Outlander discussion

Dolores wrote: "In sexual Sadism there are no attractions you are an object to be used for the gratification of the sadist. However they are often quite normal in other aspects of behavior work, money, going to th..."

I think there is a flaw in either your understanding of Black Jack or in your overgeneralization of sextual assault victims. Black Jack did not just see Jamie as a sextual object. It was more than that. I am not sayig by any means that it was love, but at the same time it was a type of love more of an obsession but still a type of love. I know, not from reading but experence, that a victim, man or women, can have an orgasm during an assault and there is nothing wrong with the victim nor did they enjoy a single second of it or give their consent to it.

Thank you Maddie

Maddie wrote: "I think there is a flaw in either your understanding of Black Jack or in your overgeneralization of sextual assault victims."

I think you're right, except that I think there is a flaw in BOTH Dolores's understanding of BJR AND sexual assault victims.

Dolores is confusing sadists with psychopaths. Sometimes they are the same, but certainly not always. Most sadists are not psychopaths (they get off on others' pain but are capable of empathy, compassion and generally follow rules and respect others; if you doubt this, visit FetLife or any one of the many other online communities for folks into this lifestyle, and who find willing partners. Bitchy Jones Diary was a great example of a sadist woman who enjoyed the involuntary nature of mens erectile responses to her; it is now defunct but she was pretty articulate and not a psychopath, and always had consenting partners.) And many psychopaths are not sadists (if you doubt this, visit the work of psychologist Dr. Robert Hare, who has made a career of studying psychopaths and documented the fact that many psychopaths are incredibly successful business people who use their lack of empathy and willingness to break rules and make a lot of money, but aren't interested in sexual sadism at all). Curiously, psychopaths, by definition, lack any real capacity to form bonds with others, but oftentimes do create a specific, strong attachment to a particular person (although this is probably different from 'love' in the traditional sense).

And thank you, Mochaspresso, for sharing your link. It just can be so hurtful to survivors to let those kinds of myths stand unchallenged and I was glad for the information! The article you linked to is very clear: erection is a non-voluntary response (like dilation of the pupils or salivation) to sexual stimulus and not connected to consent in any way.

Maddie wrote: "I know, not from reading but experence, that a victim, man or women, can have an orgasm during an assault and there is nothing wrong with the victim nor did they enjoy a single second of it or give their consent to it. "

And to echo Jeanine, thanks for sharing Maddie -- and AMEN to that.

No Sexual sadists are often psychopaths but not always. There is a lot of game playing lately with bondage and discipline I not at all referring to that. But Jack Randall was not playing at B&D he was killing people which is why I bothered to note the true behavior of a sexual sadist. Was Jack a psychopath yes I think so. I have spoken to hundreds of victims of rape nobody was aroused in any normal sense of con sexual sex nobody had control over their body no body had a good time. Sexual Sadists are not common ask the FBI they are somewhat rare but in their true form they are far worse to their victims than any psychopath.

Dolores wrote: "I have spoken to hundreds of victims of rape nobody was aroused in any normal sense of con sexual sex nobody had control over their body no body had a good time"

No they wouldn't have had a good time. No they wouldn't be aroused in a normal way. No they wouldn't have been in control of their bodies. But that doesn't mean that an erection or even an orgasm can't happen.

Characteristics/Predominate Features - Major Sexual Sadism;
Major sexual sadism, on the other hand, is usually not consensual and involves injury or death to the victim. The element of fear in the victim and complete control of the victim is the major sexual stimuli in major sexual sadism. Some of the more severe activities involved in this behavior may include:
severe beatings
torture
burning, cutting,
stabbing in the breast or buttocks (piquerism)
rape (see Sadistic Rape)
murder (see Sadistic or Lust Murder)
vampirism
necrophilia
http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/para...

Dolores wrote: "Characteristics/Predominate Features - Major Sexual Sadism;
Major sexual sadism, on the other hand, is usually not consensual and involves injury or death to the victim. The element of fear in the ..."

I don't think anyone here is denying Randal is a sadist so I'm not sure what the point of this post is.

Dolores wrote: "A sadist does not get off by talking like your girlfriend. A man being raped would not respond to a sadist with an erection just the opposite fear tends to interfere with sexual performance. Extrem..."

BJR wasn't trying to get off by talking about Claire, he was trying to mentally control Jamie. He already had control of his body, he also wanted his mind.

Sageta wrote: "BJR wasn't trying to get off by talking about Claire, he was trying to mentally control Jamie. He already had control of his body, he also wanted his mind."

I agree that he was definitely trying to 'break' Jamie. He even says so, but there were far more layers to BJR than his sadistic tendencies. I know at one point during the attack (per Jamie's account to Claire) BJR demands that Jamie tell him he loved him. He also said, (view spoiler)["Tell me that you love me, Alex. Say that you love me."

It was a slip of the tongue on Randall's part as we learn later there is someone else by the name of Alex in his life. (hide spoiler)]

I don't think it's accurate to hold Randall strictly to the sadist characteristics. He was clearly mentally ill and probably fit the criteria for many different psychological illness.

No self respecting sexual Sadist ever needed someone to mumble tell me you love me in their ear while nailing you hand to a table. This is romantic hogwash meant to make you ladies think old Jack Randall was an onion with lots of layers. Its this part of your fantasy that gets decent intelligent women into serious trouble with a violent sexual sadist. You think there must be a softer side someone he did care about.... No they don't Page after page of files I had to read the most horrible atrocious things done to women who could not believe the monster they met was all that bad. I blame the writer of this hogwash for needing to string you along so you will buy into this remarkably stupid story. The prolonged sadistic torture of a human being animal or child is what on the agenda with a sexual sadist. I was once told by sexual sadist he didn't like torturing children because they die to quickly a full grown woman can last for at least 24 hours. If you are 5 foot 2' and weigh less than 120 lbs you can even as dead weight still be disposed of to wherever without help. In your life if you ever see or feel anything that makes you question someone you met because you saw anything cruel, or malicious even if its not directed at you cold and calculated to cause emotional or physical pain RUN and never look back and tell somebody about them maybe the police at least let a detective know about what your gut knew all along..

I think you missed my point. Completely. As for Outlander being ANYONE's fantasy...speak for yourself. This has nothing to do with "me".

I also did not say "softer" layers. I said layers. Period. My reason for pointing out BJR's demand for Jamie to tell him he loved him and his misuse of another name was to point out that he is MENTALLY ILL.

Dolores wrote: "No self respecting sexual Sadist ever needed someone to mumble tell me you love me in their ear while nailing you hand to a table. This is romantic hogwash meant to make you ladies think old Jack R..."

This didn't happen. BJR didn't mumble tell me you love me while nailing Jamie's hand to the table.

Furthermore, much later when BJR did tell Jamie to tell him he loved him, I didn't find it 'romantic' at all...in fact, there was nothing romantic about BJR at all.

Yes because that is what all of us are saying. That we love jack Randal and wish that Jamie could see the beautiful person underneath all the violence. Are you kidding me? Haha
You have missed everyone's point completely. I am pretty sure that none of us would say that we liked BJR. I am pretty sure that most people would agree that he is a sexual sadist AND mental disturbed. He is obsessed with Jamie and gets off on pain. We understand that. That doesn't mean we think "there is a softer side" to him. I don't think your public service announcement was necessary here. No one was denying the claim that BJR is a sexual sadist. We have been denying your claim that Jamie enjoyed it because he had an erection. We are also denying your claim that DG wrote him wrong.

Dolores wrote: "No self respecting sexual Sadist ever needed someone to mumble tell me you love me in their ear while nailing you hand to a table. This is romantic hogwash meant to make you ladies ..."

Wow, Dolores, you have packed a lot of mind reading into a single post. In one fell swoop, you have managed to tell me (rather specifically!) what sadists think, what the author thought and intended, what I think, and what other "ladies" think. You have also included (yet again) shock value worthy of Gerlado Rivera or Jerry Springer. Clearly, there is nothing you DON'T know! Why would you waste your time here with us mere humans? Isn't there a serial killer somewhere you aught to be tracking and apprehending?

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "It was so effective, I, as a reader, was affected by it. So, yeah, in this sense it "worked". But from a writing point of view, I think it is a very lazy and cliched trick. And from a c..."

I don't think tehre was an absolute NEED to make the point the author chose to make by habing Claire beaten by her husband. By the time this scene happened there had already been many instances, an most of there wer of the violent varity, that help both Claire and the reader realize how different the time and the customs were. That's precisely why I am criticizing this writing choice : to me there was no need to add more and especially no need to add more harm to Claire who had just escaped a pretty dangerous and traumatic experience at the hand of that english officer.

Furthermore I think there are many ways to drive your point home : you can use violence subtly and sometimes it has even more impact than having graphic brutal acts displayed. But that requires some creativity and some level of writing that I think teh author lacks. That's another reason I dislike this choice : it's lazy because it is sure to be "effective" in the way brutal violence is...until it isn't because it is used too often. As I already pointed there ar emany things that bugged me in the book and some of them is the gratuitous use of violence. Like I said, by the time this scene happened, the point had already been made, several (too many) times that those were very violent, bloody times. Using violence against a woman that way, after violence had already been used against the very same female character.

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "Women (and e few men) fighting for equality didn't happen just in the 20th century. As the blogger I quoted in my OP pointed out, even in the 18th century there were people who opposed ..."
One of the reason I quoted the blogger in my OP is that they cited some sources showing there were, indeed, some people, man and woman, opposing discriminations against women during medieval times. And just because it was a minority doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Also, as I stated before, I think the "point" the author was trying to make was unnecessary and only fed into stereotypical and regressive trends in the genre.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Susan wrote: "Sometimes no means yes. Just like you all agree, she enjoyed it, pillow talk with her lover and all."

This morning I woke up and read all theses comments..."

What I said is that my OP wanst' about this topic, I kjust wanted to aknowlege that is was indeed a hotly debated topic, and also that I am always weary of arguments based on "personal experience" like the one you used on such a topic.

The post I used in my OP deals with more issues than the one I wanted to discuss when starting the discussion: I explained earlier to another I thought the main argument was something I agreed with but not everything automatically. I reproduced the whole post in extenso for full disclosure : I didn't want just to take things out of context.
Also, as replied to your post not because I thought it was directed to me but because you posted it on this discussion and I wanted to add my 2 cents on the subject. I mean it's ont a one to one conversation out here but rather some collective space where every and anyone add things, isn't it?

About rape and perception : yes, it's always a matter of "perception"...until it is not anymore. And when discussing rape, ther eis a line and that line is, as has been argued for decades by the anti-rape movement, consent. I know there has been debate about consent as the absence of no vs consent as affirmative, voluntary aggreement, but that wasn't even the debate : what the otehr pointed was that she said "no". So it's not a matter of "perception" anymore : she clearly said no. And that's what many people who referred this scene as a rape scene also pointed, and what give some credit to this point (at least to me) : she didn't consent to having sex and he forced himself on her. Again, I am sitll not sure about all that, so my point wasn't about the scene, but about the all "sometimes no means yes" when discussing rape allegations.

As for your respond to one of my comment : I WAS indeed mocked for not quoting the book verbatin. Those comments were directed at me, so I remember them well. There were a series of post about the fact that if I wasn't able to quote the book with the precise details, I shouldn't dare to try and criticize the scene. Even after I aknowleged the fact that I indded couldn't quote the book verbatim and that I was too lazy to go back and look for it. I was even called out by someone for referring to myself as lazy (which was me laughing at myself) as this wasn't very "feminist" of me to do so...If you have some time, go and check.
My point was (and still is) that yes I may have made some minor errors when replying to some posts but not only I never stated false facts, but stated my opinion on facts that were indded debatable, but the minor errors I may have done were peripheral to the main argument.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Red wrote: "I am willing to have an open conversation with every and anyone. But I won't be bullied into silence, tone policed or talked down without clapping back."

I've had a delightful time wit..."

And I am now making observations about your behavior which is only fair right?

I too had some respectful discussion with some posters here, even posters who disagreed with me, but didn't implied I was a troll or too dumb to understand this scene or the book. I still do. I have been here the wole time, since I am the one who started this discussion, and I contributed to many exchange and made long posts clarifying my points. Where were YOU then? I don't post often, and I don't automatically react to every post, especially if I feel the argument have been made already or if I disagree with it and don't feel the need to keep contradicting with other posters just for the sake of it. I did, and I still do react when I read posts like yours with snide, passive aggressive remarks about "me", as a person, or my so-called "behavior", posts that make assumption about my level of understand, that refer to me as a "'troll" or try to police me and to kick me out of the very discussion I started. You may not have inted to come off the way you did, and some other posters may not have percived your remarks the way I did, which is undertandable since those remarks were not about them, but I did. So I am calling you out on it. As I said before, no one has any moral highground here : I reacted the way I did when I read your posts (and some others) because I felt attacked and bullied. I never called anybody names, I never implied that posters who disagreed with me were just not smart enough to grasp the high level of my arguments. I am not the one who started questionning the reason why posters posted here, etc. I am all for having passionate discussions and disagrement. But I am not going to sit back while being looked upon and policed.

Now you asked me a direct question in a neutral tone, and even though I feel like I have already explained why I, for one, I disliked the scene, for the sake of setting some new dynamics to our conversation, I'll try and explain it to you.

I disliked the scene not because it showed a time when women had no power and were subjected to men. Some people may have, yes. But I cant' talk for them. If that was the reason of my dislike, I wouldn't have started the book altogether knowing what the story was about (time travelling back in times), who the female lead character was (a woman), and the genre this book was (a historical romance). I disliked this scene because I think, on several levels (be it either for the plot, or the characterization, etc.), I do think it was unnecessary. Totally unnecessary. I think it was a bad writing choice. I think it fed into (too) many romance (and fiction in general) trends like using violence against women to "drive a point home", to make a statement, or to develop some other (male) character arc.

Now, the thing is, when you think about it, the majority of fiction (historical or not), and the vast majority of romance is about women who have little or no real power and are subjected, one way or another, to some more or less decent man. That's the reason why I got more and more picky when it comes to book : there are books/story that I know will only make me mad and they don't need to take place in 1700s Scotland for that. So I avoid it. That's also why, even though I like the genre, I avoid 99% of romance books 'cause I know I will get frustrated or mad either at the level of sexism/slut shaming/etc. or at the lack of sexual and racial diversity (among many things).

And yes, I agree with yoiu about the fact that different life experiences and even ages will change how a person feels about the scene and the book as a whole. But deppending of the person, the reaction will be different. So, when you say that in your 20s you would have trown the book and stopped reading it, I for one, think that I would not have thown the book and I don't think I would have been as bugged by the scene than now. I read a lot of romance in my teenage years and I enjoyed them, but I know if I read most of it today, I wouldn't finish them because I would be too frustrated by the many oppresive and sexist and racist stuff in it. That doesn't mean I do think I was an horrible person in my teen, or that I didn't learn a few things out of those books or it didn't broaden my way of thinking. It did. Books have always been a big part of my way to relate to the world and have always, even the worst of them, taught me things. The difference is, today, I think of my self as being too "woke" to accept things just like that. I deconstructed too many things, learned too many things, and my learning standard are set so that I still can enjoy a problematic book or pice of fiction, but I won't just read it and move on, I will deconstruct it, and criticize it and express my view on it. Because I do think it is important to demand "better" books/movie/fiction. Not "better" in the sense of portraying a rose colored/perfect world that suits my political views. But better in the sense that they don't just feed into the problematic aspect in our culture. And so, as a reader, I do think it's part of my reading process, part of the way I relate to books/stories/fiction, to be able to deconstruc and discuss it, either to point out how great those works are or how problematic. And that's why I think the internet is helping to shape new, different, interesting cultural spaces where more and more people can express their opinion and discuss and even, sometimes, influence the wider cultural space.

So, I got a little carried away and I am sure I made a lot of grammar and syntax error here and there, but I hope my post is clear enough.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Reply to comment # 448 Red wrote: "Christina wrote: "I really hated the beating scene. It made me really uncomfortable, and made me think less of Jamie (whom I was completely in love with up until..."

I reacted to one comment about consent because it bugged me. And I had already aknowleged the fact that there were rape allegations which I didn't intent to discuss. I reproduced the original post in extenso because I didn't want to twist any thing by cutting things. And also because, even though Medieval Muse used different examples, including that allegedly rape scene, her main argument isn't about that, but about the "historically accurate" line of arguments. And That what my main point is too.

Posters can always discuss about what they want, but I do think, for the sake of clarity, it is always better not mix different topics in one. I explicitly targeted one very specific scene that I wanted to discuss. I am sure there are already many other discussions about the rape allegations. Now a conversation can move on different direction, and it can be interesting. I am just not interested in discussing that topic too much on this thread.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "Women (and e few men) fighting for equality didn't happen just in the 20th century. As the blogger I quoted in my OP pointed out, even in the 18th century there were people..."

Well, it's not "so important" if you don't think that this writing choice is problematic. The writer made a conscious choice to "solve" the antagonism/tension between the two character that way. To me, it has nothing to do with adhering to what was supposed to be the most common response, or with the "need" to be "historically accurate". Because if that was the case, Claire should never have been in this situation in the 1st place ! That is why I disagree with and criticize the "historical accuracy" lines of arguments used to justify the scene. The writers made a choice to use one aspect of what we assume was the common attitude at the time, and made her character behave like that. She could have made him react another way. I am criticizing this choice, on writing level and on a "historical" level.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Dolores wrote: "Characteristics/Predominate Features - Major Sexual Sadism;
Major sexual sadism, on the other hand, is usually not consensual and involves injury or death to the victim. The element..."

What I understand about Dolores' point (which was quite informative) is that if Randall is supposed to be a "sadist" (which seems to be the most commonly shared "understanding" of the character, and I thing I read on tumblr that that's how the character had been described by either the tv series creator or the book author), then is portrayal is bad and the author didn't do a good job at searching the subject because he doesn't react as a true sadist would react. and that type of behaviour is way too specific to be reduced to the seemingly contradictory traits that Randall showed towards his victims.

As I said in other post, I, for one, didn't like the characterization but for a different reason : I thought he was too much of an over the top villain. And it was too much convenient that he looked so much like Claire's legitimate husband, so that the latter will be, consciously or unconsciouly, associated with this awful man. At some point, I couldn't take his evilness seriously : that's what I pointed in a earlier post : too much violence de-sensatize to violence at some point.

Now where I diasgree with Dolores point is that I don't think most readers ended up liking Randall even a little bit. On the contrary : readers are supposed to hate him, and most (all of them), even I, do. The fact that Randall may have not been accurately characterize as a true sadist should have been, didn't made him liked a little bit more. The contradiction in the portrayal didn't deter him from being hating : IMHO it actually added to the disgust, making him look even more perverse.

Dolores wrote: "No self respecting sexual Sadist ever needed someone to mumble tell me you love me in their ear while nailing you hand to a table. This is romantic hogwash meant to make you ladies think old Jack R..."

Oh good GOD! I am sorry Dolores, but I am so TIRED of people attributing things in FICTIONAL books to bad choices made in real life. Besides that I seriously doubt Black Jack Randall is anyone's idea of a dreamboat. To not imply, but state outright that someone is going to get caught up with a sexual sadist because Diana Gabaldon gave nuance to a character is just plain silly.

Red wrote: "Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "It was so effective, I, as a reader, was affected by it. So, yeah, in this sense it "worked". But from a writing point of view, I think it is a very lazy and cliched trick...."

...And I disagree. :0)

Red wrote: "As I said in other post, I, for one, didn't like the characterization but for a different reason : I thought he was too much of an over the top villain. And it was too much convenient that he looked so much like Claire's legitimate husband, so that the latter will be, consciously or unconsciouly, associated with this awful man. At some point, I couldn't take his evilness seriously : that's what I pointed in a earlier post : too much violence de-sensatize to violence at some point. .."

The problem with only reading the first book is all of the components of characters are not fully fleshed out yet. BJR shows up in book two with a brother whom it is obvious he loves (in an incestuous kind of way, but love nevertheless). So what at first seems to be a caricature villain, changes as the reader gets to know more about him. In the first book, I agree that BJR was just too awful of a villain to stomach, but once you have read the other books, it is hard to go back and dredge up the original impression of a character.

Red wrote: "And so, as a reader, I do think it's part of my reading process, part of the way I relate to books/stories/fiction, to be able to deconstruc and discuss it, either to point out how great those works are or how problematic."

This is such an interesting dialectic to me, Red, and it makes me wonder: can it be both? Great and problematic, I mean.

Because to me, it was. There were some reflections/usages of problematic gender constructs, to be sure. There were also some decidedly encouraging reflections of gender constructs in the books. Over the thread, I've pointed out some that I saw as valuable in this particular cultural moment.

If there were some of each, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? How do we critically examine the thing as a whole? How do cultural reflections of these things reflect/generate change over time? If there was some problematic stuff, does it not matter if there was some encouraging/empowering stuff, too -- or is this content nullified in value by the problematic parts?

This was part of the reason I got frustrated with what felt to me like vague or unsupported responses from you about your original point (I do not say that to accuse or attack at all, simply to explain *my own* feelings); to me, in balance, the good was really good and outweighed (though did not erase) the problematic. But, if there is (which there undoubtedly is) an angle I didn't consider or an argument I didn't see about that, I would be interested in that. But, as things stand, for me, I still think the good stuff was really important and valuable. It seems like, to you, either you didn't see particularly valuable parts as concern gender constructs, or they were rendered immaterial by the weight of the parts you saw as problematic.

And I guess part of the reason I personally think it matters is because there is still *so much* out there that is just flat problematic and concerning that when a popular work carries forward some empowering and encouraging messages, that seems worth talking about to me, even if we also have to acknowledge some problematic content at the same time.

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "As I said in other post, I, for one, didn't like the characterization but for a different reason : I thought he was too much of an over the top villain. And it was too much convenient t..."

But the problem with writing a character the way the author did with Randall in Outlander is that that character can't be taken seriously afterwards. So, one can try and make him seemingly more "humane" but it can't erase how cartoonish he systematically (and not just once or twice) was previously. Especially when said character plays such a prominent role in the book and the plot. Afterwards, the character will just look like he had been badly written before and then retconned after. Which doesn't speak well of the writer's ability in characterization. Especially if you intend to write a series, which means you'll either kill the character by the end of the 1st book/at the beginning of the 2nd one, or you'll keep him over several books which means you have to be careful with how you portray them. And especially if you have this character commits so many awfull things and evidence signs of a very serious pathology. That's why I think some of the points Dolores are interestingt : I don't know much about sadism, but if what Dolores wrote and explained is right, the author didn't do a good job at researching the subject and at writting the character as a sadist, not just in Oulander but also throughout the series.

I mean no writer master every inch of their art, and that's why I said that I think Randall's characterization in Outlander is just bad writing. Just like the beating scene is a bad writing choice. I just couldn't "root" for Jamie after that, and for Jamie and Claire to stay together. And even though I did indeed finish the book, I ended up not wanting to read the other ones that followed. Too many significant bad writing choices for me.

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "It was so effective, I, as a reader, was affected by it. So, yeah, in this sense it "worked". But from a writing point of view, I think it is a very lazy and cl..."

Well, I don't know why, but that doesn't surprise me much ;). But I still can appreciate debating the subject.

Red wrote: "But the problem with writing a character the way the author did with Randall in Outlander ..."

Just a thought that occurred to me about this as I was reading this point: Gabaldon herself has acknowledged that her use of "Christ imagery" in the first book was at times heavy handed and clumsy (like, they *nailed his hand*.....). I wonder if the relative flatness of the BJR character in the book flows from the same vein.... Something to think about.

Red wrote: "I mean no writer master every inch of their art, and that's why I said that I think Randall's characterization in Outlander is just bad writing. Just like the beating scene is a bad writing choice. I just couldn't "root" for Jamie after that, and for Jamie and Claire to stay together. And even though I did indeed finish the book, I ended up not wanting to read the other ones that followed. Too many significant bad writing choices for me. ..."

Surprise, surprise, I disagree again. ;0) Outlander is not a standalone book really. It is an ongoing story. To reveal everything at once seems counterproductive AND bad writing. There are some people who are just evil. Charles Manson may have had some redeeming or humanizing characteristics, but I have yet to read about them. To initially characterize someone as very evil at the get go is not bad writing IMO. He remains a bad person, but there is more to the story. Caricatures have been used throughout literary history to good effect. Jane Austen was famous for her caricatures (Mr. Collins, Lady Catherine, et. al.). I doubt anyone would claim she was utilizing bad writing techniques by using caricatures. If Gabaldon had not gone further into his psyche in the second book, I might have agreed with you that BJR was a little over the top bad, but I have that perspective imbedded in my head, so I have to disagree. As I have stated in previous posts, I also read A Breath of Snow and Ashes first. So I already had a lot of information in my head before I read the first book. So I already knew much of the character growth before reading Outlander. I am sure that has had a tremendous impact on how I view the first book.

Red wrote: "Well, I don't know why, but that doesn't surprise me much ;). But I still can appreciate debating the subject. .."

So can I.

I actually thought BJR was a brilliant villain. When reading the book I felt he was truly evil and mentally disturbed. I generally find mentally disturbed villains the best because you can not predict how they will act.

That's besides the point though.

I find it really difficult to give Dolores any credence to what she has been saying involving sadism, rape and psychopaths. Not to rehash older posts but once you said that "A man being raped would not respond to a sadist with an erection.." practically everything you've said since has been read with great skepticism. Especially when you've said you "have spoken to hundreds of victims" and "Page after page of files I had to read the most horrible atrocious things done to women".

I guess because you said something so horribly wrong about rape with all this "education" on the subject, I'm quite thrown off.

When it comes to Sadism, there is apparently even more than one type. Studies show that sadistic personality disorder is the personality disorder with the highest level of comorbidity to other types of psychopathologic disorders. But Sadism has also been found in patients who do not display other forms of psychopathic disorders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadistic...

If you look up the actual definition of sadism you will find BJR fits the bill:

sa·dism (sā′dĭz′əm, săd′ĭz′-)
n.
1. The act or an instance of deriving sexual gratification from infliction of pain on others.
2. A psychosexual disorder in which sexual gratification is derived from infliction of pain on others.
__________________________

If BJR was said to be a sadist but didn't actually enjoy inflicting pain on people than yes, I could understand someone claiming (and I'd probably feel the same way) that he was an unrealistic villain and not a true sadist. But he fits the medical definition.

If I were to write a novel and had an idea in my head for a character, be it good or bad... I probably wouldn't try to limit my imagination by trying to squeeze and stuff my creativity into a small label.

Clearly the label of sadism is quite larger than Dolores has claimed anyways.

Mary wrote: "Dolores wrote: "No self respecting sexual Sadist ever needed someone to mumble tell me you love me in their ear while nailing you hand to a table. This is romantic hogwash meant to make you ladies ..."

I agree that it's plain silly. It's also an insult to the intelligence of the very women that she claims to be championing. It implies that we don't have the common sense to discern fact from fiction and fantasy from reality and need to be protected.

I doubt that Captain Randall is anyone's idea of a "romantic fantasy". No one in this thread has said that or even insinuated it. He is clearly portrayed as a villain in Outlander and his actions are not depicted as romantic in any way. Diana Gabaldon gave his character some humanizing layers, as most human beings typically have...yes, even the psychopaths and sadists of the world...(Marquis De Sade, anyone?)...but the intent was not to romanticize him, imo. The intent was to create multi-faceted complex character. That is actually something that MOST authors strive for in their writing. I can't understand why some would consider this "lazy writing".

Enjoying a story being told does not automatically equate to "romantic fantasy". I enjoyed reading "American Psycho"....that doesn't mean that I fantasize about Patrick Bateman.

Red wrote: "That's why I think some of the points Dolores are interesting : I don't know much about sadism, but if what Dolores wrote and explained is right, the author didn't do a good job at researching the subject and at writing the character as a sadist, not just in Outlander but also throughout the series."

The problem is that much of what Dolores is saying is not actually correct. Diana Gabaldon's portrayal of "sadism" and BJR is more in line with how it was understood in those times, not with our modern notions of it and some of her claims are not correct, even by modern standards. But that is beside the point. If you truly want to analyze whether DG handled sadism properly in Outlander, I think you would probably need to look to the writings of Marquis De Sade and possibly Jean Jacques Rosseau, both of whom are actually from around the time that Outlander is set in.

The "research" that Dolores seems to be suggesting that Diana Gabaldon should have done sounds akin to telling someone who is writing about Victorian era Jack the Ripper that they need to study Jeffrey Dahmer to get the character "right".

Diana Gabaldon wrote the character of BJR the way she wanted, if it didn't meet with Delores's ideas that's too bad for Delores.

I don't know about anyone else, but it was perfectly clear to me that BJR was a sadist who was determined to destroy Jamie both physically and mentally before having him hanged. Nothing more was needed.

Yes sageta u r correct

Dolores wrote: "No self respecting sexual Sadist ever needed someone to mumble tell me you love me in their ear while nailing you hand to a table. This is romantic hogwash meant to make you ladies think old Jack R..."

I've never before come across anyone who thought BJR was supposed to be a character of romantic interest to the readers. No one on this thread has even so much as hinted that they thought that, I honestly don't understand where you got that impression from. He is clearly supposed to be a villain and no one thinks otherwise. If you want to chide women for being romantically interested in a psycho, or if you want to blame an author for trying to portray a psycho as someone desirable, you're on the wrong thread. Perhaps you should visit one of the 50 Shades of Grey threads, if that's what you're into.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Mary wrote: "I doubt that Captain Randall is anyone's idea of a "romantic fantasy". No one in this thread has said that or even insinuated it. He is clearly portrayed as a villain in Outlander and his actions are not depicted as romantic in any way. Diana Gabaldon gave his character some humanizing layers, as most human beings typically have...yes, even the psychopaths and sadists of the world...(Marquis De Sade, anyone?)...but the intent was not to romanticize him, imo. The intent was to create multi-faceted complex character. That is actually something that MOST authors strive for in their writing. I can't understand why some would consider this "lazy writing". ..."

Exactly. I wish I'd seen your reply before I posted my own, it's much more eloquent and exactly what I meant as well.

Christina...both you and Mary said it well.

Thanks for this post. I 100% agree and I stopped reading the book after the beating scene and stopped watching the television show after the same scene. I was hoping they would leave it out. Women are killed by their abusive husbands and boyfriends on a regular and I was very surprised to see these abusive plotline in a current book and then television series.

Amy Mallat wrote: "Thanks for this post. I 100% agree and I stopped reading the book after the beating scene and stopped watching the television show after the same scene. I was hoping they would leave it out. Women ..."

I too was abused but I knew that in this time period it occurred frequently. In the TV series I thought it was done very well. I love this series of books and it does get better between them

I'll be upfront and say I did not have the time to read through all of these comments so if my points were already made, it'll just be some reiteration!

I saw a few people justify Gabaldon's reasons for including this scene in the book with the running argument being historical accuracy. I 100% agree and feel like the scene definitely added a different dimension to Jaime's character and to Claire and Jaime's relationship. In fact, I often doubted Gabaldon's ability to create realistic relationships in the time period given the usually gooey honeymoon scenes the characters experienced from the very beginning, and felt this scene added a sense of heartbreaking realism to the culture.

Here's where I have a problem: Claire completely accepts her beating after the fact. Yes it was realistic of Jaime to beat her because he had a different cultural frame of mind-but where the hell is Claire's frame of mind? Her often strong and independent character suddenly becomes submissive and understanding of domestic abuse? I don't buy it. Not to mention Gabaldon's subtle ways of (yes I'll say it) completely justifying what happened. Her way of making the abuse seem like nothing more than a child's punishment really struck a cord. I was really hoping she would take the book in a darker direction that exposed the harsh realities with a Slight depressive and angry tone, but no! We get this awkward "I guess it's ok" attitude from the narrator leaving the reader completely stunned given the strong feminist tone before this scene. I became pretty disappointed when Claire laughed off Jaime's childhood abuse (another issue) to further perpetuate an indifferent tone to a really heartbreaking scene.

Gabaldon created the environment masterfully, but her characters were subpar. A lot of commenters are not differentiating between character justification and tone of the novel. Just because the character feels justified does not mean the narrator has to agree. Would a 20th century WWII nurse with feminist ideals truly agree with getting beaten after she was nearly raped and after her husband admitted his issue with her was his own pride? I really doubt it. Not to mention Gabaldon's voice-the guiding hand on Claire's actions steering her in such an inconsistent direction.

To build up such an emotional scene only to have it fizzle out the way it did in the chapters to follow, was a disservice to the novel which, in my opinion, became horribly mediocre.

Christina wrote: "I'll be upfront and say I did not have the time to read through all of these comments so if my points were already made, it'll just be some reiteration!

I saw a few people justify Gabaldon's reas..."

I really do not mean to be snarky with this post, but we have had over 500 posts, many of them extremely thoughtful that address the points you brings up. If you do not have time to catch up with what has already been discussed, it kind of makes this thread in danger of being redundant to go over points already made and posted.

This thread is redundant

Extremely redundant.

HOORAY FOR YOUR COMMENT!!!I TOTALLY AGREE.THIS IS A STORY PEOPLE.DON'T MAKE IT A CONTRAVERSY!THERE ARE ENOUGH PROBLEMS IN THIS WORLD WITHOUT BASHING BOOKS!!!

Willi wrote: "THERE ARE ENOUGH PROBLEMS IN THIS WORLD WITHOUT BASHING BOOKS!!!"

So true. We all have books we love and those we don't, the beauty of reading is when we don't like the writing style or subject matter, we can close the book and move on.

It's interesting and fun to discuss what we read, whether we like it or not, as long as it's done without insulting the author or other readers.

Sage wrote: "It's interesting and fun to discuss what we read, whether we like it or not, as long as it's done without insulting the author or other readers."

This thread = FAIL ; ) *joking*

Seriously, though. I agree with what you're saying. I love, love, LOVE, to discuss books, good or bad, but I usually don't give the bad books in my life a second thought. There are a few that stand out in my mind, but I spoke my peace in my review. Some of those authors have moved on to write stellar books.

I've actually had some extremely insightful conversations about this and other issues in Outlander. We engaged in a respectful dialogue that brought up things I hadn't thought of. I like to learn from others and can do that without throwing my personal belief system in the toilet or trashing an author for writing the book the way he/she wanted.

Mary wrote: "I really do not mean to be snarky with this post, but we have had over 500 posts, many of them extremely thoughtful that address the points you brings up. If you do not have time to catch up with what has already been discussed, it kind of makes this thread in danger of being redundant to go over points already made and posted. "

I don't think it's fair to expect people to read through more than 500 posts just to see if their opinion is already represented. Surely it is okay to just chime in with a response to the original post, which is what I perceived Christina's (not me, the other Christina :-) )post to be.

Christina wrote: "I don't think it's fair to expect people to read through more than 500 posts just to see if their opinion is already represented. Surely it is okay to just chime in with a response to the original post, which is what I perceived Christina's (not me, the other Christina :-) )post to be. .."

Except it would take a two page post to reiterate everything already written. It is possible to skim through.