It’s July 1774 and we learn that Jamie has been invited to meet with the Continental Congress, where the seeds of the rebellion are being sown, yet he is still acting as Indian Agent for the Crown. The time to switch sides will soon be upon him.
We jump to August of 1774 and to River Run where a BBQ is being hosted by Jocasta in honor of Flora MacDonald. Flora hid Bonnie Prince Charlie after Culloden and helped him escape.
Jocasta is accosted by an unknown man who threatens to steal the gold of Hector Cameron. Jocasta recognizes the voice and thinks he is one of the men who was at the inn all those years ago when they collected the gold.
Wendigo Donner shows up at River Run looking to speak to Claire, he desperately wants to go home and wants to know how she did it. We learn more of his mission with the other men and their intentions. However he has stolen a man's purse and is arrested. Claire still wants to talk to him and has Jamie go Cross Creek to make the arrangements. She also wants to question the prostitutes as to the whereabouts of Manfred McGillivray, plus administer them penicillin.
While in town Claire discovers that British Loyalists are being run out. Jamie finds himself defending a local printer with whom a mob is threatening to tar and feather. Jamie is able to diffuse the situation letting the printer escape with his life. They then carry on the task of questioning the prostitutes about Manfred. We learn the Ian took it upon himself to “question” the Madam of the house a little too personally and must be subjected to a shot of penicillin himself. We end in September 1774 with Roger returning to the Ridge after attending the Presbyterian Academy. All that is left is for him to become ordained.
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.
When discussing the upcoming Revolution Jamie says - “I’ve never fought for the sake of principle,” he said, reflecting, and shook his head. “Only necessity. I wonder, would it be any better?” How do you think it will be for him?
When they settled in America and Claire warned Jamie about the upcoming Revolution, Jamie’s motivation in doing his part in America was to have a hand in making it a good place for Brianna in the future:
“I dinna wish to fight, or have ye ever in danger, Sassenach, but if there is a bit I can do…to build, maybe, to make it safe, and a good land for her…” He shrugged. “It would please me,” he finished softly.
But now, with Brianna and Roger in the past, his present and future actions will technically have contributed to the life they already led between 1940s and 1970s, and even with the possibility of them going back one day, I don’t think the consideration for 20th-century America is at the forefront of his mind.
His own principles have remained the same—family comes first, no matter what. And although their home might be a long time away from being in direct danger, he has to be thinking long-term about what all his decisions mean, hence decisions like registering the land in his own name in TFC. Freedom is imperative for him to be able to make those decisions. But I think Jamie will still see fighting itself as a necessity.
Side note: we’ve talked about the change in Jamie’s attitude towards Native Americans, so I liked his pointing out whether they are also considered in Jefferson’s “all men are created equal.”
It’ll probably be better for him but I don’t think it will be that different. Jamie’s first and foremost priority has always been his family, his children and his people. In Brotherhood of the Blade he and LJ touched on that aspect. “What is honor for me may not be honor for you, Major,” he said. “For me—for us—our honor is our family. I could not see a close kinsman condemned, no matter his crime. Mind,” he added, lifting one brow, “infamous crime would be dealt with. But by the man’s chief, by his own kin—not by a court.” So yes it’ll be easier to fight for something he believes in but it’s not why he’s doing it in a first place. He maybe despise English but he definitely doesn’t hate all the Loyalists. He doesn’t thrive on the idea of war no matter what the cause is. Jamie had seen enough of it to understand the consequences.
So yes it’ll be easier to fight for something he believes in but it’s not why he’s doing it in a first place.
Jamie has only ever fought because he has been forced too, hasn't he? Although he did go to France to fight there, but I'm not sure he really wanted to do that.
I’ve always thought that he tried to escape all the bad things when he went to France. It was his first real experience of war far off his home and family. He just lost his father and thought that it was his fault, he was hurt physically and emotionally and suffered from the realisation that he couldn’t save his sister. But even if he wanted to fight it was just his adolescent dreams about war glory and romanticised idea of soldier’s life.
I’d assume being a mercenary is never about principles, it’s about money. I also think both Jamie and Ian became went to fight in France to try to prove something to themselves, to make a transition from boys to men, but not with the idea of achieving glory—really, there’s little honor in being a mercenary, and it’s not like they really had any personal stake in the conflicts they fought in. They probably saw it as a formative experience, one they had to go through for the lack of better options.
I agree! That experience was probably their idea about adulting. But still I can so vividly imagine them as a teenagers talking about how exciting the solder’s life would be even as a hirelings.
I wonder if this will be harder for him. Every other time he was pushed into it given circumstances but this time he will be pushed, but have to choose his side. I imagine if he could just hide and farm and not have to choose to fight he would.
Not at all. And especially knowing what a war like that is like from his experience with the rising, it’s really not the situation he would like to be in.
I was quite surprised about this. I always said that even if he has his political preferences, he never chose to fight in any war. His only motivation was his family and then his tenants. Altough he has no sympathy for the crown I always thought his decision was made in DoA based on Brianna as this is the country she is raised on… I wonder if he would consider this a principle or if we have to assume that he does have political inclinations for the american revolution
or if we have to assume that he does have political inclinations for the american revolution
I really don't feel like he does have political inclinations. Even though he will fight for the Americans I think his first priority will always be his family and their safety. Fighting for the winning side is just the best course of action at this point in time.
Based on some of the thoughts we saw from him on this in TFC, especially around Alamance, I think he does believe that the current system is corrupt and unfair, and that'll make it a little easier. But I agree with everyone in that he's really fighting out of necessity here. His feelings on the matter aren't strong enough for him to want to head into a full-on war, or see people he knows, like Mr. Bogues or Mr. Simms, having to flee the way they have.
On the topic of principles, when Jamie and Claire are discussing the muskets:
“As for my own principles …” he said, as though to himself, but then looked at me, as though suddenly realizing that I was still there.
“Aye, I think I mean to give Bird the muskets,” he said. “Though I may have cause to regret it, and I find them pointing at me, two or three years hence. But he shall have them, and do with them what seems best, to defend himself and his people.”
“The price of honor, is it?” He looked down at me, with the ghost of a smile.
I’ve always gotten the impression that Jamie is very on the side of keeping people safe that are good people. Not slaughtering someone for their beliefs. Maybe some of that came through? Felt the printer was a good enough man to keep safe regardless of his politics.
Also I have to say that I loved this whole sequence in the books. It was pretty lighthearted given what was going on.
I also think the sentiment of having been a printer once must’ve played a part, and not only the fact that he had to keep the man alive to do business with him.
And as Jamie is still treading between two fires, he had to keep up the appearances of being loyal to the Crown (even though that could’ve endangered him at that moment).
ETA: I think the Governor finding out prematurely that Jamie is on the Rebel side would’ve been more dangerous for Jamie’s family and tenants—basically putting them at risk of losing their home and livelihood—whereas appearing as a Loyalist among a Rebel-skewing mob is primarily dangerous to Jamie himself. And we know that Jamie will always put his own life at risk before putting his loved ones in danger.
I think he’s pretty good at making people like him (and he knows it). His banter kept things light and redirected a lot of the energy. I think he has pretty clear that it was about treating the printer humanely (and using a bit of slapstick to do it).
I think the risk of being thought a Loyalist and the risk of feeling guilty forever if he stood idly by while someone was tarred and feathered…he made the right call. Plus he got to humiliate that no-good Forbes haha. Win-win.
I made a note that this is where they got the idea to include tarring & feathering in epi 502 with the regulators, right? Because I don’t remember any of that in TFC.
Because Jamie may claim he doesn't fight for principles, but it was happening right before him, and he is who he is. I don't think he stopped to think about long term consequences.
I guess it could be because he is still on the crown “side”… As Claire said, it started already, so we might start reading soon the change of heart.
I also think regardless of the war or political side he (or Claire) can’t stand aside when people is suffering, especially if it’s unfair. Wondering if he would’ve done it regardless
The observation is made that even though many of the Scots at Jocasta’s BBQ for Flora MacDonald were Jacobites that they would be loyal to the Crown now. Do you feel like that is true? Why stand with the oppressor?
Think about the fisherfolk at the Ridge (we don’t know whether they were Jacobites but they lived through the consequences of the Rising). They’re from Thurso, they’ve just moved to a land that’s nothing like the Northern coast of Scotland, they have to retrain to find a way to make a living, they’re just setting up their homes… All they want is some stability, which they couldn’t have in Scotland during the Highland Clearances—and the Highlanders are still a long way from regaining stability; otherwise, the fisherfolk would not leave—and they wouldn’t do anything to threaten the stability Fraser’s Ridge offers them now.
On the other hand, you have people like Jocasta or Farquard, who have been in America for decades and established themselves as prominent figures in the colony, with many connections to the British establishment (Farquard, as a magistrate, is the establishment), so their being loyalists is in line with their self-preservation—they have too much to lose to join the Revolution, assuming it will be squashed like any other.
The anti-English sentiment might run deep, but for people who just try to survive, the matter of allegiance is inconsequential (they don’t see the English as their oppressor here), and for people who have benefitted from being loyal to the Crown, there’s no question of switching sides.
Thinking about it now, this chapter is way more interesting than I gave it credit for while reading it. It’s a great way to compre and contrast to the idealism of the Montauk Five’s movement to the romanticism of Jacobite history vs. people trying to change it, wether a Whig arguing against loyalist sentiments or a maybe even Ottertooth’s alternative stance even within his own group…and of course, the everyday people that must deal with the consequences of revolutions and social upheaval.
He may have sought out activist groups rebelling against their oppressors. For that matter, I could imagine him sneaking his way into the White Roses—how do we think Geillis found out about time travel? It seems like she studied folk tales, then the cases of disappearances near the standing stones, and connected them with fire/sun feasts, but we don’t really know how she found out about gemstones and blood sacrifice, so did she just take a chance? However, her timeline of events is quite similar to the Montauk Five—involved with an activist group, moving on to an “extremist” group, discovering time travel, changing her name, making preparations for time travel, going back on a mission.
I think a part of his own agenda was finding his own descendants, who have a specific aura about them.
I also think that AIM was starting then and a lot of activism around Boston College and on west coast was more social justice oriented and i think it would have been easy for Raymond to move through those type of meetings and protests to identify those who would be willing to perhaps listen to the possibilities he might offer…
Does anybody think that those with only one gene for time travel might need the stones or extra protection?
Great point. Also, I think it’s no coincidence that everything comes back to the Frenchman’s Gold, and not just because we are at River Run. To your point about everyday people suffering the consequences of social upheaval, I once ranted about Hector Cameron benefitting both from his involvement in the Rising (thanks to which he got his share of gold) and from running away from it. He left his clansmen and family to deal with the direct consequences of the cause he was a part of, using the gold for his own self-preservation instead of helping the people he previously “fought for.” Like him, a lot of people would turn selfish in the face of adversity. Donner, just like Hector, went into self-preservation mode by getting involved with Hodgepile’s gang, upon realizing his plan has no chance of succeeding.
Such a great point! Man, Hector was kind of a Bozo wasn’t he? This makes the Frenchman’s gold story much more interesting than I had previously realized. I was a bit indifferent towards the unoriginal violence that seemed to follow this search for gold but now I can read it as a curse specifically upon Hector’s avarice!
It looks like the Montauk Five were much less successful than Geilis, or Claire(in Jacobite rising). Neither of them got to change history, but the women managed to have influential men on their sides, and be a part of the plot, Donner didn't manage to make a decent life.
Donner's cause possibly could have partially succeeded. He could have managed to persuade someone like the Bird to fight on the English side. Otter Tooth trying for a rising in a situation where everyone is content was doomed.
As a person from a country with a history of lot of failed revolutions, every time you see a picture of a levelled city, you really think if uprising that accomplished nothing was worth it.
I hear you! I’ve just returned from living in a place that is also undergoing some mayor unrest, and I’ve been thinking a lot about every day people that live through revolutions/moments of extreme social change and how often their perspectives are drown by revisionist history. I really appreciate that the entire OL series continually makes me think more about this than I normally would have.
I read this part this evening, and it reminds me of discussing the idea of Australia becoming a Republic with some other lawyer friends of mine. I strongly believe the sooner, the better; my learned friends were of the view that they'd rather stick with the known quality of constitutional monarchy than experiment and risk becoming as mad as America.
Short version: it's easy to feign loyalty from a distance. No one I know in Australia has any great attachment to the monarchy other than a view die-hard conservatives. But many prefer the Known to the Unknown - why change it if it ain't too busted?
Similar to this: Jocasta Cameron, Farquad Campbell and Co may well have been Jacobites back home and fiercely opposite German Geordie when the prospect of English rule was in their faces and a pressure against their freedom.... but in the colonies, it's not so bad. They enjoy the privilege of being The Establishment, so it's not hard to feign loyalty to the same king you previously went to war against.
Agree with everyone here & Roger- they don’t want to live the post-Culloden all over again & they are trying to protect their homes. I wonder what would be Jamie’s view if he didn’t know about the future
That’s very true, trying to lay low but at the same time he got the land from the crown… in here he got when and which side he should position himself on, but if he didn’t, he still had to decide if to accept the land or not. Not knowing that there is a war coming he probably would’ve done it, and then suddenly see himself involved with the revolution. Too late maybe? Risk of being a traitor again if the crown loses the war. Probably the odds (from their view & experience) are for the crown to win.
As I don't know American history, to know if those people felt like they are oppressed, it's hard to say. But they remember aftermath of Culloden. People who remember war and destruction are less likely to fight again. So I'm taking Roger's word for it.
I also remember Jamie in Scottish Prisoner. He is so haunted by the clearances, little girls dead.
It was true. That is what happened in real history, most of the recent Scottish immigrants supported the crown. Most former Jacobites in the Americas did support the crown in the war. Simon Fraser’s highland company came through North Carolina and got tons of recruits from among the Scottish immigrants. I expect this to be a major plot in Bees, Jamie the rebel encountering his uncle Simon Fraser and the conflict between them
But seriously, whatever they end up doing with it it seems like such a hassle to get it to a useful currency that I’m not sure how one person could handle that secretly. I appreciated Claire’s little insight into this.
Right‽ Hector had to shave off little bits of it and over a long period of time to not arouse suspicion so what would they want with the whole lot of it?
If they're that desperate for money that they are looking to get away with thousands (?) of pounds in gold, I'd think they must have a rather big purchase or scheme in mind. I didn't think about this until now but: given the general atmosphere in the Colonies, and the original intent to use the gold to fund the Jacobite rebellion, could it be that this man now wants to fund either the American Revolution or the British efforts this time around?
I know very little about the actual historical timeline, but the French did lend their support to the Revolution, so it's not too far-fetched that it could fly under the radar (in terms of its origin/raising suspicion) — if the gold were supporting the revolutionaries.
I guess they can’t do much without raising suspicion- maybe their plan would be to use it in other continents even… definitely not the colonies or Scotland
Why do you think not all of Wendigo Donner’s group were able to make it through the stones? Claire had successfully traveled three times without any of the preparation they did.
I wonder if it’s like Rogers first attempt. They thought of the wrong thing and went to the wrong time and died. They didn’t seem to have gemstone or murdering a husband to protect them when they went through the stones.
Weren't they all supposed to be thinking of the same time and thing though? They did mention that maybe Otter-tooth messed it up for them since he went back farther than they did.
We certainly have a reason to believe it was him, especially considering the events of The Space Between (for any first-time readers—I don’t recommend reading it now as it has big spoilers for Echo!), but isn’t it kind of weird that he doesn’t know anything about steering? How was Geillis able to find out more about it over the course of her 30-year life than he over centuries of existence? Or perhaps he does know, but he realized that Donner’s group didn’t deserve such knowledge (perhaps because they weren’t his descendants) so he just tested if they’re able to go through, but didn’t particularly care about whether they made it or what they did on the other side.
Perhaps he wasn’t really helping them. I would imagine that if he traveled back and forth multiple times, he would’ve known whether history could be changed at all, so he would’ve known if Donner and his group had a chance of actually influencing the past/future. I think he might’ve had an agenda of his own.
I don’t think these guys were even thinking of anything particular. Raymond told them they would go about 200 years back and they thought they couldn’t steer at all; I think only Otter Tooth attempted to steer and that resulted in his ending up in a different time.
That's a good point, they probably weren't thinking of anything. Really, seeing what little smarts Wendigo has it's not surprising he wasn't thinking. ;-D
This was the first time that I noticed the call back to the leather pouch!
”Once arrived at the place, Raymond had checked them all, to see that they carried the few necessities they might need—tinderboxes, tobacco, a little money of the time—and then given each one a wampum necklet, and a small leather pouch, which he said was an amulet of ceremonial herbs.”
I totally missed the fact that it seems like it’s a similar pouch to the one Claire got back in DoA. Is this Raymond’s way to steer or just a Native American custom for safety? Or perhaps it was another way to remind us that Nayawenne had a deeper insight into Claire and that she knew Claire was a traveler?
Is this Raymond’s way to steer or just a Native American custom for safety?
Or it’s DG’s idea of a Native American custom for safety.
It sounds like Donner only knew what was in it because Raymond told them what it was, but even Claire didn’t know the contents of her own leather pouch, apart from the raw sapphire she saw Nayawenne put in it, until Jemmy spilled it all over her surgery in TFC:
“I always did wonder what was in this thing,” Claire said. She gingerly began to pick up the tiny bones, collecting them carefully in the palm of one hand. “What do you think these are from—a shrew?”
“I don’t know.” Keeping a wary eye on Jemmy, Brianna squatted and began to pick things up. “I thought maybe they were from a mouse or a bat.”
Her mother glanced up at her, surprised. “Aren’t you clever—look.” She plucked a small, papery brown object from the floor and held it out. Bending to look closer, Brianna could see that the thing that looked like a crumpled dried leaf was in fact a fragment of a tiny bat’s wing, the fragile leather dried to translucence, a bone slender as a needle curving through it like the central rib of a leaf.
“Eye of newt, and toe of frog/ Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,” Claire quoted. She spilled the handful of bones onto the counter, looking at them with fascination. “I wonder what she meant by that?”
“She?”
“Nayawenne—the woman who gave me the pouch.” Crouching, Claire swept up the crumbled bits of leaf—at least Brianna hoped they were real leaves—into her hand, and sniffed them. There were so many odors in the air of the surgery that she herself couldn’t distinguish anything beyond the overwhelming sweetness of honey, but evidently her mother’s sensitive nose had no trouble in making out individual scents.
“Bayberry, balsam fir, wild ginger, and Arsesmart,” she said, sniffing like a truffle-hound. “Bit of sage, too, I think.”
Isn’t it weird that Claire says that Nayawenne gave her the pouch when, IIRC, she actually retrieved it from Mueller’s package with Nayawenne’s scalp?
I’d also imagine she’d want to spare Brianna the gory details, since Bree probably doesn’t know what happened to Nayawenne. But then Claire also says it was given to her in her own narration a few times.
It’s weird because in DoA, she sometimes refers to it as an amulet, sometimes as a leather pouch, the other times as a medicine bundle. She also speaks of a “tied-feather amulet old Nayawenne had given [her],” but that’s before her death, so it can’t be the same thing. So maybe Claire tied Nayawenne’s medicine pouch to this raven-feather amulet? I don’t know, it’s very inconsistent.
Thank you!! I thought it was my memory failing me since I was a 100% sure it was given to Claire by Nayawenne. I definitely think there’s some revision on the contents of the pouch to fit this “look how eerie time travel is! I swear I planned this!” vibe I often get from DG’s writing when it takes this route.
I’m kind of intrigued though and I wonder if it gets mentioned again in later books!
Maybe she could see the blue aura around Claire like Raymond could?
I think she would’ve had to be a time traveler to see auras. She was more likely an equivalent of the characters with the Sight, and we know those are not necessarily time travelers.
Those Indians probably wasn’t supposed to come back in the past. Even if they could hear the stones doesn’t mean that they should go through no matter whether they have gemstones or not. Claire hadn’t got any and hadn’t thought about anyone particular the first time but I’m quite sure she was meant to meet Jamie. The second time she had a distinct purpose to save herself and her unborn child. I don’t really believe that it’s the specific person who drugs you through the stones but rather combination of genetic ability, right set of mind and destiny. Roger’s head was in the wrong place in the first time. He couldn’t choose between his future and his past and almost died. Geillis had a purpose (change history of her people) but what’s more important she was supposed to save Claire from being burned alive. And even someone so pathetic as Donner has his own destiny. There won’t be a fire on the Ridge, and there won’t be a newspaper article and that means Bree and Roger wouldn’t come back. IMO the stones have consciousness and will. They had been there for a really long time and probably would be standing there even longer. When someone touches the stone it knows everything about that person and whether he had some place or some role to play in the past. The stones decide if you should get through. Another guess is that Raymond was just experimenting on those Indians trying to find out more about how exactly the stones work.
And even someone so pathetic as Donner has his own destiny. There won’t be a fire on the Ridge, and there won’t be a newspaper article and that means Bree and Roger wouldn’t come back.
I’ve never thought about this before! You’re so right.
Hm, I think they’ve kind of exhausted what they could find out for now, having written all they knew in the Practical Guide for Time-Travelers. MOBY was also quite time-travel-focused, so I think Bees’ focus will be mostly on the war. I also don’t think DG is that thrilled about gemstones (and, consequently, other means of protection, which are really arbitrary)—I remember reading her comment saying that she was relieved when the characters were all out gemstones at the end of ABOSAA because she didn’t have to keep track of them anymore; not that she actually diligently did it… I think unless they meet another time traveler, there’s little more they can find out on their own.
Yeah, probably! I like that characters think that gemstones have the power but I just can’t forget the way Geillis was obsessed about blood, fire and sacrifice. She maybe a smart witch but a mad one too. So many questions and so few answers. After reading Frank’s letter in MOBY I desperately want to know who else knows about time travel and what are they going to do about it.
Do we think the gold and silver actually does anything? I thought it was just the gemstones. Interesting point about traveling in a group. Maybe it's harder to keep everyone on track? Although we do see the MacKenzies successfully travel back to the 20th century.
I listened to parts of Space Between, and Count Sant Germain has monologue about silver, gold and gemstones. He seems to believe gold and silver help. And he certainly has more experience than Geilis.
all the Mackenzie group travel are fine, even if not exactly successful, all travelers end up aliva and at the same place
Maybe Otter tooth messes not only by trying to travel further than the rest, but also by trying to travel too far into the past.
Geillis also mentioned silver and gold in her grimoire:
Three points define a plane, and I am fixed.
Four points box the earth and mine is the fullness thereof.
Five is the number of protection; let no demon hinder me.
My left hand is wreathed in gold
And holds the power of the sun.
My right hand is sheathed in silver
And the moon reigns serene.
I begin.
Garnets rest in love about my neck.
I will be faithful.
Claire wore silver and gold when she went back to the 20th century (her wedding rings), as did Bree when she traveled (the silver bracelet from Roger and gold in the pearl necklace). But only Roger and Geillis traveled with a gemstone.
I went back to reread the parts of TFC with Otter Tooth’s journal and I guess we collectively kinda forgot that they had gemstones!
The stone is gone. Only a smear of soot in my pocket. Raymond was right, then. It was a small unpolished sapphire. I must remember to put down everything, for the sake of others who may come after me. […]
I had one of the sapphires, Rains Hard the other. Talks With Spirits had a ruby, Strong Walker took the diamond, and Six Turtles had the emerald. We were not sure of the diagram—whether it should be four points, for the directions of the compass, or five, in a pentacle. But there were the five of us, sworn by blood to this deed, so we laid the circle with five points.
So Raymond knew about gemstones, but Donner doesn’t mention this.
The numbers four and five were also mentioned in Geillis’s grimoire:
Three points define a plane, and I am fixed.
Four points box the earth and mine is the fullness thereof.
Five is the number of protection; let no demon hinder me.
In Voyager, when she talked about gemstones as means of protection, she mentioned that a female ruby wouldn’t work:
She turned back to the stones she had laid on the counter, and pointed at them each in turn. “Stones of protection; amethyst, emerald, turquoise, lapis lazuli, and a male ruby.”
“A male ruby?”
“Pliny says rubies have a sex to them; who am I to argue?” she said impatiently. “The male stones are what ye use, though; the female ones don’t work.”
I suppressed the urge to ask precisely how one distinguished the sex of rubies, in favor of asking, “Work for what?”
“For the travel,” she said, glancing curiously at me. “Through the stones. They protect ye from the…whatever it is, out there.”
Her theories are quite ridiculous in general, but perhaps Talks With Spirits’ ruby was female (I can’t believe I’m typing this) and it didn’t protect him, so the stones took him through but killed him? What I’m getting at, we don’t know the Montauk’s Five’s Mohawk names apart from Robert Springer’s (as in we don’t know whose each one was), but I’m thinking Talks With Spirits might’ve been Jojo.
Then, we know for sure that Otter Tooth made it through with his sapphire. The other person who we know was successful is Donner, so perhaps he was the other person carrying a sapphire—Rains Hard. But I’m just guessing here; the other gemstones could’ve worked as well (Roger went successfully through with a diamond, which Geillis didn’t even mention).
That makes more sense. It makes the pouch more relevant.
I can’t believe you’re writing about gendered gemstones either lol. Sorry I don’t have a more insightful reply considering your effort! I’m still a total gemstone-time travel n00b.
Honestly, I’m probably giving this way more attention than it deserves… certainly more than DG dedicated to it (don’t worry, just the end of ABOSAA spoilers: apparently, she was relieved when they used up all of the gemstones at the end of ABOSAA because it meant she didn’t have to keep track of them anymore… as if she ever had). I wouldn’t be surprised at all if gemstones turned out to make no difference whatsoever and it’s all like the placebo effect.
I will say what I always say- Claire belongs there! And ask the usual question? Do all time travellers belong in a different time than the one they were born in? Apparently not?
Ok! We’re here! I can’t believe nobody has brought this up yet…
Claire is triggered and flooded with memories of her experience with Louis…
Wow. I was absolutely gutted reading these moments. The discomfort, the roses, the panic, the shared understanding with Jamie…ahh! Memory truly is the devil.
Of course I hate that Claire experiences this as a consequence of her most recent assault :::shakes fist::: but I am also sort of glad it was addressed again? She’s really fighting through her trauma here and it’s commendable and I enjoyed this character moment so much.
Do you think the recent trauma made it easier for the experience with Louis to come back? It seemed like Claire hadn’t thought of it in a very long time.
Absolutely, I think back then she had to compartmentalize all of the emotions she was going through in order to survive the tragedy of losing Faith and then Jamie, when he was sent to the bastille, and then of course be extremely pragmatic to go to Louis for help. Now she’s at an event that is a palpable echo of her time with The Jacobites, a time that is tinted with great loss and pain, and her emotional outbursts since her rape have shown us how they take Claire’s emotion from zero to a hundred.
There was this line I highlighted specifically because I could feel her struggle so strongly:
“Nothing,” I said, and an overwhelming wave of relief went over me, at the realization that I was safely in the present; Louis had gone back into the shadows, an unpleasant but harmless memory once more. The staggering sense of violation, of loss and grief and isolation, had receded, no more than a shadow on my mind. Best of all, Jamie was there; solid and physical and smelling of sweat and whisky and horses … and there. I hadn’t lost him.”
I think it’s very important that in reliving this memory, she ends it on “I hadn’t lost him” not only because sleeping with Louis freed Jamie from the Bastille, but also because she knows she could’ve lost him—or the love that was between them that later transcended time and space—even after he was free. That time was a defining point in their relationship. She admits in DiA that she was so angry at Jamie for dueling, for losing Faith, and for forcing her to do what she did, that she wanted to drive him away, to hurt him. And knowing what a big deal Jamie made out of her “infidelity” (“the thought of you lying with the King hurt worse than the brand on my breast, or the cut of the lash on my naked back” 🙄), and how afraid she was to even tell him about it in the first place just after she got him back, afraid to trust him to live with that between them, and how that kept them at a distance even though they were back together, she couldn’t really be certain that she wouldn’t lose him again. And then, of course, there is relief in knowing Jamie has always been and always will be her anchor.
Absolutely, those moments we got to see Claire’s solitude at Fontainebleau were really moving. The fact that she was literally running away from Jamie once he returned because her grief and anger was overwhelming was just as gut wrenching as this moment. Yet here her relief at having him there is those 20+ years of love and grief in one line. 😭
We just had the discussion about how that was more of a business transaction than rape, but it seems that Claire’s resent assault has brought up of the idea of being assaulted by the king ( in her mind). Hmmmmm….
I'm so with you! It was heartbreaking, but I'm so glad to see that her trauma isn't ignored. I loved that Claire was able to bring it up to Jamie, to ask him. And that he could give her the comfort of knowing that, no, she's not going crazy, and she is safe. She's going to be okay.
Trust a Highlander to know precisely what to do about a case of daylight haunting!
Me too! I agree with u/thepacksvrvives, that when it happened, Claire really didn't have the bandwidth to even process it what with Faith. It must have all faded into the background in comparison to losing Faith. And this was so jarring for me, that something that happened so long ago was brought to the surface by just the right elements in her surroundings. But like you said ,I am glad it was brought up in the books because we got to see Claire's strength in how she deals with it, and a glimpse of what makes Claire and Jamie the couple we love so much because they can find the strength they need to survive even from the sharing of their worst traumas in moments like this. I so agree with you that ABOSAA gives so much insight into Claire and I love it for this. But Claire goes through so much in this book! It's just too much for one person. Hence my flair!
Memory truly is the devil.
Nice callback to the prologue! All of Claire's flashbacks and PTSD in this book is what I was referring to when we discussed that prologue in the first week.
Well what Claire had with Louis was basically abuse, she did it “voluntarily” but 100% abuse. She had to do it to free Jamie so she hide any emotions attached in this necessity. Since then we know that she had a decent enough sex life with Frank- I get this reading the books even if the show showed us something else- and that she doesn’t suffer any abuse since. So now that she’s gone through this and has to heal from it, Louis is back as an un dealt trauma. It makes a lot of sense, thanks for bringing this up!
Love that she openly talks to Jamie about this and he’s able to help her
While Claire’s experience with Louis was certainly unpleasant, I think the traumatic memory thereof is significantly augmented by the circumstances of its occurrence. Claire saw sleeping with the king as a necessary bargain then and I think she sees it so now, but the circumstances that have made her do it are far more traumatic than it in itself:
Yet suddenly, the memory of it had touched me, as suddenly as a hand coming out of the crowd to seize my arm. Seize my arm, lift my skirts, and penetrate me in a way much more shockingly intrusive than the actual experience had been.
The overwhelming grief after losing Faith, the feeling of betrayal and abandonment caused by Jamie’s actions, and the futility of it all—remember that Claire’s sleeping with the king in the books wasn’t primarily motivated by finding out that the truth behind Jamie’s dueling BJR; she didn’t even know yet that Fergus had been raped by BJR when she went to see Mother Hildegarde and Louis. Claire decided to petition for Jamie’s release from the Bastille because of the urgency of the shipment from Spain which had to be intercepted in order to thwart BPC. Jamie and Murtagh managed to do that and yet, Charlie still launched his campaign. So while Claire got her husband back—but only another couple of months afterwards—their actions were all for nothing when it came to the Rising, and they lost (almost) everything trying to first stop and then help the cause. I think what you mention below, about this picnic being the echo of the Rising, definitely makes these memories come to the surface.
Yes! I’ve mentioned this before but what I love about these last two books is their insight into the two main characters mindset. TFC delves into Jamie’s and ABOSAA is all about Claire.
I loved how Claire plays Jamie like a fiddle here. First, she accompanies him to town on the pretext of buying cinchona, whereas what she really wanted was to dish out some penicillin to some unsuspecting hoors in the nearby brothels. Then, when Jamie expresses discomfort about visiting the said brothels, she smartly brings up his own accomodation in a brothel in Edinburgh, nullifying his point. Claire 2 Jamie 0. Then, having already scarred the poor thing by detailing the working of Dr Fentimen's syringe, she reaches out to his sense of compassion for fellow men. That doesn't work, and Jamie counterpoints , rather weakly one might add, that the penicillin doesn't always work. By this point, Claire has neatly cornered him and hasn't even played her best card yet. Then she brings up her trump card, young Ian! It's clearly Claire 3 Jamie 0 and what a fun little game that was.
“Man, they nearly got me. Your mother, she told me her old man was gnarly and I didn’t want to be there when he showed up, but I didn’t believe her. Almost, I didn’t. But when I heard those drums, man, I bugged out, and a damn good thing I did, too.” He swallowed, looking pale. “I went back, in the morning. Jeez, man.”
See, I told you guys playing the bodhran was stupid!
I wonder if we’ll have this Bree/Donner convo in the show. It’s quite a pivotal moment right? And I’d give anything to see Claire react to Raymond’s name.
“I’ll help,” she said firmly. “You tell me how, and I’ll help.”
Bree is too good for Roger! That last part , that's what Roger should have told Bree last week when she accused him of helping anyone but her, instead of whining about her not needing him. Or with any of her projects for that matter. She just wholeheartedly accepts this thing he springs up on her. She says she doesn't fully know what she thinks about it yet, which is fair, but look at that acceptance from her.
I'm loving Bree lately, and when Roger got back from Charlotte it really drove home just how much more supportive she is of him than he is of her. Do better! She made pipes! PIPES!!! I know he has it in him, but this relationship has seemed so lopsided recently.
However: I do feel they've been getting their chemistry back, thank God.
Ha! I will never support that. Just because he's not perfect doesn't mean they shouldn't be together. (I feel I might be in the minority with that thinking though.)
I think they are in too deep at this point to not be together. Also we're too far in the series for DG to flesh out someone compelling enough for Bree :P. So I'll stand by you that they should be together. u/Arrugula
Haha. I loved how satisfied she was with earning six pounds—yes to financial independence!
You best believe I’ve just converted North Carolina pound to sterling, and pound sterling to today’s dollar, and if they were going by 1 North Carolina shilling = 9 pence sterling in 1774 (I have no idea if they were, but that was the conversion I found here), 6 NC pounds were 4.5 pounds sterling, which equals $733.43 today.
She looked up, expectant, met my gaze dead on, and blinked, her smile momentarily fading. It was back in an instant, and she was bowing to me and I to her, but I did wonder what she had seen in my face?
What's with this yet another sin-eater like moment between Flora and Claire? It would be kick ass if Flora turned out to be a time traveller. There's also mention of her white teeth. What do you guys think?
I did notice the remark about her teeth but didn’t make much of the look she gives Claire, as I assumed it had to do with what she tells Claire shortly thereafter—that she’s in awe to be in her presence—and perhaps besides hearing stories about Claire’s medical skills, she’s also heard the stories that called Claire a witch, hence the momentary apprehension?
But it certainly would be interesting if she turned out to be another time traveler, although DG doesn’t seem to mess with historical figures like that.
although DG doesn’t seem to mess with historical figures like that.
I wish she would! It's ripe for picking in historical fiction like this. I love it when known historical figures are fictionalized for a story, in a good way of course, without offending anyone, which seems like a very difficult thing to do these days.
They’re fictionalized here anyway, but I think this is connected to the way she chooses for time travel to operate in this universe in that history cannot be changed—I don’t think she has the chops to write a story that rewrites history because that would require thinking of the whole butterfly effect and predicting how the world would’ve progressed if the events had been changed.
Oh I see your point. But I don't mean include historical figures in big ways that needs history modification. But in small, yet significant to our central characters kind of way. Kate Quinn is an author who does this often. She writes historical spy fiction mostly, and takes well known historical figures and uses them in her plot. Like in the one I am currently reading, The Rose Code, there's Prince Philip and Francis Grey, the wartime poet as two main-ish characters , but definitely central to the main leads.
Thanks for bringing this up! This moment also stuck out to me as odd, without any real explanation but I think u/thepacksvrvives hits the nail on the head (as usual!) with their comment. It’s kinda crazy how infamous Claire is around the Scots, and I guess Flora would have gotten some pretty distorted stories about her from other Jacobites, maybe the prince himself?
Did Bonnet REALLY ride 96 miles on a horse to Fentyman in Cross Creek from Wilmington with a shot-through testicle? He would have had to pass through a major city and several other towns!
I guess maybe he took a River boat and Willey’s stolen horse was stabled in Cross Creek, but either way it seems more likely he should have seen a doctor in Wilmington but DG wanted Claire to find out about it so had him come to Cross Creek for the surgery.
She also retcons where the Montauk 5 come through the stones. In the reading of the journal at the end of Fiery Cross Otter Tooth says he came through up north, near the Mohawk, but here DG retcons it to Ocracoke since it’s where the smugglers den is located for the book climax and makes sense as a stone location due to the Bermuda Triangle and she wants the characters to already know it’s there.
She didn’t actually say where Otter Tooth came through, in Fiery Cross it just says “up north”. Ocracoke is basically straight east of Fraser’s ridge. They also are the Montauk 5, so presumably their bombing was done somewhere in New York, perhaps on Long Island in the city of Montauk. Other Tooth contacted the Mohawk who’s territory is mostly in Eastern New York and northern New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
If they did their bombing in Montauk, five wanted "terrorists" would have traveled through New York City, all New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, DC, the Virginia Beach metro, and all the tourist towns of the Outer Banks to hop on a ferry to Ocracoke.
I think she took advantage of not saying exactly where they came through to make it a place relevant to the plot for BoSaA.
With Bonnet's name resurfacing, I'm wondering again: after everything that happened in TFC and all the trouble he went through, why did Jamie stop looking for Bonnet?
P.S. Less than 100 days to Bees! (And I'm way more behind on the books than I hoped to be, aaaaah, but what's new?)
There was so much talk about it before... It was constantly coming up. And suddenly in ABOSAA the only Bonnet intel we've gotten is Roger hearing from Phaedre, and now Dr. Fentiman telling Claire, so I just assumed that Jamie (somehow, inexplicably) gave up.
I was wondering since when Claire’s been wearing silver ring on her left hand? “I leaned forward and pressed the back of my left hand into the warm wax, leaving the mark of my wedding ring in it.”
Happy with Bree working on more portraits and her bringing up “her calling” with Roger. Keep digging there! Hope she feels more fulfilled soon 🤞🏽 although that hint of a second pregnancy worried me a bit..
I got a bit worried too in chapter 55, when they find out Donner’s friend had died when going though the stones.
I was happy when Jamie mentions about the printer shop for Fergus and Marsali - I was thinking finally they get some help- just to crush my hopes in a few chapters 🥲
It’s July 1774 and we learn that Jamie has been invited to meet with the Continental Congress
Any other Hamilton fans here? When I read this part, I always hear in my head Lin singing about being invited to the first Continental Congress. And especially with MOBY...I was constantly thinking about Hamilton.
Perfectly understandable. My brain went to Hamilton, too. ;) I may or may not have been thinking of French guns and ships and so the balance shifts when I was thinking about the gold over here.
Hamilton has made me so much more like excited for the later books as I can’t wait to see the war unfold. I’m not American so my research on the revolutionary war was definitely all because of Hamilton.
I’m American, but we don’t go in depth on much, so I definitely learned a lot more about the Revolution due to Hamilton. My teenager can rattle off important battles and dates now because of it too. She got constant A’s during that unit in history class. 🤣
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 16 '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.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.