Jump to content

Book 3: Voyager

Maybe this should be in the book 1 thread, but since book 3 starts out in the 60's when Geillis went through the stones, I guess it can go here too. Has anyone wondered why it is that  Geillis went farther back in time than Claire did? She seemed to have been there a while when Claire showed up, but she actually went through the stones 20 something years after Claire did. 

0

Share Post


Link to post

I literally just read the part of the book where Geillis tells Claire she controlled it through a blood sacrifice. Or at least that's what she believes.

0

Share Post


Link to post

Geillis went through the stones deliberately and she "aimed" for the period she wanted, with the aid of gem stoness and a blood sacrifice. It's not clear if the blood sacrifice was necessary or in any way effective but Geillis has no scruples and she took every precaution she could to ensure that she would go back far enough to be able to do some good for the cause. It seems from Claire's experience and words of the local stories that if you "fall" through the stones accidentally you go back about 200 years.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I just started reading the series after episode two aired and I finished Voyager this Friday gone, out of the first three books it is my least favourite so far. For all the reasons you all have already stated, the first part up till they travelled to France was great, from then on it got a little too wordy and adventurey, so much happened it was just non stop. I also felt like some important conversations were missing or just to short. For most of the book I was stressing about Murtagh and what had happened to him, then when we finally find out it is just a couple of pages, not much exposition. I wanted to be really upset about his death but couldn't be because not much was said about it.

I also felt like Jamie and Claire should have talked more to each other about the 20 years they were apart and what each of them had been up to but there was not a lot of that either.

The book did however give me my favourite line of the series so far, when Claire is giving Jamie the penicillin she brought back and asks him if he understands and he replies "Aye, I do. I should ha' let them burn ye, twenty years ago". I found that really funny, and can picture his face saying it. One thing I do appreciate in the books is Jamie's wit.

6

Share Post


Link to post

I can understand that. There were parts of this book, I loved with every fiber of my being and then parts that were just too much.

I will reread the reunion at the drop off the hat. I will just think if it and need to read it.

1

Share Post


Link to post

I think part of the problem with this book is there isn't really one overarching narrative.

 

Book 1 had Claire's quest to get back, and Black Jack as a villain.  Claire's quest may not have quite lasted the whole book, but it took up significant time.  And Black Jack was introduced early and his presence felt often, even if he wasn't "on screen" a lot. 

Book 2 was the quest to stop the uprising.

Book 3....???  Geillis is treated as the final climactic villain but she's barely in the story until the end, the Fiend is just sort of there, the quest for Ian is probably the closest to the main storyline as a carry through, but it doesn't show up for quite awhile either.  So there's just this string of events, and some of them are quite interesting and engaging, but it doesn't make for a very coherent or tightly paced narrative. 

4

Share Post


Link to post

I have just realised how much I missed the kilts in this book. They were such a huge part of the first two books, their descriptions and the way they wore them was mentioned a lot. It makes me sad to think that a whole way of life was wiped out. Kilts were a huge part of who they were. I have no idea when the ban was lifted but a part of me is hoping that in future books the kilt makes an appearance again. When I think of Jamie I can only see him in a kilt not breeches, maybe that has something to do with having read the books after the show aired and seeing Jamie in my mind as he is on screen, I don't know.

3

Share Post


Link to post

I have just realised how much I missed the kilts in this book. They were such a huge part of the first two books, their descriptions and the way they wore them was mentioned a lot. It makes me sad to think that a whole way of life was wiped out. Kilts were a huge part of who they were. I have no idea when the ban was lifted but a part of me is hoping that in future books the kilt makes an appearance again. When I think of Jamie I can only see him in a kilt not breeches, maybe that has something to do with having read the books after the show aired and seeing Jamie in my mind as he is on screen, I don't know.

 

I never realized that, but as soon as I read your comment, I thought "Yeah, I feel the same way!"

 

This really isn't a spoiler but I'll tag it anyways, but I just read Book 8 (again) and

there is a scene where Jamie is wearing a very old kilt he bought in a town and Claire thinks to herself how much she loves looking at him in a kilt even though it's threadbare.

  

3

Share Post


Link to post

More of the same.  

I recall Jamie wearing a kilt regularly on Fraser's Ridge in future books and I'm almost certain he is wearing one when Brianna sees him for the first time.

1

Share Post


Link to post

Oh exciting, I look forward to those moments. Thanks for the "sneak peek".

0

Share Post


Link to post

I feel like the show should be able to portray Mr. Willoughby and the racist attitudes towards him, without being racist itself.  Especially with more opportunities for non-verbal storytelling than the book has.

I hope they do that . They can't cut him out because he's needed to get Jamie on a boat  but he's also a great "tool" (I don't know how to phrase it better) into some of the attitudes towards other races and customes. Mr Willoughby is sometimes treated like an exotic zoo animal  and then again like a strange heathen but they don't take him serious as a person .

 

 

 

I just reread (for the 1566th time...I kid) 

"Is that you, Geordie?"...

 

..."It isn't Geordie.... "It's me, Claire."

 

Oh man, I do really want to see this scene one day.  

And when Georgie shows up for real

 

“And it not even noon yet!"

2

Share Post


Link to post

Thank you all for reaffirming my opinion of Book 3.  I just finished it, loved Jamie fainting at Claire's arrival.  I also liked the research portion, and how it jogged back and forth between the past and the present.  I liked it up through Lollybrook, and even until they leave for Jamaica.  Then the boat switch/jumping overboard and yet still meeting up was too much, as was the rest of the island drama.  It felt like a dog pile of every possible random thing hitting them with no time to stop, breathe and talk about life and remember why they're so good together. 

 

I was just wondering if it was time to take a break from the books before I read Book 4, or if I should read a Lord John Grey novel.  I think its time for LJG to cleanse the palate a bit and see where it goes.

3

Share Post


Link to post

If it helps you, book 4 feels less like a bunch of shit hitting the fan. Or at least for me. I mean, it's Outlander, so things can't ever go smoothly, but there is no plague ship at least.

1

Share Post


Link to post

I moved straight onto book 4, its a lot slower than voyager and while I'm taking a lot longer to read it, it is heaps better than the last third of voyager. So far I'm really enjoying it. I say carry on.

2

Share Post


Link to post

If it helps you, book 4 feels less like a bunch of shit hitting the fan. Or at least for me. I mean, it's Outlander, so things can't ever go smoothly, but there is no plague ship at least.

That's precisely it - constant shit hitting the fan is what wore me out! While I appreciate that there needs to be drama to move the story forward, it's as if Gabaldon didn't trust the relationship to be enough.

I've started LJG brotherhood of the blade, and have the Scottish Prisoner after that. So far it's been nice to live within John's more orderly mind.

1

Share Post


Link to post

I just got to Claire going through the again when a funny thought occurred to me. If any of the rare coins Roger and Bree got for her to take back in time were to turn up in a modern archeological dig, they sure would confound scientists who tried to carbon date them only to find them made of material 200 years older than it should be.

So far I like this one the best of the books so I'm remaining cautiously optimistic that I will be okay with the last chunk of it that bugged many of you. The shifting perspective between Claire in the 60s and Jamie in the 1700s is working very well for me and I can see many ways for the show to adapt the book that will all work very well.

1

Share Post


Link to post

I hope they do that . They can't cut him out because he's needed to get Jamie on a boat  but he's also a great "tool" (I don't know how to phrase it better) into some of the attitudes towards other races and customes. Mr Willoughby is sometimes treated like an exotic zoo animal  and then again like a strange heathen but they don't take him serious as a person .

 

 

 

And when Georgie shows up for real

 

“And it not even noon yet!"

 

Trying to thing like a screenwriter adapting a novel - is it really critical to include Jamie's seasickness to the degree that DG did in the novel? It's been a long time since I've read the books in succession, but it seems to me like you could make it a more minor issue and didn't require that level of intervention, if you needed to cut the Willoughby character.  Or am I forgetting some plot-critical element that the seasickness plays in the narrative?

 

If the character is included, I trust this team to do it well, but as this evolves I'm playing with the adaptation scenarios in my head, trying to determine what elements can be removed entirely, given to another character, and which must be depicted on-screen or it changes the spirit of the story.

1

Share Post


Link to post

His seasickness is what almost kills him when they're fleeing after Wentworth ( he was badly injured but not "actively dying injured", he later develops a fever) and forces them to stay in Europe trying to prevent the uprising . It's also refered to a lot whenever there is a ship in sight .

Of course everything can be changed BUT I'm not too fond of taking one of Jamie's character traits away just to avoid using another character who might not be fully pc.

0

Share Post


Link to post

If they decide to write out Jamie's seasickness, I'd be fine with it because honestly, that's been the one character trait I've never bought. I guess the author wanted him to have SOME vulnerability, but really, that can be overcome, no matter how bad it is. I say this as the voice of experience. I get VIOLENTLY seasick. I'll get queasy on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico for Pete's sake -- and that's stationary! But after many, many, MANY trials and error (with my friends telling me that I turned green like a looney tunes cartoon), I was able to prevail.

2

Share Post


Link to post

kariyaki I would have found Jamie's seasickness unbelievable had I not watched an TV show set on boat (one of those reality shows -- maybe dangerous catch or something like that) and I saw an episode where they were caught in rough seas and had to have a coast guard helicopter evacuate the cameraman because he was so ill they began to fear for his life (I felt ill just watching.)  So I guess for some people it can be downright life-threatening.

 

But yeah, if they decided to ignore that characteristic of Jamie's completely and cut Mr. Willoughby completely, that would be okay by me.  Quite frankly, TV!Jamie is not quite as practically-perfect-in-every-way as Book!Jamie so we don't need that "weakness" to make him a more interesting character.  I think Diana wrote that characteristic in the first book and then was stuck with it for the rest of the series, creating the need for Mr. Willoughby and his magic acupuncture needles. It would not surprise me to learn that she regretted the decision later on.  Happily, the show can just ignore it or make it your garden variety version of seasickness that people just cope with by being miserable.

1

Share Post


Link to post

For me the biggest plot related roll Jamie's seasickness plays is Claire's unpreparedness for settling in America, and that's pretty mild.  I loved that she prepared so much for going back the second time, that she read up on "current" events not just in Scotland and England but other countries where she thought they might possibly end up if they couldn't stay in Scotland.  But she never bothered to research America because she never thought they'd go there because of his seasickness.  It's pretty minor though.

 

I'd much rather they fix his character than get rid of him though.  My problem wasn't so much with the racism displayed about him - that's a depressing reality of modern times, of course it was even more blatant a couple hundred years ago.  My problem was the racist stereotypes used to construct his character (completely unnecessary foot fetish being high up on my list of things that should not make the cut).  Especially with the on screen adaptation not being tied so closely to Claire's POV, I think they can flesh him out and make him an actual person instead of a plot device like he was in the books.

4

Share Post


Link to post

kariyaki I would have found Jamie's seasickness unbelievable had I not watched an TV show set on boat (one of those reality shows -- maybe dangerous catch or something like that) and I saw an episode where they were caught in rough seas and had to have a coast guard helicopter evacuate the cameraman because he was so ill they began to fear for his life (I felt ill just watching.)  So I guess for some people it can be downright life-threatening.

But that was, as you said, rough seas. Jamie was like that on an ordinary, calm day -- as am I. I wouldn't last on a rough day, and it might take me a day or two to overcome the seasickness on a calm one, but it can be done.

0

Share Post


Link to post

When I was still in high school in Germany we went on a class trip to Norderney , it's maybe an hour by boat  , calm and protected sea . One of my classmates started puking his guts out before we were even out of the harbour .

0

Share Post


Link to post

There's also the acknowledgement that's implied in this book and reiterated in either one of the later books or one of the Lord John books that being transported after Ardsmuir with such severe uncontrolled seasickness for such a long voyage very likely could have been a death sentence for Jamie.  Once Jamie was able to get over being angry at ending up Helwater, he was able to see that Lord John probably saved his life in addition to giving him the best life he could under the circumstances.  That's part of the basis of their friendship going forward and at least partially why I've always thought Jamie was able to have the trust he did in Lord John assuming the care of William.

 

I'm sure all of this could be restructured to remove the seasickness if they want to.  Even without it, plenty of people did die on the trans-Atlantic crossing and under indentured servitude so it's not like the threat of it or what Lord John did for him is gone.

0

Share Post


Link to post

Just finished Voyager last week and was excited to find a place to talk about it.  I agree with many of the comments.  Nevertheless, it’s my favorite of the three books so far.  So I wanted to list the things I loved and then the things I hated.  So here’s what I loved in no particular order:  Claire/Jamie reunion and the French Farce that ensued (I love French farces, ye ken) culminating in his hilarious summation of the past 24 hours since she returned; Jamie fainting (he was fine talking to Claire’s “ghost” but when he realizes she’s real, he faints?!) then going to pieces upon seeing Bree’s pictures; wee Ian; all things Fergus, especially his reaction upon seeing Claire for the first time and the wedding (I got teary-eyed when Jamie game him his last name); Claire/Jaime reaffirming their blood vow; all things Lallybrook w/ highlights including Jenny dousing them with water while they were having angry sex and Claire’s return after Jamie had been shot (her conversation w/ Jenny was really well done); Ned! and the divorce negotiations; Jamie w/ the acupuncture needles; and, finally, the BJ sex scene when Claire was recovering from the cutlass wound (with Lawrence talking to Jamie thru the door).
Hated: that Claire would suggest settling in America when she knows the Revolutionary War is coming and that there was no mention of it; Jamie not disclosing Willie’s existence to Claire, especially after the blow up w/ Laoghaire (I hated that she got blindsided again); Willoughby’s foot fetish (yep it’s racist and tedious and added nothing to his character); the whole smuggling side story (Jamie could have had the authorities on his trail because of seditious activities, rather than his being a big crime lord); and the ship/storm/wreck after rescuing wee Ian (waaay tooo much).
I so hope the show makes it to season three because I MUST SEE the REUNION!!  I also think that Willoughby should definitely be included because of the diversity and a chance to reveal the consequences of “benevolent” racism.  I’m sure the writers will handle his character well and if they hire an actor who can bring depth to his work, so much the better.  (We, the viewers, should know by the way he physically carries himself exactly what kind of man he is.) Also, his backstory is fascinating.
I apologize for the long post – I was just so enthralled with Voyager that I had to share my thoughts.  Hope you find them interesting and worthy of comment.  Happy New Year!

4

Share Post


Link to post

I would like them to include Mr. Willoughby, but I'd like them to include the part about how to him, the Scots were the barbarians/heathens.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I agree, I really need to see that reunion scene with Sam and Cait. Oh my goodness. I think one of my favorite parts of the book is when she's just gotten to Edinburgh and she just sits down for a minute to eat her last peanut butter and jelly sandwich, then just lets the plastic wrap blow away. I don't know what it is about that moment, but it's so evocative for me...puts me right there in the past with Claire.

5

Share Post


Link to post

Petunia846 I had forgotten about that scene.  You're right, the imagery of letting the plastic go to parallel her letting her past life go and moving (literally) toward her future is beautifully captured in that moment.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I would love to know if someone found the wrapper. 

 

Part of me wishes she had saved it to show Jamie, he would have been so interested in it.  Come to think of it he would have enjoyed a taste of that sandwich also.

1

Share Post


Link to post
Part of me wishes she had saved it to show Jamie, he would have been so interested in it.

Well she talks about the waterproof wrapping she had on the photos of Bree, so I always assumed she'd used plastic wrap on those too.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I found it irrationally irritating that she didn't take more stuff with her; painkillers or other medicines (even if only for personal use), plus any number of other things I could think of had I a mind to. 

1

Share Post


Link to post

Claire did take a whole syringe thingie with medication (I only remember her using penicillin from it, though). She only had a limited amount of how much she could bring, so it was only for emergencies. Like when what's-er-name shot Jamie and Claire got sliced open by that pirate.

1

Share Post


Link to post

I was a huge Battlestar Galactica fan right up until whatever the hell the last season was supposed to be. But one of Ron's earliest crimes was putting super hot Lee Adama in a fat suit for half a season. I need my eye candy.

To keep this on topic, this is the book where the series went off the rails for me. However, since the show has reignited my obsessive fangirl love (I think I read Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber 10 to 15 times between the ages of 16 and 19), I'm going to try and approach the later books with an open mind.

 

oh, God, I totally forgot about the fat suit. Your post made me laugh and then it made me shake my head at the memory.

 

What do people think of the scene where that girl blackmails Jamie into sex and then she changes her mind and he keeps going? I've tried to find a way but I can't really read it as anything other than rape. I hope they change it a bit for the tv show.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I have never understood that scene with Genevieve or how to approach it. I'm guessing they will change it for the show, because the scene seems to affirm "no means yes." Yikes.

 

Also, no withdrawal method, Jamie? Sure putting a lot of faith in a teenage girl knowing how to track her fertility cycle.

0

Share Post


Link to post

But Geneva blackmails him into it so Jamie's consent is also somewhat  compromised .

0

Share Post


Link to post

Good point about his consent. Forgot about that.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I have NO sympathy for Genevieve.  She blackmailed Jamie into her bed by threatening his family, she forces him into a position where, if he had been caught in her room, he would certainly have been imprisoned, if not killed, and THEN tries to change her mind when he is actually in the process of deflowering her?  And all this with a grown man who hasn't had the opportunity to be with a woman in YEARS?  Nope, Jamie totally gets a pass from me on not stopping when Genevieve has second thoughts at well past the 11th hour.  Not rape.  Not even close.  If anything, Genevieve raped Jamie in that she coerced him into un-asked-for and unwanted sex.

 

 

Also, no withdrawal method, Jamie?

I'm sure Jamie has never even heard of that (he's a Catholic, ye ken -- they were taught to go forth and be fruitful and that "spilling your seed upon the ground" is sinful.  At least that's what I recall from my Catholic school days.)  Even if he had heard of it, his own experience with Claire is that it takes many many tries to get a woman pregnant so he gets a pass from me about not thinking about a maybe baby.  And again, given how long it's been since he's lain with a woman it would have required some super-human self control to withdraw at the pinnacle.

 

Oh and by-the-by -- the withdrawal method is pretty unreliable.  The, uh, emanations that precede ejaculation are pretty damn potent.

Edited by WatchrTina.
4

Share Post


Link to post

Oh I definitely know withdrawal is not terribly effective, it was more the thought that counts type of thing!

0

Share Post


Link to post

Roger and Brianna also know very well that withdrawal is not a good way to prevent a pregnancy

2

Share Post


Link to post

Petunia846 I had forgotten about that scene.  You're right, the imagery of letting the plastic go to parallel her letting her past life go and moving (literally) toward her future is beautifully captured in that moment.

 

 

I agree, I really need to see that reunion scene with Sam and Cait. Oh my goodness. I think one of my favorite parts of the book is when she's just gotten to Edinburgh and she just sits down for a minute to eat her last peanut butter and jelly sandwich, then just lets the plastic wrap blow away. I don't know what it is about that moment, but it's so evocative for me...puts me right there in the past with Claire.

 

You are both so philosophical about this. Me, I was thinking "She's polluting the past, that's not cool." LOL!

Edited by Future Cat Lady.
7

Share Post


Link to post

I've always found the setup for Jamie and Geneva ridiculous to the point that I can't bring myself to care about the blackmail or dubious consent issues that go into the making of it.  Look, I get it.  Gabaldon apparently can't write an epic love story without demonizing every single person who comes near either of our heroes (see Frank and Laoghaire) and so she couldn't just write Geneva as a lonely girl trying to make the best of entering into an unwanted arranged marriage on her own terms.  Jamie's not allowed to just want one night of warmth with another person to not feel so damn alone in all those years.  No, it has to be a ridiculous blackmail scheme so Jamie can later claim with a straight face that he spent most of those 20 years honorably pining away for a wife that as far as he knew was never coming back.

 

A great romance wouldn't have been believable either, given their situations, but it didn't need to be.  I actually liked that Geneva was trying to exert some small control over one small aspect of a life that was being arranged for her without any consideration for her as a person at all.  Even Jamie was able to see the courage in that, as he thinks to himself at the time and later tells William.  I wish Gabaldon had just let it be one brief moment of unlikely friendship between two people and left it at that.  It wouldn't have diminished his great love or longing for Claire, who he hadn't seen for I think about 12 years at that point and never expected to see again.

7

Share Post


Link to post

 

I've always found the setup for Jamie and Geneva ridiculous to the point that I can't bring myself to care about the blackmail or dubious consent issues that go into the making of it.  Look, I get it.  Gabaldon apparently can't write an epic love story without demonizing every single person who comes near either of our heroes (see Frank and Laoghaire) and so she couldn't just write Geneva as a lonely girl trying to make the best of entering into an unwanted arranged marriage on her own terms.  Jamie's not allowed to just want one night of warmth with another person to not feel so damn alone in all those years.

 

Thank you! This drove me nuts for the same reason. It would have been nice if Jamie could have told William that he was conceived with affection. The guy already has enough reasons to feel bad about being born on the wrong side of the blanket.

2

Share Post


Link to post

The problem with that unlikely friendship setup is that Jamie would have been toast if knowledge of their hook up ever came out (not even talking about getting caught in the act) . Geneva and Jamie both know that so I can't see a situation were Jamie would have gone along with it without pressure from Geneva. 

I also don't think Geneva was demonized in the books , there are some people who hate the idea of Jamie having  a son with somebody else and they put that on Geneva. I see her as a young woman without much say about her life, who's about to be sold off to the highest bidder and wants one night with a guy she has a crush on . And she's doing everything she can  to make that happen.

2

Share Post


Link to post
Jamie's not allowed to just want one night of warmth with another person to not feel so damn alone in all those years.

He did get one of those too, earlier, when he was living in the cave. Granted many many years before that time, but still. Diana did let him have that one without too much drama.

2

Share Post


Link to post

Geneva is demonized in the sense that she's the evil bitch who blackmailed Jamie into unwanted sex with her.  It's in Jamie's explanation to Claire after she finds out about William's existence and much later after the paternity bomb goes off and Claire's left to try to tell William how Jamie came to be his father.  Her internal monologue is something along the lines of how she knows Jamie would have taken the blame so as not to blacken Geneva's memory with the real story but she doesn't feel the same compulsion to protect that memory by painting Geneva as less spoiled and selfish than she believed her to be.  Because of course Jamie is the innocent party in her eyes.

 

Yes, Jamie would have been in trouble if anyone had caught them, regardless of his motives for being there. But people make stupid or poor choices all the time for a bit of a human connection.  And everyone on the estate seemed to strongly suspect anyway, including Geneva's mother, yet Jamie was allowed to hang around mostly on his own terms for another six years.


He did get one of those too, earlier, when he was living in the cave. Granted many many years before that time, but still. Diana did let him have that one without too much drama.

 

Of course, that's not his idea either and he's shown protesting it before eventually giving in.  And later Claire still manages to be rather upset about it five or six books later when he confesses it.

Edited by nodorothyparker.
2

Share Post


Link to post

To be honest I think Jamie is pretty much stuck in no man's land regarding other women , he can't move on because to him Claire isn't really  dead , so it probably feels like cheating to him. 

4

Share Post


Link to post

 

Geneva is demonized in the sense that she's the evil bitch who blackmailed Jamie into unwanted sex with her.

I don't think Geneva is an evil bitch.  I just get annoyed when people focus on the lack of consent on HER part in that Jamie doesn't stop when she tells him to.  I focus on the lack of consent on Jamie's part in that he was blackmailed into participating in the first place.  

 

As for Geneva's desire to give up her maidenhead to a young(ish) good-looking man of her choice instead of the old coot she was pressured into marrying -- well, I have a hard time blaming her for that.

2

Share Post


Link to post

I just came across the theory that Jack's body on top of Jamie's leg prevented Jamie from bleeding to death . 

3

Share Post


Link to post

Started this yesterday--question! Question!

 

Who is Lord John Grey? That 16 year-old twit from Dragonfly?

So, like, Claire marries someone younger again? (Not knocking her for that, just trying to figure it out because I'm such a spoiler whoore.)

 

I just finished the part where Jamie is going to leave and Mary McNab offers herself.

 

I don't know if it's historically accurate, but I find it very distressing that English dragoons are going about, wily-nily, killing anyone and everyone who is a Highlander, or fought in the Rising where they, the English won.  

 

I did, however, laugh/guffawed, when Lord Melton, older brother to William John Grey, who tried to kill Jamie in Dragonfly, who said he couldn't kill Jamie because of a debt of honor.

 

"I dinna want tae go home! I want to be shot!"

 

I will admit, the writing is a lot smoother, though again with the details of how to kill a stag, dress a stag, cut a stag...Jeebus Cripes.

 

Poor Fergus. Puir wee lamb. Okay, so he's 15, but still.

 

I'm really enjoying (this time around, anyways) reading from Jamie's POV. Natrually I'm hearing Sam's voice as I do.

Edited by Athena. Reason: Spoiler for future book
2

Share Post


Link to post
Who is Lord John Grey? That 16 year-old twit from Dragonfly?

 

Yes. Lord Grey really grew on me. I don't love him as much as some others do, but I do enjoy his moments in the series.

 

I also tagged your post because of future book info.

0

Share Post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now