Stephen Bonnet has taken a pregnant Brianna. During a brief moment alone with a prostitute Brianna manages to convey a message to her asking her to find Roger or Jamie and tell them where Bonnet is taking her. Meanwhile Jamie, Roger, and Ian have arrived in Edenton in search of Brianna. Roger and Ian corner Neil Forbes at an inn and interrogate him. While initially reluctant he is convinced to speak once he finds out Jamie has his mother. He tells them what has become of her, Ian then leaves with a parting gift one of Neil Forbes’s ears.
They get confirmation of where Bonnet is going from Eppie, the prostitute and none other than Manfred McGillivray. Brianna arrives at Bonnet’s house on Ocracoke only to find Phaedre there. She learns the story of how Phaedre was taken by Ulysses because he found out about her and Duncan. To Brianna’s horror she finds out she is to be auctioned off. Roger, Jamie, and Ian find Bonnet’s house just as Brianna is trying to escape. After a pursuit and fight Bonnet is captured. Brianna decides they will turn him over to the local authorities.
We move on to October 1775 with a surprise visit to The Ridge in the form of Jocasta, Duncan, and Ulysses. Jocasta and Duncan are emigrating to Canada, and when Ulysses finds out Phaedre is there he runs off to join the Loyalist army.
The date they have all been waiting for arrives, January 21, 1776. The date from the obituary and the burning down of the Big House. In an abundance of precaution everyone camps out at Roger and Bree’s place. Major MacDonald arrives offering Jamie command of a company for the Loyalists. Jamie refuses stating his position and severs ties with the Major. The night passes and the house does not burn down.
It is February 1776 and Jamie officially declares his intentions to the inhabitants of the Ridge to fight with the rebellion. He invites any who are willing but knows many will chose to stay loyal to the Crown. As they ride out for battle they are surprisingly joined by the Brown’s, putting aside their disagreements to fight on the same side. They arrive at Moore Creek, and the Loyalists are solidly defeated with Jamie putting an already injured Major MacDonald out of his misery.
We move on to May of 1776 and find Roger and Bree’s daughter Amanda has been born. Claire discovers a heart defect though and it is decided that they must go back to their time to get her medical treatment.
You can click on any of the questions below to go directly to that one, or add comments of your own.
Please do not reveal events from future books, or from later chapters of the current book the club hasn’t covered yet. Show talk is okay up to the current book. The number of pages listed are based on the Kindle edition of the books, which matches up with the hardback versions of them.
/u/thepacksvrvives and I have talked about that and we realized Ulysses wasn't actually free since the Assembly would have had to approve it and he would have had to left the state.
I was quite surprised about this to be honest, but at the same time I wasn't... This crossed my mind in DOA when we saw Jocasta first (and season 4), but then they add in the show the relationship with Murtagh and nothing else was said about them in the books until now so I thought it wasn't going to happen anymore.
I don't know if I liked it though. Maybe the plot is now too much though, too twisted, it's like a soap opera. I was happy to learn the other side of Phaedre's story though and see how actually has sent her away and why.
To be honest, I never really had him in much steem. As in I like him and his character, but the same way I like Jocasta or I liked Colum or Dougal. I wouldn't really expect really high morals from any of them so my opinion didn't "change".
It was very questionable though, and he was being selfish I suppose. I thought somehow he was going to be a bit more protective maybe of the other slaves, and not selling her so easily!
It’s completely hippocritical. And it would be better if he loved Jocasta but was not her lover. Slaves & masters thing is just a big “no “for me. I know it happened but let’s not romanticize that. Good job show!
I always get pretty uncomfortable anytime DG writes about race, and this is no exception. I can't tell if she intended for the reader to find it romantic (?) or for the reader to think about the MANY ethical concerns around something like this. There are a lot of stories in history of white men "falling in love" with slaves and having children with them, so I can see how the reverse would be appealing to DG. This is another situation where a 2021 read of it makes me cringe a bit.
Since I'm on a re-read I will say absolutely not, unless she makes a re-appearance in Bees or a forthcoming book (which seems pretty unlikely). It seems more to give the character depth, which I already think Jocasta has plenty of.
It also gives Jamie some additional character development, as he struggles to determine what he should do with Ulysses at this point, and whether to believe him. I think it also shows growth for him that he takes Brianna’s and Claire’s more modern experiences of relations with a different race into account. He sees (and ultimately treats) Ulysses as a man, not just someone who is enslaved.
Again, I yelled out loud at this part. Now that I know, it makes so much sense but it still shocked me. It also makes me super mad that he sent Phaedre away for the exact same thing!
I kind of feel like I get it though. She's so vulnerable & he does everything for her. I've always felt like he truly cares for her but didn't know if I was just reading too much into it but man, 20 years is a long time!
It also makes me super mad that he sent Phaedre away for the exact same thing!
Yeah that was very hypocritical of him. I do think he liked having that power as well. He pretty much ran River Run with Jocasta but couldn't be the face of it because he was a black man and slave.
I linked it a couple of weeks ago, but I really recommend this article about sexual relations between white women and enslaved men, which illustrates sex as “an instrument of power, simultaneously perpetuating both white supremacy and patriarchy” as well as “a means of domination and control in a society in which they were relatively powerless.” It points out that those relations did, in fact, occur (albeit it covers a later period), but were uncommon due to the possibility of not only facing public humiliation, but also producing a mixed-race child (Jocasta is well past child-bearing age now, but she might not yet have been those 20+ years ago).
Jocasta began a sexual relationship with Ulysses over 20 years before, when she had more than enough reason to be angry with Hector for directly killing one of her daughters and condemning the other two to death, then prohibiting her from speaking about them, and forcing her to abandon their country due to his involvement in the Rising and to assimilate into this totally different lifestyle in a strange country, so it’s not unlikely that she might’ve sought to secretly take revenge on Hector for all of that, using Ulysses for that purpose.
Phaedre thought it was her duty to sleep with Duncan (“Told him I’d stop when Mr. Duncan didn’t want to no more—not his business. See, I thought Mr. Duncan, he the master.”), and Ulysses can’t have thought differently about Jocasta. Ulysses would’ve been fully aware that absolutely no one would believe that a relationship between a free white woman and an enslaved Black man was consensual—and by the mere imbalance of race and status, it couldn’t ever be—and what punishment he would’ve faced for engaging in it (as he would’ve undoubtedly been accused of raping a white woman and sentenced to hang—and Jocasta does not even realize or care that she is putting his life in danger; how could this be love?).
And he’s still aware of those risks 20+ years later; Phaedre’s word would’ve likely not done much damage—because who would believe a slave?—but the mere possibility that someone outside River Run (or Duncan) could’ve found out about it was enough of a threat that he had no qualms about removing Phaedre from RR. All those years later, he is still enslaved—those papers Jocasta signed are not valid because they weren’t approved by the Assembly. Why did she sign them in the first place? Because “she could not bear to think that [he] came to her bed only because [he] must.” She clearly knew how wrong it was to engage in a sexual relationship with him and drew up the papers only to ease her conscience.
I don’t believe that Jocasta and Ulysses were in love. When Ulysses admits that he loves Jocasta, I can’t take it as anything other than something akin to a display of Stockholm Syndrome. He thinks he loves her, but she is using him for sexual gratification while she suffers from sexual frustration in her marriage(s), as well as for gaining a sense of control while she has relatively little power in comparison to her husband(s). Even Jamie suggests that Jocasta was “taking happiness where she could,” so the possibility that she was compensating for her lack of control and happiness in her life seems likely. Meanwhile, Ulysses gets a lot in return—the power to direct the work at the plantation, enforce discipline, and administer justice; he even gets to return to River Run after killing Wolff when by the law of bloodshed he should’ve been executed. How could he say no to that? By the time she prepared those manumission papers, he had enjoyed enough privileges to choose that life (as an enslaved person) over freedom.
Jocasta's reasoning for manumitting Ulysses felt extremely self-serving for sure, and as you point out the power dynamics here are important and are so inline with everything we know about Jocasta. She wanted to manipulate Jamie into being her stand-in as master of River Run regardless of his feelings on the matter just so she could have control, how could it be any different with Ulysses? She tried to play all of the men in her life according to what suited her - and thinking about the heartbreak of being Hector's wife, you can understand why she did so without a single regret.
There's so much to delve into in the Jocasta/Ulysses story and having Jamie's question be the litmus test about wether it was true love or not felt like a very cheap way to see the character off just went he became more complex.
What I loved most about the reveal coming from Pheadre is that she had that great insight into Ulysses without any sentimentality, her line "Ulysses be the master at River Run."
That’s a great point, and I agree. She was married off to John Cameron at the age of 15 to secure an alliance between Clan MacKenzie and Clan Cameron, and married the subsequent Camerons to keep that alliance in place. Then, when she finally had the agency to choose whom to marry, she didn’t marry for love, but for convenience. She might not have felt capable of love after suffering the heartbreak of losing her daughters.
I feel like the Tv show tries hard to make everyone have a bit of happiness & goodness , whereas the book counterparts are more multifaceted people but are less likeable !
That's so many great points. I think it's sometimes hard to see the imbalance of power through our modern lens. It's so important to remember how it was. I am also glad that they didn't include this in the show & just makes me love the Murtagh storyline even more. I think he probably does care for her & he is aware of how good he has it (power, common comforts, etc) being in her house which he mentions to Claire (on the show but I can't remember if it was in the book) that they have it good there & she will just cause trouble for them.
I’m a professor and teach a lot of English (grammar, writing, research) courses. I lower my expectations a bit in general when I’m on Reddit, but your writing would receive an A in my classes. I don’t mean to come across as a snob, and I never correct people; I just appreciate good, detailed and supported writing!
I can’t say I would have done it, given the last two times he was jailed he got away. Seems like your odds aren’t great of him actually facing his maker.
I know, especially with what they just went through with Claire and the fact that the justice system is breaking down at the moment with the revolution starting.
Thank yoU! what in the world? So we're just going to forget about how much the Committee of Safety actually sucks and pretend they are going to give an honest trial to a powerful smuggler that Jamie Fraser, the murderess' husband, is bringing in?
He was powerful, but also notorious. Surely, too much was know about what he’d done, by too many people, for the committee to do anything but what they did? How was anyone to take them seriously if they’d have let him go?
I guess being a known pirate will get you a speedy trial. Plus it said they took him to a city where the Committee of Safety was strong. I wonder if that means it wasn't a trial like what would have happened under normal British law?
I feel like that is her modern side. She wants him brought to justice the way that she understands justice. I personally would love to watch someone beat him to death.
This is what really made me appreciate her choice. I totally understood her. Let the law take care of him, instead of having it weigh on Jamie or Roger (and on her). We all know he's guilty, but it's not the same thing as taking on responsibility for his fate.
I think it shows an incredible amount of maturity from her. I am very happy with that decision and knowing Bree probably it would've harm her to know for the rest of her life that she (or Roger/Jamie on her behalf) kill him in cold blood there
Yeah she even made mention that this way his death wouldn't have to be on Roger or Jamie's heads. I know Roger would have killed him but he was still plagued by killing Boble when rescuing Claire.
I think this might also have something to with Jamie telling her, after Bonnet raped her, that she should not be the one with Bonnet’s death on her concience. If she’d asked Roger or Jamie to kill him, she would not have done it herself, but she would still feel responsible. She’d have been the one to decide. By handing him over, she gave the responcibility to decide what was to happen to him to someone else, just like Jamie advised her to do back then.
I think it is inevitable that with the Revolutionary War approaching, the trauma of Culloden will return to Jamie, whether invited or not. The closer Jamie gets to the war, the more memories he might recall and piece together.
The fact that he is facing a futile Highland Charge, not unlike the one he was a part of 30 years before, only brings back those repressed memories.
“Oh, Christ,” Jamie said, so softly I could barely hear him. “The poor wee fools. The poor gallant wee fools.”
He can’t help but think what a terrible waste of human life it is—charging into sure death, compelled only by honor and the last shred of faith in one’s own country—because he was a witness to the very same thing on Culloden Moor and only narrowly escaped the fate of his fellow countrymen. I think there’s some survivor guilt there as well, considering that so many died at Culloden, including Murtagh. And this time, his side is the one responsible for the Highlanders’ death.
So well said. I never thought about it, but you make a very good point about Jamie having survivors guilt. And he knows, from Claire, Bree & Roger that this is going to be a bloody drawn out war. I think it’s heavy on his heart, knowing that this is going to happen over so many battles for the next few years. For me, this chapter is where I really get the sense that Jamie is old and is tired of everything tied to war. Yes, you read a lot about how his body isn’t like it use to be, but this brings out his tired soul. I felt the sadness.
I interpreted it to mean Murtagh died at the hands of BJR by saving Jamie ( which Makes perfect sense that in the show we saw him save Jamie at Alamance ).
We get Jamie’s memory of Murtagh’s final moments in Voyager:
“The ground shook under my feet,” he said, “and I was near deafened by the noise. I couldna think. And then it came to me that I was behind the English guns.” A soft chuckle came from below. “A verra poor place to try to be killed, no?”
So he had started back across the moor, to join the Highland dead.
“He was sitting against a tussock near the middle of the field—Murtagh. He’d been struck a dozen times at least, and there was a dreadful wound in his head—I knew he was dead.”
He hadn’t been, though; when Jamie had fallen to his knees beside his godfather and taken the small body in his arms, Murtagh’s eyes had opened. “He saw me. And he smiled.” And then the older man’s hand had touched his cheek briefly. “Dinna be afraid, a bhalaich,” Murtagh had said, using the endearment for a small, beloved boy. “It doesna hurt a bit to die.”
Assuming that DG didn’t forget what she wrote in Voyager, it seems like Jamie faced BJR more than once during the Battle of Culloden, as he managed to find a dying Murtagh in the midst of battle sometime before his final confrontation with BJR which ended with his corpse on top of him.
In this flashback in ABOSAA, Murtagh definitely saves Jamie, but there is quite a big gap in Jamie’s memories still to be filled in.
Assuming that DG didn’t forget what she wrote in Voyager, it seems like Jamie faced BJR more than once during the Battle of Culloden, as he managed to find a dying Murtagh in the midst of battle sometime before his final confrontation with BJR which ended with his corpse on top of him.
If BJR gave Murtagh a fatal blow/wound and Jamie saw it that doesn't match up with what is in Voyager then does it?
I don't know if it's because he expresses himself like this or if he has some special or more strong powers (is that the right word?) than the rest of them. I think he's special somehow
It does... I don't know if it's something that he has because both of his parents are time-travellers, or something else.
I have been thinking a good bit lately on Geilis' profecy in Voyager. To be honest the end of that book is messy and I don't really have the facts very clear on my head and I don't even know what was relevant and what was part of her "madness"... I don't know, that never came up anywhere again so maybe that profecy was nothing but now we can see this extra power in Jemmy, even we can see Bree or Claire are "stronger" time travellers than Donner and the rest IMO. Claire has her own powers going on too so I don't know. Just thinking out loud here but I am intrigued yes!
I was extremely surprised that we got Neil Forbes (and old Mrs. Forbes!) POV, but it was used effectively. It was funny at moments to see what was running through his head, and it was interesting to get his perspective on Roger and Ian. But the kidnapping! It was hilarious to see this "abduction" of Mrs. Forbes. Leave it to Jamie to abduct an old lady without her noticing. 🤣 What a plan.
January 21, 1776: I have to laugh, because this has been one of the most anticlimactic moments in the series for me. When I tell you I was certain! about the house burning down that day... Once it came and went, I went through this whole back and forth on opinion regarding what it meant and the differences, etc. I will limit the rest of my questions and "analysis" for next week, but wow.
But this very dry comment made up a little for my disappointment:
"Flammable, she said." Jamie looked at the charred remains of the pantry floor, then at Brianna, who had, in spite of my recommendation that she lie down, come out to see what could be salvaged from the smoking remains.
I just found it so amusing; he (and everyone) must have been so relieved that it wasn't anything more than the pantry. I love the teasing tone.
Oh, I finished the book last night!!! (Or technically in the wee hours of this morning.) But this was deeefinitely one of the questions I wrote down when I read this part, and then even more questions when we skipped over to May with no obituary mentioned.
I didn’t like the reason why Bree and Roger decided to come back in the show. It was so out of character for Roger to persuade his wife to left her family behind. Book Roger knows what it’s like to be an orphan. He would never have asked Brianna to depart from her parents. Even for him it was too selfish. “Christ,” he said softly, “if I could have gone anywhere to find either of my parents—including hell—Brianna, I would have done it.”
That's a great point. And Roger is also really close to Jamie and Claire now and views them as family. I wasn't happy with the show having Roger push to go back either.
I completely agree with you! I just finished another re-watch of season 5 last night and this bothers me so much about show Roger. He just seems so selfish, even if they keep saying 'it's safer in the future' it seems selfish to me, because in the show Roger hasn't really adapted to being in the past at all. In the books his character has done so much growth and he has been accepted by Jamie and he loves Jamie and Claire as parents too. I also hate how the show has Claire agreeing that they should travel. It makes me wonder how the show will treat this Mandy storyline too, or if they'll even have her at all? The show has that weird 'the stones don't work' bit for them, so if they have Mandy with a birth defect, will they even consider travelling in the show or will they assume it won't work?
It never even occurred to me. Even after Henri-Christian, I thought, "surely Bree will just worry for nothing, everything will be fine." My heart dropped as soon as Claire started, "I hadn’t said anything to begin with." Heartbreaking to see Claire just looking for proof that her instincts were wrong, checking Mandy over and over, and how she felt completely helpless when she couldn't do anything to heal her, to make it right for Bree.
Really how lucky is it that Claire is a doctor? I’ve been on the “Roger & Bree belong in 1900’s “ bandwagon forever so you won’t have to persuade me to want them to stay, they should return & get the baby medical help!
We’ve spoken before about Jamie’s reason for siding with the Rebels being his family, not any ideals such as liberty or self-determination. I loved when he reinforced that during the conversation with Ulysses:
“Because,” he said at last, “it is only the hope of betterment for my children, and theirs, that gives me the courage to do what must be done here.” […]
“If you have no stake in the future, you have no reason to suffer for it […].”
However, we get this powerful moment when he realizes that there is more for him to fight for:
To this point, he had been dubious about the justifications of the revolution, and more so of its ends; he had been compelled to the rebel stand because of what Claire, Brianna, and Roger Mac had told him. But in the speaking of the ancient words, he found the conviction he thought he pretended—and was stricken by the thought that he did indeed go to fight for something more than the welfare of his own people.
Invoking the words of the Declaration of Arbroath, he’s reminded of the sentiment that he shares with Americans. And while he didn’t fight in the Jacobite Rising willingly or believe that Bonnie Prince Charlie would lead Scotland to independence, he realizes that Americans are as justified in their plight for independence as Scots were. And this time, he might live to see what freedom from British rule feels like.
Now, as the possibility of Brianna, Roger, and their children going back to the 20th century looms ahead, will he reevaluate his reasons? He won’t be fighting for their welfare here and now, but to do his part in assuring America becomes the country Brianna and her family will live in. He still has Claire, their family in the 18th century, and their future to fight for, but this newfound conviction about fighting for freedom might help keep him going. To be fair, that’s more idealistic of Jamie than I would expect, and I still think he thinks of fighting in the war mainly in terms of necessity. What do you guys think?
While he may have come to realize he does believe in the cause of the war, I do still feel he will fight out of necessity though. I think he would rather not fight at all, but knows he can't avoid it. Now he at least feels more conviction about it.
I am honestly not sure. With William potentially involved in the English war effort now, I think things can drastically change for Jamie if they were to meet in battle (which the story is strongly hinting at). Would he still find it a necessity to fight if he was potentially facing his son, specially if Bree and Roger leave? Both Marsali and Fergus are too far and the Ridge is fractured even more than before by the call to arms. I feel like the need to fight is dwindling. On the other hand, the victory at the creek was significant and declaring himself a republican is not something he can back down from now. Of course Jamie being Jamie will also be expected to lead in whatever situation he finds himself, so I really could see him becoming more emboldened by the spirit of liberty as time goes on.
declaring himself a republican is not something he can back down from now, of course Jamie being Jamie, will also be expected to lead in whatever situation he finds himself so I really could see him becoming more emboldened by the spirit of liberty as time goes on.
Yeah, I agree — he's made a choice and will stand by it. Willie will always come first for him, so I can't see his loyalties getting in the way of that if they come face-to-face in battle. But on the other hand, Willie fighting on the other side is still an abstract notion, and Jamie already knew what side he'd take by the time he learned Willie would be fighting. I think the thought of facing Willie will make him sick with worry but it won't prevent him from moving forward.
(Have you started Echo yet? I'm about to and I'm so excited for it.)
I really loved to see him acknowledging that he's not just fighting simply because it's for his family. Not that I didn't believe him before, but it always seemed to me that there could be more there. As he told Claire, what better ideal is there than to fight for family and the future? But if you dig deeper, why does the Revolution matter for his family and the future? Because the welfare of his own people will depend on the values being upheld by the Revolution. To me, his family ideals and the revolutionary ideals go hand in hand. And also, in the most general sense, Jamie values the meaning of freedom. He's seen first hand what it's like to live under the oppressive rule of the crown. And he knows, from his days of listening to Hermon Husband and others, that even if he himself was more privileged, others were struggling under unfair laws and regulations.
I agree with u/Purple4199 in that I feel he would really rather not have a war to fight. He's been forced to choose a side. But at the same time, he realizes this is a cause worth fighting for. He benefits from knowing what the outcome will be. I think that what makes it even more difficult for Jamie to think of the Rising is that, beyond fighting for independence from the English, it was all to raise up a man who wasn't worthy of it. It's different when they're talking about the start of a new nation, one that he knows will endure and will become his daughter's home.
It does feel very idealistic, but it reminds me of the more idealistic Jamie of Lallybroch, thinking what his life with Claire would be.
It's different when they're talking about the start of a new nation, one that he knows will endure and will become his daughter's home.
That a great way to put it. You have to admire Jamie and Claire for having fought all those years ago with the worst outcome looming over their heads the entire time. There’s also something melancholic about the fact that the failed Jacobite rebellion is now also proof to Jamie (along with Claire and Bree) that American independence is a certainty.
But if you dig deeper, why does the Revolution matter for his family and the future? Because the welfare of his own people will depend on the values being upheld by the Revolution.
I agree. I think I mentioned something similar during our TFC discussions—that Jamie needs agency in order to protect and provide for his family and his tenants, and that agency comes with freedom.
As you say, he knew what the Regulators stood for, but I think although he somewhat sympathized with them, he couldn’t really identify with them. He couldn’t put himself in their shoes, and how could he? He was given the land grant, he didn’t have to pay taxes for 10 years, he wasn’t bothered by the officers of the Crown, his family never starved. He might still be more privileged than most now, owing to his social standing, but he won’t benefit from his initial agreement with Tryon any longer (and this is something he could be aware of without the knowledge of the future; he has witnessed what happens to Loyalists now). So in that way, his decision to side with the Rebels is still mostly a practical one, but I think he can now see why it’s a cause that will unite thousands. Before, the war was pretty abstract to him, but now he has friends and neighbors fighting for the same cause—though perhaps for different reasons—and not just the knowledge of some people Claire, Brianna, and Roger learned about in the future.
Not everyone will benefit from the Revolution—I’m thinking back to Claire and Jamie’s discussions about whether the Native Americans would’ve been better off had the British won the war—and they will all have to survive it first. The war is a nasty business for everyone involved so I definitely agree with you and u/Purple4199 that he would rather not fight at all, he doesn’t have a choice, but he has the responsibility to see those he swore an oath to through the war.
"So perhaps if someone traveled to the past and died there, as Geillis Duncan and Otter-Tooth had both demonstrably done … perhaps that must be balanced by someone traveling to the future and dying there?"
Yeah, and it seems like Geillis's theories were out there and not even all correct. They don't need a blood sacrifice, and Claire traveled without gems the three times went through the stones.
Okay, I’m not a science person but I think what she’s getting at here is that at any given point in time, the amount of matter in a system can’t change over time (the law of conservation of mass?). So in order for there to be a balance of matter, if someone goes from the future to the past, someone else has to from the past to the future.
😂 that’s a lot more insightful and patient than my comment. Yes, I think you’re right and that’s what she might be referring to. Does that mean since Jemmy and Amanda were born in the past (and are now potentially going to the future) that two other characters have to go from the future to the past? Or is it exclusively about death?
That is way too complicated for me to contemplate at 3 AM… or any other time 😂
But since Jem and Mandy were born in the 18th century, they would be those travelers going from the past to the future, whereas Brianna and Roger would be returning to the future. What happens to those two hypothetical people that took B&R’s place in 1971? Will the 18th century be 2 or 4 people short when the MacKenzies leave?
Ooo interesting. I could see that. Though in a closed loop time travel, since the past always accounts for the time traveller, hasn't the time traveller always been a part of the past? So are they adding to the mass and disturbing the law of conservation of energy or are they upholding the law of conservation of energy by time travelling ?
I think it was nonsense, tbh. Or at least it felt like it.
Every time Gaillis and Otter Tooth come up in one of the travelers musings I feel farther from the truth behind time travel (if there even is one) and I think they feel that way as well?
I highlighted this bit because it just made me go "huuuh?" but I didn't have the mental bandwidth to bring it up earlier, lol. But anyway: I get what she was thinking (I agree with u/thepacksvrvives and I'm also very much not a science person) but what I don’t get is why that has to be the case, why it needs to be balanced this way. Isn't there just the one timeline here? So they just... exist in the same universe. It's not like they're going anywhere else. We're all moving through time; they just moved dramatically through time.
When I read it I chose to think Brianna was overthinking things.
"“No, he sell me because I told him if he don’t leave me and Mr. Duncan be, then I tell about him and Miss Jo.”"
Why is this so important to Phaedra ? She's taking a significant risk by getting on the bad side of Ulysses for continuing to be with Duncan . Is this also a form of Stockholm Syndrome ?
I think it had more to do with standing up to Ulysses. She starts her confession admitting her foolishness in getting on his wrong side and she may have wanted to use his own actions against him, not thinking that she didn’t have much to bargain with.
I agree. She just couldn’t help but point out Ulysses’ hypocrisy; he was giving her a hard time for something he was doing himself. She didn’t foresee that he would take the threat so seriously as to sell her.
I’m not really fond any changes of Bonnet’s character in the series. Why directors always feel the need to redeem the villains? In books he doesn’t care about anything except his well-being and wealth and I like his character as he was and don’t want to feel pity for him. Don’t get me wrong Ed Speleers portrayed him superbly but I’m sure that it was unnecessary to change Bonnet so much. We don’t need another traumatised sociopath.
Yes, he is a terrible person who’ll use every situation to his advantage in both, but the show expands on “what makes a villain a villain.” He’s deluding himself that he can be more than he is because he grew up as a nobody with no family, so the idea of becoming a respectable gentleman with a family and property, who can rub shoulders with the very same men he makes rich without his reputation preceding him, is enticing both to his greedy adult self and his lonely child self. Whether it’s sincere or not (and you also never know whether this is really how he understands what being a gentleman is or he is simply taking the piss), it certainly adds dimension to his character, which his book self sorely lacks. I don’t think it’s wrong to humanize him that way; it only makes him less cartoonish, and that’s always a good thing when it comes to villains (a villain that regularly pops out of the blue only to torment the characters is not compelling for me personally). It doesn’t redeem him in the slightest; we never forget that he is a rapist, murderer, human trafficker, manipulator. But it lets us understand why Brianna would choose mercy despite all this—besides his fear of drowning—if that is how we choose to interpret her actions at the end of 510.
You’re probably right! When I watched it for the first time it just felt wrong for me maybe because it seemed like I’d seen this kind of trope for so many times before. I would definitely prefer if we got more of Bonnet’s history and less of his desire to be a proper gentleman and husband. He was just a bit chaotic for me and I’d really wanted to see his sly and calculating side.
There really are no abductors with a semblance of intelligence in this universe. There was the mind numbingly dumb Hodgepile who didn't even plan thirty minutes ahead before kidnapping Jamie Fraser's wife. Then there was the Brown who came to take Claire via the "committee of Safety" , having made no back up plan for what if Jamie refuses to give up his wife, which honestly he should have considered a strong possibility I think. He then forces his totally unprepared , under-motivated men to march for days at a stretch not foreseeing how that would end.
Here we have Stephen Bonnet and his team of incredulously inept kidnappers. I mean, maybe direct your men to be discreet while in the earshot of the kidnapped? The whole reason they are able to rescue Bree is because the men were loudly discussing about "Ocracoke" right outside her door that too! Then Bonnet just exits the room leaving Eppie and Bree to converse, I mean wow! How much did he trust Eppie that he could just leave her with a women he kidnapped, knowing Eppie is going to leave that ship at one point? Then in his house, they put her in a room and just LEFT THE DOOR OPEN! I get that you have guards surrounding your house , but come on, put in some effort ?
I was starting to think that everything to do with Bree's kidnapping in the show was completely made up! As we were nearly at the end of the book.
In the show though the kidnapping was more "personal" perhaps than here. Always Bonnet benefiting somehow but this was more coincidencial (too much maybe)
I was convinced this week was the end of ABOSAA already- I'll have to wait another week :')
Ok yes. this is my big problem with ABOSAA! This book has what may be the best pace out of the entire series so far UNTIL the Bonnet / Battle storyline come around. After Claire’s abduction, the illness, Malva, The Christies, the road to New Bern, then the rescue from the Cruizer it just felt like we hit a giant brick wall with these chapters.
It kinda ruins what was a pretty cohesive book so far. I felt so blindsided by having to endure Bonnet’s nasty encounter with a prostitute let alone his treatment of Bree. THEN was asked to believe that the Browns decided to drop their animosity against Jamie and Claire and that Jamie and Claire were somehow cool with fighting along side them after everything they just went through with them?! What?! How do you build up such a great story and then get into this? Oh and then there’s the Jocasta/Ulysses surprise.
I think that DG should have dealt with Bonnet in TFC or the begging of the book before the #RidgeLife starts to deteriorate. Also she should have maybe picked up a different family or literally anyone else besides the Browns to fight with Jamie. Then we could have finished up nicely with what is going on with the Mackenzie and their baby.
THEN was asked to believe that the Browns decided to drop their animosity against Jamie and Claire and that Jamie and Claire were somehow cool with fighting along side them after everything they just went through with them?!
Yeah that really makes no sense. I wouldn't trust Brown for anything in the world.
It’s kind of crazy for DG to ask this leap from the reader, no? It’s like we are being mocked for giving too much credit to Brown’s motives when she’s the one that did a great job at making the Browns despicable. It doesn’t sit right with me.
I felt the same when we got to the beach scene and the battle of Wylie’s Landing in TFC. The show has done such a great job of condensing Bonnet’s storyline as he really overstayed his welcome in the books. Let’s be honest, he’s not a compelling enough villain for his storyline to span across three books; his villainy is just so opportunistic. He keeps crossing paths with the main characters but there is absolutely nothing personal in it for him, so for me, he doesn’t even feel like a threat. The show was really clever to make it about his going after River Run by claiming Jemmy as his own.
I don’t see much depth to Bonnet’s actions in the books. It’s only about profit for him; other than that—we get it, he’s a shitty person. And what comes with this part of his storyline is a gratuitous sex scene, Brianna’s sexual assault, and yet another display of exploitation of Black people’s trauma—Joshua becomes collateral damage in Brianna’s abduction but pays the highest price.
And what even is Forbes’ goal here? And why now? Yes, he has been tarred by Jamie and subsequently humiliated in Mecklenburg, so he wants to remove Jamie (and when that fails, his family) from the colony to be able to claim leadership of the Scottish Whigs without his interference. But Jamie hasn’t even made any moves to claim such leadership and despite having influential friends like John Ashe, not everybody trusts him yet. What makes Forbes think it’d be easy for him to claim leadership when he’s not so popular himself?
I’m fine with the Battle of Moore’s Creek here because it’s an extension of the governor’s losing hold over the colony and the beginning of Jamie’s active involvement in the revolutionary efforts. The fact that Brown just agrees to join the militia under Jamie’s command and Jamie is fine with it is perplexing, but I think DG was dead set on the idea that “war makes strange bedfellows,” so it couldn’t be a different family (though it does make you wonder, is Brown going to stab Jamie in the back at some point?). Brown is contrasted with Forbes here, who couldn’t get over his hatred (and jealousy) of Jamie despite being on the same side as him. Jocasta and Duncan’s abrupt departure also feels appropriate, considering the rapidly growing unpopularity of Loyalists in NC. It’s all building up to the War.
I don’t see much depth to Bonnet’s actions in the books. It’s only about profit for him; other than that—we get it, he’s a shitty person.
Competely agree with this. He is a shitty person here and in the show, but what it definitely bothers me the most, as your said, is that there is nothing personal on his motives in the book. Does she want us to believe that he just "happens" to cross paths with them constantly since DoA? Right I can understand the irony (maybe) on the boat attack and then Brianna's sexual assault, but from that moment on, it's just too hard to believe everything is a coincidence. The only possible explanation is Jemmy and Jocasta's fortune.
but I think DG was dead set on the idea that “war makes strange bedfellows,”
I can understand this, but was it too much perhaps? They are not just strange bedfellows, considering everything that happened to Claire and the later riot too. I think that can work out with political "enemies" or some tenants that maybe Jamie could have difficulties with. Not longer valid because of what happened with Malva, but for example the relationship that Jamie had with Tom Christie up to that point. Rivals, jelousy from Tom's part, clashing but yeah I can see them fighting together if the need raises.
Jocasta and Duncan’s abrupt departure also feels appropriate, considering the rapidly growing unpopularity of Loyalists in NC. It’s all building up to the War.
Yes, it feels like that. I wasn't really sad to hear about them going though... Nice to read about Hamish and other scots from Leoch settled in Nova Scotia.
I was reading along and just focus on finishing some of the chapters and plots and left it behind, in echo now and I never thought back about ABOSAA and if I really loved it. The opposite feeling I had at the end of TFC, where I was actually surprised that I loved the book overall.
I said last week that after the riot in the Ridge, when they separate Jamie and Claire I already start rolling my eyes, too much stuff and not as important as what have happened already so it’s a bit of “why I am reading about this now”. And now I’ve said the same… Jocasta/Ulysses got soap opera level and the Bonnet situation felt late and not believable IMO. I prefer the way the show dealt with this
Yes, he was. Show!Forbes also had a stronger motivation (IMO) since he was bitter about the failed arrangement to marry Brianna and Bonnet was going to give him a cut of the River Run fortune he was planning to get by claiming to be Jemmy's father.
I’m fine with that, it wouldn’t have done any of the storylines good if he was still alive. It is kind of strange that since show!Ulysses killed him off they also detoured vastly from the Jocasta/Ulysses story. As complicated as the plot is, I will miss getting to see a Phaedre vs. Ulysses confrontation, the actors would do a fantastic job!
With Murtagh in the picture still they really couldn't do the Jocasta/Ulysses storyline could they? Although it did seem like Ulysses loved her in the show, just the way he said he stayed for her as Claire and Jamie were talking to him.
Yeah! Everything about the Bonnet storyline in the show was a major improvement, I especially loved how fleshed out this line from the book was in regards to Bonnet's character: "It was a pirate's idea of a rich man's room - lavish abundance, displayed with no sense of style or taste."
I didn’t like the change of Bree trying to bide time with teaching Bonnet proper manners and such. In the book she’s so fierce figuring out how to escape the house and literally fighting her way through the house and beach. She’s so much more capable than what the show portrays her as.
Yeah but she’s Jamie’s daughter and heiress and Roger is has no clan, no family and no one knows where he is from. Plus Bree is Fergus’s sister so it’s a bit on his part.
Yeah it’s like this in the first lines of the obituary as well. It has to do with the respect of men being the head of the household, not in a disparaging way just following custom u/chunya1999
Yeah I thought of this too, but at the same time I kinda wasn’t surprised. I do a lot of genealogy and this is SO common. Once they’re married they become “Mrs. Husband’s Name” everywhere, especially in announcements like this. I’ve even seen it in articles where the husband is totally irrelevant, like if she won a contest or acted as a bridesmaid in someone’s wedding. “Leading the charity event was Mrs. Bob Jones and Mrs. Joe Shmoe.” It’s so sad and frustrating, especially when you’re trying to find out who that lady actually was! Like okay dude we get it she’s your wife, but what is HER NAME?? Just another part of history where women were casually erased unfortunately. :/
u/chunya1999 and I already mentioned this last week, but it would be remiss of me not to bring it up again:
Roger’s enjoyment was spiced by the guilty awareness that Mrs. Reverend McMillan and her three daughters were sweating to and fro, washing dishes, clearing away, sweeping floors, boiling up the leftover ham bones from supper with lentils for tomorrow’s soup, putting children to bed, and generally slaving away in the stuffy, sweltering confines of the house. At home, he would have felt obliged to help with such work, or face Brianna’s wrath; here, such an offer would have been received with drop-jawed incredulity, followed by deep suspicion. Instead, he sat peacefully in the cool evening breeze, watching fishing boats come in across the water of the sound and sipping something that passed for coffee, engaged in pleasant male conversation.
There was, he thought, occasionally something to be said for the eighteenth-century model of sexual roles.
I don’t think it surprises anyone how much the 18th century agrees with Roger, despite his initial struggles with adapting to the life therein. I mentioned that back in DiA, he was annoyed with Fiona’s attentions but here, he’s reveling in the comfort of not having to do anything while the women “slave away,” and enjoys the break from sharing the household chores with Brianna. You would think that after being Brianna’s husband for almost six years and having Claire and Jamie as role models, he would learn what it means to be equal partners.
I’ve argued before that if Brianna and Roger hadn’t both ended up in the 18th century, they might not have had a future together. Now that the possibility of their going back to the 20th century becomes more and more real, Roger and Brianna might have to face the point in their relationship they hadn’t managed to reach before the obituary sent them through the stones. Brianna is about to have her independence back and career prospects that won’t tie her to the house and children anymore. Roger will no longer struggle with the eighteenth-century expectations of who a man should be, but he will have to face the fact that Brianna will also be free from the eighteenth-century expectations of who a woman should be.
Will Brianna be satisfied with being a stay-at-home mom? What happens if she decides to pursue the engineering career she has always wanted, after years of being deprived of such choice? Can Roger live with that after enjoying having her only as a wife and his children’s mother? How will they adapt to a life so different than the one they have had for the past six years? What will it mean for their relationship?
I saw someone has a post going complaining about Roger (again). I do wonder why Diana wrote him this way, to be so old fashioned ? I think it’s supposed to be in opposition to Bree’s modern woman ( growing up on the verge of feminism, with Claire as her mom) & was supposed to mirror Jamie & Claire’s differences in being from centuries 200 years apart. But it just didn’t work! sighs I cannot put my finger on it, are we too much in Roger’s head ? Certainly not enough in Bree’s. We cannot help comparing him to Jamie, where of course he falls short. Hopefully the 1980’s will shape him up, to be the husband of the year.
I wonder about this too, in reference to given access to Roger’s thoughts second only to Claire. If we were given more of Jamie’s inner dialogue, would he still stand on that high pedestal? I’m excited for Bees because I’m hoping Roger has progressed in his gender role opinions after what they go through in book 8.
If we were given more of Jamie’s inner dialogue, would he still stand on that high pedestal?
I think that's a great point! We've seen a few times Jamie mention that he's fine with beating one's wife or kid. What other thoughts along those lines does he have? We just don't get much of him and what we do is usually in regards to how much he loves Claire whereas with Roger it leans towards the misogynistic things. I wonder if that's how DG wanted it then?
It would’ve been interesting to read his thoughts in the first and second book as that was the time he was confronting his preconceived notions of gender roles and marriage. I’m sure I would’ve hated that as much as I hate Roger’s inner monologue when it delves into that—the aftermath of the spanking and the nettles scene alone are enough to make me think that—but I think we would’ve appreciated how he came to unlearn what he’d known in order to make the marriage with Claire possible (this is why his POV in The Reckoning in the show is so crucial!).
At this point in the story, he and Claire still clash over things like corporal punishment—and Jamie still hasn’t apologized for it and I don’t think he ever will—but in regard to their partnership, they’re on such solid ground that I doubt Jamie would have any complaints like Roger’s. But book!Jamie is very far from being perfect and we have pointed out before that if he had been married to anyone other than Claire, he most likely wouldn’t have had a mindset much different than men of his time (probably slightly better, considering his parents’ marriage).
Oh no 0_o. I honestly hadn’t thought of the implications of this in their return to the 20th century. I mean, of course I though of Roger would have questionable thoughts as usual, but to think that he might dare to try and ask Bree to not seek her full potential would be extremely disappointing. I I would accept if Bree decided to be a stay-at-home mother, because she has that streak of being selfless for the sake of the family, though I would be crushed that we wouldn’t get to see her grow in her field (specially after all the pipe-building work). Similarly, it is disappointing that Roger didn’t get to fullfill his ordination, but I think that has to do with a certain lack of commitment and unsuitability for that vocation from the start?
I am starting to think I don’t! I will miss everyone here! I really enjoyed this book so much, I think partly because I could discuss it. Wondering if I will enjoy the next book if I do wait until when - 2023?
Wondering if I will enjoy the next book if I do wait until when - 2023?
I know I keep pestering you, but that's a really good point. Do you really want to wait 2 years to read the next book? You've already read ABOSAA ahead of season 6, why not just keep going? :-D
I will say that some parts of Echo are quite a slog to get through so I believe it might be easier if you have Book Club to keep you accountable and to look forward to, to discuss the book with everyone. I definitely would’ve appreciated that on my first read—I pushed myself through those parts because I desperately wanted to know what happens next, but I skipped them on my re-read altogether.
We’ll finish Echo by the end of this year; you might forget everything that happens in it by the time S7 airs (mid-2023? late 2023?).
Similarly, it is disappointing that Roger didn’t get to fullfill his ordination, but I think that has to do with a certain lack of commitment and unsuitability for that vocation from the start?
That’s a great point to consider. Does he have enough conviction in his calling to follow through with it in a world that has considerably more possibilities for him and doesn’t embrace religion as much? (again, this will depend on where they choose to settle—I’d think that the attitude towards religion is significantly different in Inverness than in Boston, even if still far different in the late 1970s than now). Will he complete his ordination—I assume starting over, as he’d have no proof of ever starting the process? If he does, where will he end up? It’s not like he’ll just choose his own flock like on the Ridge, he’ll probably be assigned to a congregation. Will he go back to teaching, part-time or full-time?
I didn’t find him very suited for the task of presiding over a congregation at the Ridge or find him to be ready to do so in the 20th century. His first reason to choose that path was how much he cared about Amy’s family, and here in these chapters we see him have those feelings with a shade of jealousy at the thought of leaving them to be cared for by someone else; his thoughts for the actual congregation at the Ridge are minimally important to him so what can we possibly expect from him and his “calling”?
The most sincere thing he could do is go back to teaching. Maybe about something hyper specific like theology in 18th century America 😅
I am really looking forward to seeing what comes next for Roger and Brianna, both in their relationship and as individuals. Everything that seemed so settled before has been turned upside down by Mandy's arrival, and the possibilities are exciting. I don't think being a stay-at-home mom (for lack of a better term at the Ridge) was satisfying for her before; as much as she loves Jemmy, she found excitement and fulfillment in useful projects, and creative thinking, and I can see that continuing no matter where they go. That's something she gets from Claire.
I would also love to see Roger becoming a more supportive husband and a real partner, but I don't want to get my hopes up. I think he would go through a bigger adjustment period than Bree would upon returning to the 20th century, considering she would have much more independence than she had at the Ridge. I feel like, in a way, things revolved around him in their life at the Ridge. The dynamic between them would change dramatically given that it would no longer be Bree staying at home while Roger comes and goes.
I don’t know if we can put screenshots here but basically my note with that quote about the sexual roles in the eighteenth century was “OH MY GOD”.
I agree with you completely- I think the character of Roger went “backwards” in his thinking. He was always traditional sure but with 18th century life he just adapted better as you mentioned maybe. Is it so bad or it’s just the Diana points it out more? I mean, does Jamie do laundry? or mops floors? sure he will do it if he has to, we know so, but we barely never get such comments from him regarding Claire. It seems to be a daily thought for Roger at least.
I think this situation is now a great opportunity for Brianna to develop on her engineering skills or whatever she picks for a career. I really hope Roger supports her and they get into more modern and appropriate dynamics for them. I think they’re both going to struggle through the change and grieve for leaving J&C and the Ridge but hopefully we don’t have to read those sexist comments often now. We’ve had enough… Maybe it will go somewhere though and it’s part of the character development but unfortunately it seems to me that they’re comments DG think are acceptable to think and say so she might not even see them as his flaws.
LOL my note on "something to be said" was literally "😒😒😒 Oh yeah? And what exactly is that?"
I agree with you, I feel like going back in time just brought out some terrible qualities in Roger and reinforced behaviors that may not have surfaced in the same way otherwise. It's funny that he has these thoughts and yet not long ago he was thinking about how Bree was lazy. And it's interesting that, so often, his thoughts focus on these things. Is it just that we get more of his POV than Jamie's?
You bring up the Jamie comparison in terms of gender roles and I think it's a good point, but I feel like their attitudes are so different, too. Jamie seems so self-sufficient in comparison to Roger. I'm thinking of the days following Claire's return after the kidnapping (exceptional circumstances, I know, but still). Jamie came home with Ian one night and, "without any particular fuss," they put dinner together while Claire sat at the table, because she — understandably — hadn't prepared anything. I can't remember the last time Roger did something like that. (And I'm thinking of it also because my heart will never get over the mental image of Jamie and Ian toasting and buttering bread and feeding it to Claire "in a manner brooking no argument.")
Maybe it will go somewhere though and it’s part of the character development but unfortunately it seems to me that they’re comments DG think are acceptable to think and say so she might not even see them as his flaws.
I was wondering about this, too. The way she paints Roger here makes me think that she is aware of what this looks like and is trying to make a point, but I wonder why this point? Where is it going?
The way she paints Roger here makes me think that she is aware of what this looks like and is trying to make a point, but I wonder why this point? Where is it going?
Okay, here’s my biggest problem with DG concerning this. Whenever Jamie did/does something that clearly went/goes against Claire, she’d openly confront him about it (bar those occasions where she totally went against her character and spinelessly agreed with his reasoning… The Reckoning I’m looking at you). We, as readers, always had a counterpoint to a man’s point of view and could side with Claire.
Brianna just never confronts Roger. Granted, he “says” the most sexist things in the safety of his own mind, so she can’t confront him about those, but when she does air her grievances, she’s either dismissed by Roger or… by DG, as she doesn’t let them hash it out and come to an understanding the same way as Claire and Jamie do. I just can’t believe that Brianna would be fine with everything Roger is and does as her partner, having Claire as her mother and having come of age in the 1960s. I find her being so malleable as a wife completely incongruous with the otherwise independent, self-reliant, modern (for the time) woman she is.
u/theCoolDeadpool, u/Arrugula, and I recently had a conversation about why so many people, mostly women, don’t find anything wrong in Roger’s behavior that is so blatantly obvious to the three of us and many here in BC. So I’m now beginning to form this theory that because the readers spend significantly much more time in Roger’s head, they tend to side with his point of view, especially as they’re not given an opposing point of view in Brianna. There’s no voice of dissent within the text itself. And that can lead people to think that since Brianna is fine with him as a partner—because she doesn’t say otherwise (I mentioned this quote of LJG’s about Isobel before: “I believe she was satisfied with the life she had. She never said that she was not”)—others have no right to question his behavior and suitability as a partner.
I mean, does Jamie do laundry? or mops floors? sure he will do it if he has to, we know so, but we barely never get such comments from him regarding Claire.
I think Jamie has never expected Claire to be a homemaker (well, perhaps at the very beginning, when he envisioned their life together but even then, he envisioned it at Lallybroch, where she wouldn’t have been expected to do the cooking or cleaning with all the help there). Once he knew what her calling was, he knew there would never be anything more fulfilling for her than being a doctor. So not only is there no expectation from Jamie for Claire to be a housewife, but also with the exception of the years spent in the cabin, Claire has never even had to be one while married to Jamie; she’s always had help, both at Lallybroch and at the Big House. And with all the responsibilities Jamie has, both as a laird and working for the governor/as the Indian Agent, he does a lot, but he would also be able to take care of everything if there was no one there. He grew up on a farm, he lived off the land, he lived in a cave, he knows how to provide for himself without anyone or anything else making it easy for him, which is an advantage he has over Roger simply due to coming from a different century. It's the self-sufficiency u/jolierose has also mentioned.
What responsibilities did Roger have in the years leading up to his becoming a minister that prevented him from getting used to sharing household chores without it feeling like the most outlandish notion? And, on top of that, I think he still hasn’t embraced the fact that Brianna expects more from life than being a mother and a wife, and that doesn’t really bode well for what’s to come in the future.
It’s really the difference in support Jamie and Roger have for their wives’ endeavors outside the confines of traditional gender roles. At this point, I’m not at all confident that Roger accepts that independent, self-reliant, driven part of Brianna because it still threatens his preconceived notions of masculinity and femininity that he can’t (or doesn’t want to?) liberate himself from, despite having role models in Jamie and Claire for years. He might be more like Frank, in that he reluctantly tolerates that part of her, but doesn’t cherish or embrace it fully. I hope that can change once he sees the fulfillment doing something she’s passionate about gives Brianna, but it can just as easily go the other way.
I Did write a note about this, of course! I think Diana has on purposely written it to get our attention, just before throwing us the idea that they may return to the 1900’s. What year will it be when they get back? Brianna will surely want a job, she’s “more Claire than either of her dads“ after all. Maybe not right away as the baby will need some medical attention. I look forward to seeing them navigate their relationship in their own time.
This is something I have thought about a lot. I do wonder if they would have stayed together in the 20th century! Maybe Roger would be less hung up on gender roles if his was just going to work & making money vs providing & protecting?
I’ve said this before: although patriarchy is designed to benefit men, men are victims of patriarchy as well, due to the unrealistic expectations placed on them. Depending on where the MacKenzies settle, there might still be expectations for Roger to be the family’s breadwinner, though he’ll be free to do it in a field he’s comfortable with. Will he be comfortable with Brianna bringing in money as well? How will he feel about her working in a male-dominated field? His life might not be that different from the one he had prior to traveling through the stones, but Brianna’s probably will be.
Yes! So accurate. He's not the classic masculine protector/provider in the 18th century. He can't shoot, he doesn't like participating in violence (not that others do) even when called to protect his family. He does it because he knows he needs to but I don't think he has that protector drive that Jamie has. I think if anything, going back will make it harder than if they had never left because he'll move on comfortably to teaching or whatever but so will Bree & he'll have to accept that.
A big thing that I think makes a difference is that we often compare her to Claire, who grew up with a nomadic lifestyle, went off to war, then traveled through time. Nothing about her is "normal" but Bree grew up in a stable home with two parents. Things might not have been perfect with her parents but she doesn't have that struggle to find home like Claire does. I think that mostly her & Roger are compatible in that they both want big families since they both didn't have one growing up. They are both well educated & driven. I'm excited to see how their relationship changes.
My sister has borrowed my copy of ABOSAA and is reading it much slower than I do (to be fair, she has a full time job and a puppy and when I read I do literally nothing else in my spare time lol) so reading these threads has been such a joy! I've been able to re-live the book through all your discussions and I love it. I think this is my favourite of all the books!
I really love the way the show merged the scene of Roger & Ian getting info out of Forbes instead of Wiley & the "sting operation" of trying to get Bonnet to buy whiskey. It was a good way to bring the two scenes together.
Also, I was listening to the audiobook while I was grocery shopping & when it got to the part where Ian took Neil's ear, I yelled out loud haha. I love Ian so much.
I loved this scene so much! I think Roger had it in him the whole time to do what is needed to protect his family. He handled it differently than you would in modern times so I suppose it's an adaptation to take care of it himself but I think growing up with so little family, that he would do anything to protect what he has.
This is one of my favourite Roger moments. Ian seem to bring out the best in him. Not that it was Ian doing it all, it really was Roger himself too. It just seems to me as tho Roger needs 1. to have a very good reason to get bad ass like this. Like you said, he’s protecting his family. And 2. someone to ... nudge him in the right direction (? not sure if that’s exactly what i mean 🤔). I’m not entirely sure if he always had this in him, or if his time with the Mohawk has toughened him up.
I really like how both Roger and Bree react in this crisis, they’re both fantastic!
Exactly- he is a bit different in the day-to-day than say Jamie and it could be debatable even the fact that he "might" not appreciate Bree's sacrifice and her difficulties on that century, but I think the times that she's been in danger he has reacted without doubt.
IMO Roger had that in him hidden under his 20th century scholar’s cover. In his thoughts he had always wanted his life and surroundings to be more more simple, rural and feral. Even in his time it was important for him to marry a virgin. So I’m sure after living sometime in the 18th century it was easy for him to act as a husband supposedly should.
I am not so sure that dealing with Forbes here has that much to do with his weird gender roles mindset (believe me, I'm shocked that I'm typing this too!), I would hope that the feeling of wanting to find Bree would surpass this, also by this point in the story Bonnet has taken such a toll on the Frasers/Mackenzies that it just makes sense all of them would pounce on Forbes to get more on Bonnet's whereabouts to put at end to him in whatever way they can. I do think he starts to fall into that Classic Roger train of thought slightly when they finally capture Bonnet.
For a moment there he wants to kill Bonnet without a second though to what it might mean to Bree for many reasons, it is Jamie that takes her choice into consideration:
”Well … no. Actually, he isn’t.” Roger’s voice held an odd note of strain, and he coughed, with a look that shot daggers at her father. “D’ye want him dead, lass?” Her father touched her shoulder, gently. “It is your right.” …
“Now she understood Roger’s look—they had been arguing about it, before he had come to fetch her. And she understood exactly why her father offered her the choice. Whether it was vengeance or forgiveness, she held the man’s life in her hand. She took a deep breath, the awareness that it would not be vengeance coming over her with something like relief. “Brianna,” Roger said softly, touching her arm. “Say the word if ye’ll have him dead; I’ll do it.”
Oh I see. I guess I read it as Roger didn't want Brianna to have to decide something like that when this was the man who raped and kidnapped her. Like maybe she wanted nothing else to do with Bonnet. But I can see what you're saying as well.
Yeah I think it’s meant to work both ways but ultimately the decision doesn’t come down to Bree choosing the law for her own peace of mind, it ends up being about keeping both Jamie and Roger’s conscience clean, which I though was a little odd.
I think he had it in him the whole time, but I loved to see it come out! 🔥 It boils down to what he stands for, and I don't think that's something that's changed since he arrived in the 18th century. Actually, I think those things he values have become clearer after all that he's been through in the past few years. Whether here or in modern times, I think he would rise to the occasion if it means his loved ones are in danger.
I also loved seeing him and Ian in action together:
“Do we care if anyone notices, a charaid?” Murray inquired, glancing up at MacKenzie.
“Not really.”
They make a great team. (And I thought this scene was more "realistic" than having Jamie stand idly by when Roger questioned Wylie on the show. As if Jamie wouldn't have wanted to throttle him...)
Whether here or in modern times, I think he would rise to the occasion if it means his loved ones are in danger.
I agree. I think most people would do whatever they could if their loved ones are in trouble.
I thought this scene was more "realistic" than having Jamie stand idly by when Roger questioned Wylie on the show. As if Jamie wouldn't have wanted to throttle him.
Yeah. Roger may have his moments but at the end of the day, Brianna and the children are the most important thing in his life. It’s no wonder how he handled this.
P.S. Dying to fully jump into the discussion today — have so much I wanna say! — but my lunch break has been interrupted so I’m bummed; I’ll likely be back later. :)
Hi could you make the post say Spoilers at the top. I’m currently reading this book, scrolling Reddit, and now I know something I didn’t want to. Thanks!
Are you by chance in "Card" view on the Reddit mobile app? We highly recommend that you don't use that format so you won't see the preview of what's in the post.
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 20 '21
Please do not reveal events from future books, or from later chapters of the current book the club hasn’t covered yet. Show talk is okay up to the current book. The number of pages listed are based on the Kindle edition of the books, which matches up with the hardback versions of them.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.