank remembers the ghost at the very beginning? And why, assuming the ghost was Jamie, would he have been haunting her anyway - at various times he's said to her that if he died tomorrow, he would still be happy, because she was with him? Was it necessary for him to give her some link to the past - she went through the stones with no preparation or intent, which is usually fatal - so she would make it through to him the first time?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
63,461 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Yes, I think in this thread, no spoiler text necessary.  We can only do so much to protect people from themselves.... even with spoiler text, someone could "accidentally" move the cursor over the text and read something...  And Gertie's right, for someone like me who has just barely started Outlander, the whole thing would have to be in spoiler text.

Thanks for the chocolates!  Chocolate is ALWAYS good!

And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread, already in progress...  I won't be peaking in here very often cause I don't want to be "spoiled".  (I haven't read Bosslady's post.)  Y'all behave yourselves....

Betsy

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
Bosslady, you might want to repost your questions without spoiler tags. It may be too awkward for people to read and respond when it's all blacked out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
I did remove the spoiler tags already, but it's so far down the thread already that I'll repost up here.

I was wondering if anyone thinks that Claire, Brianna or Roger actually changed the past - and I don't mean the usual time travel thing about 'they have to do it because they've already done it' thing. For example, we find out that the bones Claire touched in Dr Abernathy's office are in fact Giellis', so that sortof tell us that everything Claire does up to the point of rescuing Ian, she's already done...  that's not what I mean.

I mean like when Roger goes to Lallybroch for the first time, and he describes it as in ruins - 'plainly abandoned and possibly dangerous', but at the end of the series, which is close to 10 years later, they have just moved in and it seems the only improvements needed are a new boiler and some plumbing. Had something actually changed, or was it just not as bad as he thought it was originally?

Second question - the bones that Claire and Jamie find in the cave in France, in Dragonfly - does anyone think that they are Claire and Jamies' own bones? I know Jamie does not hear the stones, but that doesn't stop them from speculating what Jamie would do if he followed Brianna and Roger into the future. Maybe at some point he does try to go somewhere with Claire, and it goes horribly wrong because he's not suited for it... and the next book is called 'the echo in the bones'? Remember, both other times she's touched or found bones, it turned out to be someone she had something to do with - Geilis and Otter-Tooth.

Third question - how come neither Claire nor Frank remembers the ghost at the very beginning? (In Franks letter to the Reverend, he says he has a 'sense - almost a memory' of Jamie - you'd think he'd remember more than that...) And why, assuming the ghost was Jamie, would he have been haunting her anyway - at various times he's said to her that if he died tomorrow, he would still be happy, because she was with him? Was it necessary for him to give her some link to the past - she went through the stones with no preparation or intent, which is usually fatal - so she would make it through to him the first time?

And when Claire dreams of Frank teaching the class, with the painted miniatures of her and Jamie - do you think this actually happened, or was it totally a fabrication of her dream? I thought I remember Brainna painting miniatures of them - trying to find the reference but haven't yet...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
No, I don't think they did change the past. In fact, one of the things that Claire and Jamie had been hoping to do was to stop Culloden from happening, and they weren't successful with that. Also, the reason Brianna went back was to stop Jamie and Claire from dying in their house fire. Now, she did stop them, but the paper still reported that they died, so I guess we don't really know if they had really died when Brianna first saw the report. (Forgive me if I have some of my facts wrong. It's been a while since I read BOSAA.)

Guess we don't really know the answers about Lallybroch, tho. It's not really explained at the end of BOSAA, but I would put it down to either missed consistency on the part of DG and the editors, or that it wasn't as bad as Roger thought. Or maybe they had done major repair work already and it's just not mentioned in the book. ;)

Guess we'll have to wait a while before we find out about the bones in the cave. The next book, An Echo in the Bones, is mostly about Jamie and Claire getting caught up in the Revolutionary war. They were talking about going back to Scotland, so we'll have to see if they make it or not. (You can read excerpts of An Echo in the Bones on DG's website - http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~gatti/gabaldon/gabaldon.html.

Jamie's ghost - one of the many things that's speculated about over and over in Outlander discussion groups. ;)

Yes, Brianna does paint miniatures of them. She does it while she's staying at Aunty Jocasta's plantation. I can't remember whether it's in FC or BOSAA, tho. As for whether this actually happened, I don't think so, but the miniature connection is rather eerie, isn't it.

Love your questions! All of these things really make a person think, don't they. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
ScrappingForever said:
No, I don't think they did change the past. In fact, one of the things that Claire and Jamie had been hoping to do was to stop Culloden from happening, and they weren't successful with that.
Claire even talks about that.

One thing that was changed, at least it appears so, is that the men from Lallybroch didn't die at Culloden. Jamie, being forewarned, was able to send them back home before the battle. So I think that maybe small things can be changed, but not something that has such huge consequences as Culloden.

The other thing that was changed is Claire saved Lallybroch from starvation by telling Jenny to plant potatoes.

Also, the reason Brianna went back was to stop Jamie and Claire from dying in their house fire. Now, she did stop them, but the paper still reported that they died, so I guess we don't really know if they had really died when Brianna first saw the report. (Forgive me if I have some of my facts wrong. It's been a while since I read BOSAA.)
Since the date of the fire was different from the date in the newspaper article, I don't think that was something that changed. The fire happened and Jamie and Claire escaped in the normal course of the event. It wasn't like they knew they had to be out of the house on that day and so stayed away. They had the wrong date.

Guess we don't really know the answers about Lallybroch, tho. It's not really explained at the end of BOSAA, but I would put it down to either missed consistency on the part of DG and the editors, or that it wasn't as bad as Roger thought. Or maybe they had done major repair work already and it's just not mentioned in the book. ;)
Roger talks about the tower being in ruins, as well as the outbuildings. He doesn't go into the house because he's afraid it might be dangerous. It sounds like the house was visually intact, but because of the condition of the rest of the property, he was afraid of what he would find inside.

Later, when Brianna is talking to the contractor, she mentions that the boiler is at least fifty years old so renovations had obviously be done within the previous fifty years. I would imagine that the house is dilapidated rather than ruined.

I'm going to have to reread the part about the bones in the cave, but we all know that Jamie can't travel through the stones. He doesn't even react to the gems like young Jemmy does.

I hope An Echo in the Bones features young Ian a lot more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
I guess what I am trying to find is if there are any places where DG shows something happening one way; then shows later that something different happened as a result of their actions.

I mean, the entire time Claire is in the past, she does nothing BUT change it! But it seems she has to go back and do the things she did because she's already done them.

Other examples; Roger rescues his infant ancestor on the boat. Roger (with his green eyes, by the way) exists in the future before Claire goes back the first time. Therefore, eveything that happened to bring Brianna and Roger back in time has to happen, because it already did.

Geilis' bones are found in the cave and brought to Claire in Dr. Abernathy's office. Therefore, everything regarding Ian's rescue has already happened. yada yada.

I was just trying to find something that didn't fit this pattern.

Regarding the whole uprising - Claire and Jamie lament that they were unable to stop the uprising, but my theory is that Claire was meant to go back to do exactly what they did - prevent the uprising from succeeding, not to prevent it from happening. I'm thinking that if she and Jamie had not tried so hard to stop it, Charlie would have gotten the support he needed to do the thing right.

I'm actually surprised this doesn't occur to her, but then she left the future before Star Trek and Back to the Future (yes, and HP) taught us everything we need to know about time travel (Kirk was a menace!).

They submitted the article about the fire because they knew they had to. Maybe we'll find out later what they thought they were doing when they gave the real date, though, instead of the date they knew had been published.

The one part of the books where I just sat there LOL with my family staring at me, was when Brianna meets her mother in the past and quotes Monty Python. That was just priceless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
ScrappingForever said:
Yes, Brianna does paint miniatures of them. She does it while she's staying at Aunty Jocasta's plantation. I can't remember whether it's in FC or BOSAA, tho. As for whether this actually happened, I don't think so, but the miniature connection is rather eerie, isn't it.
Found it! Claire has the dream about Frank and the painted miniatures in DIA, while they were at the French court. But Brianna doesn't paint them until half-way through BOSAA. So the implication is that Claire has a vision of Frank doing something that really happened sometime during the 3 years she was away. He would have had no reason to think that it was really Claire, he just paid it special attention because it resembled her. And of course the portait of Jamie would have meant nothing to him at all at that point.

It's not the only time DG gives someone dreams of the future - Jamie dreams about B&R and the kids at the mansion with Fiona at the end of BOSAA.

So Frank arranged for the gravestone, with the half-hearted intent that Claire and/or Brianna would eventually see it (assuming he would be dead by then) and ask questions and find out Jamie survived. And at that point he also pretty much believes Claires story, and he feels guilty for keeping them apart. So why all that crap about divorcing her, leaving for England with his latest mistress, pulling Brianna out of school a couple months before graduation to put her in an English boarding school whether she wants to or not?? It just seems a little extreme.

If the reason he never told Claire was that he was afraid she'd chose Jamie over him and go back in time again, all he had to do was tell her, help her go back, and promise her that he would take care of Brianna.

I wouldn't be surprised if a portion of the next two books is written from Frank's perspective. There's too many inconsistencies in what he does and how he thinks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
bosslady said:
So Frank arranged for the gravestone, with the half-hearted intent that Claire and/or Brianna would eventually see it (assuming he would be dead by then) and ask questions and find out Jamie survived. And at that point he also pretty much believes Claires story, and he feels guilty for keeping them apart. So why all that crap about divorcing her, leaving for England with his latest mistress, pulling Brianna out of school a couple months before graduation to put her in an English boarding school whether she wants to or not?? It just seems a little extreme.
I think Frank is a very confused man. Claire disappears for three years, comes back filthy, starved, pregnant and tells a story about being sucked into the past. Then she tells him that he's free to leave her. It seems like Frank never gave up hope that Claire would be found. In his own way, Frank is as honorable as Jamie. He's not about to abandon his pregnant wife.

Frank sticks by Claire through a difficult pregnancy and an even more difficult adjustment, although I don't think she ever actually adjusts. Even though their sexual relationship resumes, Claire is never really there. At some point, Frank accepts this and ceases to love Claire. Despite his earlier declaration in 1945/46, love can't flourish under those circumstances.

He keeps his commitment to Claire and stays with her, mainly for Bree. Once Bree is grown, he feels no such compulsion. Events coalesce; Bree is nearly finished with school, he receives a job offer back in England, and his latest mistress is pushing. BTW, I'm not too sure he would have stayed with the mistress, either. He's just had enough.

If the reason he never told Claire was that he was afraid she'd chose Jamie over him and go back in time again, all he had to do was tell her, help her go back, and promise her that he would take care of Brianna.
Despite the fact that Frank felt Claire neglected Bree, he knew that she would fight to keep her child. As much as Jamie would want Claire back, would he be happy that Claire abandoned their young child to come back to him?

At what point would Claire have found Jamie? When he was living in the cave? When he was in Fort William? When he was in the Lake District?

If Frank had kept track of Jamie, he would know when it was safest for her to go back. Maybe that's what he did and why he was going to leave when he did. He was going to take Bree with him, which could have been the signal to Claire that she could safely leave Bree behind. Maybe he planned at some point after that, to tell Claire what he found so she could go back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
bosslady said:
Geilis' bones are found in the cave and brought to Claire in Dr. Abernathy's office. Therefore, everything regarding Ian's rescue has already happened. yada yada.
However, Geillis was burned, there should not have been that many bones left, particularly if her feet had been covered in - I forget what - there would have been little left but ashes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
Anju said:
However, Geillis was burned, there should not have been that many bones left, particularly if her feet had been covered in - I forget what - there would have been little left but ashes.
Don't know how far you've read, but she didn't get burned at the stake, she lived to die another day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
bosslady said:
Don't know how far you've read, but she didn't get burned at the stake, she lived to die another day.
I just finished the first book, for the third time - never paid much attention to a lot of the stuff y'all are bringing out :-\ - have to take a break before I start DIA - again, but I'll take your word for it. When you get geezerish your mind starts forgetting things LOL LOL LOL :mad: But old whatshisname - Dougal told Claire she was burned. hrumph what a liar! and a scoundrel to boot!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
I found it interesting after Frank stating that he could not love a child that wasn't his when Claire mentioned adoption in Outlander, that he was apparently devoted to Bree, even though he was not her father, and had no idea who her real father was. When he wanted to take Bree with him to England, do you think it was because her loved her, wanted Claire to have the chance to go back to Jamie, or just wanted to hurt Claire.

Of course, Claire would never have gone back to Jamie without Bree, she was his daughter. Anyway, she knew he planned to go back to Culledon to die.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
tlshaw said:
I found it interesting after Frank stating that he could not love a child that wasn't his when Claire mentioned adoption in Outlander, that he was apparently devoted to Bree, even though he was not her father, and had no idea who her real father was.
There's a big difference between some abstract concept of an adopted child and a new baby that is laid in your arms ... so little, so helpless, and then they look at you with eyes that can't see and hold on to your finger with surprising strength to let you know ... "here I am."

When he wanted to take Bree with him to England, do you think it was because her loved her, wanted Claire to have the chance to go back to Jamie, or just wanted to hurt Claire.
A bit of all three, I think. Maybe there was still enough love left in him to let her go, but enough hurt to hurt her back. His love for Bree was undeniable.
 
1 - 20 of 181 Posts
Top