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. -- LJG Discussion board

[ 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):

Thursday, May 23, 11:06:37 [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:02:43 09/14/07 Fri
Author: Jane
Subject: 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.
In reply to: pamelalass ( not logged in) 's message, "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?" on 09:03:40 09/14/07 Fri

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

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

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.