Ladies of Lallybroch Chat, June 1999
The following is an abridged transcript of a Ladies of Lallybroch chat from June 1999. Be forewarned that there may be Spoilers for upcoming books in the interview. You may find that some of the information is outdated. Updates on the publication of books, tours, etc. are more current on the pages of this site that are devoted to those topics.
Question: Throughout the books we have had the pleasure of examining many topics affecting
life in the 18th century through the 20th century eyes of our heroine Claire.
You have explored everything from politics to social mores to everyday problems.
Are there any more themes or topics that you hope to see your characters explore
in the future books?
DGabaldon: Themes and problems? Oh, sure. {g} The nature of parenthood,
the obligation of generations, whether there's sex after 50...all kinds of
good stuff left, believe me.
Comment: I like the sex after 50 one! I've wondered how Claire will
deal with menopause!
DGabaldon: With a bit of doubt, but armed with a pot of nice, slippery
balm. {cough}
Question: Hi, Diana! I love your books! My question...some people were bothered by the scene
in Outlander when Jamie beat Claire. Have you ever cut scenes from your
books to avoid offending anyone, or do you just tell it like it is...or like it
was?
DGabaldon: No. For one thing, you'd never have the slightest notion
what would offend someone--there are a lot of thin-skinned people out there,
who sort of think absolutely everything they're exposed to ought to be constructed
with their narrow-minded prejudices in mind--except that nobody can tell
ahead of time what those might be! Besides, even if I knew something would
offend people, I'd do it anyway, if it was a necessary part of the story.
I mean, whose books are these, anyway? {g}
Question: A question we have discussed in detail - In Surgeon's Steel, who is the baby
Alexander?
DGabaldon: Oh, baby Alexander. Well, I do write bits out of sequence,
and as you may have noticed, I had no real idea what Brianna's kid's
name was, even at the end of Drums {cough} , so while writing that
bit--which I wrote some two or three years ago--I just stuck in "Alexander,"
figuring I'd change it when I finally decided what the kids' name really
was. Also, "Alexander," because I figured at some point, Jamie might
give the little snake to his grandson--the one that says "Sawney" on
the bottom.
Question: At the end of Drums of Autumn, when Jamie offers Frank's ring back
to Claire, why does she take it? With Frank firmly in her past and her life complete
with Jamie, why? Thank you.
DGabaldon: Er...how much time do you have? {g} There's a three-page
explanation of this in the Companion. The short form is, "either you
see it, or you don't." The slightly longer form is..She's an honorable
person, and so was Frank. They had something of value, and for Claire to toss
that away without the slightest acknowledgement would make her a shallow, superficial
person--and she's not.
Comment: I see, but, I'm a Frank-liker...and not popular for it!
DGabaldon: Well, there he is, like him or not. {g} Like I said,
I don't write books with the primary notion of not offending people or not
doing something they won't like.
Question: Croeso Diana, (thats welcome in Welsh *g*), we've gathered that it isn't
possible to change big things like Culloden by going back in time but I was wondering
if there is any significance in the fact that Brianna saved young Germaine's
life by using the Heimlich manouvre. I know the significance at the time was the
button on which he choked but if Bree hadn't been there he would likely have
died. Am I reading too much into this?
DGabaldon: Mucho gusto, Gwen. {g} No, not necessarily. On the other
hand, I really hadn't thought much about that. One point about all the books,
of course, is that we can't ever judge exactly what the effect of
even small actions may be--and everybody, whether time-traveler or not, has such effects; it's just that if you are a time-traveler, sometimes you'll know what you've done. Sometimes you won't, too.
Question: Is Roger going to die? I mean we all die, but is Roger going to die young? I am
attached to him and would like to know so I can be prepared.
DGabaldon: Yes, that's right; you have to act, whether you know for
sure what happens or not. Well, I did hang the man, but that didn't kill
him, so I'm not sure what else it would take. {g} . On the other hand, life
is kind of risky in the 18th century, and while Jamie's been teaching Roger
swordcraft, Stephen Bonnet is one gnarly SOB with a knife. I guess we'll
have to wait and see. {evil g} I'm fond of Roger, myself. Of course, there's
Young Ian, too--and we haven't yet met Willie as a young man. Lots of rather
attractive males around. {cough}
Question: An observation: I've always thought that Jamie & BJR are two sides of
the same coin. Do you?
DGabaldon: Well, I don't know that I'd go quite that far. They do have a few things in common, though--that's why Black Jack wants
Jamie, for one thing; he sees what he might have been, under other circumstances--and
feels compelled to destroy it.
Question: good vs. evil thing between the two. so was there ever any good
in BJR?
DGabaldon: Yeah, that's pretty classic, as story-telling goes. Bonnet,
on the other hand, is not deliberately evil--he's merely amoral. Yeah. The
fact that Bonnet is amoral, of course, means that now and again, his actions will
run with those of the good guys--but only so far as it suits his own interests.
Question: So would Jamie prefer button-fly or a zipper then? *g*
DGabaldon: Oh, he seemed kind of interested in Claire's zipper, though
under the circumstances, he didn't have time to check it out in detail. {g}
He's the efficient sort, though. Buttons have a certain charm, but given
the trouble he had with the sodden ties of his petticoat-breeches in Voyager...nah,
zipper.
Question: In Voyager when Jamie & Claire are reunited...Claire tells Jamie that
she's never taken off the ring he gave her. Is this possible with her career
as a surgeon? There has been some discussion about this.
DGabaldon: Oh, the ring. Well, one could either construe that as artistic
license {g}, one could assume merely that she meant she'd never taken it
off deliberately to look inside it, or one could assume that she really
didn't take it off. I have seen surgeons who don't-though this is usually
because their fingers have gotten larger and they physically can't take it off. Possible to disinfect and wear gloves over the ring, though I admit
it isn't the usual procedure.
Comment: It's so romantic to think that she's never removed
it.
DGabaldon: Well, I don't think she would have removed it, unless
totally necessary--she wouldn't want to risk losing it or having it stolen,
and would probably make some fuss to keep it on, regardless of circumstances.
Question: I've always admired your portrayal of the Catholic Church in the books. There
is respect and I feel a clear eyed view of what is good about the Church and the
faults of the church. Most of all there is a sense of the virtue of faith. I know
from previous interviews that you are a Catholic. So, how much of what is in the
books reflects your own faith and feelings about the church?
DGabaldon: Oh, most of it. We do have the two views, of course--Jamie
is an accepting Catholic; Claire is Catholic only by happenstance, and has no
firm grounding in the faith. So Jamie abides by the rule and regs, so to speak--though
he does indeed have a deep, unquestioning faith--whereas Claire takes a more cynical
view, and--while she certainly has faith as well, is often rather surprised to find that she does.
Comment: but Claire does take some comfort from the church, Perpetual
Adoration mostly
DGabaldon: Yes. As I say, she's often rather surprised to find what
happens when she enters into a spiritual state. That's the thing about God,
you know; it's not like you're doing all the work. {g} Whether
you intend something or not, it often works in spite of you.
Comment: That forgiveness scene in Drums chokes me up everytime!
DGabaldon: I liked that, too. smile: After all, Jamie wouldn't have
survived--let alone survived more or less intact-for all those years and through
all he's been through, without something bigger than himself to turn to.
Question: I want to know the connection between Mrs Crook, Colums Housekeeper, and the Mr
Crook who shows Claire the stones?
DGabaldon: Possibly a direct line of descent. Possibly not, too; I don't
think Crook is a real common name in the Highlands, but it's probably
not all that unusual, either. Having people with the same last name, two hundred
years apart, doesn't necessarily mean there's anything but a genetic
line between them, though--if that.
Question: Ye are too funny, i love the humor in your books. Heres my Q...Do you get as frisky
writing the lovescenes as we do reading them?... A verra BIG thank-you from the
dh! *VBG* too!
DGabaldon: Well, see, I need both hands to type. {g} Now, mind you, this
is not my quote--but one author of my acquaintance says that if your panties
aren't wet when writing this sort of scene, you aren't doing it right.
(Remember, I didn't say that!)
Question: What is your favorite place or thing to do to relax, to recharge your battery?
DGabaldon: Read. Hands down. (Er, I mean, "indubitably"!) My
favorite thing is reading. It doesn't matter a lot where, as long
as it's comfortable, and the book is good. Of course, my husband is very
good at recharging, too, but it's harder to do that in the summertime, with
five or six kids in the house all the time.
Question: As a follow up to that....you have beautifully described ‘seeing' your
characters in action..... either through clear plastic, or a black garbage bag
where you have to ‘feel' your way around.... Which type of view do you
have of the love making scenes? *g*
DGabaldon: Which type of view? Oh, clear or dark, you mean. Well, either
one, depending--sometimes (most often) I can see clearly and hear everything,
but now and then I hit one where there's just a feeling, and I can't
really see anything, and have to sort of..er..feel my way. {g}
Question: How about the wedding nite scene?
DGabaldon: Well, I didn't see that one ahead, so to speak--but it
kind of unwound clearly in front of me, all right. I don't usually "see"
a whole scene in its entirety.
Question: What're you reading now?
DGabaldon: Let's see...I just finished reading Laurell Hamilton's Obsidian Butterfly, and am in the middle of Walter Satterthwaite's Masquerade, which is very good, too. Next up is Neil Gaiman's Stardust,
which just came in with a request for a blurb for the paperback, and then I have
Reginald Hills Singing the Sadness and whatsisname's new Ian Rutledge
mystery, which are waiting to go on book tour with me next week.
Question: Will Jemmy's paternity ever be revealed?
DGabaldon: Yes, you'll find out. {g}
Question: Do
any of the characters ever frustrate you just by being themselves? If so, who
frustrates you the most?
DGabaldon: No, they never frustrate me by being themselves--only if I
can't hear or see them clearly and therefore can't tell easily who they
are.
Comment: Some frustrate ME sometimes.. but i guess that's the point,
eh??
DGabaldon: Well, if they're real people--and believe me, they are
{g} --they're bound to, I suppose.
Question: Who are some of the characters you describe as "hard nuts" then? As
opposed to ‘mushrooms'?
DGabaldon: Well, Brianna was the hardest nut--took me a long time to get
to know her, since she didn't create herself, so to speak--most of the characters
do. I had to create her, though, since I was stuck with whoever Claire's
baby turned out to be.
Question: do your books flow like mind-movies...unfolding before you as though you are an
eavesdropper?
DGabaldon: Only when I'm lucky. {g} Most of the time, it's like
chiseling rocks.
Question: can we back up for a sec.... Willie's paternity???
DGabaldon: Oh, yeah. I mean, Willie--and everybody around him with the
exception of Lord John-- thinks his father is/was the late Earl of Ellesmere.
I sort of figure that if/when he comes face to face with the truth, though, it
will be kind of a shock to discover that he's not the ninth Earl,
but merely the bastard of a Scottish war criminal--and a groom, to boot!
Comment: ahhh... I thought it *was* clear as the knife-blade nose on his
face! *g*
DGabaldon: It is--and will be clearer, when he arrives in the Colonies
as a young officer. {g}
LadyLeeC: Ms Gabaldon you have given us details regarding the physical interaction between
Jamie and Jack at Wentworth but will there be more information regarding the emotional
relationship that developed between them that night? (This has driven me crazy
since I've read your books. Thank-you very much for them.)
DGabaldon: Well, some of you will have read "Surgeon's Steel,"in
which Jamie is obliged to take laudanum, but protests, on the grounds that it
"gives me bad dreams." At some point, he's going to remember what
happened at Culloden--and I sort of think that the stress of losing a finger and
sleeping/dreaming under the influence of laudanum may be enough to bring it back--given
that he's just come out of a battle, filled with horses and swords and the
like. Beyond that, I imagine he might have small flashbacks now and then, but
I can't say for sure what or when those will be.
Question: My question in regarding Frank, was he really unfaithful to Claire, as is implied,
before during and after Jamie came into the picture? And were the frequent references
to his and BJR's similarities deliberate to make Frank look like a jerk and
loser? *ahem* Some Hosers think he's a total loser.
DGabaldon: Again, how much do we have room for? {g} This is another one
that's addressed at some length in the Companion. As far as the facts--we
don't know, though the implication is surely that Frank was unfaithful--though
how far this might have gone, we don't know (and bear in mind that Claire
alludes vaguely to wartime flirtations and infatuations, too--and we know those weren't with Frank!). No, the similarities are mentioned frequently
because Claire is terribly aware of them; the resemblance is what gives Jack Randall
a much greater effect on her than he might otherwise have--that she keep getting
flashes of Frank, even though she knows Jack is a different person.
Comment: So you wouldn't say Frank is a loser would you? or pond
scum, as some are fond of saying
DGabaldon: No, I wouldn't say Frank is pond scum--nor yet a loser,
in the way you mean it. "Loser," yes, insofar as he's lost his
wife--through no fault of his own. On the other hand, he did gain a daughter,
whom he might otherwise not have had. But no; I'm inclined to view Frank
as a tragic figure; he's an honorable man, and doing his best in horrible
circumstances--his only real flaw is that he's not a hero. He hasn't
the greatness of character that Jamie has--he's only an ordinary, decent
guy--and that is his tragedy.
Question: At the end of DIA after Willie MacKenzie sees that Jamie Killed Dougal, Jamie
asks for an hour to see my wife safe before Willie spreads the word. Why didn't
Willie spread the word about the murder? Will we learn about this later?
DGabaldon: Half the men who took the field at Culloden died. It's
fifty-fifty that Willie was one of them. On the other hand, he might not have died; he might have been taken prisoner, transported, etc. The thing is,
though--the clans ceased to exist as of that battle; after April 16, there
would have been--in effect--no one for him to tell, or no one to whom it would
make a difference, given the catastrophe that had overcome them all. So Dougal's
dead? So is half the clan. Jamie killed him? Jamie may be dead, too, for all most
of them know. I don't think it would have been anyone's big concern
at the time--if Willie were even alive to tell. On the other hand, the past does have this disconcerting way of coming back. {g} And, as my husband is fond of
saying, "The only way you can be sure somebody's dead in one
of your books is if they clutch their throat and go GAK! right in front of you."
When I did the Cast of Characters list for the Companion, I was rather
startled to find that there were over 500 characters in the four books. {g} Lots
of room for one of them to turn up again, I mean.
Question: When Jamie arranged to make John flog him at Ardsmuir, was he trying to punish
himself, or was he just being pragmatic and seizing an occasion to put John in
an impossible position as it came? And why did it take so long between John's
advances and that reaction from Jamie?
DGabaldon: It didn't take more than a couple of days, I don't
think. As it was, Jamie seized the opportunity to make such a definite break that
John could never even talk to him on an even footing again--or so he would have
thought. No, I don't reckon he was "punishing" himself--but he
was over-reacting, no doubt, out of fear at the mere thought of such advances.
Comment: I think it was June to September, wasn't it? And I also
don't think he was punishing himself! Thanks!
DGabaldon: Was it? I lose complete track of time in those books, owing
to writing them in pieces. I try to backtrack and make sure all the date references
fit, but I don't always manage it. Jamie couldn't bring himself to see
John clearly--once the advance was made--or he would have known that John would
never try to force him in any way. As it was, though, he reacted with...not quite
panic, but a really strong reaction, that led him to do what he did, in order
to insure that John wouldn't come near him.