Dragonfly in Amber: Outlander, Book 2

(Some spoilers in the review. Read at your own risk)The story of Jamie and Claire continues in "Dragonfly in Amber." Going in, I was told by a few people and the internet that this wasn't as good as the first or third books. And I have to admit they were right at least in regards to book one. While "Outlander" is large and I believe it could've been a bit tighter, it at least had many moments where it captured my attention. Unfortunately, those moments were few and far between in "Dragonfly in Amber." There were more when they were in France rather than in Scotland. I mean one chapter in Scotland is devoted to potato farming and eating. Did we really need the chapter? This is one of the problems I've seen repeated about Gabaldon's writing. She gets lost in the historic details instead of the plot.In truth, the book and I didn't start off on the right foot. This is a personal thing, but I don't care for POV changes in a book. I was getting comfortable with it and then she started changing them in the same chapter. But once Claire started telling her story, it resumed the first person POV for the majority of the story. The mixed POVs returns at the end, when we return to 1968. Once again, it's a personal preference and I understand why Ms. Gabaldon made the decision to include Roger. But I would've kept it in third person limited in the framing chapters.A few rants to get through:One of my praises of "Outlander" was the fact that though Claire was a borderline Sue, she was still regarded with some suspicion by people she met. Here in "Dragonfly in Amber," Ms. Gabaldon ratchets up the Claire praise to somewhat unbelievable degrees. The first half of the story is set in France, where Jamie and Claire have fled. Jamie's cousin Jared has him take over his business and social obligations while he (Jared) goes off on a business trip. So Jamie and Claire are welcomed at the French court. Jamie's welcome is understandable--he has been in France before, served in their military and was already at court. But it doesn't make sense for Claire. Yes, she has a French sounding name and is Jamie's wife. But Ms. Gabaldon has always made it quite clear that Claire is Very British. She's entering the court of Louix XV during the middle of the War of Austrian Succession (which doesn't even get a mention) and is accepted right away. No. Just...no. Even the fact this is told from Claire's perspective doesn't handwave this away as Claire is generally depicted as knowing what's what--if people are suspicious or not. But to think that someone who is Very British would be welcomed at court at a time when the British and French were at war over Maria Theresa's ascension to the Austrian throne is a stretch. Perhaps if she was treated with civility until Louise befriended her? It would do more to create danger within the court and created an interesting plot where Claire has to navigate her way through it.But it still gets more ridiculous. One of the questions on the Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test goes along the lines of if people who go against the main character are evil and meet with harsh punishments. It is the same here in France. Claire makes an enemy immediately in a powerful comte. The set-up makes sense: she declares a sailor to have small pox. This forces the harbormaster to burn the comte's ship and his cargo. So of course he's going to not like her. And we learn Claire has made a powerful enemy. But as time goes on, the comte just gets eviler and eviler until we get to actual Satan worship. He is ultimately killed in a secret trial to prove he practices dark magic. This doesn't just stay in France, though. In Scotland, Claire ends up with the Duke of Sandringham. Who interrogates her and reveals he's been trying to kill her since France. He then locks her up in her room but Jamie comes to rescue her. They get out and Claire reveals the Duke killed Jamie's friend Hugh Munro. They go to pay their respects to his widow. While there, Murtagh reveals the Duke's severed head. One more of Claire's foes down.When Claire goes with her husband to meet up with the Jacobite cause, she takes over this small town and turns the townswomen into her own personal underlings. I'm surprised they didn't run her out of town. Yes, Claire can be bossy. But bossy people tend to piss other people off. It makes the character more whole if that happens.Also in France, Claire is pregnant. This fact can be easily forgotten because we go through periods where there is no mention of the baby. I would say it doesn't matter for the most part because there are other matters than Claire's pregnancy. But here's the thing: at one point, we're suddenly told Claire's pregnancy is high risk. And I saw what was coming and realized this was just a ploy to create heightened drama and angst. If it was such a high risk pregnancy, why did Claire spend most of the chapters set in France running around Paris and working in the hospital? Why didn't we get a hint of this before? I know it was hinted in "Outlander" that Claire had fertility issues. A friend who also read it did not like how it was portrayed, feeling it was a disservice to women who truly suffer from infertility when Claire ended up pregnant at the end. I was willing to give it a pass because I didn't feel Claire suffered from infertility. She and Frank spent the majority of their marriage apart due to the Second World War and were only reunited for a short amount of time before Claire was sent back in time. Not enough time for Claire to get pregnant. It sometimes takes time for women to get pregnant and that was the case of Claire. But I feel this was disrespectful to women who have had high risk pregnancies. She showed no signs earlier of having a difficult pregnancy. See: cavorting around Paris and working in a hospital. That's why I saw it as a ploy. And I feel it didn't have a good payout either.This brings me to the Jamie worship. Oh boy does it get ratcheted up as well. Everyone loves Jamie and the women are jealous of Claire for being married to him. He's Charles Stuart's bestest friend in France. And then there is the aftermath of Claire's miscarriage. She did so while trying to stop Jamie from killing Jack Randall in a duel. After he promised not to. So she had every right to be upset with him. This also presented a very interesting route for the couple--Jamie having to earn Claire's trust again. It could strengthen their relationship if explored. But it isn't. We do get Claire being angry at Jamie. And despite her insistence she never wants to see him again, she goes to rescue him from the Bastille due to the fact she's the only one who can. He's released but stays away. Claire doesn't care. Until she comes across Fergus, the young boy in hers and Jamie's employ, fighting with some stablehands. It reveals a familiar brand seared into his skin. And Claire realizes that Jamie challenged Jack Randall to a duel because he was caught having sex with Fergus. There are two reasons why I don't like this. One) There have been two gay characters introduced in the "Outlander" series thus far--Jack Randall and the Duke. The Duke was known to prefer his male companions young and tried to hit on a young Jamie. Now we have Jack Randall paying to have sex with a boy. I'm sorry, but it seems Ms. Gabaldon has fallen into a very common misconception about homosexuals. Take it from someone who had to sit through a very uncomfortable course about this stuff in order to volunteer in the Catholic Church: homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things. Do we think a straight man is automatically attracted to young girls? No. So why make the same assumption about gay men? Two) It now absolves Jamie of any wrongdoing. Claire can't remain angry at Jamie for what he did because he had a noble reason for doing so! She has to forgive him! No. Just...no. It's too easy. We don't see Claire and Jamie working past this obstacle. They don't have to rebuild the trust Jamie shattered. And he did shatter it. Yes, Randall did something awful to him at the end of "Outlander." But there is a slightly disturbing trend where Gabaldon implies that Jamie's honor is more important than his wife. So let that be a problem. Don't just make it easy for the hero and heroine to get back together.However, I think the reason for this wasn't really ease. Ms. Gabaldon doesn't like to think of her novels as "romances" and so may not have been interested in going what would've been a good romance plot of rebuilding the relationship. But it would've been a good plot in general. At least in my opinion. It may have made the Scotland section more interesting. See: Chapter on potato farming.I do like the secondary characters. Louise and Mary Hawkings were compelling as was Alex Randall. He was such a contrast to his brother, I am upset we didn't get to see more of them together. Their relationship was interesting when they were together. And further proof Jack Randall is not a psychopath like Ms. Gabaldon has stated. He takes care of his dying brother, risking his career to do so. Those aren't the actions of a psychopath.However, the introduction of Alex Randall made me realize something right away--Jack Randall wasn't really Frank's ancestor. Alex was and it wasn't surprising at all.In Scotland, I love Ian and Jenny. I wouldn't mind reading an entire series about them. And their children. Or more about Gillian Edgars AKA Geillis Duncan. I wish Ms. Gabaldon didn't stick it into the last forty pages of "Dragonfly in Amber." I feel this needs to be fleshed out more. Now before everyone says "You have to read Voyager," I figure there will be more in the third book. I just felt the amount Ms. Gabaldon put in here didn't entice me like "Ooh, must read next book for more" but more like "UGGH! Must read next book to get more?" I felt Ms. Gabaldon could've left off with the possibility that Gillian/Geillis was Roger's mother to entice us into the next book and focused more on Briana. She storms off angrily and then the whole plot with Gillian/Geillis is to get her to believe her mother's story rather than about Roger. I am curious about Briana and her reaction. She was a daddy's girl and close to Frank. But girl had to have questions. Frank was described as having black hair, Claire brown. Briana inherited her father's red hair. Actually, she's the spitting image of Jamie. So she had to wonder how Frank+Claire=her. Unless Frank pulled out some family tree to prove red hair ran in the family and just skipped a generation and she looks just like some great-great-great grandmother. I just wish we saw her come to her own conclusions or watch her rage rather than Claire concoct a plan to get her to believe her.Otherwise, Ms. Gabaldon's writing is still very good and she still does have some of the best description skills I've read along with Sara Donati. And I know in my "Outlander" review I wanted more historical detail. Just not at the cost of the plot. Set the scene, move the plot forward, develop a character. Just don't stop it completely. (See: Chapter on potato farming).On to "Voyager," I guess. See if everyone is right.

Book 2 of series of 9 so far. A person can pick up any one book of the series and that book is written as a stand alone book, but the series is so great that you really should read them all starting with Outlander (the first of the series). I never thought I would like a time travel book, but this is so well written and in a way that makes sense and you could see this time travel happen. Love this series, can’t wait for book 10 which is the last of the series.

I doubt that anyone will read my review due to the fact that there are over 1800 reviews already posted. I learned of this series through e-mails from STARZ, one of which included a free look at the first episode. Further, due to the fact that in looking at the reviews on Amazon I was amazed to find over 5000 reviews of the first book. I do not usually like time travel books BUT this is now a series which I would love to have all my acquaintances read just so I have someone with whom to discuss it. I had to read books 2 & 3 straight through before taking time to post this review as I wanted/needed to find out if and how Jamie and Claire were ever reunited after a 20 year separation over and beyond an additional separation of 200 years of time travel.I rate my movies and books by how many tissues I need and I have lost count of tissues used while reading this series of books...am now on number four but agree on the addiction factor stated by others, the swooning over photos of Jamie on STARZ, the love these two, Claire and Jamie, have for each other despite separations and other relationships during their separation with thoughts that the other one was dead. This author is a genius. I have to say, even if others have said it (I did read some but not all the other reviews) that these books are amazing, surprising, and with unique twists and turns connecting threads in various books. For instance: Roger Wakefield turning out to be Geillie Duncan's son born in 1743 - this was a surprise and I have not yet read how he got back to modern day and I am sure this thread is going to turn up in future parts of this series.In Outlander Claire loves & is married to Frank Randall but then when faced with a choice between him and her 18th century husband, chooses the latter. So I was wondering if, in this book, she was going to pick up the relationship with Frank exactly where she left it after falling forward through time, at Jamie's insistence...due to his knowledge of her pregnancy and due to his certainty of his own death in the impending war with the British at Culloden. And just prior to this event again there is a detail that appears in later time, Jamie's release of a young English lad who tries to kill him while he and Claire are camped out in the open.The daughter born to Jamie and Claire is named Brianna after Jamie's father, Brian, but is reared as Frank's daughter and only after his accidental death is Claire released from a promise not to tell Brianna of her biological father while Frank lived. Brianna is not happy nor can she at first accept this. Enter Roger Wakefield whose adopted father helped Frank Randall many times in tracing his ancestors or historical facts needed in his research as a historian. Roger falls for Brianna - but that is another story...to come. He does help Claire in her research and helps bring her and Brianna to the realization that JAMIE DID NOT die at Culloden.Flash forward to the modern day and in learning of Claire's motherhood and then of her entering the world of academia to earn her MD. Her best friend, Dr. Joe Abernathy, is another of those figures, facts of whom turn up in other parts of this long and twisted tale. I found it amusing when she asks him if he thinks she is sexy...wanting to know if Jamie might still find her attractive...if she finds a way to time travel again.There are parts of this story set in France, where, as other have stated, Jamie and Claire have traveled to 1.) Escape possible arrest and execution by the British, again, for him and 2.) To allow healing of Jamie's body and soul and 3.) To attempt to meet and form a close relationship with Bonnie Prince Charles and influence him to not return to Scotland and thus, prevent the fatal battle at Culloden, which Claire knows of from her 20th century knowledge of history. We read of many persons of importance in this saga and we follow Claire's pregnancy, Jamie's physical and psychological torture at the hands of Black Jack Randall, the uses of many flowers and herbs, secret societies, love affairs, religious beliefs and practices, and meet many new characters who will show up again and again over this epic tale.For me this is one of the best series of stories I have ever read. Hard to grasp that this tale will spread over 8 books!

The second book, like the first, is epic in length, continuing the rich and wonderful relationship between Jamie and Claire. It shows the lengths they will go to in order to maintain the relationship and how good intentions cannot always change the future. Steeped again in witchcraft and mysticism this alluded to a century that saw a massive change in both Scotland and England. A time when Catholicism was still viewed with suspicion and the void left by the enlightenment was to be filled by darker ideas, especially at the end of the century.The story begins in 1968 with Claire and her daughter returning to Scotland after the death of the Reverend. Written in the third person this tells of Roger’s interest in Brianna, he was only a boy in the previous book. Claire wants him to search for survivors of Culloden. In his research, he discovers Claire went missing and came back pregnant. He assumes Brianna does not know her real father, believing this is the reason for coming back to Scotland.The story then goes back to Claire and Jamie in France and returns to the first person and Claire’s story. She tells how Jamie suffers from seasickness on the journey, how he runs his cousin’s import business while researching sponsors for the Jacobite cause. Jamie’s business interests keep him close to Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobite cause, while they secretly seek to prevent the events which will lead to Culloden. When Charles Stuart lands in Scotland and draws pledges from the clans, including putting Jamie’s name to the list of supporters Culloden seems inevitable.When Collum McKenzie dies it is Dougal who succeeds him as clan leader and overhearing a conversation believes Jamie to be betraying the Jacobite cause. In the ensuing fight, Dougal is killed and Jamie insists Claire return to her own time for the sake of the baby.Back in modern-day Scotland, we return to the third person and Roger's story. Claire in an attempt to change fate looks for Geilis Duncan to try and persuade her not to go. Like the first book the second ends with a satisfying conclusion, Claire finds out what happens to Jamie, but leaves the door open for the next book, with the question, will she return to Jamie or stay with her daughter.In common with the first book, this is beautifully written and there are some interesting points about the court of Versailles, but I suspect the passages in Scotland are more historically accurate than those of France. This did not diminish my enjoyment of the book. I really liked the introduction of her daughter Brianna who obviously idolized her father Frank and shows the other side of this three-way, complicated relationship.

You know you have a gifted author at hand when the second book is as good as the first one in a series. I say as good, but to be honest I was considering calling it better. It’s difficult to say because the books are so different from each other. Where outlander was a very romantic novel in a historical setting, dragonfly in amber was a historical novel with a romantic story. It might seem a small difference but when you read other reviews of Dragonfly in amber you might notice the book is sometimes called "slow". And I actually think that the historical focus is why some people might consider this book a slow read. Diana Gabaldon is a very talented writer, who sets a story with a lot of attention for details and historical accuracy. She weaves a fictional story into historical background without any flaws. And I understand that this scene setting might seem a little bit slow. But for me it was a perfect pace and I love how she creates the feeling that you are actually there with the characters.Dragonfly in Amber has two big storylines. One set in the 1960's, where Claire is ready to tell her daughter the truth about her father. The other storyline is set in the 18the century and picks up where we left Jamie and Claire at the end of outlander.Dragonfly in amber is a complicated story full of political intrigues, war, bloodshed and conspiracies. But there is also room for a lot of (brilliant) character development. The hot, searing passion between Claire and Jamie has settled down a bit. The courtship over, they are settling in their marriage. And there wasn't a moment I missed the raw passion from the first book. Because Diana creates a love that is stronger than time itself between these characters. It might sound a bit cheesy but the love they evoke for each other together and the marital devotion is just breathtakingly beautiful to read.I think in this second novel there is also more time to bring other characters into view more detailed. I loved how Murtagh was portrayed in this novel. His loyalty, friendship and faithfulness is heart rendering. And I can't even begin to describe how much I loved Fergus and I sure hope to see more of him in the coming novels.Speaking of those novels. Starting this one I (and all other readers reading this series now) already know Jamie didn't die in Culloden. We already know there are at least 6 other novels about the Frasers. So I wasn't expecting to suffer heartbreak. I couldn't have been more wrong. And that is where the genius of Diana Gabaldon comes into play. Even when you know it isn't over and there is more to come. She sucked me into the story and ripped my heart into a million pieces. I was so glad I was home alone when I was crying my heart out.Brilliant in all its little details! More I cannot say about it.

The second Outlander book, I'm not sure why I bought it other than I read the first book and was on holiday and wanted something undemanding.I suppose I got that. The story plods along.I heard a couple of interviews on the radio with Diana Gabaldon where she said that she used her research into historical fact to pad out the storyline. It shows. Credit where it's due, she puts a lot of historical background into the text (it sounds pretty authentic though I haven't done anything to check it out) regarding daily life and medical procedures but it's all a bit clunky. Not as clunky as the sex though. Reading the descriptions they are so coy as to leave me wondering who put what bit where. Is she worried her mum or kids might read it? Better to leave it all to the imagination than to leave the reader confused about what she's actually referring to.When I was 15 I'd probably have loved this, a strong romantic relationship at a time when things were very difficult for a women as modern as Claire. I'm a bit older now and better read and it really doesn't do it for me. I'm sure the author will cry all the way to the bank.

I adored the first book, and couldn’t put it down. I was so eager to get started on this and also continue through all the books. It was quite an exciting feeling, as I hadn’t ever read that many books by one author. But I couldn’t get past the first 200 pages, I mirror all the other reviewers who also got to a point and just stopped, skimmed or read an audio version. I am considering whether to watch the series, but in reality I think that I will just draw a line in the sand at the first book and not move on to the next.

Having enjoyed the first Outlander book was keen to get the second. I was surprised that it started in the late nineteen sixties but then it switched to the 1700's to explain how Claire got to the sixties with a grown up daughter.I enjoyed the historical detail but felt the story was a little flawed and confusing in places. I found myself having to press the back button on my Kindle several times.There is no doubt that the author is very clever in devising this time shifting epic but thought this was not as good as her first book. Having said that I will be looking to get the third as I am intrigued how it will developOne very annoying is the planting of an advert for the authors new ninth instalment within the text. I mistakenly read the first chapter of this book thinking it was the last chapter of the book I was reading. Very annoying and a spoiler for where the series is going