Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Sunday, April 19, 22:27:11

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8 ]

• QOTD Friday Sept. 28, 2007 -- MelvaT, 22:48:59 09/27/07 Thu [14]
  QOTD Friday Sept. 28, 2007
  
  The following quote is taken from Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade by Diana Gabaldon, chapter 7, Penance. Copyright (c) 2007 by Diana Gabaldon. All rights reserved.
  
  
  He did, on the other hand, know very well what his feelings were for Jamie Fraser. And being at Helwater, no more than a hundred yards from Fraser’s physical presence, was sufficiently disturbing in itself. He had the irrational feeling that to take such pleasure in Percy’s note was in some way a betrayal -- but of what, for God’s sake?
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • John is such an honorable man and in a terrible situation. He can't ever hope to be with the person he loves and can't really fill that hole with anyone else without feeling guilty about it. I think that is why we all want him to find someone who will help him to move on and be happy. (NT) -- Jane, 05:39:13 09/28/07 Fri
  • Jamie definitely has an impact on everyone who meets him. John really wasn't with Jamie all that much while at Ardsmuir. Yet he seems to consider his love for Jamie even greater than that of Hector. Unrequited love... especially because Jamie will never, could never, would never want to return it. (NT) -- tlk2vicki, 19:26:37 09/28/07 Fri
    • True. But does a person's love for another mean any less to them if it's unrequited? (NT) -- MelvaT, 19:45:50 09/28/07 Fri
      • I suspect this is going to be one of the things Lord John and Jamie will have to settle between them in SCOTTISH PRISONER. I wonder if they will ever get to a point where Lord John could actually say this to Jamie? (NT) -- Karen, 13:48:21 09/29/07 Sat
        • I agree, and hope we get to see more of how this relationship evolves in SCOTTISH PRISONER -- BOTB certainly seems to be the nadir for these two, and yet we know they become loyal and affectionate friends, with deep bonds of trust between them, eventually. In between, there is a lot of awkwardness and hostility. There is that one wonderful sequence in DOA when John and Willie arrive on the Ridge and John does say something rather explicit about the elephant in the room (his unrequited love/desire for Jamie), in front of Claire, and Jamie's reaction is one of exasperation and irritation, but not outrage or toxic hostility. In fact, that's one of the funniest sequences in the books, with John and Claire sparring, Jamie slamming his hand on the table and telling them to behave, and then Ian arrives to announce that Willie's gone down the privy... makes me giggle just thinking about it! (NT) -- pamelalass, 15:20:58 09/29/07 Sat
          • Sorry - I did niot see it as Jamie telling Claire to behave in ANY WAY whatsoever. When he banged his fist on the desk (and that WAS OUTRAGE), Jamie yelled one word "JOHN". Jamie in NO WAY rebuked Claire. All Claire asked was why did John come there. (NT) -- GwenM, 15:50:21 09/29/07 Sat
            • Exactly. Jamie's anger/exasperation at that point is completely focused on Lord John. Remember what the comment was that prompted Jamie's reaction ("I did not come here with the intention of seducing your husband" or words to that effect). Jamie is outraged, I think, as much on Claire's behalf as his own. And John realizes the comment was uncalled-for, and immediately apologizes. (NT) -- Karen (), 17:35:46 09/29/07 Sat
              • Yes, John's response to Claire was completely over the line, especially in that time and place, as he himself realizes. I do think it's an interesting example (and there aren't very many) of a time when John actually verbalizes something of this deep truth about his unrequited and unresolved feelings for Jamie. Are there other times when he talks openly about it in Jamie's presence, or just with Bree, and later, indirectly, with Claire? (NT) -- pamelalass, 17:50:56 09/29/07 Sat
            • Sorry to hijack this thread into a discussion of a non-BOTB scene! It's always intriguing to me how some of DG's pivotal or intense scenes leave room for various interpretations. I can certainly see outrage at John alone as one way to interpret this scene but I've always found additional undercurrents here, and find the scene both emotional and humorous. It's only my take on it, of course, and it's colored by what comes after, when the two men share such a laugh over Willie's misadventure, and then stay up half the night talking. It's no wonder Claire was not inclined to be friendly to John, but at this stage Jamie seems more than ready to welcome John as a friend whose company he genuinely enjoys. >>> -- pamelalass, 17:43:43 09/29/07 Sat
              • Sorry - ONCE AGAIN. I see NO exasperation with Claire on Jamie's part. Claire was NEVER out-of-line in this exchange. Jamie is in NO WAY upset with Claire here. Jamie would never choose John over Claire in ANY situation. This is Jamie AND Claire's house and it was JOHN being disrespectful - to Claire. (NT) -- GwenM, 19:37:25 09/29/07 Sat
              • I agree. DG writes in such a way that she gives us information, and we fill in the blanks. How the blanks are filled tends to vary, and I think that some readers surprise Herself when they don't seem to pick up on the "clues" that she leaves, but I think that for the most part we end up on the right track, tho' taking different byways. My take on this scene was that Jamie simply wanted to end the exchange before it went any further. LJG and Willie's arrival put the adults on edge. Claire had already been short with LJG, and he had come back with the uncalled for comment. Jamie was angry at the turn things were taking and letting that anger out let him take control, his version of throwing cold water on the situation, and it worked. Both stepped back, took a look at their actions, and apologized, as Jamie had likely known both would, once their cooler heads had a chance to prevail. That LJG did reveal some of his inner thoughts and feelings was a neat bonus. (NT) -- Lady Jay, 08:49:22 09/30/07 Sun
                • Yes, "throwing cold water" on it - that's what I was trying to say, only you captured it so much better! And reading this new book does make me look at some of my favorite parts of the older books with new eyes - - as you say, John's comment is kind of a bonus to the reader (though clearly nothing of the sort for Claire and Jamie!), and I hadn't thought of it that way before. It's part of his richness as a character, that he's not perfect, and acts like a jerk sometimes. (NT) -- pamelalass, 15:11:32 09/30/07 Sun
                  • I want to jump in on this bandwagon *g*. I've thought alot about this scene in the past, because it's one of my favorites. My first take on it was that Jamie was embarrassed with what John said, period. Now, after this lengthy and interesting discussion/debate I have a more in-depth opinion about the scene. Jamie, out of love and the utmost respect for Claire, would never have said anything to her in public about her comment to Lord John. (although he would have in private, I suspect). But, Lord John took what Claire said and ran with it. At THAT point, Jamie knew he wanted to put a stop to this runaway, snippy exchange. However, it was John who crossed the line, so to speak....but it was also intended to stop Claire from going any further...but without humiliating her because he loves her. Sooooo...in the final analysis....it was both for John AND Claire to stop...but he was smacking LJG's hand, so to speak. (NT) -- Conmama, 05:19:11 10/02/07 Tue
  
  

  ---

  
  
• The following quote is taken from Lord John and the Private Matter by Diana Gabaldon, Copyright (c) 2003 by Diana Gabaldon. Chapter 15 One man’s Poison All rights reserved. -- Jane, 17:49:08 09/30/07 Sun [6]
  ”He looked like one of those German saints, too, Grey thought a little abstractedly, admiring the cleanly ascetic lines of the German’s face, with its broad brow and wide calm eyes. The mouth was not particularly sensitive, but it did show humor in the creases beside it. ”
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • So several chapters later our John takes a bit closer look at Stephan...hmmm...maybe he is not so bad after all. (NT) -- Jane, 17:52:19 09/30/07 Sun
  • Abovve is the Quote of the day for Monday October 1, 2007 (NT) -- Jane, 17:57:31 09/30/07 Sun
  • Jane— I’ve only read BOTB, and the thing I liked best about that book was LJ’s encounter with Stephan. But I could see from reading that passage that these two must have become friends in another book (or is it a story?). So I want to tell you how much I like the attention you’re paying to Stephan, as well as your decision to go back to the earlier LJ books and track how he came to know John. Reading selections from the earlier encounters between these two is great for someone like me who is very curious about how these men met and became good friends. (NT) -- JessieR, 15:49:18 10/01/07 Mon
    • Thanks Jessie! I really enjoyed hunting for little bits from all the Lord John books to illustrate the growth of their friendship from the beginning to share. (NT) -- Jane, 18:41:53 10/01/07 Mon
    • I totally agree about Stephan and BOTB. Of course, the scenes with Jamie were my favorite, but apart from that, Stephan was the next. (NT) -- Conmama, 05:10:42 10/02/07 Tue
  
  

  ---

  
  
• QOTD Thursday Sept. 27, 2007 -- MelvaT, 22:43:23 09/26/07 Wed [10]
  The following quote is taken from Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade by Diana Gabaldon, chapter 6, Breakage. Copyright (c) 2007 by Diana Gabaldon. All rights reserved.
  
  Groping for inspiration, he found one.
  
  “Your father has a couple fowling pieces. Tom Byrd and I will go out with you tomorrow, and I’ll teach you to shoot clay pigeons. They break very nicely.”
  
  She wiped a hand beneath her nose, like a small child. He fished a handkerchief out of his sleeve and handed it to her.
  
  I wonder if, in the future, John will ever regret teaching his soon-to-be-wife how to shoot?
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • Well, I doubt she ever actually wanted to shoot John...she did however refuse to follow him to his posting as Governor of Jamaica so I doubt all was sunshine and happiness in their marriage. Even as innocent as she might have been she must have sensed he was not exactly completely devoted to her. (NT) -- Jane, 06:40:04 09/27/07 Thu
    • But remember, John says he made Isobel an adequate husband. (NT) -- GwenM, 13:20:13 09/29/07 Sat
      • Key word "adequate'. Would that be enough for you? I certainly wouldn't be satisfied. (NT) -- Jane, 13:44:06 09/29/07 Sat
        • No, Jane - I was saying that JOHN thought he was an adequate husband. "ADEQUATE" would NOT be enough for ME. Isobel was "cheated", in my opinion. Any takers on this opinion??? (NT) -- GwenM, 14:21:33 09/29/07 Sat
      • I always thought John's acknowledgement that he was "adequate" as a husband revealed that he knew he was not a good husband for any woman, and had regret for never being able to be more than "adequate." At a time when wives could be treated as property by their husbands, and romantic love was not necessarily a requirement for marriage among the gentry, one could argue that he was indeed adequate (he was kind, he respects women, he did not prevent her from acting independently when she chose not to go to Jamaica), but certainly nothing more, and certainly by marrying him Isobel gave up her chance for a marriage of true lovers and equal partners. And I think he knows/knew that, which is why he would never make a self-serving claim to have been a "good" husband. (NT) -- pamelalass, 15:29:20 09/29/07 Sat
        • Open to interpretation, of course--but given the speech patterns of the time, I *think* that by "adequate husband," John merely means that he's sure he can perform sexually with her (and thus give her children), and isn't really saying anything about the emotional nature of their relationship. (NT) -- maddiej, 03:47:17 09/30/07 Sun
          • Good point. It's clear he didn't mean being "adequate" was anything more than what would have been minimally required. I don't see him trying to suggest Isobel was lucky to have him in any way - - perhaps I just want to believe that he knew Isobel was getting kind of a raw deal, and did have some regret for this. (NT) -- pamelalass, 06:56:06 09/30/07 Sun
            • Well, as I have said in the past I am sure Isobel got a much better deal than her sister did. John was kind and honorable, he truly cared for her, plus he was handsome, witty and intelligent, and the son of a Duke. Quite a catch! Women of the day didn't expect to like sex, she no doubt was relieved he didn't ask a lot of her. (NT) -- Jane, 07:42:39 09/30/07 Sun
            • I believe he means adequate in all way...emotionally and physically. He seems to say it in a regretful manner, and LJG is known to talk "undercurrent". I agree totally with Pamelalass on this analysis. (NT) -- Conmama, 05:45:43 10/01/07 Mon
  
  

  ---

  
  
• QOTD Sunday Sept. 30, 2007 -- Jane, 20:23:35 09/29/07 Sat [5]
  The following quote is taken from Lord John and the Private Matter by Diana Gabaldon, Copyright (c) 2003 by Diana Gabaldon. Chapter 5 Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (A Little Night Music) All rights reserved.
  
  ‘‘Ho, Major Grey! We have not met, I think? I am Von Namtzen.’
  
  As though Travelyan’s presence had not been sufficient oppression, a shadow fell across Grey at this point, he looked up to discover that the very tall German had come to join them, hawk-like blond features set in a grimace of congeniality. ”
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • I’m using some quotes from the older Lord John books to support my theme. Just in case any of you don’t know the sequence of John’s story thus far here are the dates the stories cover.__________ Lord John and the Hellfire Club April 1757__________Lord John and the Private Matter June-August 1757__________Lord John and the Succubus October 1757__________Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade Spring-Autumn 1758 (NT) -- Jane, 20:35:24 09/29/07 Sat
  • Great idea! Lots of us will appreciate this, I'm sure. (NT) -- tlk2vicki, 07:35:35 09/30/07 Sun
    • I LOVE this scene! John trying to sneak in the house to avoid being sucked into his mother's party, getting caught, dragged in, and having this huge German stranger "looming over" him in a way he didn't care for. Who knew was going to develop from there? (NT) -- Jane, 07:47:48 09/30/07 Sun
      • Yes, indeed - who knows...? Stephan certainly makes quite the entrance into John's life. Big, bold, blond - He Is Von Namtzen. *g* Jane, you are certainly setting us up for a fun week here! (NT) -- pamelalass, 10:01:59 09/30/07 Sun
  
  

  ---

  
  
• QOTD Saturday Sept. 29, 2007 -- MelvaT, 23:24:09 09/28/07 Fri [6]
  The following quote is taken from Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade by Diana Gabaldon, chapter 8, Violent Hands. Copyright (c) 2007 by Diana Gabaldon. All rights reserved.
  
  “Does he not make you wish to marry at once and have children of your own?” Isobel asked, fondly patting the baby’s back as the nursemaid -- with bad grace -- swabbed the offending mess from Grey’s clothes.
  
  “I do believe I can contain my impatience.” he said, and both women laughed as though he had made some clever jest.
  
  “Oh look!” Isobel peered at the infant in delight. “He’s smiling, Lord John. He likes you!”
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • Spit up is one of those things. When it's your own child, you can wipe it off witht the back of your hand, when it's someone else's child, you run for a towel!! Actually, I can't think of any straight men who would 'just love' to have a baby of their own in this situation. I really laughed at this scene, When DS1 was tiny, DH's grandfather wanted to hold him. We warned him that DS was a big spitter, but he refused the burp rag. No brainer, spit up all down the back of his church suit. The grandparents tried to say someting next time we saw them about having to get the suit cleaned, but all I said was, "I tried to tell you". (NT) -- TanyaB, 07:16:39 09/29/07 Sat
  • This whole scene is evidence for me that Isobel made a fine mother for Willie. No wonder he mourned her so when she died. (NT) -- tlk2vicki, 09:55:27 09/29/07 Sat
    • I also love reading this scene with the knowledge that Willie does "like" John, and, indeed, will come to love him as his father. At this point, even though John suspects he is Jamie's son, however, he appears to have no "designs" on taking custody. Which seems to support the notion that when he later sees fit to take guardianship of Willie, it is not for selfish motives (eg. to somehow "own" a piece of Jamie). (NT) -- pamelalass, 15:35:02 09/29/07 Sat
  • I love Lord John's comeback - ROFL!!!!!!!! (NT) -- Judie, 15:25:33 09/29/07 Sat
  • Lovely job with the new QOTDs this week, Melva - thank you for starting us off! (NT) -- pamelalass, 15:36:09 09/29/07 Sat
  
  

  ---

  
  
• QOTD Wednesday Sept. 26, 2007 -- MelvaT, 22:47:37 09/25/07 Tue [9]
  The following quote is taken from Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade by Diana Gabaldon, chapter 3, Pet Criminal. Copyright (c) 2007 by Diana Gabaldon. All rights reserved.
  
  “A Jacobite, a convicted traitor, and a murderer,” his mother interrupted crisply. “Really, John, I cannot see why you should have gone to such lengths to keep such a man in England, when by rights, he should have been transported. Indeed, I am surprised he was not hanged outright!”
  
  “I had reasons,” Grey replied, keeping voice and eyes both level. “And I am afraid you must trust my judgment in the matter, Mother.”
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • John masterfully handles Benedicta here, though I believe that her exasperation covers a certain curiosity... (NT) -- teddie, 04:43:07 09/26/07 Wed
    • I also sort of sensed in his tone a warning, or a challenge. He's so angry that he was sent away, that he has not been trusted with the details surrounding his father's death. I kind of saw him speaking to her this way as a sort of challenge... (NT) -- Oleander, 05:32:46 09/26/07 Wed
  • I think perhaps this is the first time his mother connected John's prisoner with the possiblity that John was seeking his father's murderer and she was terrified at the thought. This would have been even worse for her if she had received a page from the journal shortly beforehand. I'm still wondering if she might have encountered Jamie and Claire in France, while she was there hunting Jacobites looking for her husband's killer herself. (NT) -- Jane, 05:58:13 09/26/07 Wed
    • And if she was in Paris at the time J&C were, maybe she met them at that gathering of English expatriates described in DRAGONFLY. On the other hand, Jamie doesn't seem to recognize the name "Pardloe" when Lord John first goes to see him in BOTB. With Jamie's memory for names and faces, you'd think he would have remembered John's mother if he'd ever met her. (NT) -- Karen, 07:04:21 09/26/07 Wed
      • Would she have used the title Parloe after his death? Wasn't she going by Melton? (NT) -- tlk2vicki, 10:45:34 09/26/07 Wed
    • When I really thought about it I decided she must have left France before J&C got there. John only spent 2 years in Scotland, he'd have been 14 when he got back to England. I suppose she must have returned then two years BEFORE the rising and at least year before J&C would have come to France. I gotta think things through a little better before posting..Sorry! (NT) -- Jane, 06:43:50 09/27/07 Thu
      • LJG is 16 when he tries to capture Jamie in the woods right before Prestonpans. Does that help your time line? (NT) -- MelvaT, 21:36:06 09/28/07 Fri
        • Yes, Benedicta must have gone back to London to be with John when he returned at 14. This would have been two years before John went to join his brother (and meet Hector and discover who he was in terms of his sexuality). Jamie left France the early autumn the year before. Jamie had been in prison and later in Spain since May of that year before he left. Not much chance that he and John's mother met there. ;-) Charles left late the following spring for Scotland so it was almost another year before Jamie met John at Prestonpans and over a year since he'd left France. (NT) -- Jane, 07:41:34 09/29/07 Sat
  
  

  ---

  
  
• The art exhibition at the foundling home raised my curiousity. Did one of the famous London art museums start as a foundling home? -- LizT (*enquiring mind*), 19:01:48 09/24/07 Mon [6]
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:
  • I'm relying on memory, so don't quote me, but I seem to remember a discussion somewhere (Compuserve?) that indicated portraits were not usually shown in public places in most of the 18th C and that the first public showing of several paintings was in an institution of some kind. No time right now, but I'll try to find a more definite answer and get back in the next day or 2. (NT) -- Carol P, 18:57:40 09/25/07 Tue
    • Thanks! Being me, I immediately looked up the history of the National Portrait Gallery in London but learned it wasn't established until the Victorian era. Knowing DG's solid research, I wondered if there was any historical significance to this exhibit. (NT) -- LizT, 07:50:50 09/26/07 Wed
      • Hi Liz and Carol - here is a link to that thread on compuserve. Since that is the only time I've ever entered into the discussions over there, I knew how to find it quickly! It starts off about the location for the wedding scene, but then there's a discussion of where LJG and Percy might see the portrait by Philip Larkin. The exhibitions at the foundling hospital did happen, and raised funds, but did not lead directly to one of the big art musuems. The formation of the society that hosted the exhibitions did eventually lead to the formation of the Royal Academy. Most of the exhibitions at the foundling hospital featured new work by the famous artists of the day, led by Hogarth, who seems to have been instrumental in helping the hospital in this way. -- pamelalass, 11:05:36 09/26/07 Wed
        • Thank you ever so much Pamela. I spent hours yesterday looking for this and came here this morning to tell Liz that I must have made it up! I'm glad to see I haven't lost my mind. hehehee (NT) -- Carol P, 11:28:50 09/27/07 Thu
          • Well, you may not have lost your mind, but keep an eye out for mine as it's gone quite missing...! I have been wishing I had more time to talk about this book, and to re-read it, but I have been swamped lately. I have the feeling that even with all this new information and insight about John Grey, there is still so much more to know. (NT) -- pamelalass, 15:03:12 09/27/07 Thu
  
  

  ---

  
  
• hi there--i've just finished it! :) -- ali cat, 07:11:41 09/26/07 Wed [4]
  just finished this last night --and i will have to read it again -there were so many things i just didn't 'get'
  
  as you prob know i have just had a back op and decided this would be perfect --off work on the sick-- reading
  
  i think the pain meds have ballsed up me brain! i am off to read easy books for few weeks --THEN i'm gonna read it again --and i'll 'get' ALL of it then
  
  still enjoyed it mind--just i'm completely lost off with some characters - couldn't remember names etc, i'm bluidy useless!
  
  gonna read some posts and hope for enlightenment:)
  
  b f n
  
  ali
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • All best in your recovery, Ali. I'm rereading BOTB and not sure at all that I am getting it all even now. When I had surgery a few years ago, the books I read in the following weeks just blurred right into one another! But you can probably handle Broch Talk -- so check out the readings on Tom Christie and check in next week. Here's to your convalescence! (NT) -- CatherineM., 10:37:23 09/26/07 Wed
  • Get well soon! Take some comfort in the fact that I too had to re-read BOTB (as well as Private Matter) more than once to understand the events. I love all my DG re-reads, as I always find something new and interesting, along with a number of new "Ah-Ha!" moments. (NT) -- teddie, 14:51:59 09/26/07 Wed
  • I kept gettin people mixed up. And it took a little while for me to get straight that Hal and Melton were the same person!!! I always get bogged down when the story line has a lot of titles and/or politics. Even after 2 reads, parts of DIA just go right past me. (NT) -- TanyaB, 16:29:06 09/26/07 Wed
  
  

  ---

  
  
• QOTD for Monday Sept. 24, 2007 -- MelvaT, 22:34:38 09/23/07 Sun [11]
  The following quote is taken from Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade by Diana Gabaldon, chapter 1, All in the Family. Copyright (c) 2007 by Diana Gabaldon. All rights reserved.
  
  Surely you don’t suppose he would beat her? Grey inquired silently of his brother, brows raised. Or install a mistress at Jermyn Street?
  
  Hal adopted a po-faced expression, indicating that Grey was an innocent in the wicked ways of men. Fortunately, Hal himself was not so trusting!
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • I am so happy that we are getting to know Hal. The book's title immediately brings to mind the brotherhood of soldiering, but the more I consider it, this story is more about actual brotherhood, at least for me. (NT) -- teddie, 05:46:38 09/24/07 Mon
    • I also wondered whether it was a nod to the term 'gay blade' (cf. Zorro the Gay Blade) and it was referring to that 'brotherhood' as well. (NT) -- sharon fisher, 16:08:50 09/24/07 Mon
  • I loved this exchange too! I don't know exactly what a "po-faced expression" is, but I imagine it is one of those looks one uses with siblings, to convey a world of disdain, in the context of a solid basis of trust and love... I wish I could find a way to adopt "po-faced" into conversation now and then... And teddie, I agree completely about the layered meanings of "brotherhood" in the title. (NT) -- pamelalass, 06:30:42 09/24/07 Mon
    • that's quite funny. my mom has used 'po-faced' for years tho i'm trying to think of the last situation but she likes to say 'he's right po-faced isn't he' (imagine with scottish accent hehe) (NT) -- oorjanie, 12:26:46 09/24/07 Mon
  • i enjoy seeing the interactions between john and hal in this book and what their relationship is like. (NT) -- oorjanie, 12:28:01 09/24/07 Mon
    • I do too- I love how in tune to each other they are. If they know this much about each other to communicate without words, it makes you wonder what remains, unspoken between them. (NT) -- Oleander, 13:46:33 09/24/07 Mon
  • PO-FACED >>>>> -- MelvaT, 17:58:26 09/24/07 Mon
    • And >>>> -- MT, 18:00:36 09/24/07 Mon
    • Dang. I've heard ( and used) that expression all my life, I thought it was a Southern term! Priggish, narrow-minded, humorless and disapproving pretty much says it. I did wonder why DG used it, but I should have known it really wasn't just a slip-of-the-pen use of an expression DG uses herself. (NT) -- Carol P, 19:04:41 09/24/07 Mon
      • So interesting! Thanks Melva. I should have looked it up, as I definitely did not know about the chamber pot association! I had been thinking of Hal's face more along the lines of the 2nd "British" definition: "having an assumed solemn, serious, or earnest expression or manner : piously or hypocritically solemn," in this wonderful exchange with his brother. They of the expressive eyebrows -- I see them both being able to speak volumes with a raised eyebrow here, or a twitch of the lip there... *g* But it is wonderful to find out that this expression has such a history. (NT) -- pamelalass, 10:22:49 09/25/07 Tue
  
  

  ---

  
  
• QOTD Tuesday Sept. 25, 2007 -- MelvaT, 22:34:32 09/24/07 Mon [3]
  The following quote is taken from Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade by Diana Gabaldon, chapter 2, Not a Betting Man. Copyright (c) 2007 by Diana Gabaldon. All rights reserved.
  
  “It is, is it not?” Grey asked, feeling queer. “Father’s writing?” It was a rhetorical question; he had recognized both the hand and the style of writing at once. Hal hadn’t heard in any case; the blood had drained from his face, and he was reading the journal page -- for that is what it clearly was -- as though it were notice of his own execution.
  
  “He burnt it,” Hal whispered, and swallowed. “She said he’d burnt it.”
  
  And the mystery begins!
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • I think I was as upset as John when Hal threw the page into the fire. I'm glad neither of them gave up on their quest to recover their father's reputation, even though they were silly asses not to join forces and share what information John could without outing himself. (NT) -- Jane, 05:40:36 09/25/07 Tue
    • I was thinking, Hal throwing that page away is just another way the two brothers deal with things differently- another example would be how Hal gave up his title as Duke, but John did not give up his as a Dukes younger brother or son. Hal seems to want to push away his fathers memory, until he is sure that he can exonerate it. John seems to want to embrace it. (NT) -- Oleander, 06:12:41 09/25/07 Tue
  
  

  ---

  
  
• Interview with Diana re: BOTB -- ErinD, 11:02:29 09/23/07 Sun [2]
  Hi Everyone,
  
  Just wanted to let you know that there are some short video clips of DG discussing BOTB and ABOSAA on the Random House Canada website at: http://www.booklounge.ca You have to sign up in order to view them, but it is free and you just need to put in your email address.
  
  Enjoy! :)
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • That was nice. I hadn't heard those clips before. (NT) -- TanyaB, 11:06:08 09/24/07 Mon
  
  

  ---

  
  
• Lord John -- Marilyn, 16:40:47 09/23/07 Sun [7]
  I just finished Lord John & the Brotherhood of the Blade. How great to have a new book. It was a pleasure to read, except that I got nervous towad the last few pages that all the mysteries could not be solved in this book. Maybe there will be another with John and Isobel and Jamie's son. There is a note at the end about 18th c. attitudes toward homosexuality. I guess that makes Jamie's comments to Lord John about there being no possibity of honor in a gay relationship more tolerable. Jamie reflects his era, but it would be if admirable if he were more understanding. I wish Percy could have been given a stronger motivation for his betrayal, but if he has prostituted himself (at first out of hunger), we have someone who is too flawed for Lord John. Lord John's actually exacting physical revenge on his father's murderer is refreshing after so many years and months of restraint!
  I discovered Lord John (and the private matter)and through that found the Outlander books. I think he gives DG's readers a chance to gain tolerance and understanding of homosexuality. Seeing the hysteria and excess about sodomy in the military--and outside it--may make readers reconsider reflex negative reactions and think about love between two men (or two women).
  But the fortune telling box? come on!
  I don't know why Lord John was sent to Ardsmuir either.
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • Hello--how far are you into the Outlander series? I myself would have had dificulties had I not read them all prior to reading the Lord John books, but that's just me. The author hasn't yet explained exactly what John did to get himself banished to Ardsmuir; we'll have to wait to find out (groan!) I think it is very cool of DG to portray a wonderful gay male character in her stories. There will be two more books on Jamie and Claire, and I am sure "all will be revealed". I've learned that DG will rarley leave a stone unturned. (NT) -- teddie, 17:38:00 09/23/07 Sun
  • Marilyn, just a quick note--I think Jamie is pretty understanding considering what he is going through himself. I might have killed John had he said what he did under the circumstances. Remember that Jamie is suffering guilt for Geneva's death and reliving his own losses--Claire, his family at Lallybroch, Scotland and freedom, to name some significant ones--so he is not in the best position to be "understanding." John Grey is responsible for some of his misery and I think it would be less realistic if Jamie were to be accepting of such a dramatic deviation of 18th C morals and attitudes. And we do know that later . . .well, I for one eagerly await "Lord John and the Scottish Prisoner." ;-) (NT) -- KathleenM, 20:18:38 09/23/07 Sun
  • Considering Jamie's experiences with Black Jack Randall, I can totally understand him being a bit anti-homosexual. (NT) -- Lady Orelia, 23:44:10 09/23/07 Sun
    • Jamie was able to laugh off and make a funny story out of his earlier experience with the homosexual advances made by the foppish duke, and IMHO he knew Black Jack was something rather different, a rapist and sadist who took pleasure in control and pain, and tried to commit similar crimes against women as well, though perhaps not with the same intensity. I think here, though, his homophobic hostility stems more from his rage at John for keeping him stashed in England, away from his men, his suffering over the loss of Claire, and anguish and anger over Geneva's death (which would remind him of his fear for Claire). It's true that his intolerance, which is so deeply insulting to John, could accurately reflect dominant attitudes in 18th century Britain, but I do think he is actually trying to be hurtful to John here, and that his earlier joking about the duke shows that he's actually inclined to be more tolerant. We know he will be later (The Scottish Prisoner can't come soon enough!). (NT) -- pamelalass, 06:24:30 09/24/07 Mon
  • I must admit I had a wee bit of trouble with Jamie's lack of even an attempt to understand John's sexuality. I guess we have to keep in mind that their friendship hadn't begun to develop yet. I can't remember if anything was said in The Books as to Jamie's attitude about this when John's attentions weren't aimed at him. But he must have changed his thinking a little in order for them to become friends. I can't imagine Jamie accepting John's raising William if he was still so homophobic. (NT) -- TanyaB, 06:29:27 09/24/07 Mon
  • Marilyn, I'm so interested to hear that you read the earlier Lord John novel before you discovered the main Outlander series - - it must have been so different to read the scene where John meets Jamie and Claire, if you already "knew" him as an accomplished officer and gentleman. And I agree about Percy -- not good enough for our John! (NT) -- pamelalass, 06:59:14 09/24/07 Mon
  
  

  ---

  
  
• hi all. i just got my LJ&BB audio and ive just started it. really great (of course) anyways ....... -- oorjanie, 20:52:31 09/20/07 Thu [11]
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:
  • in here >>> -- oorjanie, 20:54:08 09/20/07 Thu
    • How do I email you! *waving hands* because I would be totally in!! (NT) -- Oleander, 05:30:59 09/21/07 Fri
      • already taken. sorry. if i had another i'd surely share it. (NT) -- oorjanie, 07:45:48 09/21/07 Fri
        • No problem! I knew it was too good to be true! :) (NT) -- Oleander, 11:13:03 09/21/07 Fri
      • Oleander, send me your address and I'll mail you mine. I already own the books listed.>>> -- tlk2vicki, 07:20:57 09/22/07 Sat
  • Do you think the voice of Jamie is all wrong? Sorta flat and lifeless? I thought Jeff Woodman gave Robbie MacNab's voice more animation than Jamie's. Don't get me wrong I think he is a great story teller and John and Hal sound just like I imagined..but Jamie not so much. Davina's is actually better or maybe it is just that I am more familiar with it. (NT) -- Jane, 18:50:39 09/22/07 Sat
    • Uh oh! I m so acustomed to Davina Porter's Jamie. It didn't cross my mind until I read your post that I'd get to hear a new interpretation. That will be interesting! (NT) -- teddie (), 12:39:23 09/23/07 Sun
      • I wouldn't say you shouldn't buy it or listen to it because my opinion of Woodman's interpretation of Jamie. I think you will enjoy it very much just as it is. I am just hoping before they do LJASP that someone talks to him about making Jamie's voice a little more animated. I assume if they are doing a recording of THOTD it will already be done since it is due out in November. I am sure I will buy that recording too (or at least ask for it for Christmas if I can wait that long). (NT) -- Jane, 20:39:15 09/23/07 Sun
        • I haven't actually listened the Woodman's version but perhaps he is trying to reflect Jamie's state of mind while at Helwater? (NT) -- Lady Orelia, 23:57:24 09/23/07 Sun
          • Woodman is an excellent voice actor. He was able to nail different emotions and voices in other characters dead on..even Olivia and Benedicta and other women their voices distinct from each other with wonderful range of emotions. The other scot's, Rob MacNab and the two soldiers who helped John after he was attacked had distinct voices, accents and range...only Jamie's voice seemed flat even when he killed the rabbit and was supposed to be very annoyed with John..perhaps that is how Woodman tried to show Jamie trying to keep himself under tight control, but it was disconcerting for me to hear Jamie so flat. I guess you'll have to have a listen yourself, I might not be the best judge. (NT) -- Jane, 06:37:39 09/24/07 Mon
  
  

  ---

  
  
• QOTD for Sunday Sept. 23, 2007 -- MelvaT, 23:09:04 09/22/07 Sat [4]
  Oh wow! Can DG write or what? Loved the book! Stunningly real and so beautifully done. Sorry, no theme for me this week, just random pieces that totally delighted my mind. *G* I’ll leave the deeper issues for some one else as I’m still happily reeling over all of those.
  
  The following quote is taken from Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade by Diana Gabaldon, chapter 1, All in the Family. Copyright (c) 2007 by Diana Gabaldon. All rights reserved.
  
  
  The conversation continued, but now as a minuet of manners, precise and delicate. And as a courting couple might exchange worlds of meaning with a touch, so they did the same, with no touch at all, their unspoken conversation flowing unhindered beneath the disguise of routine courtesies.
  
  What a wonderful description! Also... a sharp warning to pay close attention. Which brings on a question... How well can you communicate without speaking? Or is this an out-dated art for most?
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • John seems to be a master at this unspoken conversation thing, especially with Hal and Percy, but seems all soldiers can do it. Remember when the other officer saw John clutching his fists while Adam's was talking (John was thinking about something else) but that little gesture emboldened the soldier to speak up and in doing so started a near riot. (NT) -- Jane, 07:19:53 09/23/07 Sun
  • Not to bring up a sore subject, but I think you're right that John is a master of the unspoken, Jane, and that was how he communicated with Jamie over the chessboard in that awful scene with dire consequences back at Ardsmuir. Sometimes he speaks, but his real meaning lies underneath his actual words, and sometimes he is silent, but communicates with a look or a gesture. He does seem especially eloquent in this regard, though I'd say Jamie is a master communicator in all these ways, too. They are similar in this way - - being able to mask their inner thoughts, get a forceful point across while conversing oh so politely, and letting a flash of the eyes speak volumes on occasion. But in terms of courtship, they are quite different, as Jamie can be openly suggestive in his wooing of Claire, while John must keep any hint of desire or flirtation under the surface, encoded and encrypted. (NT) -- pamelalass (), 07:52:14 09/23/07 Sun
    • So true, Pamelalass. These verbal and non-verbal communication skills Jamie and John share speak to their respective need for diplomacy, tact, discretion, wile, and, of course, love. I do believe that John and James share more similarities than differences. Perhaps this is why I love Lord John so much. (NT) -- teddie, 12:37:38 09/23/07 Sun
  
  

  ---

  
  
• John and Hal..... -- Oleander, 13:30:32 09/13/07 Thu [42]
  In each LJ book, John states that he doesn't know how much Hal knows about his prefrences, and that they both want to keep it that way.
  What do you lasses think? Does Hal know? Will he find out? Will it ever come up?
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • The fact that John says, that they "both want to keep it that way" tends to suggest that it's a taboo topic...therefore, Hal must know something is....something? (NT) -- teddie, 15:42:17 09/13/07 Thu
    • I agree Hal must have known something was up when Hector died and he insisted on having John go look at the body. Then there was the "unfortunate affair of the heart" with George Everett, that got John banished to Ardsmuir. I think the brothers know each other pretty well and Hal is VERY good at looking the other way for both their sakes. (NT) -- Jane, 16:00:21 09/13/07 Thu
      • I responded to this below for some reason, but wanted to say, what a great observation Jane. I did think it was odd for Hal to make John look at Hector's body the way he did, made me think perhaps Hal knows a thing or two. And I can see it being different for John then- In the throes of self discovery, perhaps they were not as circumspect as they ought to be, and Hal knew? (NT) -- Oleander, 06:33:21 09/14/07 Fri
        • Hall strikes me as a very bright guy. I would think with his position he'd know a lot of different kind of men and be a really excellent judge of character. Even if John had been a rock at 16 when he lost the love of his life, which I doubt, Hal would have been able to see the heartbreak in his own brother. If ANYONE besides John's Mother would know it would have been Hal. (NT) -- Jane, 15:42:54 09/14/07 Fri
        • There's also the parallel with the nuns making Claire look at Faith. (NT) -- sharon fisher, 06:31:53 09/15/07 Sat
          • Your right Sharon! You felt it when Jamie told John that Hal was right to show him, that it was a kindness. Jamie didn't even know if Claire was alive or dead all those years they were apart. Imagine how much more horrible that would have been than knowing you'd lost the love of your life but at least being able to move on. (NT) -- Jane, 07:49:22 09/15/07 Sat
  • Once again, thanks for starting us off with an intriguing question, Oleander! I agree that Hal must know there is something to be known, even if he does not know the extent or particulars (and I gather he does know about L'Affaire Everett, if that is why John was sent to Ardsmuir? I have only read the new book and LJPM). But everyone in this family seems quite practiced at keeping secrets - - perhaps it is in the blood, on their mother's side, the way the Frasers have stubbornness and the MacKenzies have wiliness. The Greys are expert at holding their cards tight to their chests, and even when they get a clue about a secret someone else is holding, they seem inclined to keep "mum", like Mum... I wonder what the women in the family know about John's love life, if anything, especially his cousin and sister-in-law, who are his friends. I didn't pick up on any real clues - does Olivia ken about John and Percy? I was reading so fast, perhaps I missed something. (NT) -- pamelalass, 16:36:57 09/13/07 Thu
    • Interesting point about the Greys being good at keeping secrets. I think you're absolutely right, it does seem to be a family trait. But thinking about Hal -- if he knows, I can't imagine that he would let it slip under any circumstances. He'd have nothing to gain from it, and a lot to lose. (In much the same way that John and Lady Dunsany will never breathe a word of Willie's true paternity.) (NT) -- Karen, 17:00:50 09/13/07 Thu
    • Olivia I don't think knows- in Private Matter she asks if he has ever been in love and if so why he didn't marry. (NT) -- Oleander, 06:22:37 09/14/07 Fri
  • Fascinating observation about the family -- LJ didn't know about Hal's first wife's seduction by Twelvetrees. About what Hal knew or didn't know: how did you lasses read the bit when Hal asked about someone LJ might or might not have known, and LJ jokes that he couldn't swear he hadn't anonymously shared a bed with him in an inn somewhere? I thought that was a pretty dangerous jest if Hal was suspicious . . . and Hal does lose his temper at this point. I'm not sure what to make of it . . . . (NT) -- CatherineM., 17:51:24 09/13/07 Thu
    • I think Hal loves his brother and doesn't want to know. Went long, come inside>>>>> -- KathleenM, 20:52:18 09/13/07 Thu
      • All the points Kathleen M makes about Hal strike me as very valid. But I wonder if there isn't another factor involved also. I'm not sure why, but I'm thinking Hal is quite a bit older than John. Maybe I'm just projecting my own life, but I'm 9 years older than my baby sis, I left home when she was not quite 8. We do not share confidences, I think because we have never lived together long enough to become close friends. Maybe Hal has some trouble in seeing John as a capable adult, rather than a little brother who needs protection? (NT) -- Carol P, 11:17:42 09/14/07 Fri
        • Carol, you make a good point, too--my oldest brother left home when I was 13 and still treats me like a kid at times--even though I'm married with 4 kids and just turned 50. Old habits die hard, I think. The protection offered to John as a young man, sending him to Aberdeen, is understandable yet he resents it. He fights against having that sort of coddling now, is surprised when he finds out about the bet at White's and angry when Hal continually attempts to keep him in the dark. Now that John's own investigations have really resulted in the restoration of the family title, I wonder if Hal will begin to see things differently. Benedicta seems to have. (NT) -- KathleenM, 05:28:52 09/15/07 Sat
    • I don't think that remark is as overt as it looks. At that time, it was common practice for travelers to share beds at inns. I think John just means that he might have met a man without realizing it. Hal may have read more into it than that, though. (NT) -- maddiej, 02:34:06 09/14/07 Fri
      • I agree- although I wouldn't put it past our feisty John to be sarcastically poking at Hal - since John knows that this could be a play on words...ya ken? (NT) -- Oleander, 06:35:54 09/14/07 Fri
    • I was shocked at that remark also. It brought to mind John's infamous moment in DoA when he advises Jamie and Claire that he is not out to seduce James! (NT) -- teddie, 04:41:15 09/14/07 Fri
  • i think even if hal has a small idea he would never mention it first. what if he has 'thought' it but then brings it up & LJ flat out denies it completely, that would be a big negative spot in their relationship. also, i can't see LJ mentioning it either because he has no idea how hal would react. they already had time apart too which he wouldn't want to have happen again. (NT) -- oorjanie, 21:12:49 09/13/07 Thu
  • I personally think that both Hal & their mother at the very least suspect who or what LJG is,........gone long>>>>>> -- JulieW, 04:24:58 09/14/07 Fri
    • I had a co-worker years ago who's son surprised her by coming out when he was a young teen (14 or 15). Moms do NOT always know. He was very much like LJG, blond and very handsome, masculine, liked sports, and did very well hiding his true self. I think life is very complicated for people who are different. Sometimes heartbreakingly so. When he was in his early 20s he was modeling in Paris and died of an "accidental" drug overdose, I've always thought it wasn't an accident. Always accept people who are different for who they are, life is often hard enough without people judging you. I am not saying anyone here does, after all we all LOVE Lord John or we wouldn't be here, right? (NT) -- Jane, 06:19:20 09/14/07 Fri
      • I've been thinking- now I am not familiar with Hellfire, but could John really have been banished for something having to do with homosexuallity? Because DG makes sure to let us know that if John were found out it would be the end of him. (NT) -- Oleander, 06:31:49 09/14/07 Fri
        • Yes, I think I need to read more about Everett - - is it in Hellfire? Because I also think that there would have been an immensely overwhelming sense of fear of discovery, that is really just hinted at when John and Percy are sneaking around the regiment together. For John it would have been a lifetime of living in fear, not only for himself, but for Hal and his family, if he were ever proven to be a "sodomite." If he were found in flagrante, it would put Hal in the same awful position he (John) is in with Percy. Perhaps it has to do with needing eyewitness testimony, and if there were just whispers about John, it wasn't enough to cause permanent damage to his career or reputation, but enough to get him banished to Ardsmuir and removed from proximity to whatever scandal might be brewing? (NT) -- pamelalass ( not logged in), 09:03:40 09/14/07 Fri
          • maybe- even so, wouldn't people then remember those rumors when the whole percy thing happened? Especially since they were known to be so close? (NT) -- Oleander, 11:04:54 09/14/07 Fri
          • Hellfire and LJAPM both took place after Ardsmuir. I honestly believe Everett died at the end of Hellfire (April 1757) that preceded PM (June-August 1757). I don't recall Everett being mentioned at all in PM. There was only the one brief mention of him in Voyager when John was writing his mother. So all we really know of him was the little that was mentioned in Hellfire. I don't think we ever got any details of the actual event that got John banished, possibly there wasn't enough evidence to really do John any damage. I assume if there had been all Hell would have broken loose and poor John would have been destroyed. (NT) -- Jane, 16:02:43 09/14/07 Fri
            • Thanks Jane! Wow, if he did have something with this Everett, he has suffered the deaths of two lovers, and the betrayal by Percy, before he's even 30. His mourning for Hector seems deeper and more permanent than anything except his impossible love for Jamie. I think John's alone-ness is one of the aspects of this character that affects me the most. Such a paradox -- he's quite in demand socially, yet quite isolated by circumstances from sharing himself fully as a friend. This is one of the things I think he and Jamie have in common - - that their sense of responsibility for others, and duty to uphold honor and preserve a facade of strength and control, often separates them from the men around them. They will always have a care for their loved ones and comrades before themselves, and in John's case this means his secrecy and discretion are more than just self-serving; they are shielding his family from shame and dishonor as well, and he never questions the burden of it. (NT) -- pamelalass, 17:17:03 09/14/07 Fri
              • This is so illuminating -- the parallel is so obvious to me now that you have articulated it, but it had not occurred to me before. Thanks, Pamelalass. (NT) -- CatherineM., 18:14:48 09/14/07 Fri
                • Why thank you, Cathy. In the later books I sense that these two men, so different in many ways, come to recognize this fundamental similarity, and to appreciate this about each other. It's perhaps one reason why their bonds of friendship actually seem to strengthen in the later novels when they are not even living on the same continent, or in the same colony, through their correspondence, because each is isolated to some extent by the burden of leadership and/or information that must not be shared with others. (NT) -- pamelalass, 06:11:47 09/15/07 Sat
              • My copy of Hellfire is in the back of LJAPM it doesn't have page numbers, so I can't direct you to the pages with Everett. I'll do a little random quoting in the attempt to provide an overview of their relationship, of all the scenes with George and hope I don't get in too much trouble. First sighting "George Everett was looking well-very well indeed." then a little physical description especially of his long, mobile mouth "Grey's index finger twitched involuntarily, tracing the line of it in memory." Then later at the same party George greets him, says John is in good looks and that "exile agrees with you, it seems." That is the point where John thinks to himself that Everett's perfume's scent "conjured tumbled linens, and the touch of hard and knowing hands." I think there can be no doubt that they were intimate. Even when John turned from him "his heart beating faster" he was "conscious of Everett's eyes burning holes in his back." (more inside) -- Jane, 20:00:24 09/14/07 Fri
                • Wow again Jane - and thank you! So he's had two lovers die (Hector and George) and two lovers betray him in some way (Percy and George). I so wish we get to see him with a man who actually deserves him, someone who truly equals him in honor and purpose. But even that would be tinged with sadness since even if he does find "his Claire", they can never live together in society, etc etc. But I do hope DG manages to come up with someone for him who's not so promiscuous and double-dealing -- these seem such obvious homosexual stereotypes. (Back to my John / Stephan musings...! *G*). (NT) -- pamelalass, 06:01:52 09/15/07 Sat
                • You're right Pamela, the John/Stephan musings are a lot more fun than this. I'd like to see them together too but can't picture an honorable man like Stephan leaving his life and family behind whatever the temptation John certainly presents. On long term gay relationships. My husband has a couple of coworkers who have been together longer than Bob and I. They were the first gay long term couple I ever met and seem to be enjoying growing old together (25 years later). I had some acquaintances when we were showing our dog (surprising number of gay people in dog showing) who had also been couples forever. I think it is a myth that gays are promiscuous and don't want to enjoy long term relationships. If they were allowed to marry and it was as hard to break up as a heterosexual couple (mostly to do with property settlements during divorce and the legal entanglements of common law marriage) I think there would be a lot more long term gay couples. (NT) -- Jane, 06:59:28 09/15/07 Sat
                  • I agree wholeheartedly! Was thinking about the relationship between the stereotype of promiscuity and the marriage prohibition for gay couples, too. As difficult as it is now, it would have been virtually impossible to have something long term in 18th-century public life, don't you think? Still, I was thinking if John and Stephan both ended up being widowers at some point far in the future.... *g* silly, I know, and of course it's hardly appropriate to be having that kind of thought about Stephan's poor wife! (NT) -- pamelalass, 10:44:56 09/15/07 Sat
                    • Well, since they are both imaginary, I don't think it horrible to wish Stephan's wife out of the way along with Isobel. If that were to happen he and John could be respectable widowers living together, both of them so heartsick over the loss of their wives that they never again seek female companionship. ;-) (NT) -- Jane, 16:46:11 09/15/07 Sat
                      • She is spending the end of her pregnancy with her FORMER mother-in-law, which is slightly odd . . . (NT) -- CatherineM., 21:19:01 09/15/07 Sat
                        • Oh, yes, that's a wonderful detail that slipped right by me (read the book way too fast!) -- a real potential plot thickener! (NT) -- pamelalass, 05:23:15 09/16/07 Sun
                          • Wow Catherine! I missed that "former mother in law" too! Great catch. I've been putting off a re-read since my job is making me go to school at night after work. I wanted to give my first BOB re-read some time when I could devote my full attention, but it might be months before that is gonna happen. If I missed big stuff like this it means I should reread now. There is always time for a good thorough reread in the future. I guess I need to force my self to spend a little less time checking up on the boards...SIGH. (NT) -- Jane, 07:04:27 09/16/07 Sun
                            • Broch Talk is coming up, Jane - so don't back off just yet, or at least not too far off! (NT) -- CatherineM., 10:34:56 09/16/07 Sun
                              • You and Jesse's Broch Talks are absolutely irresistible! There is no way I could stay away when these brilliant ladies are all sharing their insights. I learn so much from everyone there and have SO MUCH FUN! (NT) -- Jane, 20:13:59 09/16/07 Sun
      • Jane>>>> -- susiej, 13:23:07 09/14/07 Fri
        • Susie -- Jane, 15:34:36 09/14/07 Fri
  • I think Hal knows, otherwise, why would he not allow Lord John any pain killers when the surgeon was going to remove shrapnel from his lungs?!? I figured it's because Hal doesn't want John to say anything incriminating under the influence? (NT) -- cj, 14:09:20 09/18/07 Tue
    • I thought that was because he didn't trust the surgeon and didn't want to take any chances that he would kill John (NT) -- Oleander, 06:33:06 09/21/07 Fri
    • Yeah, the book explicitly says it's because he's too ill to be able to take opium. (NT) -- sharon fisher, 08:02:22 09/23/07 Sun
  
  

  ---

  
  
• Who is the lady that Percy caught a venereal disease from? She's apparently still alive and John knows her. -- Tinuviel, 16:48:32 09/19/07 Wed [4]
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:
  • I wonder! I re read and re read that part, but still didn't see the light... (NT) -- Oleander, 12:50:02 09/20/07 Thu
    • I don't think we're given any light to see, so don't feel bad. (NT) -- Susannah, 05:28:22 09/21/07 Fri
  • Hmmm pious, older lady, that John knows? I can't recall any of the ladies introduced in any of the three LJ the book as being considered PIOUS? The only pious woman even mentioned briefly is Diderot's wife and John didn't know her. I have to wonder what any PIOUS woman would be doing with the clap and giving it to a younger man. It would be interesting to find out. (NT) -- Jane, 19:08:08 09/22/07 Sat
  
  

  ---

  
  
• Lord John Grey and the Brotherhood of the Blade - Quote Of The Day -- Judie (), 20:16:15 09/20/07 Thu [4]
  .
  .
  Diana has graciously agreed to allow us to have a QOTD for the new book!
  
  I am setting up a schedule currently and starting on Sunday MelvaT will be the first quoter.
  
  I am only running this until the end of December and then this board will be closed and this book will be considered as one of Diana's published works and will continue to be discussed on the Books Board.
  
  I have already filled some weeks but there are still some available. Whoever wants to do QOTD please contact me. Click on the "Contact forum admin" link above. Put QOTD in the subject line and I'll get back to you.
  
  All guidelines from the BBoard apply including the copyright notice.
  
  Thanks.
  
  Judie
  

  Last edited by author: Thu September 20, 2007 21:26:10   Edited 1 time.
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • great news! thanks judie and diana! (NT) -- oorjanie, 20:55:13 09/20/07 Thu
    • and all of my wildest dreams are coming true! ;) (NT) -- Oleander, 06:28:09 09/21/07 Fri
  • I finshed last night, can't wait for QOTD. Unfortunately, I felt compelled to return the book to the library b/c there was a long waiting list. (NT) -- TanyaB, 11:57:30 09/22/07 Sat
  
  

  ---

  
  
• My co-worker had NPR on his radio yesterday. As I was passing by I heard... "the Brotherhood of the Blade by Diana Gabaldon, best-selling author of the Outlander Series, and ....." Does anyone know what this was about? Is she going to be interviewed? or was the program sponsored by the publisher? Any ideas? -- tlk2vicki, 17:15:52 09/18/07 Tue [6]
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:
  • Vicki, I just did search on npr.org, but nothing recent came up...I'll keep looking. In what area geographically are you? (IIRC, I think that different stations carry NPR content, and you might have overheard something announced by the local station, as opposed to NPR). (NT) -- teddie (), 18:28:55 09/18/07 Tue
    • Thanks for your efforts. I live in the Philadelphia radio area. (NT) -- tlk2vicki, 19:03:43 09/19/07 Wed
  • Check out herself's web site, she usually mentions interviews and there is a tour schedule as well and podcasts of her interviews and book tours you can watch and listen to. A link to her website is above. (NT) -- Jane, 06:36:17 09/19/07 Wed
  • I heard this complete msg. on my NPR in southern CA: Her publisher is a sponsor, it's not an announcement about an interview, unfortunately. Just an acknowledgement of sponsorship. (NT) -- Lemora, 16:48:32 09/20/07 Thu
    • Mystery solved. Great publicity, too. (NT) -- tlk2vicki, 22:03:44 09/20/07 Thu
  
  

  ---

  
  
• Ohhhh I wanna Dachie! A Gus! and I know how much trouble they can be...but...I wanna Gus! How many of you get just as attached to the animals as the people in the books. -- ANNA-Adso's Mom., 09:01:44 09/18/07 Tue [2]
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:
  • Oh definitely. I love them all, even Clarence. (NT) -- Susannah, 11:47:32 09/19/07 Wed
  
  

  ---

  
  
• This morning's Washington Post printed a review of Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade. You can read it at washingtonpost.com. Registration (which is free) is required for full access. -- DonnaF, 06:32:20 09/17/07 Mon [14]
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:
  • Thanks DonnaF! Here's a link to the article: Washington Post LJG review. (NT) -- Lady Jay, 06:51:24 09/17/07 Mon
    • Oh, and congrats to Herself on another NY Times best seller! (NT) -- Lady Jay, 07:20:27 09/17/07 Mon
  • Do you notice, 'though, that she slams the gay sex - says if it were written about a man/woman relationship, it would be called chick-lit. What is the reviewer saying here? That the reviewer believes that gay sex is different then heteorsexual sex? (NT) -- GwenM, 13:36:14 09/17/07 Mon
    • Is this review or this thread too much of a potential spoiler? I'll go inside to respond>>>> -- KathleenM, 14:04:10 09/17/07 Mon
      • Crap! Didn't realize I was on the darned BOTB Board! Forget the spoiler part--LOL! (NT) -- KathleenM, 14:06:59 09/17/07 Mon
    • It's a male reviewer - so i should have said that I thought HE slammed the gay sex. Sorry (NT) -- GwenM, 14:20:05 09/17/07 Mon
    • I took it more as a bit of a slam to DG for writing "chick-lit-ish" sex scenes ..... that the reviewer was less-than-impressed with "chick-lit"-type sex scenes no matter WHAT the gender of the people involved. What the reviewer made me thing about was ...... -- navine, 14:26:52 09/17/07 Mon
      • I know what you mean- but I think it was written a bit differently for a purpose.--> -- Oleander, 15:01:24 09/17/07 Mon
        • Yes --- you make a lot of sense. And now I can see my thinjking John's inner-musings as somehow more "juvenile" than Claire's or Jamie's isn't really what I meant --- his are more romantical -- and your theory of why DG wrote it that way makes sense to me. Also --- heck --- LJG just may be more of a romantical kind of guy! Why not? (NT) -- navine, 05:20:05 09/18/07 Tue
  • I suspected this review would generate more comments at some point today! I decided to look up this reviewer, to see where he's coming from, since I am not a regular Post reader. A novelist himself, he reviews mainly books categorized as "thrillers", every Monday, and has a book out about the dominance of the thriller genre in mainstream fiction. I am intrigued that he chose to review this book at all. I doubt many readers on this board would consider it a "thriller," thrilling as we may find its hero and the character exploration contained in this book. I'm left wondering what it was about this book that caught this reviewer's attention. Links inside to info I found. DG has reviewed books for the Post too. -- pamelalass (), 15:34:12 09/17/07 Mon
  • Hmm, stumbled across another review of BOTB on "All About Romance" of all places.... (link inside). Sounds like someone else who is in love with both John and Jamie... *g* -- pamelalass, 18:53:14 09/17/07 Mon
    • MEANDERING PLOT? What the heck is that woman talking about? Good thing she loves John and Jamie or I'd have to slap her. '-) (NT) -- Jane, 19:59:34 09/17/07 Mon
    • Thanks for the link, pamelalass. Wow, that website looks like one that I would love browsing over for a few hours at least! (NT) -- teddie (), 14:58:58 09/18/07 Tue
  
  

  ---

  
  
• Quotes from the new book -- Judie, 22:35:30 09/07/07 Fri [31]
  .
  .
  Sorry, folks. The only quotes Diana has given her blessing to are the ones on the Books Board - i.e. Quote of the Day. And the guidelines that are linked at the top of that board apply at Diana's request. We are the only group allowed to quote from her books as far as I know. We won't abuse that privilege.
  
  So, please do not post quotes from the book on this board or they'll have to be deleted. Sorry.
  
  Thanks.
  
  Judie
  

  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:

  • Hi Judie, I will occasionally stick a small quote in one of my responses to illustrate a point. Is that a problem? Should I only direct people to the places in the books to find the answers? I've been doing it for years, seen others do it too, I'd feel bad if it caused the board any problems. I promise to stop if it has. (NT) -- Jane, 06:56:45 09/08/07 Sat
    • Well, not sure what to say - perhaps you should write to Diana and give her an example and ask her. :D (NT) -- Judie (), 20:19:19 09/08/07 Sat
      • I'll see her TONIGHT Judie! She's coming to Capitola California! I don't think I'll ask though. Like I said, I've been doing it for years and others have too. If she didn't like it she'd have told us before right? I'd just hate it if she said "no". Besides, I've thought for months about what I'd say in my quick moment with her tonight while she signs my book and that's not it. Last time I saw her I felt foolish saying that her books have changed my life. Even though that is true, I'm sure a million other people have said the same thing to her, so I put some effort into my few words tonight so they'd be unique. Can you tell I am excited? (NT) -- Jane, 07:16:57 09/09/07 Sun
        • Have fun tonight, Jane! Make sure to fill us in on what happened. :D (NT) -- Judie, 08:56:53 09/09/07 Sun
        • oh will you share with us after what you said to her? (NT) -- oorjanie, 09:16:29 09/09/07 Sun
        • I will see her tomorrow night Jane, and I have been wondering the same thing. What will I say or ask, oh well I just hope I don't sound goofy whatever I say. Enjoy tonight!! (NT) -- Lisa W, 10:27:14 09/09/07 Sun
          • Diana is SO FUNNY, gracious, and elegant! Her opening remarks were very much the same as they were when I saw her last time after ABOSAA, but you know I could hear it again and laugh as much and have JUST as good a time. She is so brilliant on her feet answering questions, even the odd ones. I bought the book on CD and she signed the inside cover for me AND signed the book that I'd already purchased and read last week as well. As for what I said, well, you are gonna think I am weird (inside if your really interested) For everyone else, if you get a chance to see her GO! I can't say enough about how wonderful she is! -- Jane, 22:32:38 09/09/07 Sun
            • Aw, that's sweet, Jane. I'm sooo envious. (NT) -- Carol P, 18:58:14 09/10/07 Mon
  • () (NT) -- pamelalass (), 07:19:04 09/08/07 Sat
  • thanks for the info......... i saw this on ebay, the audio of the book. good deal so far! >>>> -- oorjanie, 16:12:36 09/08/07 Sat
    • I am so sorry! I didn't mean to step on any toes! (NT) -- Oleander, 20:20:38 09/08/07 Sat
      • Of course you didn't! We know you just can't ever get enough/too much discussion about the life and loves of Lord John...! *g* Me too. (NT) -- pamelalass, 06:09:43 09/09/07 Sun
  • Both the yahoo groups I post Claires Ring post on quotes on a daily basis also. (NT) -- M&M, 12:08:42 09/09/07 Sun
    • I'm not on those groups so I wasn't aware what they do, but I do know that a few years ago when I asked Diana specifically about Quote of the Day, LOL was the only group she had given permission to quote from her works. Perhaps they spoke to her and got her permission also. And they are Yahoo groups so perhaps closed to the general public? (NT) -- Judie (), 14:24:19 09/09/07 Sun
      • They are members groups but they both do QOTD, I dont know if they are read only groups or not, Ive always been signed in. (NT) -- M&M, 14:53:49 09/09/07 Sun
    • Michelle, which Yahoo groups are those? JessieR said that two other groups, besides the hosers from LOL, (Yahoo, I think) were at the recent book signing in Virginia. (NT) -- pamelalass, 14:42:03 09/09/07 Sun
      • I post the ring stuff on three groups......LOL, Outlandish Voices Yahoo Group, but that one is under "Diana Gabaldon" for the name, not Outlandish Voices it has around 2500 on it. Then theres the "Outlander" Yahoo Group and that one has about 1200 on it. Its funny cause I will see some of the same names on all three groups.....I guess you can never have enough of Jamie. *g* The ring site gets a lot of hits usually around a 1000 a month just from people finding either through google or the three groups I post at, but since it went on DG site it gets around 10,000 a month, I cant imagine all the hits her site gets a month. Plus you got all the people that never even look up anything on the net, and I think those are the people that ask the questions at the book signings. *G* (NT) -- M&M, 15:03:40 09/09/07 Sun
        • Oh and I post it on Dianas compuserve group too and then will go bump it up to the top occassionaly. :-) Its funny because theres a gal I talk to occassionaly on a Paullina Simons group and here she has been going to the Writers Conference in Surrey for the last four years and we probably passed each other quite a few times in the halls. :-) (NT) -- M&M, 15:11:23 09/09/07 Sun
        • Thanks so much! I have been confused by hearing about "Outlandish Voices" but never being able to find it! So this is incredibly helpful. And you're right, I'm sure there is lots of overlap in members among the DG sites, and with other author sites like P. Simons. Not to mention this cool Katharine/Anya Seton site I heard tell of, which I know must get hits from all the same folks! *G* (NT) -- pamelalass, 17:06:27 09/09/07 Sun
          • I had started a Yahoo Group for Katherine, and it goes a little bit deeper than I care into the history. Theres quite a few on there that have devoted their studies to this couple, some professors, another gentelman who started the "Katherine Swynford Society". I felt I couldnt do it justice, so I passed the group ownership to a woman that is very devoted and I just moderate now. I did get an invite years ago from the daughter of the current Pastor of one the churches on the grounds John and Katherine lived (shoot I cant remember the name right now) anyway she offered to take me around in the basement she said it was just filled with treasures. I wanted to hop on a plane just then. *G* (NT) -- M&M, 19:01:10 09/09/07 Sun
  • Sorry to contradict you, Judie, but Diana has given permission for my yahoo group to use any quote we'd like, as long as we do the copywrite ack, which we do. That would be the DianaGabaldon yahoo list....also Joanne C can use quotes on her Outlander yahoo again with correct credit. We've been using quotes for as many years as I can remember. I'll check with her again in October at Surrey, but I will be surprised if she says no. (NT) -- JaniceM, 16:23:51 09/09/07 Sun
    • Hi, Janice. No problem. As I said, I don't know what goes on in the Yahoo groups because they are closed to the public and I'm not on them. I'm not suggesting your group needs to change anything you're doing. *G* I was referring to message boards and web sites like LOL. Another group was attempting to do a QOTD a few years ago and they had no permission to do so, and Diana asked them to cease and mentioned that no other SITE (outside of her own) was allowed to reproduce her works except for LOL and our QOTD. I'm just referring to what she herself said at that time. Rock on. :D (NT) -- Judie, 07:58:00 09/10/07 Mon
      • how does one join the Yahoo groups? (NT) -- sharon fisher, 10:46:17 09/11/07 Tue
        • just go to yahoogroups.com and you can can put "gabaldon" in the search and all these groups should show. Or if you know the name of the group just put that in the search. Then you usually just have to email the group to join. (NT) -- M&M, 10:51:29 09/11/07 Tue
    • I am not attempting to contradict anyone - but in my opinion one can quote from any written source or spoken source as long as proper credit is cited. (NT) -- GwenM, 08:53:10 09/10/07 Mon
      • Hi, Gwen. Here is what Diana says about it on her web site: >>>> -- Judie (), 09:50:39 09/10/07 Mon
        • I don't know, of course - but I'm guessing that there is a distinction being made between a "short" quote and a longer excerpt. I agree about a long excerpt - but to be sure............ who will determine the length? Maybe the practise should be stopped - but who will patrol all those forums and boards - even the new Lord John one starting in VOY. (NT) -- GwenM, 08:27:35 09/11/07 Tue
          • Excuse me - I meant the new lordjohngrey one JUST starting on Yahoo. (NT) -- GwenM, 08:30:20 09/11/07 Tue
            • Can't answer that question, Gwen. I only know what is allowed here at LOL. (NT) -- Judie, 08:37:23 09/11/07 Tue
      • "Fair Use" is where there is a gray area in using Quotes of published material. -- Kel, 11:52:02 09/18/07 Tue
  
  

  ---

  
  
• With a mother like Benedicta, it's no wonder Lord John is so feisty. She does bring to mind Jocasta, ie, a MacKenzie, but more forthcoming, less sly.. The interactions amongst Benedicta, Hal, and John are most interesting, and especially so between just John and his mother. She is formidable! -- teddie, 17:36:30 09/09/07 Sun [7]
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:
  • I agree- I get very strong Jocasta vibes- but I think that may be more to do with the fact that they are women of the same age (ish) who don't demure to acknowledge what there looks can do for them. At the same time, they are both intelligent and strong willed women. (NT) -- Oleander, 18:55:29 09/09/07 Sun
  • yes, i especially enjoy seeing how John reads her so well too. it is great how their relationship has evolved considering how John felt when he was sent to Aberdeen (NT) -- oorjanie, 21:13:49 09/09/07 Sun
    • Diana said last night that she wrote strong women because she didn't care for wimpy ones herself. I am paraphrasing of course ;-) but that was the gist of it! (NT) -- Jane (I'm still smiling!), 06:17:08 09/10/07 Mon
      • Thanks for that, Jane...glad you had a wonderful evening. (NT) -- teddie, 16:26:16 09/10/07 Mon
  • Benedicta is a powerful character, but I thought more of a parallel with Colum. Her political astuteness was astounding to me, not something I expected from a woman of her times. Maybe that shows my lack of historical knowledge. Just finished The Pillars of the Earth and have been musing on how easy it is today, living in a country without an absolute ruler, to ignore political machinations. Benedicta's knowledge of personalities, who has what power and who is doing what in the background makes her a worthy player in the power field. And formidable though she is, Benedicta raised strong sons without emasculating them, a fine line to walk for any parent. And she obviously loved John's father in a time of arranged marriage. I'm having fun thinking there's another back story I'd like to see. (NT) -- Carol P, 18:53:22 09/10/07 Mon
  • Lady Stanley, I lked her better than Jocasta, no feeling that she will cut the earth out from under you if it is to her advantage. (NT) -- ANNA, 08:58:21 09/18/07 Tue
  
  

  ---

  
  
• I love these books - and the brilliance of Diana's writing. I loved it when Jamie said he had been Geneva's groom - the double entendre of that is absolutely perfect - and explains a good deal of his guilt and being in the chapel with her. This book is so well-written - so thought-provoking - I am ready to start reading it all over again! -- Robin, 20:25:28 09/16/07 Sun [2]
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:
  • Wasn't it amazing how quickly John caught on? I loved it when he asked to see the little earl to check him for signs of Jamie. I think it was very honorable that John didn't let on to Jamie that he knew till the very last. A less honorable man would have used his knowledge to blackmail Jamie (who would have done anything to protect his son). (NT) -- Jane, 06:13:54 09/17/07 Mon
  
  

  ---

  
  
• Another interesting discussion down the page about the difference in tone and attitude between John and Jamie in Voyager and BOTB. It was running off the screen, so I thought I'd add my remarks up here. I wonder if Jamie sounds more hostile in BOTB because this is written from Lord John's point of view? Voyager was written from Jamie's POV, wouldn't you say? We all perceive specific events quite differently based on our individual history and emotions. -- tlk2vicki, 06:15:26 09/10/07 Mon [54]
  [ Edit | View ]
  
  Replies:
  • I chalked the difference in tone up to a few things. A) it is from John's perspective and B) in Voyager Jaime's time at Helwater is given in condensed snippets which cover a 5-7 year span (correct me if I am wrong). With the LJ books, Dianna can explore in much more detail how there relationship played out and repaired itsself. And while that last scene was extremely intense, maybe John did get his point accross- that he does not desire Jaime's body in order to commit depraved acts, but that he is capable of love, and that he has loved other men. (NT) -- Oleander, 06:44:23 09/10/07 Mon
  • Actually, I think the difference in tone is the more than a decade time in which the stories were written. I think that she's just expanded on LJG, with a new twist to the story. But, if our imaginations are too run wild, I agree with Oleander's analysis. (NT) -- Conmama, 06:50:56 09/10/07 Mon
    • LMAO! I am the queen of imaginations run wild....and the fact that I need help because to me, these are real people! Otherwise, I agree there is a huge time gap in the writing of this story. I still hold to the fact that the LJ books give Diana a much bigger canvas to "paint" on (NT) -- Oleander, 07:31:56 09/10/07 Mon
      • Oleander...I didn't mean YOU, literally (imagination gone wild). I mean *we* the readers. Sorry. (NT) -- conmama, 08:59:33 09/10/07 Mon
        • Dinna fash! I am the origional imagination gone wild girl! (NT) -- Oleander, 09:16:20 09/10/07 Mon
  • I think some of both Oleander and Conmama ideas. It's John' s POV in BLADE and it's been YEARS since Diana wrote the original story. But, I have to wonder, too, if Diana is changing the emphasis of the remaining books away from the Jamie/Claire love/marriage story. Is Diana delegating Claire to the background of the BOOKS? What are your thoughts??? (NT) -- GwenM, 07:22:13 09/10/07 Mon
    • Delegating Claire to the background?? I don't see how you can come to that conclusion, given what Diana put her through in ABOSAA. The Lord John books have a different emphasis, but I don't think they take away at all from Jamie and Claire's story in the main books. (NT) -- Karen, 07:37:58 09/10/07 Mon
      • Karen - I hope you are correct as I am a "Claire person". I read to find out what is happening to Claire - if it affects Claire - it affects me. (NT) -- GwenM, 08:00:56 09/10/07 Mon
    • Actually, one of the things that bothered me about ABOSAA was that it felt like Claire was no longer a central character -- stuff *happened* to her, sure, but less of the story seemed to be told from her POV and there was more about her actions and less about her thoughts. It struck me as being a less intimate book. (NT) -- sharon fisher, 08:44:47 09/10/07 Mon
      • Yes, I would like to see the last two books more ala Outlander. Tightly written, more dialogue, less filler. (NT) -- Conmama, 09:01:10 09/10/07 Mon
        • Just curious about what you thought was "filler" in ABOSA. There was some extra wordage in FIERY CROSS, but I thought ABOSA was pretty well-constructed and had good pacing. (NT) -- MsNaugha, 09:49:28 09/10/07 Mon
      • Exactly what I've been writing about in this entire thread - except that you put it more succinctly. I feel that Claire is being "pushed" into the background of the main books and no long the main character along with Jamie. Yes, a "less intimate" book. We'll just have to wait and see. (NT) -- GwenM, 09:03:59 09/10/07 Mon
        • I have to get to my re read of ABOSAA, but I have to say, that doesn't bother me so much- by this time, Diana has created a whole cast of characters which I am invested in and I like seeing all of their stories played out. Plus, Jaime and Claire are much older as the series plays out, I don't really see them being as up for the adventures they were up to in Outlander....but I guess I am not as much a Claire person (NT) -- Oleander, 09:19:53 09/10/07 Mon
        • I think it's still mainly J&C, but you are correct in that it's not just her story alone, anymore. And...sigh...I miss Scotland verra much. I pray the next two books find us back there sometimes. (NT) -- Conmama, 09:20:46 09/10/07 Mon
        • i'll be honest here. i'm having a hard time reading all this >>>>>>> -- oorjanie, 10:55:19 09/10/07 Mon
          • You're right oorjanie. This Board was not meant for negative, although honestly felt, comments. I'll clam up. (NT) -- Conmama, 11:10:36 09/10/07 Mon
          • I will second that! I think sometimes we become so involved in the lives of these characters that they become almost "ours", or we feel possessive. We want our questions answered, because these people feel like they are ours. But really, they are Diana's. I have tried in the past, when something happens in a book that upsets me, to remember, its not my world- I'll just let the genius to the work, and enjoy the ride! Oh and P.S.- If any of my comments have seemed like criticism, it was not intended that way at all, my apologies! (NT) -- Oleander, 12:47:25 09/10/07 Mon
          • Well said. I really have never been angry at a character's actions or a storyline, because that is the way it happened, because Diana wrote it that way. Just like real life, things are messy, accidental, and illogical. To me, that is the beauty of these characters and books - they occur as naturally as if this were a memoir or biography. Can you tell I love DG's writing?? (NT) -- LissC, 18:29:23 09/10/07 Mon
          • I really don't think it's negative to express a preference. I enjoy hearing everyone's honest opinions, not just what they love about the way the series has been structured and written. I really miss the focus being primarily on Claire and Jamie--but being a realist, I accept that the story, just like time, must go on! And I really do care about the other characters as well...but I remain most fascinated by thoughts of how J and C's relationship will play out, whether C will return to her own time, how Jamie's ghost reappears, etc. (NT) -- claire2, 18:54:33 09/10/07 Mon
          • As Oorjanie points out, the later books have focus on a wider array of people because Jamie and Claire have a wider focus than each other now. This naturally occurs for most people in a long term relationship. Besides, it might be kind of boring with this length book so focused on just these two people. For me, these additional characters are what holds the story together. They are a part of J & C, and without them the story would be incomplete. (NT) -- Ellen P., 06:45:04 09/12/07 Wed
    • So you don't want to hear about Roger and Bree, or find out what happens to Young Ian, or whether Willie finds out that Jamie is his father and what he does then, or how Jemmy and Amanda grow up? The first two books of the series are "intimate," because Jamie and Claire are the only main characters, so naturally everything is about them. If there are other major characters involved, then I don't see how it can be so intimate--but I sure want to know what happens with those people, myself. (NT) -- MsNaugha, 09:47:03 09/10/07 Mon
      • ME TOO!! I love all the secondary characters (most particularly Young Ian *g*) and I don't think this series would have made even 6 books if the only characters were J&C. I trust DG's writing; she's the only one who really deeply knows who these characters are and how they think, since A) they tell her who they are and B) they ARE her. (Take your pick *g*) (NT) -- Lee, 11:35:18 09/10/07 Mon
        • exactly! i guess that is what I was trying to say above- these characters start to feel like they are ours, but really, they are hers. We are just along for the ride. Plus, I love the secondary characters- hence my LJ obssession (NT) -- Oleander, 12:58:38 09/10/07 Mon
      • Yes, as Claire's family has grown, so have the number of points of view involved. Wouldn't it have been interesting to hear some of those ABOSAA scenes from Jem's POV? It would be difficult to cast my brain that far back in time, to that part of childhood. (NT) -- Susannah, 05:23:29 09/11/07 Tue
  • I don't think the point of view has anything to do with it. More the time period in which the story takes place. Jamie is more hostile toward Lord John in BOTB because he has separated him from the rest of the Ardsmuir men. Remember, in VOYAGER he wanted to murder LJ on the road to Helwater, and only his sense of honor kept him from doing it. I keep thinking back to what Jamie tells Claire, "They [the Ardsmuir men] were mine, and the having of them kept me alive". Now they are gone, and he is naturally angry and resentful toward LJ because of it. I think this would be true even without the added complication of John's unwanted sexual feelings toward him. As I said below in another thread, this seems to me to be one of the lowest points in Jamie's life. (NT) -- Karen, 07:35:13 09/10/07 Mon
    • Yes, on the road to Helwater, i counted 3 times that Jamie thought of how he'd like to kill John. But if Jamie had been transported to the Americas, by boat, he would have been thinking then, too, of how he'd like to kill John. haha (NT) -- GwenM, 08:05:25 09/10/07 Mon
      • I agree with Gwen- I remembered that Jaime was on the verge of killing John, but the overall tone of Jaimes time at Helwater ends so positively, I think that is the emotion we take with us. But the road to that positive ending is much longer than what we see in Voyager. I cannot wait for the next LJ book! (NT) -- Oleander, 13:37:49 09/10/07 Mon
        • Until I read BROTHERHOOD, I had assumed that the "road to that positive ending", as you put it, would be relatively straightforward and that there wouldn't be much to say about it. In fact I fully expected to see LJ and Jamie grow closer over the course of the events in BROTHERHOOD. Boy was I ever wrong! Rather than taking the easy way out, Diana has effectively thrown a bomb into the middle of their relationship, widening the gulf between them to the point that we *need* a book-length explanation (SCOTTISH PRISONER) to show how it gets resolved. And in the meantime, giving us plenty to speculate about .... (NT) -- Karen, 14:14:06 09/10/07 Mon
    • Hey, thanks for reminding us of this, Karen. I didn't remember that Jamie wanted to kill John on his way from Ardsmuir. This helps me understand Jamie's intense anger in BOTB. I can't WAIT until Scottish Prisoner is written! Something that I will be interested in seeing, is how in the main Books, the John/Jamie interaction i.e. knowing that John is aware of Jamie's rape. I'm one of those in the camp that doesn't think that particular storyline had been thought up when the main books were written. Now, it will be interesting how their "tone" changes for us readers with that knowledge. (NT) -- Conmama, 08:35:37 09/10/07 Mon
      • My post is hard to understand. What I mean is that now that we see more of the John/Jamie relationship and knowledge, how will it be used and written in the next main book. IMO, in the main books so far, John is not aware of Jamie's rape. My opinion being drawn from the things he says. Now...how will she work this new angle in? (NT) -- Conmama, 08:38:46 09/10/07 Mon
      • I agree with you, Conmama. I don't think some "things" we see in BLADE were thought of in the first 6 BOOKS, but just thought of when BLADE was being written.. Just my opinion. (NT) -- GwenM, 08:49:00 09/10/07 Mon
        • I'm glad I'm not a writer...much easier being the armchair quarterback. *g* (NT) -- Conmama, 09:06:52 09/10/07 Mon
          • LMAO! (NT) -- Oleander, 09:15:37 09/10/07 Mon
          • Well, I write. And, for sure, it's easier being a reader. (NT) -- GwenM, 09:20:48 09/10/07 Mon
          • I should restate that. It would be wonderful to be a writer. What I meant is that I'm glad I'm not a writer that has to read everyone's opinions and pick-pick-pick comments. Much easier to be the picker than the pickee! See....aren't YOU glad I'm not a writer, I can't even write a post without sticking my foot in my mouth. (NT) -- Conmama, 09:24:47 09/10/07 Mon
  • for the initial question at the top, i agree with what has been said about this book being LJ's POV and also that in the main books we only got a glimpse really of went on during this time. (NT) -- oorjanie, 11:22:35 09/10/07 Mon
    • yay someone agrees with me! *doing a little dance* :) (NT) -- Oleander, 13:00:35 09/10/07 Mon
      • nice dancin'! (NT) -- oorjanie, 17:34:54 09/10/07 Mon
        • Why thank ye lass! The men seem to like it ;) (NT) -- Oleander, 06:39:17 09/11/07 Tue
  • Great discussion...and I am sorry that I am coming in late. Simply put, Jamie sounds more hostile because he is more hostile. We are reading the events of a timeframe not previously put to paper for us. In Voyager, James is quite ready to truly wring John's neck, as he first leaves Jamie at Helwater. Next, we see James being bedeviled by Geneva as he is shoveling manure...(and uttering one of my favorite lines, "I am spreading shit, my lady"). Clearly, much has happened in between. Now, we get to read about it! What a treat! I do not believe the point of view is much of an issue here. (NT) -- teddie (), 15:20:47 09/10/07 Mon
    • Wow, I'm sorry I was off-line all day today too! I know I'm one of the people who was pondering the more "hostile" Jamie of this new book, and I am thrilled to hear everyone's thoughts. My thoughts, after further reflection, inside >>>> -- pamelalass, 17:59:24 09/10/07 Mon
      • Lots of good points there. I would add one more: I thought it was pretty clearly stated in VOYAGER that one reason Jamie took the flogging at Ardsmuir was to put an end to his relationship with Lord John, in a way that was so complete, so irrevocable, that they would never be able to resume any sort of friendship. And yet here John is, just a couple of years later, making overtures of friendship (or at least asking his advice). Jamie can't very well say to his face, "Go away and leave me alone", but his whole attitude, even his body language around John, makes it abundantly clear that that's what he is thinking. (NT) -- Karen, 18:23:57 09/10/07 Mon
        • Pamela and Karen, your posts make SO much sense. Thanks. (NT) -- Conmama, 05:08:01 09/11/07 Tue
        • Aaaaamen! And I do believe that without Willie, Jaime would have happily hated John's guts for the rest of his life. Later at his time in Voyager, but at Helwater, Jaime is able to reflect on the fact that while John has deprived him of his men, kept him prisoner at his (John's) personal preference, and exiled him in England, he has also inadvertantly given him his son. And what freedom he could manage. (NT) -- Oleander, 06:02:59 09/11/07 Tue
    • My examples really should have gone all the way to the point where John meets with James right before he leaves Helwater, and Willie. That is the large lacuna I meant to cite. (NT) -- teddie, 05:32:37 09/11/07 Tue
  • Jamie's hostility was what I expected. The ride to Helwater is one of those scenes that stuck with me. A journey of several days, nights in the same inn room, and Jamie never speaks a word to John because he is seething with rage and hatred. Not only has John separated him from his men, Jamie thinks John has willingly put him into slavery in a place where John can watch his humiliation. going long>>>> -- Carol P, 18:18:59 09/10/07 Mon
    • The easing of Jamie's pain at the separation from everyone he loves, including the land of Scotland, was a beautiful thing to read. He even states later that he could appreciate what John gave him - horses, fresh air, and familiar work to do - this was the most freedom John could arrange at the time. I was glad that Jamie came to some sort of peace with the losses in his life that allowed him to go on. I was surprised a bit about how lost he was when he came back to Lallybroch, later. I'm wondering if something will happen in LJ and the Scottish Prisoner that will explain his sense of drifting upon his return. (NT) -- LissC, 18:35:25 09/10/07 Mon
      • I think much of his feelings back at Lallybroch had to do with his sense of loss over Willie. I don't know if it alludes to it in the main books or not, but I imagine he may have been depressed. No Claire, No Willie, No Lairdship. That's one of the reasons I'm never angered at Jenny. She had to help him deal with all of this. (NT) -- Conmama, 05:32:47 09/11/07 Tue
        • True, I forgot about his grief over losing Willie... (NT) -- LissC, 14:17:29 09/11/07 Tue
        • Iwould have to say that Jamie not telling anyone about Willie, yet still so vividly grieving "something", is a strong force when J returns to Lallybroch. He is not the same man who went to Ardsmuir, and he takes some adjusting to. Ten years of things have happened that Lallybroch has no knowledge of. I am sure we could imagine how changed our sibling or child might be after an experience like this. It would be like being 20 and leaving home when your siblings are 8 or 9. Then coming back 10 years later to discover that they are now the age you were when you left. You still think of them as 8 or 9. In addition J has has all these experiences that he is NOT talking about. A moody stranger amonst your midst. (NT) -- Ellen P., 07:02:36 09/12/07 Wed
  • Enjoying all the comments--one thing I didn't see (could have missed it though) that I felt contributed mightily towards Jamie's hostility in BOTB is Geneva's death. John returns to Helwater directly as a result of this girl's death, a death Jamie feels responsible for, is attempting to atone for, is feeling guilty about. All his emotions are on the edge--his renewed despair at Claire's loss, his guilt over Geneva's pregnancy and death, John's repeated intrusions into his life, the knowledge that "his life is not his own," the uncertainty of knowing if it ever will be again. And John makes overtures, however subtle? and then declares that he could master Jamie in some way sexually? It is a wonder Jamie didn't kill him. The Drums story focused on Jamie's circumstances from his POV where no doubt he would rather skip over some aspects of the story. We all edit our lives to remember the most painful aspects in a way we can cope best. I don't think Jamie is any different. (NT) -- KathleenM, 08:40:15 09/11/07 Tue
    • Good point, Kathleen. And your comment about editing our memories of awful events is so true and, since Jamie is real, I expect he'd do the same. (NT) -- Carol P, 10:30:02 09/11/07 Tue
    • Yes, I agree that Geneva's death is in this mix we've been talking about. It would only have intensified his anger towards John, since he was trapped at Helwater, and she trapped him into an action that resulted in her death, and all of the anguish and rage about that, which would of course evoke Claire, would have to be directed at John if he were foolish enough to step into the line of fire. Which he was, and the "hostile" scenes are the result. (NT) -- pamelalass, 10:36:26 09/11/07 Tue
  
  

  ---