Outlander discussion

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

Yeah, but you don't have to know everything else that's been said on the topic if you just want to post your response to the original post, which I think is what Christina did. I for one do not have the time to skim through 11 pages worth of posts. If that was a requirement I doubt we'd have many new contributors to old threads.

Yeah I'd never post if I had to read through this many pages lol. I usually skim the first page, maybe the second and third if I've got some time to spare.

But I think all our patience is just probably slipping away because as already mentioned, this thread is very redundant. Many good points through out the whole thing though.

Christina wrote: "Yeah, but you don't have to know everything else that's been said on the topic if you just want to post your response to the original post, which I think is what Christina did. I for one do not have the time to skim through 11 pages worth of posts. If that was a requirement I doubt we'd have many new contributors to old threads. ."

Then have at it Christina. Feel free to summarize.

Everyone is entitled to post their opinion regardless of whether it's already been posted 500 times, or not.

What is 'redundant' about this thread is that every time someone posts a comment where their opinion is different from the originators, the originator attacks back.

We are all entitiled to our opinion and no one should need to defend, or repeatedly explain, why they feel the way they do.

If we all felt the same, there would be nothing left to learn.

Well "Sage" the "originator" that I am don't "attack back" but reply to posts here and there just like everyone else, some I agree with, some I disagree with. Plus me being the "originator", as you yourself stated, means I have a special interest in the very discussion I started. Now some newcomers may repeat arguments previously stated but I think that's part of the way such form works. Other may also add interesting new thoughts. What annoys me more are the personal attack, passive aggressive bullying and other policing tactics that happen from time to time. But I guess that's also part of the way forums like this work too.
What surprises me though is how long this discussion has been going now, and that new and not so new people keep contributing. So it seems the subject keeps holding much interest for some.

Well "Red", you just attacked me for giving my opinion.

Mary wrote: "Then have at it Christina. Feel free to summarize."

Why would I do that when my point was that there is no need for a summarization, that you don't need to know everything that had already been said if you just want to comment on the original post? You must've misunderstood what I meant.

Sage wrote: "Well "Red", you just attacked me for giving my opinion."

What part of Red's comment do you feel attacked by, I'm wondering? Where you see an attack, I only see a reply. In your opinion, at what point does something change from being a mere reply to an attack on you? There may have been what would be deemed "attacks" in previous comments (I haven't read every single post so I'm not qualified to say there hasn't been), but THIS definitely didn't qualify as an attack, according to me. So I'm just wondering where the attack part in this specific reply comes in.

Christina wrote: "Mary wrote: "Then have at it Christina. Feel free to summarize."

Why would I do that when my point was that there is no need for a summarization, that you don't need to know everything that had al..."

I could be wrong, but it seems like there is more than one Christina in this thread. I think she may have been replying to someone else.

Casual use of the word "bullying" when it's just differing opinions from a number of people

I do think that we've all been a little rude at times in this thread. It's difficult not to because people can not hear the way you're typing the words. And also because it's just been hard at times to control our patience. But I honestly don't think any of us have been exempt. I know I've had to rain myself in numerous times and sometimes I wasn't as careful to make sure I didn't sound insulting. But I do think using the word "attacking" is a bit much.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I could be wrong, but it seems like there is more than one Christina in this thread. I think she may have been replying to someone else. "

Yeah, it can be a bit confusing with the same name, but she posted it as a reply to my post, so I assume I was the Christina she's referring to.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I do think that we've all been a little rude at times in this thread. It's difficult not to because people can not hear the way you're typing the words. And also because it's just been hard at times to control our patience. But I honestly don't think any of us have been exempt. I know I've had to rain myself in numerous times and sometimes I wasn't as careful to make sure I didn't sound insulting. But I do think using the word "attacking" is a bit much. "

Aye, that's the trouble with the written media: no tone of voice. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether people are being intentionally bitchy, or if it's just one self who's reading too much into it, projecting one's own feelings.
As for people really trying one's patience, I've set up this rule for myself: never type a response when angry/annoyed. Leave it alone for a while. That little rule has saved me many times when I've felt like calling people names and being rude. 'Cuz let's face it; in hindsight you always end up regretting the times you mouthed off on someone, no matter how much they were begging for it LOL

Christina wrote: "Sage wrote: "Well "Red", you just attacked me for giving my opinion."

What part of Red's comment do you feel attacked by, I'm wondering? Where you see an attack, I only see a reply. In your opinio..."

The quotes around Sage and originator were unnecessary...they implied sarcasm.

@Brittain -- LOL! Ayup.

Sage wrote: "The quotes around Sage and originator were unnecessary...they implied sarcasm. "

Ok. I don't agree with you at all that that qualifies as an attack, but thanks for replying, much appreciated.

Christina wrote: "Sage wrote: "The quotes around Sage and originator were unnecessary...they implied sarcasm. "

Ok. I don't agree with you at all that that qualifies as an attack, but thanks for replying, much appr..."

It's definitely rude and uncalled for. What's the purpose of putting quotes around someone's name if it isn't to insult them or saying that you don't respect who they are or what they are saying? "What are you wearing 'Jake-from-State-Farm'?"

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "It's definitely rude and uncalled for. What's the purpose of putting quotes around someone's name if it isn't to insult them or saying that you don't respect who they are or what they are saying? "What are you wearing 'Jake-from-State-Farm'?" "

But an "attack"? I think that's watering down the meaning of the word "attack". If that's an attack, then what is the claim that all the originator does is attack everyone who disagrees with her? I find that claim more rude and uncalled for than a few "..".

People need to grow a thicker skin and stop taking everything so personally. This is aimed at no one poster in particular, but just in general.

Christina wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "It's definitely rude and uncalled for. What's the purpose of putting quotes around someone's name if it isn't to insult them or saying that you don't respect w..."

Just as attack might be overused (debatable since every time an opinion is posted, it is a pretty much immediate reply detailing how someone is wrong), the word bullying is as well. While attack might not be the right word, there is absolutely no logical reason a nice person would put someone's name in quotes. It's *extremely* disrespectful and something that shows a lot, in my opinion.

Maybe a conclusion is that the spanking scene bothers some people and doesn't constitute condemning the book to others and everybody move on. That would be the mature response. I'm only here because this thread and all of its arguing is like watching a tennis match.

We're not going to change each others' opinions so why bother?

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Just as attack might be overused (debatable since every time an opinion is posted, it is a pretty much immediate reply detailing how someone is wrong), the word bullying is as well. While attack might not be the right word, there is absolutely no logical reason a nice person would put someone's name in quotes. It's *extremely* disrespectful and something that shows a lot, in my opinion.
"

"Attack" is definitely overused, and so is bullying.
I've seen very little of either on this thread (though a lot of claims that other people are doing it), only a lot of heated discussion, which I have no problem with.

Christina wrote: "Ok. I don't agree with you at all that that qualifies as an attack, but thanks for replying, much appr..."

One of the definitions of 'attack' is: to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly.

So I guess what you consider heated discussion, I consider severe criticism or strong arguments, thus referred to as attacks. And although you don't agree, I feel there has been a great deal of strong criticism and strong arguments, or opinions, voiced on this thread.

Had Red worded her reply to my comment differently, without starting out 'Well, "Sage"..., I most likely would have viewed her opinion differently. She set the tone. She could have stated that she, as the originator, has a vested interest in keeping this thread alive, in a less sarcastic manner.

I also don't agree that growing thicker skin is the answer, I think the answer is showing more respect for other's opinions even when they differ from our own.

Sage wrote: "Christina wrote: "Ok. I don't agree with you at all that that qualifies as an attack, but thanks for replying, much appr..."

One of the definitions of 'attack' is: to direct unfavorable criticism ..."

We'll just agree to disagree.

Sage wrote: "Well "Red", you just attacked me for giving my opinion."

Hmmm...I know it's all a matter of perception, but I really don't see how I "attacked" you in my reply, which was just that : a reply to your post. I simply wanted to correct what you said about me, plain and simple. I wasn't even that much sarcastic, really. The quotation were just a light smart-mouth throwback to the term you used "originator" to talk about me and that I found a bit funny. I've written much "stronger" replies to some others posts here and there, and yes, I have clapped back when I felt some were using passive agressive or direct "personal" attacks against me, but I tried and do that without attacking people personnally as had been done toward me. Now if the tone of my reply felt like an "attack" to you, know that that wasn't my intention. Still ddisagree with your post though.

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 ..."

Hi Amy Mallat, as I said in previous posts, I stopped cold getting into the tv show after I read the book 'cause this very scene prevented me from supporting it all together. I wondered if and how they would depict the scene on tv 'cause reading about a wife being beaten by her husband is one thing, watching it is another. I guess most viewers went along with it the same different ways they went along with it in the book...

Red wrote: "Sage wrote: "Well "Red", you just attacked me for giving my opinion."

Hmmm...I know it's all a matter of perception, but I really don't see how I "attacked" you in my reply, which was just that : ..."

First of all,Red, I accept that my interpretation of your use of quotes was not your intention.

Since you created, or started this thread, you were the originator...were you not?

I have already explained my choice of the word attack to Christina and see no need to do so again.

I am curious though, what about my post do you disagree with (other then the word attack)...A) that we are all entitled to our opinion regardless of how many times it's been stated? or that B) we shouldn't need to defend, or repeatedly explain how we feel?

It seems everyone got hung up on one word and missed the point....everyone is entitled to express their opinion no matter how many times it's been previously stated.

Don't you think it's time to retire this thread? It is just a book. As someone said, there are other important things going on. If you don't like the book/show, then please don't let it worry you any further. This isn't the Great American novel and you don't have to Analyze it to death.

Sunda wrote: "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 grea..."

Hi Sunda, I haven't read the thread from some time now, so I may have already replied to your post, but in case, I wanted to tell you that yes, it can be both : great and problematic. I mean, that's pretty much the case for most cultural/fictional works out there, and Outlander isn't the one with the worst ratio. My OP focused on that very particular scene because that is the one that I disliked the most and that made me dislike the book/characters/writing. Also the issue at end is one I have become very sensitive about. So my reaction has a lot to do with that and the fact that many things I had read about this tended to either totally disregard/dismiss or downplay the problematic part by trying and justifying with what I think are wrong "historical accuracy" arguments. But before that point, I thought it was a decent read, even quite interesting here and there. I wouldn't say it was "great", but some parts are certainly good.

Sage wrote: "Red wrote: "Sage wrote: "Well "Red", you just attacked me for giving my opinion."

Hmmm...I know it's all a matter of perception, but I really don't see how I "attacked" you in my reply, which was ..."

I didn't disagree to your first point, I mostly replied to the part that referred to me.

Peg wrote: "Don't you think it's time to retire this thread? It is just a book. As someone said, there are other important things going on. If you don't like the book/show, then please don't let it worry you a..."

Do whatever float your boat sugar.

Red wrote: "Sunda wrote: "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 poin..."

Right -- if I'm reading you right, it sounds like this issue is of particular importance to you, and that makes it takes on extra weight when you see it not being handled well. I totally get that. I have stuff like that in my own life -- I think we all have particular things or issues that we feel especially strongly about.

Gee, thanks Red.

Uhm...if Claire had expected and endured the beating/spanking as a champ, might agree with you. Disciplining your wife was part of the culture in the 18th and most of the 20th centuries...but Claire didnt accept the discipline as normal and there was change in behavior...not sure Gabaldon was purposeful in this as part of the story but glad to see it addressed and change expressed

Alyssa wrote: "This is a fictional book; a story which was made up. You're angry over a fictional scene set in a fictional world with fictional characters. I don't understand how you could be distraught over anyt..."
I completely agree. People take too much stock in fictional characters.

Shannon wrote: "Alyssa wrote: "This is a fictional book; a story which was made up. You're angry over a fictional scene set in a fictional world with fictional characters. I don't understand how you could be distr..."
And yet, here YOU are, commenting on page 11 of a dicussion about "fictional characters", if only just to leave some condescending remark...In case you didn't noticed, this is precisely what this place is made for : discuss (sometimes with great passion) about fictional characters, stories and books, etc. Crazy, right?!

Peg wrote: "Gee, thanks Red."

You're welcome hon' ;)

And we're circling right back around to the snark. People are much more willing to have open and mature conversations if everybody involved acts open and mature. Bit of a give and take, you know?

I agree with Red's position that the beating scene was a cheap plot device that is not worthy of defense in a historical fiction where time travel occurs. Or as a redemption device for the male lead in a Romance novel. Understandably rape, beatings, conflict and resolution create strong emotional reactions. The success of the Outlander Novels and the cable series is proof that a large audience enjoys the work despite or perhaps because of the cliches in story telling.

Interestingly, many of the recurring posters here do not enjoy discussion with Red or feel discussing the relative value of using domestic abuse or rape as a plot devise. In reading through the old posts, It does appear some posters who share Red's position have been bullied off the board. If the recurring posters feel the thread is redundant and should be retired, why do they continue to read and post on this thread?

This is an enormous conversation full of more emotion than critical analysis. I wonder what has driven it on for so long? Are there hardcore fans policing criticism of the book? I am new to Goodreads, but I had heard it has some of the worst aspects of social media sites with regards to bullying and vigilantism.

Sara wrote: "I am new to Goodreads, but I had heard it has some of the worst aspects of social media sites with regards to bullying and vigilantism..."

I have never heard or experienced bullying or vigilantism (violent reactions), although there have been strong opinions voiced, but I am curious, if you heard such bad things about Goodreads, what brought you to it?

Sage wrote: "Sara wrote: "I am new to Goodreads, but I had heard it has some of the worst aspects of social media sites with regards to bullying and vigilantism..."

I have never heard or experienced bullying o..."

Amazon

Sorry Sara, you misunderstood my question.

Why did you access Goodreads if you heard it had the worse aspects of social media sites with regards to bullying and vigilantism?

I came across this site when searching for reviews on a book, had I heard bad things previously I would have stayed away. And actually, most of the discussions have been good and often offer other thoughts and views, which I find interesting.

Curiosity and the ability to follow a collection of author blog/reviews from a single source location. Not sure about list/catalog feature just yet, but I am curious about that too.

Goodreads is a great resource for keeping track of the books that you want to read and the ones that you have read.
I understand many people feeling that they have been driven from the thread because they have the minority opinion. I feel bad for those people that have actually wanted to discuss dissenting opinions with others and try to understand where they are coming from. For many people it is difficult t discuss opinions that differ from their own.
I for one never really thought anything of the beating scene, good or bad, before reading this scene and after having a good conversation with Red about what her issues where it made me rethink a little. I still obviously do not feel as strongly as she does but her views make sense. I think it is important to listen to other views of a book so that you can learn new things and possibly see things in a different light.

Hi Maddie, Thanks for the information. I believe the point offered up for discussion was the authors choice to use domestic violence as a plot device. I have read a lot of comments describing the character narrative and motivation, but ultimately it is the author who tells the story and makes the choices. We can discuss the male gaze or the Bechdel test,but they merely reveal the writing choices of an author. A literary conversation about a writing choice has not taken place here. Interesting.

It has actually taken place between Red and I it was just buried in the middle of a bunch of other conversation. It is not something most people want to take part in. The majority opinion on it is "well you can't change what she did so you might as well put it down." It's a bit of a cop out for a conversation on a site all about books but sadly there is not much you can do if no one wants to talk about it.

Hi Sara -- I think several attempts at such a discussion have in fact been made. Unfortunately to me, none of them have been especially productive, so I agree with you there. For example, the discussion right out of the gates pointed out that we can (and like to) talk about the choices the author made all day, provided we *actually* talk abut the choices the author *actually* made -- finding common footing about what events we were discussing never really happened, much less moving on to a more critical analysis of those events. It seemed there was some disagreement about the relative importance of accurately reflecting the events as depicted in the novel in then analyzing the merits of choices related to the portrayal of those same events. It's too bad, because it is an interesting topic.

Also interesting: your comments seem to reflect particular interest in the behavior/choices of commenters on this thread more than a specific interest in the topic at hand, which I also find interesting; a fascinating level of metadiscussion seems to have been achieved here. :)

I think there have been some pretty amazing comments on here that were very insightful. Too bad goodreads didn't have a "liking" comments, or highlighting favorites so that they were more easy to find later.

The problem is the constant circling. Which will never really go away. New people will comment with the same things already said, old people will comment with the same old things already said. No one has really said anything new, what's been said has been reworded and that's about it.

For me though, I can't agree that this plot device can't be defended simply because the novel contains time travel. I'm a fan of historical accuracy and I'm in love with this novel because of that. I love how we have a touch of fantasy but the norms the time are woven all through it. I would hate to have thrown out such things as the witch trial, seeing a mental image of how the justice system was so primitive (in regards to the boy who had his ear nailed) and things like these simply because the novel didn't need be held to historical accuracy because it has some fantasy.

What I do find so interesting is how serious this discussion is about the use of this as a plot device. I will honestly say I don't really know if it was one or not. We've talked about it and I've thought about it a bit. But when it comes right down to it, I just don't care if it was or if it wasn't.

I sort of feel like a contradiction. Because there are other novels that I feel have used this or other forms of abuse as a plot device and I really didn't like it. It felt like it diminished the after affects of abuse and glazed over it. For some reason, Outlander does not strike me this way. At all actually.

Is this scenario as a plot device a terrible thing? Isn't every single thing used in a novel a plot device? Sometimes I feel like we live in a world with far too much political correctness. People get offended if you write about slaves but don't have the novel "about" slavery. You can't have a scene with abuse without having the novel be about or have some kind of moral about the subject. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well or not. Do you know what I mean?

Mrsbooks wrote: "I think there have been some pretty amazing comments on here that were very insightful. Too bad goodreads didn't have a "liking" comments, or highlighting favorites so that they were more easy to f..."

In that regard, shouldn't we be more outraged when someone is killed as a plot device? I completely agree with you. It always bothers me more when characters (or dogs, why do they always have to kill the dogs) are sacrificed in order to make a character act. A woman and a man learning how to interact with each other despite massive differences in culture isn't nearly as outrageous in my opinion.

Sunda wrote: "Hi Sara -- I think several attempts at such a discussion have in fact been made. Unfortunately to me, none of them have been especially productive, so I agree with you there. For example, the discu..."

Hi Sunda, you are correct! I saw by mere chance this discussion listed and the huge number of comments. I read through them and was so struck by the content and tone, that I too commented! I have also shared it with my daughter. To discuss the discussion as it were...

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I think there have been some pretty amazing comments on here that were very insightful. Too bad goodreads didn't have a "liking" comments, or highlighting favorites so that they we..."

But isn't that the way things are in real life? There are usually some pivotal moments that inspire great change. It's generally not something that just comes about for no reason. It would be nice to think that people just grow up and mature and make the right decisions eventually because, well, that's what they should do but in reality it is rarely the case.

A person might not decide to take up religion until something huge happens in their life, something like the death of a loved one. Or maybe a person can't seem to forgive a parent or some family member for childhood abuse but when they find that their changed parent is terminally ill, they are finally motivated to do so.

There might be people who believe in fate or destiny but I've always believed in time and unforeseen occurrence and cause and effect. People don't die for a reason. So should they die for a reason in a novel? Isn't it more realistic to have things just happen like they do in real life? And then experience the change with the characters that would naturally occur with people who were really experiencing it?

Should we call something a plot device if it's merely showing the general nature of humans? Maybe. But why is that necessarily a bad thing? Isn't that what we love about a good novel? Something that depicts human nature so very well?

Mrsbooks wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I think there have been some pretty amazing comments on here that were very insightful. Too bad goodreads didn't have a "liking" comments, or ..."

There's always a catalyst for change. You're right. I was just pointing out that it's a little ridiculous that people are more outraged over one plot device than another that would be considered more heinous in real life.

And I hate it when the dog is killed in a book or movie. It's always the cute little puppy.