Current Mood: 
Stuck at home again as someone needs to be here to sign for Mom's new Shell card when it arrives, so.... here I am writing yet another post which probably only 1 or 2 people will read.
Last night I picked up the book I had been reading before I started Echo in the Bone. After reading a Diana Gabaldon book, it felt like returning to middle school. 
So... about EITB:
(SPOILERS AHEAD)
- I felt lost with some of the characters a lot of the time. It'd been a couple years since I read the last book. During the entire novel, I was trying to remember who the heck Arch and Murdina Bug were.
- For the entire book I was petrified of Rollo being killed. I knew how devastating that would be to little Ian. (Yes, I'm aware he's no longer a kid but I can't help thinking of him as one. He feels like a young soul to me, and he definitely has some of Jamie's spirit there; the youthful/childlike part, which is so freakin' fantasticly endearing).
And Ian without Rollo is just unthinkable to me. It would be like Captain Hook without the hook... Mickey Mouse without Minnie... Tom without Jerry... JAMIE without CLAIRE!
- Jenny Murray: Self centered-always has a bee a-buzzing in her bonnet-misunderstands Claire completely Jenny.
I havena liked Jenny Murray much for these last few books. Still, I did forgive her just a wee bit when she told Jamie she was sorry for what she said to Claire.
Okay, so I'll still a bit peeved with her as those were some strong words there. I mean, saying Claire "HAS NO SOUL?!"
And why doesn't Jamie just man up, giving his sister a firm talking-to? She needs it. I know Claire can take care of herself, but it'd be nice to see Jamie putting his sister down a step or two on her Ladder 'O Bitchdom.
- Ian Murray Sr: I will miss him. I loved his last words to Jamie. Guarding Jamie's weak side?
Insert crying jag...
- Ian: Glad he finally has some closure regarding all this Emily cr@p. (Aye, I loathe the little witch).
But what's the obsession with this baby making business?
Loved the 'child of Ian's spirit' though; Swiftest of Lizards. I have a feeling we'll be seeing him again.
But WHY did he leave his parents so soon? His father was dying, and he broke his parents hearts for leaving like he did. I can't believe he left his father's deathbed to run after a girl he's kissed only once, who hasn't committed herself to him, and whom utters the word "Thee" so much it gives non-Quaker's like me migraines from Hell.
- Ian and Rachel: I like Rachel. She seems a sweet gal, but all this "Thee" business makes me cringe. I just want to delete that word out of her vocabulary forever.
Even though I like Rachel, I actually kind of wished she and Ian wouldn't work out so that I wouldn't feel suffocated by all those "Thee's." It almost felt like I was about to have a freakin' panic attack from seeing that one constant word jumping out of the page so much. It was very distracting.
- Claire and Jamie knowing they'll be separated for a few months... broke my heart just thinking about it. Jamie only uttered a few words about it, and it was so sad just because I remembered how depressed he was all those years without Claire, after she went through the stones again.
- Claire the spy: In the famous words of Doctor Who, "WHAT?! WHAT?!"
Why the heck would she put herself, and her family, in danger when she already knows the outcome of the war? That just doesn't make sense.
- Jamie... ahh, Jamie. There were a few times when I heard 'Vintage Outlander' coming out of his lovely, sexy mouth in this book. ("Let me be enough.") I wish there were more than just a few lines like that, but I'll take what I can get. (I also loved his funny remark on OF COURSE Ian and Rachel are engaged; she's taking care of his dog. Lol! That was classic, funny Jamie right there).
I feel like a bad Outlander devotee for saying this, but it feels to me like all these minor characters and history telling are taking over my Jamie/Claire 'Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy-Mmmpphhm-Ohhh-Jamiiiieeee' time.
I don't give a rats arse about Arch Bug's mania, Claire's search for some grease for a patient's arsehole, or pages upon pages of description of Claire's various surgeries under deplorable conditions. I'm never going to repair arteries or amputate limbs - in this century or centuries past - so just get on with the Jamie Love already!
- William: Thank God he finally kens the truth!
I thought it funny how he inherited Jamie's seasickness. 
- Roger as head choirmaster? Huh?
- Brianna: Reminds me of Jenny Murray sometimes.
- The letters: Liked that they had them, and I kept wondering to myself if I would have done the same as them; reading the letters sparsely like that, rather than just diving in like a kid at Christmas.
- Gotta save the most horrific for last..... Claire and Lord John?
Really? Claire and Lord John? CLAIRE and Jamie Lovin' LORD JOHN?!
I understand her marrying him for his protection, but actually sleeping with him?
WHAT?!
I'm trying to accept that they were both in deep mourning. LJ and Claire both were a little drunk perhaps, and I know they were imagining the other being Jamie. (Which, if you ask me is kind of endearing yet sick at the same time). What really bothered me though - and bothered me A LOT - was the morning after. I mean, these two were just so chummy and you would think having sex with each other put a solid end to their mourning over Jamie's being "dead." They weren't the least bit uncomfortable about what they had done. In fact, sometime later LJ comes to Claire's bed again and says he really does know "how to pleasure a woman." He demonstrates this, and Claire's hand can't join him quick enough.
BUGGED THE HELL OUT OF ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It just seemed so out of character for the both of them. I'm beginning to wonder if people are right, and DG does things like this to her characters just to get a rise out of her fans.
I'm sure Jamie will get over it quickly, as they've been through worse, but clearly he thinks it's all some joke. I hope he at least breaks LJ's nose, or SOMETHING! I want to see him go into Berserker mode, or SOMETHING. I guess Claire forgot all about this "Mine!" business. Lord John must have f--- it all out of her brain.
All right, can you tell by now that I'm still a little upset by this crazy Claire/LJ pairing? I knew fans were angry as hell with Claire over something, but reading about this Claire-on-Lord-John-Lovin' wasn't what I'd imagined.
- Even though this was another loooong book, the end came so abruptly. I read that last line, and thought - "Is that it?" I wish it had ended with Claire, or with Jamie sealing Lord John in a cave somewhere with no food or water, and naked as a jaybird until a regiment came along.
Current Mood: 
THIS ARTICLE is so funny. I just have to copy/paste the quotes on here in case the link to the original article ever gets pulled.
Who knew reading romance novels could be so dangerous? Does this mean I'm finally an addict with something? If so... Goody-goody! Now I can say I finally fit in with the whole of society. Forget smoking coffin nails and salivating like an English Bulldog each time I see a Budweiser commercial on tv. Cigarettes and beer are for sissy's. I have an entire garrison of... wait for it... ROMANCE NOVELS in my very own closet! And get this, there are these places called BOOKSTORES which can feed this clinical addiction of mine.
Oh, Happy Day!!!
Reading Rainbow and those Saturday morning cartoon commercial spots must have been right: Reading IS Power! It's power can destroy marriages and make women unbalanced.
And here King Henry VIII blamed witchcraft for his failed marriage. (Saw that on 'The Tudors' the other day. Lol!)
Anyway, here are some quotes from the article:
- "Women can become as dangerously unbalanced by these books, entrancing but distorted messages as men can be by the distorted messages of pornography."
I wouldn't say romance and porn are the same thing.
And "distorted messages?" Already, this person just sounds like a pessimist and man hater to me. I mean, distorted messages? There ARE happy marriages and relationships out there.
I also can't help but wonder what these "dangerously unbalanced" individuals even do. On a scale of 1 to 10, just how dangerous do they mean? Are we talking about climbing-a-tower-with-a-machine-gun dangerous, or crushing-pansies-and-love bugs-beneath-your-stiletto-heels dangerous?
- Slattery says that "she is seeing more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books", according to the article, and "for many women these novels really do promote dissatisfaction with their real relationships."
Reading is called an escape for a reason. On the whole, daily life is either stressful, mundane or b-o-r-i-n-g. And let's face it: Men are simple creatures and women are not. (Venus and Mars, anyone?) We turn to fiction because most times it's only these fictional men with their chivalry, sense of humor, and yes.... breath-stealing good looks... whom understand us. Need further proof? How about the fact that probably over 90% of the authors of these books are women, not men.
And "promotes dissatisfaction with their real relationship?" Only if the relationship is broken to begin with. If you're a stay at home Mom with 3.4 kids and getting out of the marriage isn't an option financially, what's wrong with a little escape within the pages of a book? Should she just suffer day in and day out, only distracting herself via crossword puzzles between changing diapers and driving to the supermarket for that 'Buy-1-get-1-free' sale on Skippy's chunky peanut butter spread?
Erhm, I sincerely hope not. Lol!
- "If you are not in a real relationship, you may want to focus on finding one. Are you spending time reading instead of getting out there making new friends and meeting people?"
What of people like myself that don't particulary WANT to be in a relationship? Some people thrive on having their privacy and not being tied down. Still, this doesn't mean people such as myself are emotionally dead. I still love romance and can appreciate the beauty in it. And just because I watch chick flicks and read romance novels, that doesn't mean I don't ever want to find my 'Prince Charming' in the real world.
If anything, reading about heroes like Jamie Fraser or The MacKeltar Twins sets my standards even higher; something which I consider a good thing. I like to think that we're ALL deserving of setting these higher standards for ourselves. We don't have to settle for Mr. Just Okay.
And while I realize that finding the equivalent of one James Alexander Malcolm Mackenzie Fraser in the real world is never going to happen - See? I'm not 'unbalanced' just yet - I see nothing wrong with dreaming/reading about it every now and then. Heck, this is what authors of these wonderful books do almost every single day! Without these people sharing their talents and appreciation for the beauty of romance, the world would be colorless indeed.
And did it ever enter this person's mind that some of these authors ARE in happy relationships, and their experiences with their soul mate is what inspired them to write romance in the first place? That they want to share their own personal experiences with the world?
It's ridiculous - *~ (cough...cough unbalanced) ~ * - to assume that romance readers and writers alike are "unbalanced" and "clinically addicted" to a specific genre. No, we really aren't touched in the head or in dire need of some intervention program. We're not ill. We have a brain, we have imagination, and we have a heart. Romance novels simply nourish these attributes.
- "If you love to read, just choose a different type of book. There are many interesting choices that do not include arousing scenes."
Yeah, I guess there's always Dr. Seuss and The Complete Idiot's Guides to Feng Shui, Dog Training and Private Investigating.
(Click on Thumbnails)
Mmphhm. One hell of a sexy Scot, Gerry Butler... the stuff of romance novels. Scots and alpha males that whisper "MINE!" in the heroines ear definitely rule my world.
And did you know that Gerry has inspired many a romance novelist? The first one off the top of my head is "MacGowan's Ghost" by Cindy Miles. Read about it HERE.
