Books: Dragonfly in Amber by Diana Gabaldon (1992)

So, I finished the second book in this series, and mostly, I have the same issues.

Its way over long -and the each novel in the current 7 book series gets longer- and there is a lot of downtime where nothing really happens. While there adventures in France were integral to the plot, it becomes clear towards the end that most of that time could have been edited down to a few pages, brief chapter’s or two.

But what we get is a very detailed day-in-life of Claire and Jamie that often borders on tedious. It’s like this: say it’s a three day journey between point A and point B. As far as Gabaldon is concerned, we need each of those days spelled out in the most infinite detail, from what they ate, to family stories that no one could remember in the detail she describes –and most with no bearing on the plot what so ever. 

Also, I guess I know why women read and write romance, because they can create the perfect man. Jamie and Claire love each other (to the point where you swear they had Alzheimer’s, ‘cause almost 20 pages don’t go by without them having sex or babbling their love for one another. It’s tedious) and Jamie –as noted before- is a super hero Terminator, able to be beat down again and again, and never ever complain. So the author forces us believe that somehow, this guy could survive while others die easily. 

This second book opens in 1968. We learn Claire returned through the stone circle three years after she vanished in 1945. We know that she was pregnant with Jamie’s baby, but Frank (her 20^th Century husband) became Brianna’s father. Now Frank is dead and Claire has decided to tell her daughter the truth.  She’s returned to the area for the first time since her return and explains to her and Frank’s friend Roger, the story of what happened before she returned.

Part of the problem is the first person narrative Gabaldon foists on us. While I understand the underlying reason she chose to use this prose devise –the reader learns as Claire does- it becomes tedious as Claire vacillates between a smart, 20^th Century woman, into a bubbling pot of gooey love when Jamie is around –and we get her 16 year-old school girl version of it. There were times I was not surprised to see her writing Mrs. Jamie Fraser again and again with little hearts above the i’s. 

And maybe this is why the author chose 1945 for the setting of Claire’s departure from the 20^th Century. While she was educated in medicine, and knows how to heal people in 1745, her lack of knowledgeable history is appalling. And at times, Claire seems to have some idea about the past, other times she seems lackadaisical. And though she spends another 22 years in the 20^th Century, does she spend it reading history books? Nope, because it would be too painful for her. Ugh. Seriously? 

In this book Gabaldon does address the timeline issue. In book one, her and Jamie thought that a descendant of Frank was killed in 1744, and not 1745 as history had shown. But since her wedding ring from Frank did not vanish (because of the Grandfather Effect) they were not sure how the flow of time proceeded. Then, she introduces a brother (of course) and you can eventually see where this is going. Plus, while Claire encountered a woman in the past from 1968, she waits until then to even investigate her. I applaud her for not mucking up the timeline -Duncan has to go back in time- but I don't buy for the minute why she waited 22 years to figure out the whole time-loop thingy.

The book ends with a cliffhanger of sorts. For 22 years she’s believed Jamie to be dead, killed at battle that marked a turning point in history in the war between the English and the Scots. Now –because Claire changed history by telling Jamie of that battle, he appears to be alive.

So I’m guessing, she’ll return to the portal in the stone circle for book 3.

But I doubt she’ll bring a history book with her. And I doubt I'll take the time to read it.