Outlander discussion

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..."
Hi Brittain, no I do not believe a clichéd plot device was the issue Red had with the story based on my reading of her comments, nor was it mine. Just as the Female Gaze in Magic Mike rests outside of my criticism of an over used device. The depiction of women as powerless, infantile and accepting of abuse/domination... victims if you will, has been done to death. Many people feel, and I am one, have developed a bad taste for seeing it used again and again. I understand everyone may not feel the same way, but violence depicted outside that stereotype dose not get the same reaction from me. If Galbadone had written the story so that Claire received punishment as a matter of law, it would have been interesting to see how the characters reconciled their relationship in their dual roles as spouses and clan boss/clansman.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "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 "liki..."

ROFL. It is interesting how we view death. If we're watching a historical war movie I always feel terrible for the horses but I am not bothered by the soldiers who die nearly as much.

And yes, it doesn't make much sense to be bothered by the use of an abusive scene as a plot device compared with murder. But I think it kind of goes hand in hand, with everything in a novel being a plot device. I mean, is there anything written that is not a plot device? Maybe if they're writing about what the person had for breakfast....lol

Sara 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 ..."

But that's the thing. Claire is not powerless in all of this. She takes a punishment that would otherwise be done publicly from her husband who in his mind is trying to protect her. And then she holds it against him. She doesn't forgive him instantly but expects change from a man that perceives his actions as helpful instead of harmful. And he does change. So in the end, Claire holds power and isn't a helpless woman.

Would people be equally outraged if she had been lashed or had her ear nailed to a post? It was legal proceeding at the time and Claire endangered an entire clan. Punishment was necessary and realistic. If Jamie beat her because he was mad at her and it was the only way to cope, then yes, I would agree that it was unnecessary and excessive. But in the way that Galbadon depicts it, it feels realistic. If I were in the same situation as Claire, I probably would have been thankful that it didn't happen in front of the entire clan.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I think there have been some pretty amazing comments on here that were very insightful...."

I can see breakfast being used as a device somehow...

"He was especially displeased with his Lucky Charms that morning. There seemed to be a disproportionate amount of crunchy bits to marshmallows and it put him in a bad mood for the rest of the day. Driving to work, that yellow light seemed to be testing him and..."

Maddie wrote: "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 ..."

There was a lot of the same stuff over and over, I'll go back and re-read - thanks.

LOL! I'm all about discussing the discussion. :)

Also, I second the wish that there was a way to 'like' comments here, a la Facebook. I think it might change dynamics in interesting ways.

I'll also reiterate my belief from somewhere earlier in this long conversation that to me, the most useful reading of the scene and its larger context is as both good and problematic. Yes, violence against women is a tired old worn irritating trope. And yes (as has been stated in this particular sub-discussion), Claire's agency in this particular representation is important, and, to me, sufficiently compelling to render the scene on the whole interesting and valuable. There were some irritating repetitions of annoying cliches, but also some interesting variations. All that being said, I guess I'm talking about pop culture writ large, as I'm not much of a reader of romance novels in general and so not suited to position this scene in relation to others of that genre.

I guess the pivotal question kind of seems to be some version of: 'is the scene problematic, and, if so, does it render the story/book/larger context likewise problematic and distasteful?' and, to me, the answer is yes and no -- the scene can be scene as problematic and I don't think I'd like to throw this particular baby out with this particular bath water.

Sunda wrote: "LOL! I'm all about discussing the discussion. :)

Also, I second the wish that there was a way to 'like' comments here, a la Facebook. I think it might change dynamics in interesting ways.

I'll al..."

Exactly. Your point about the relative value of using wife beating as a plot device, shabby and worn as it is, in a historical fiction/romance/fantasy. Your overall enjoyment wasn't critically diminished.

Sara wrote: "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 ..."

Hi Sara! Thanks for your comments. I have been trying to explain why I disagreed with this particular writing choice but I think that many (most of the) times the literary conversation was derailed and other aspects took over and sometimes it became really frustrating 'cause it felt like having the same conversation over and over again. But there have also been some good comments and exchanges about this here and there though...And some of the side arguments were interesting.

Red wrote: "Sara wrote: "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 de..."

Yes, I see there has been an inclination overall to discuss character development and motivation more than anything else. Understandably all the rape is going to provoke strong reaction and for my money falls squarely in the camp of clichéd plot device and author choice! Let's see if I get hounded off the site ;)

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..."

Well, you can be outraged, but it would simply kind of
...off topic here. As previously said, the discussion is about a specific scene and a specific writing choice. Discussing this one doesn't take away any other argument that could be made about some other parts/scenes/writing choices in this book or in any other book for the matter. It is just not the topic here.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I think there have been some pretty amazing comments on here that were..."

Well, you know, Proust used eaitng a cookie as some sort of "plot device" and he wrote a master piece around it, so...I'll say it all depend on how good the writer is and how cliched/oversuded/problematic the said plot device is. Violence in general can be used as an effective plot device or just be gratuitous and counterproductive.

Red 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 ..."

My point in that comment was that people are focusing on one thing to be outraged about. I mean, the scene where (view spoiler)[ the guy had his guts ripped out by a boar (hide spoiler)] was pretty horrible and graphic. Even worse was the kid that had his ear nailed to a post (at least to me) but nobody is complaining about those. It seems to be a pick and choose system that is out there about what we are supposed to be upset about.

People died in this series. People also got spanked and humiliated. As far as crimes go, one carries a heavier sentence than the other but we are cherry picking here because we are enforcing modern ideals on a past society.

To connect this to a broader thing going on right now, there are people calling for the lynching essentially of a man who poached a lion but people accept that hundreds die in Chicago every year. This is the exact same thing, in my opinion. We are picking what we are upset about and what we focus on, regardless of the actual scope of the issue. Humans are flawed. I was always more upset about the kid getting his ear nailed than Claire dealing with Jamie.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Red 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" c..."

For the record, I am neither upset or outraged. Life is full of pain and peril. Reading stories about people coping with pain and peril can be fascinating. The trite, clichéd scene cited in the discussion topic is what I was referring to.

Sara wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Red wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I think there have been some pretty amazing comments on here that were very insightful. Too ..."

The "outrage" I am referring to is in the title of the discussion

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Sara wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Red wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I think there have been some pretty amazing comments on here that were very ins..."

It read as adamant to me.

Hi Sara -- yes, it's that it didn't diminish my enjoyment, but not just that. It's also that words like "wrong" (especially when YELLED) and "justify" to me imply either factual error or moral value judgment. I agree that it is valuable to be critical thinkers about both. As the factual accuracy of the thing has been covered ad nauseum here, when I refer to throwing the baby out with the bath water, I also refer to the relative 'goodness' or 'rightness' of the thing, morally speaking.

Which is to say, I don't think that the scene should be taken on its own, as it is clearly situated within a context and that context should be considered. For me, the relative positive impact of the gender framing within the book(s) had a lot of really valuable things to offer -- some very empowering/empowered representations and some refreshing role modeling (and also some not). So, to me, the scene is not 'wrong.' It's part of a representation of complicated humans that makes them more, not less, dimensional to me. Because the reality is that, as humans, we do struggle with questions about what we are and are not OK with in our relationships, and these answers are often very much impacted by whom we are in relationship with. I believe you framed Jamie's representation here as "redemption," which to me is not quite the right narrative or languaging of the role of the scene in the plot; to me, it was more "adaptation," since, to him, he had nothing to "redeem." I see value in acknowledging that both Jamie as a character and us as a culture have some growin' to do about these things, and I see hope in a framing that says 'and we can do that.'

Hi Sunda, The Color Purple contained abuse and domestic violence. The character's struggle with that violence and each other was a large component of the story. I love The Color Purple. I don't have a problem enjoying reading the depiction of any kind of human behavior perse, but I have no interest in seeing stereotypes used as widgets for formulaic plot development.

I believe I have read Red put forth numerous times in numerous ways that the Wrong To Justify It statement related to the fact that it wasn't necessary to portray the relationship as it had been written to that point, historically or as a point of continuity of the story line.

Many people discussing the topic have shared their personal feelings about the beating scene, spanking, consent, rape and a particularly lively discussion about sexual sadism. Those are all fun things to discuss, but a moral judgement is not the position I believe I have ever read Red take. Nor is it mine. Consider the success of Naked dating, The bachelorette or Real Housewives, very low brow entertainment that people enjoy, but not morally objectionable.

Brittian and Sundra - I agree with you both, the title of this thread does not leave room for discussion, it clearly states the scene was wrong, period. As Sara stated, it was adamant...the title allowed no room for flexibility, compromise, or other points of view.

This scene wasn't an isolated incident of domestic violence, it was part of several chapters that led up to the scene, the scene itself and the outcome. Jamie, acting according to the custom of his time, truly believed Claire would understand and accept the spanking.

However, Jamie did learn to understand and respect Claire, as Claire learned to understand and respect him...two unfamiliar people from two different eras learning to accept each other for who they are.

Sage wrote: "Brittian and Sundra - I agree with you both, the title of this thread does not leave room for discussion, it clearly states the scene was wrong, period. As Sara stated, it was adamant...the title a..."

A strongly worded thesis, adamant yes. A discussion about the topic might suggest why the beating scene adds to the story line despite all of the inherent baggage associated with clichés. The movie Pretty Woman for example contains more over used raunchy stereotypes of this nature than anything else I can come up with off of the top of my head, yet it works! The tongue and cheek re telling of Prince Charming meets Cinderella who is defined exclusively by her sexual value etc...

The beating was not inevitable. It was the authors choice. Sharply contrasting with the narrative until that point. Did it work? Commercially, yes. A conversation about the choices an author makes does not require anyone to be convinced of anyone else's point of view. Little discussion has occurred about it. The discussion on this board that intrigued me so much was how defensive the 4 and 5 star posters appeared to be, yet they continue to post. Attempting to persuade readers to the tale as it was told instead of discussing the relative merit of choosing that scene or another.

Sara wrote: "Attempting to persuade readers to the tale as it was told instead of discussing the relative merit of choosing that scene or another. ."

We have also had that discussion. If we look throughout the history of literature and take every plot device ever utilized, it would be hard to come up with a plot device that hasn't been used. I personally believe this plot device worked here because of the characterization of Claire. Her unusual upbringing and her experience as a nurse in a very bloody war would have made her somewhat immune to many graphic situations. This situation called for a wake-up call for Claire; one that finally made her situation REAL. Something had to be used that she had NOT experienced in the 20th century. She had experienced rough living traveling with her uncle. She had experienced blood, gore and the aftermath of warfare. She had not experience a large affront to her dignity. So, IMO...this plot device worked in this situation. Women's liberation was a relatively new movement in the 1940s, so viewing it through a 21st century lens distorts the reality of Claire's life. Again...IMO. She could have had Jamie pretend to beat Claire and that would have served the purpose of demanding justice from the clan. However, this plot demands two outcomes: justice and the final realization of Claire that she was not in Kansas anymore. Pretense therefore would not have satisfied the second outcome.

Mary wrote: "Sara wrote: "Attempting to persuade readers to the tale as it was told instead of discussing the relative merit of choosing that scene or another. ."

We have also had that discussion. If we look ..."

Exactly Mary, I see your point and I understand the shock value. Thank you for your comment, Maddie said I missed her comment too, I really do need to re-read

The scene as written delivers Claire a Rule Of Thumb wake up call, and does that, by resorting to a tired stereotype that adds no other value except all the baggage of depicting a woman physically dominated by her love interest. Not a lot of value. A plot device, the pivot point of a narrative can be original and fascinating or tired and cliche. In my opinion, this plot device is fraught with crappy baggage and so over done that you could find reams of it in the pulp fiction / Harlequin romance isle of your local used book store.

Mary, why does this scene work better for you than say, having the clan chief punish her as he would any other clans person? A flogging or ear nailing? Was it the spousal abuse itself that worked for you?

Sara wrote: "Mary, why does this scene work better for you than say, having the clan chief punish her as he would any other clans person? A flogging or ear nailing? Was it the spousal abuse itself that worked for you? .."

Because having the clan chief punish her does nothing to change the relationship between Claire and Jamie. This incident was also pivotal in changing their relationship. Jamie was just doing what he had been taught and actually believed a private punishment would be less of an affront to her dignity, just as he took Laoghaire's punishment to spare her that embarrassment. Claire's reaction caught HIM by surprise. The fact she threatens him with death should he ever do it again was a lesson for Jamie as well. He had to learn to adapt his engrained thinking if he wanted to keep Claire. And, he does.

I think tired devices and cliches are in the eye of the beholder/reader. I have read tens of thousands of books in my lifetime and it is rare that I come across a general plot device that I have not seen utilized in other books. If I only read sci/fi, westerns or a certain genre, then plot devices start to all look the same sometimes. Perhaps we should list all of the plot devices she could have used and judge whether or not they could qualify as a cliche??? How many instances in books would qualify a plot device as tired or cliche? Can we list the books that use spousal abuse as a plot device that ultimately changes the relationship of a couple for the better? I keep reading that this is an overused device, but I just don't agree with that. Has spousal abused been used in many books as a plot device? Yes. It has. But I cannot recall off the top of my head a book where it has been used in a similar way. I am sure I eventually will think of an example, but I am really drawing a blank. I think that would actually be an interesting discussion if we can come up with similar scenarios in other books and see if the plot device works in them or falls flat.

Mary wrote: "Sara wrote: "Mary, why does this scene work better for you than say, having the clan chief punish her as he would any other clans person? A flogging or ear nailing? Was it the spousal abuse itself ..."

Perhaps you are correct and all plot devices are cliche and the ones that work, have been executed brilliantly. I mentioned earlier my love of The Color Purple, the story of a woman over coming, coping and finding a sense of peace within the complex imperfect family and society she lives. She is beaten and raped and I have no issues with the author's choices. However there does exist a stereotype of women dominated by love interests. Perpetuating that stereotype without brilliance results in a less than Stellar story. Of course, a writer's workshop, editor or literary reporter would probably still say cliched, lazy or formulaic story structure.

Sara wrote: "Mary wrote: "Sara wrote: "Mary, why does this scene work better for you than say, having the clan chief punish her as he would any other clans person? A flogging or ear nailing? Was it the spousal ..."

And generally speaking rape is a pretty common plot device - because it is common unfortunately. There are really only a finite amount of devices to choose from, so I do think that execution is the key. Btw...I also loved The Color Purple. However, is the stereotype of women being dominated by love interests true in a general sense? I would argue that throughout history taken as a whole, there is a lot of truth to that statement. I think we can find a lot of truth in the stereotype of men being redeemed by love as well. Look at books such as Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre that include both stereotypes. Women having aspirations beyond home and hearth is a relatively new phenomena in history. Perhaps the only author who cannot be accused of using some type of cliche is the author who originated the plot device?

Aaaaand speaking of Claire's agency, I'll just leave this right here. Brought a smile to my face. :). Also, I will now be working on incorporating the verb "to sassasmack" into my vocabulary.

http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co...

Oooh, ooh, and also? Anybody seen the JAMMF bumper stickers? Might have to work me up a "Notorious CRF" one. Luuuuuuuh' dat.

Sunda wrote: "Aaaaand speaking of Claire's agency, I'll just leave this right here. Brought a smile to my face. :). Also, I will now be working on incorporating the verb "to sassasmack" into my vocabulary.

http..."

Great blog.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Red 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" c..."

I really don't understand why it has to be one thing OR the other? Why can't one be moved/upset/angered/passionate about that one scene AND about another? It's not about picking and choosing (which is also a legitimate behaviour, it has also to do about prioritizing, et.), it's about discussing one specific thing and one only, which doesn't mean one doesn't care about many, many other things.
I personally found some of the violence in the book kind of gratuitous at some point, and not just the beating scene. But this isn't a discussion about violence in general, but about this scene in particular.

Sara wrote: "I believe I have read Red put forth numerous times in numerous ways that the Wrong To Justify It statement related to the fact that it wasn't necessary to portray the relationship as it had been written to that point, historically or as a point of continuity of the story line . Many people discussing the topic have shared their personal feelings about the beating scene, spanking, consent, rape and a particularly lively discussion about sexual sadism. Those are all fun things to discuss, but a moral judgement is not the position I believe I have ever read Red take. Nor is it mine."

The bolded EXACTLY ! (and this is not me yelling but me being excited that someone actually got my point correctly!:) Thanks Sara.

Sage wrote: "Brittian and Sundra - I agree with you both, the title of this thread does not leave room for discussion, it clearly states the scene was wrong, period. As Sara stated, it was adamant...the title a..."

Well, it's a title, so it's kind of supposed to be straight to the point, isn't it? Then I tried and explained my point a little bit more and posted it in here, creating the thread many have contributed to, quite litterally gives room for discussion. I also contributed to several posts trying and clarifying some of the points that may have been misunderstood. So, there is that.

Sara wrote: The beating was not inevitable. It was the authors choice. Sharply contrasting with the narrative until that point. Did it work? Commercially, yes. A conversation about the choices an author makes does not require anyone to be convinced of anyone else's point of view. Little discussion has occurred about it."

This, this, and this again!

Sara wrote: "Perhaps you are correct and all plot devices are cliche and the ones that work, have been executed brilliantly. I mentioned earlier my love of The Color Purple, the story of a woman over coming, coping and finding a sense of peace within the complex imperfect family and society she lives. She is beaten and raped and I have no issues with the author's choices. However there does exist a stereotype of women dominated by love interests. Perpetuating that stereotype without brilliance results in a less than Stellar story. Of course, a writer's workshop, editor or literary reporter would probably still say cliched, lazy or formulaic story structure. "

Yes. IMHO, writing is an exercice in using and re-using literary/genre tropes, stereotypes, or even caricatures. There is nothing wrong with that, per se . You can write good, solid plots this way. And sometimes (few times), when the writing is masterful, actually inventing some more.

The problem in this particular scene to me is not only that it is a lazy choice (for "shock value") but it is also a very problematic one (domestic violence in a genre that is predominantly about re-inforcing rather tha fighting against abusive romantic relationship).

A plot device is about moving the plot, the narrative forward. Violence is one way, but not the only way. That's how you can make the difference between a creative, imaginative author and one...not so much. One can also write tension or even violence between lovers without resorting to having, yet again, the woman being abused, and framing it as, somehow (like, said, because of "historical accuracy"), justified/legitimate.

Red wrote: "A plot device is about moving the plot, the narrative forward. Violence is one way, but not the only way. That's how you can make the difference between a creative, imaginative author and one...not so much. One can also write tension or even violence between lovers without resorting to having, yet again, the woman being abused, and framing it as, somehow (like, said, because of "historical accuracy"), justified/legitimate...."

I understand that you do not like Gabaldon's choice. You have a legitimate right to dislike whatever you want. I do not judge you for that dislike. You cannot help the way you respond to the story. I respect that.

However, I would disagree that her choice was not creative or imaginative. She used that plot devise to accomplish multiple things: a final understanding by Claire that she really was stuck in another time; using a tactic that was sure to get Claire's attention and changing the dynamic between Claire and Jamie for good. I think that is a pretty good use of a plot device.

Honestly, I don't like referring to that scene as a "plot device". To me, it seems to suggest that including it was contrived and arbitrary. It was not, imo, even though I respect that some people seem to disagree. I keep thinking "Could the story have moved forward and progressed in the exactly the same manner without that scene"? "What would have happened had Jamie not been the one to punish Claire"?

Imo, I don't think the story could have progressed in the same manner. If the story were to remain realistic and maintain some semblance of historical accuracy, one of the clan elders likely would have punished her publicly. I can't see the clan respecting Jamie or Claire after that...nor could I see Claire coming to understand (<--not synonymous with "condone") them or their ways.

I think I've said this before, but I think there is something to be said for cultural relativism when reading this series. I'm going to through the same issues now as I am re-reading "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the first time since childhood. I don't like the racism....but I can't bring myself to believe that Harper Lee was wrong to include it or that it was done only as a contrived plot device. Claiming this belittles the integrity of the novel.

Mary...I agree.

Sage wrote: "Mary...I agree."

:0)

Red wrote: "Sara wrote: "Perhaps you are correct and all plot devices are cliche and the ones that work, have been executed brilliantly. I mentioned earlier my love of The Color Purple, the story of a woman ov..."

This is like a causality loop, Once more with feeling... More of a fan group page than a literary discussion. You presented a point of view and defended it well. I admire your patients and tenacity in responding to voluminous off topic and personal remarks. I will leave you to it.

Sara wrote: "This is like a causality loop, Once more with feeling... More of a fan group page than a literary discussion. You presented a point of view and defended it well. I admire your patients and tenacity in responding to voluminous off topic and personal remarks. I will leave you to it. ..."

And here I thought we had the beginnings of an interesting discussion. Oh well.

Apparently Red is to be admired for presenting her point of view and defending it, but those of us who don't agree with her are a fan group.

Sage wrote: "Apparently Red is to be admired for presenting her point of view and defending it, but those of us who don't agree with her are a fan group."

That is what her comment sounded like, but I wouldn't want to speak for her. I keep hearing critics stating Gabaldon could have used a different scenario or that the one she used was tired and cliched. I don't see it. I am genuinely interested in what other scenarios they think would have had as good or a bigger impact.

Mary wrote: "She used that plot devise to accomplish multiple things: a final understanding by Claire that she really was stuck in another time; using a tactic that was sure to get Claire's attention and changing the dynamic between Claire and Jamie for good."

I understand the reasons why the author used that plot device, and I can even agree that it is, indeed, "effective", but to me this effectiveness is at least useless for two of the first reasons you listed and negative for the last one.

I, for one, didn't get the sense that Claire didn't understand she was in another time : the reason she did what led to her being punished was not because she was clueless of the dangers of the time or the risks she could encounter, but because she decided she wanted to go back to her time. Also she had already witnessed how harsh some customs could be. So I don't see why she had to had to have that oh shit" recognition moment by being beaten by her 2nd "husband". As for the dynamics of the relationship between Claire and Jamie, what it change, for me, is that it turned Jamie into a wife beater and altered my perception of the character and the way I viewed their relationship in that I couldn't root for Claire to stay with a man who had beaten her up and enjoyed doing so.

IMHO, there were other ways to create tensions/antagonisms between those characters and accomplish the changes wanted in their realationship other than having Jamie beat Claire. It was left to the author creativity/imagination/writing skills to find and use them, but in this case the author chose to rely one very common, overused and problematic one.

Mochaspresso wrote: "If the story were to remain realistic and maintain some semblance of historical accuracy, one of the clan elders likely would have punished her publicly. I can't see the clan respecting Jamie or Claire after that...nor could I see Claire coming to understand (<--not synonymous with "condone") them or their ways."

May be you can't see that, because the author, through Jamie's explanation/justification, told you so. As I argued earlier regarding the "historical accuracy" line of justification, one could have used the many different way to interpret husband and wife relationship at the time to not having Jamie beat Claire but still have the clan repaid for the said danger Claire put the clansmen through (by wanting to go back to where she timely belonged). It only need the author to have Jamie and other characters justify it one way or another.

Red wrote: "Mary wrote: "She used that plot devise to accomplish multiple things: a final understanding by Claire that she really was stuck in another time; using a tactic that was sure to get Claire's attenti..."

I think there is a difference between knowing something intellectually and knowing it in your gut. Claire may have known intellectually she was in the 18th century, but her actions and reactions were still 20th century IMO.

I keep reading that she could have done something more creative. What? I keep reading the use of a beating has been overused. Name a book that uses a beating between the hero and heroine and the relationship is salvaged and made stronger after that. There are probably some in the 1970s bodice rippers, but I would not compare those to this book.

I respect your dislike of the beating and that it ruined the book for you. There are things that hit me on a visceral level as well. I just do not see it as an overused trope or unimaginable.

Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decided to just stop reading abou..."

I am glad to see you and some others speaking out against that scene. I have spoken out against it as well, and met with some very harsh (perhaps mentally ill?) feedback from women who are SO QUICK to justify the man's behavior. It really bothers me that after so many years of humans fighting for equal rights, non-violence, rights for women, etc. there are women who so easily and blindly accept a man beating his wife as "justice". Easy for them to be OK with it until it is happening to them, I hope that it isn't really happening to them. I have a blog where I speak my mind specifically about the Chapter 22 scene here: https://roweenarickman.wordpress.com/... I will say that I ended up finishing the book, mainly because when I heard about that scene I wanted to speak my mind about it and felt I should know the entire story and all of it's details. I definitely had my issues with some of the plot points (as mentioned above for one) but by the end of the book decided that overall I liked the story. I feel a bit guilty for liking it overall, but definitely was in disagreement with some of the sexist elements, especially that Chapter 22 scene. Thank you for sharing your thoughts Red, I was beginning to think I was the only woman who had a problem with that.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Regina wrote: "Red, I am a feminist and I have many problems with popular romance and new adult novels in terms of romanticizing violence. I see your points and where you are coming from, however ..."
Regina, I understand what you are saying about forgiveness. The problem I had with the Scene was that Claire forgave him way to quickly and he showed no real signs of remorse (perhaps a smidge way later when he discovers her secret and where she was trying to go, which she quickly dismisses), he even said a few days later (after he forces himself on her sexually btw) that she "deserved" those bruises. He says this two seconds after saying "it's shameful to hurt a woman". He is a conflicted hypocrite, and a wifebeater, although it turns out to be a one time only wife beating, at least in the first book in the series. I haven't read any others in the series and I don't plan on it at this time. And Claire was raised in a manner much differently than that of other 1940's women, by a progressive thinking uncle so I think it is believable that she would have a little more to say to Jamie before just forgiving and dismissing it. I have a blog entry dedicated entirely to that scene called A Letter To Claire here: https://roweenarickman.wordpress.com/... Thanks for posting!

RAFLMAO!

How To Make Friends and Influence People!

*snort*

RAFLMAO!

How To Make Friends and Influence People!

*snort*

Red wrote: "May be you can't see that, because the author, through Jamie's explanation/justification, told you so. As I argued earlier regarding the "historical accuracy" line of justification, one could have used the many different way to interpret husband and wife relationship at the time to not having Jamie beat Claire but still have the clan repaid for the said danger Claire put the clansmen through (by wanting to go back to where she timely belonged). It only need the author to have Jamie and other characters justify it one way or another.


How exactly would the clan have been "repaid for the said danger"? What would you have done as the author?

When I say "historical accuracy", I am not just referring to dynamics between the husbands and wives of those times. I am also referring to the overall culture, beliefs and traditions of the clans during that time. In those times, people were burning women for suspicion of witchcraft, performing exorcisms to treat fevers, leaving babies in the woods for fairies to take away and nailing children's ears to posts as punishment for stealing or lying. I'm not certain why a reader is supposed to expect that they should suddenly be more modern and progressive in other matters pertaining to husbands and wives or overall justice. Claire did not fully understand all of the ramifications of her actions. It was not wrong for her to want to go back to her time, but she did not realize how the timing and methods she chose to accomplish it would also endanger the entire clan in the process. Claire's beating was a clan issue...not a marital one. It only became a marital issue because as per that culture, Jamie, as her husband, was the one who was expected to dole out the punishment. Had Claire not been married to Jamie, one of the clan elders would have beat her. Would that have been better? I don't believe so because I don't think Jamie and Claire would have reached their understanding had it played out that way. Could he have refused to beat her? Certainly....but he also would not have been respected among the clan and Claire would not have been accepted among them either. Claire did not understand and acknowledge that their notions of justice were very different from her modern perceptions of it.

To me what you seem to be suggesting is akin to setting a novel amidst the backdrop of the French Revolution yet deciding to make no reference to guillotines and beheading because some deem it offensive to our modern notions of justice. The reader, imo, is not supposed to justify or condone Claire's beating and from what I have read of this thread, no one has actually done that. That was never the point or intention. The reader is supposed to understand that this was a common occurrence in those times and understand why that was so.

Roweena wrote: " He is a conflicted hypocrite, and a wifebeater, although it turns out to be a one time only wife beating, at least in the first book in the series. I haven't read any others in the series. So, I guess it's Claire's business about forgiving him so quickly, not mine, although I definitely know how I'd be feeling about it...."

First of all, Jamie warned Claire that if she left the safety of the grove he would beat her with his sword belt, and later when he came to their room at the Inn, he not only told her what he was going to do and why, but that if she resisted, the punishment would be worse. Jamie didn't lie or mislead Claire and he truly expected her to comply. He didn't expect anymore of Claire then he did of himself, the other men in their group, or all the men, women, and children of their clan. They obeyed orders or accepted their punishment.

If anyone was being dishonest or misleading, it was Claire. Obviously, she couldn't tell the truth about herself, but she expected Jamie to understand her actions when he didn't know the reason or the truth.

Jamie didn't want to marry Claire anymore then she wanted to marry him, he was simply obeying orders. He owed Claire nothing, he could have simply said 'the hell with her' and left her to her own devices, as well as Jack Randall's, but he didn't, he did the honorable thing, putting the life of his companions and himself in danger, killing a man to rescue her.

After the spanking, Claire could have given him the cold shoulder for days or weeks, but what good would that do? Far more is achieved from talking things out and resolving your problems then from playing games.

Of course, you feel differently about things then Claire does because even though Claire was ahead of her time in many ways, she was still from the 1940's when women did not have the rights and freedoms they do today, and still depended on and obeyed their husbands. And, whether she was ready to admit it or not, not only did Claire need Jamie, she was falling in love with him.

Regardless of whether you've read the other books in the series, or not, having read the first one, and having been on this thread, you know this story is not about, nor does it condone, domestic violence, that Jamie is not a 'wife-beater' but an honorable man, who never raises his hand to Claire again, and that their relationship only becomes stronger despite the hurdles they cross in the beginning.

Thank you sage