Friday, October 1, 2010

Deep (Jack Randall) Thoughts

SPOILER ALERT: Dinna read unless you have read Dragonfly in Amber.

Ya know, I don't think I've ever truly pondered what went down between Jamie and Black Jack Randall when they dueled. Or maybe it's just been a damn long time and my memory is not what it used to be. I have to go back through the blog archives.

Here's what's on my mind: Jamie didn't kill Black Jack. Now... did he do that on purpose, to appease Claire? So he could say "But I didna kill him - I only maimed him!"

But... he maimed him in such a way he'd never be able to father a child, right? Meaning Frank would never have been born - at least that's what Jamie and Claire thought at the time. (Yes I know Jack's brother was the real great great great whatever grandfather).

So what's the diff? Why not just go all the way with that sword and toast him for good?? He's still alive and can now continue to hurt others - winky or no winky.

What say y'all? Am I forgetting something? I must be. Why have I never pondered this before??

13 comments:

bretam said...

I don't know...I can't think about anything but the movie deal and who they want to play Jamie and Claire...you should blog about that....urggggg......must go watch a really good movie or something!!!

bretam said...

I don't know...I can't think about anything but the movie deal and who they want to play Jamie and Claire...you should blog about that....urggggg......must go watch a really good movie or something!!!

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think Jamie was trying to put a hurt on the guy so he could run to Claire...who was bleeding do death...and not have to deal with BJ coming after him. Yes, he wanted to kill him, but not in front of Claire.

Anonymous said...

I remember him saying to Claire when they made up that he kept remembering that he couldn't kill him but didn't remember why. My own thoughts, if a guy abused me and humiliated me I think I would go for the winky myself!!!

writex3 said...

If he had killed him, he wouldn't have suffered. BJR wouldn't have had a chance to feel remorse or shame or pain. Maybe had the matter just been between him and BJR, Jamie would've killed him. But when BJR went for Fergus, I think Jamie shifted and wanted him to suffer and pay with perhaps what was more valuable to BJR than his life. I think this overrode his concerns about Claire's concerns for Frank's lineage.

Consider this as well: did keeping BJR alive give either or both of them a chance at things like grace, forgiveness, redemption? In Jamie's case, I think the answer is yes. One of the most powerful moments of Jamie's character came when he saw BJR safely home after visiting (or was it the death of?) his brother. Had he not gone through this, he may not have been the father he was to Bree during her crisis w/Bonnet.

ahhh...love these books. Love you blog, too!

Purgatory Carol said...

Wow Adventures North - GREAT point. Did you not love Jamie Fraser even more than you thought possible when he walked BJR to his room after his brother died? (Alexander, was that his name?) I thought that was the most amazing (albeit unrealistic) thing Jamie Fraser ever did. God, it gives me chills.

All: I know Jamie wanted to kill BJR. I get that it was a huge source of tension between he and Claire. But Claire wanted BJR alive so he could eventually spawn and create a human whose lineage would include Frank down the line. And Jamie killed any chance for that when he... well... when he did whatever he did to BJR's nether region.

So why not just kill him? Leaving him alive didn't matter to Claire if Frank would never be born.

Unknown said...

Hi Carol,

Now its been at least a year since I re-read Dragonfly... but I seem to remember pretty clearly Jamie telling Claire that he kept thinking "I can't kill him because of what you said [Frank]" so he was focusing on just maiming him but didn't realize that maiming him THERE would in effect defeat the purpose of keeping him alive. Jamie was trying to keep his promise to Claire while at the same time avenging Fergus...but in his rage he forgot WHY he was trying to keep BJR alive (to spawn Frank in the future) just the fact that _he had to keep him alive_.

Sally

Josie said...

Jamie had promised Clare that he wouldn't "kill" Jack Randall until after the time that Franks great, great whatever had been conceived. When he was telling Clare about the duel later he told her that he was in such a state that he knew he couldn't kill him, but couldn't remember why. And I guess that since he had suffered so much at the other end of JR's manhood and then found JR doing the same to Fergus, I guess would have been more focussed on making certain that JR would never harm/humiliate anyone that way again -and less about Frank. I am not sure that Jamie really cares a lot about Frank - he is just a concept to him rather than a real person.

Paula said...

Jamie promised not to kill Black Jack. He didn't promise not to castrate him with his dirk. LOL

Anonymous said...

Rather simply put...Jamie wanted someone who loved Claire to be there for her when he could no longer care for her (if he wasn't around). Remember he tried to send her back to her time twice already. If he killed BJR, aside from breaking his promise, Claire wouldn't have Frank to return.

Purgatory Carol said...

I reread the scene yesterday. I had forgotten Jamie told Claire that because he was so hell bent against KILLING BJR, he had forgotten WHY he wasn't supposed to kill him. This is why we need rereads! ;)

Jane said...

I would love to know what was said between Jamie and BJR the night Jamie walked him home. If anything was said. I have wondered if Randall told Jamie what he told Claire, that he was no so sure he was lucky that he survived Jamie's sword after the duel.

However, when Claire came home that night after Alex died, she mentioned that at least Frank was safe and Jamie blew a gasket. He didn't want to hear anymore about the Randalls. The chapter is named Damn All Randalls. I was so glad to see him explode about that, I thought it did him a world of good.

Anonymous said...

OKAY, soo late to the party on this, but I just found this post and had to add my $.02.

Jaime doesn't care about Frank (eh, no one does) so it really irks him that he can't kill BJR just because Claire once loved him, blah blah blah. Didn't it dawn on Jamie (or Claire) that the real reason Frank needed to be born was that if he weren't, Claire and he (Frank) wouln't have married, wouldn't have been on their 2nd honeymoon in Scotland, and therefore Claire wouldn't have gone through the stones and met Jamie. This would have put a much better spin on why he needed to remain alive. *note to Claire, if you have to get a man to do something for you, don't say it's because you once loved another man.

Has this been said before? I'm new here. Sorry if it's a rehash.