Outlander discussion

Sage wrote: "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..."

Sage wrote: "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..."

SPOILERS in this post Sage I have many more points to discuss on this issue which will be published later. I respect your opinions I just have very different thoughts on them, and have done some research and quite a bit of thinking. I just can't help the way I feel. One thing I must say is that at the end of the book, Jamie confessed he loved her from the beginning and married her because he wanted her more than anything, so he DID want to marry her. And I also mentioned that the beating was a one time deal, but beating your wife once is still beating your wife. I can't change my mind about him being a hypocrite either, based on the things he says and does in parts (not all) of the book. And as for him saving her, well we all know she has treated his injuries, saved him from death by the deserters, and saved him, his manhood, and his hand at the end of the story, plus she's treated the clansmen quite a bit. But I'll save all my ramblings for my blog.

Roweena wrote: "SPOILERS in this post Sage I have many more points to discuss on this issue which will be published later. I respect your opinions I just have different thoughts on them, and have done some research and quite a bit of thinking. I just can't help the way I feel. ..."

And that is legitimate. You cannot help the way you feel. Nor can those of us who are taking the opposite position help the way we feel. The beating was a trigger for many. I did not particularly like it, but I understood why the author wrote it the way she did. I have never personally been beaten or raped by a man. I might feel completely different about this scene if I had. I don't know. But from a purely literary position, I still think the scene works.

Mary wrote: "Roweena wrote: "SPOILERS in this post Sage I have many more points to discuss on this issue which will be published later. I respect your opinions I just have different thoughts on them, and have d..."

Thank you Mary. That is a key point you made, perhaps you would feel differently if you had been beaten or raped, thank heaven you have not, but I feel we must remember that this treatment of women is still standard in parts of the world, and the women and men accept it as "just the way things are done in our culture". It happens to some men too, but I think women are treated as second class citizens much more often than men and considered the possessions of men. I've never criticized the author, I just feel I shouldn't be so OK to accept this part of our history that condoned such physical abuse to both men and women. That's why I put my energy into speaking against it.

Roweena wrote: "Thank you Mary. That is a key point you made, perhaps you would feel differently if you had been beaten or raped, thank heaven you have not, but I feel we must remember that this treatment of women is still standard in parts of the world, and the women and men accept it as "just the way things are done in our culture". It happens to some men too, but I think women are treated as second class citizens much more often than men and considered the possessions of men. I've never criticized the author, I just feel I shouldn't be so OK to accept this part of our history that condoned such physical abuse to both men and women. That's why I put my energy into speaking against it. Sorry if I offend anyone. ..."

Rowena, I am very liberal and a big feminist. I understand that women are still treated as second class citizens. If you listened to the GOP debates the other night, it is clear that most of the male candidates do not consider women their equal. Having said that, this book is historical fiction. I do not think it in any way, shape or form promotes inequality among the sexes for present day women. I think Claire fought very hard for her agency and equality in the book and won. She changed Jamie's mind and isn't that the key to creating an equal world - convincing those with outdated beliefs to change them?

Mary wrote: "Roweena wrote: "Thank you Mary. That is a key point you made, perhaps you would feel differently if you had been beaten or raped, thank heaven you have not, but I feel we must remember that this tr..."
Yes, and I'm glad she was able to make a difference in that time. My thoughts on the overall book are not limited to this thread, this thread was started specifically about chap. 22 so I joined in. I don't doubt you are liberal and a feminist, I am not in anyway criticizing your views, I respect others opinions like I said. Yes,I realize this is fiction, with a lot of history intertwined. I understand things were different back them, I'm just very grateful they are not that way anymore, and like I said I don't want to spend my energy defending a part of history that I just think is wrong. I'm also not one to say the author should have left that scene out, it's her story to tell, not mine, and I of course believe in free speech and expression, I just don't find myself in full agreement with it, the scene I mean. For me the book would have been better without it. I will stop posting, for now, lol. Thank you for your input and best wishes.

Roweena wrote: "Mary wrote: "Roweena wrote: "Thank you Mary. That is a key point you made, perhaps you would feel differently if you had been beaten or raped, thank heaven you have not, but I feel we must remember..."
Thanks for a very civil discussion Rowena!

Mochaspresso wrote: "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. "

It's not about expecting anything, it's about the writing choices made. The author chose to include certain aspects of the culture of the time and to leave out other aspects. As the blogger I initially quoted stated : not every man in those times (not in the 20th century but during those precise times) beat his wife. Also, clan and marital laws/customs are not unilatral matters, they've always been discussed, contested, etc.

So, as I have state before, one can explain, justify and make work any plot, depending what aspect of the culture or the times one choose to highlight and how we want to highlight it.

Also, it's not about just making "references" : in this case, the author used the beating as an important plot device involving the main lead character.

Forinstance, the French Revolution you're referencing. One can, indeed, write a novel whose plot is happening during the those times without having the lead characters encountering beheading and guillotines, depending on the precise time period you're dealing with (1789, 1793, 1799); the place the main action is happeing (Paris, Lyon or the countryside), and what his the social/political status of the characters involved. Cause, guess what, NOT every one in France was being guillotined, or had the power to put someone on trial, etc. At the time, the vast majority of the population which lived in the countryside never experienced/witnessed this kind of violence.

So, yet again, my point is not about the rationale of the characters (who don't exist by themselves), 'cause one can always find a way to explain/justify it, depeding on the writing choice the author made. It's about said writing choice, which is, IMHO, not about"historical accuracy" but about "shocking" with the easiest and laziest plot device/trope.

Sage wrote: "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."

I never said this story was about domestic violence.

I don't think the author condone it either, but I do think that the writing choice that author made feed into a problematic systemic trend in fiction in general and in the romance genre in particular.

Jamie is, technically, indeed a "wife-beater", as in he beat his wife. Even if it has only happened once, and she forgave him for that, it DID happen. That doesn't make him a "monster", but that does make him, at the very least, a problematic romantic interest. So, yeah, your fav IS problematic (which is NOT to say you, as a real person, as a reader, are). One can still like him and root for him, and enjoy reading about him. And label him an "honourable man" despite this. But trying to erase, or downplay the very act he did and what it made him, is something I have noticed among a lot of readers/fans of the series, and part of the reason I talked about it in my title and my OP. It is part of the problem that arises when one choses to use such trope.

Roweena wrote: "the beating was a one time deal, but beating your wife once is still beating your wife"

THIS !

Roweena wrote: "Thank you for sharing your thoughts Red, I was beginning to think I was the only woman who had a problem with that"

Thanks Roweena for your post and for contributing to the discussion. I started this discussion partly because I wanted and needed to discuss this, hoping I wasn't the only one either. We may be the minority but here we are nonetheless ;).

Mochaspresso wrote: 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...."

I think this is how I always viewed it and that's why I never cared about what happened afterwards. It didn't matter to me that the scene was used to bring Claire a wake up call. It didn't matter to me that Jamie explained how he was raised with these kind of beatings as well (but I would have assumed so). Although I thought that what happened afterwards flowed well and made sense (minus Claire getting past it as quickly as she did) nothing that happened afterwards mattered to me in relation to the beating and the incidents that lead up to it.

I think I maybe in the minority in that though. Most people view it as both a clan and a marital issue but I definitely lean towards the prior. Honestly, when I first read the whole scene I laughed historically! Viewing it as a clan issue, and having the feelings I already do on corporate punishment allowed me to see the humor in it. But then again I have a tendency to find things amusing that others never do and to laugh at the inappropriate things.

There is one thing Red that I think we agree on. Although maybe I'm just reading more into something you said in the past. I'd look for it but I have NO idea where it is in these 13 pages lol.

But I do agree that what a person regularly takes into their minds affects their thinking abilities and eventually their actions. Not that I'm saying that if you read a novel with an abusive hero and the heroine over looks it, you'll allow yourself to be in abusive relationship.

Everything a person surrounds themselves with (including people) and takes into their minds and hearts affects them. This is exactly why the advertising industry makes billions of dollars. They wouldn't spend that kind of money if what we see around us didn't affect us.

Sort of how watching repeated violence *can* desensitize a person to it. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscent...

I do think that especially during the 80's there were a lot of rape and abuse in romance novels. There still is but not like back then. Can we say that this doesn't affect us? I've read my fair share of those books and I know I'm not going to let someone bully me in a relationship. But what about a person who has already been raised in abusive atmosphere or someone with low self esteem? What if someone is currently being abused and continues to take in this kind of romance story? There are people who are easily shaped.

Do these types of books or shows or movies affect people? Some people more than others are easily influenced. And I personally do think it affects some people.

Having said that, I've never felt that Outlander qualified to be in that same category of those types of books. For 2 reasons although these reasons have already been mentioned.

1. Claire fought back. She didn't submit. She fought tooth and nail and made Jamie bleed!

2. She teaches her husband that she deserves better than that, she deserves more respect and he promises to never do such a thing again. And he doesn't break his promise.

These two points make Outlander VERY different IMO to those other romance novels. There is no comparison in my mind.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I do think that especially during the 80's there were a lot of rape and abuse in romance novels. There still is but not like back then. Can we say that this doesn't affect us? I've read my fair share of those books and I know I'm not going to let someone bully me in a relationship. But what about a person who has already been raised in abusive atmosphere or someone with low self esteem? What if someone is currently being abused and continues to take in this kind of romance story? There are people who are easily shaped. Do these types of books or shows or movies affect people? Some people more than others are easily influenced. And I personally do think it affects some people. Having said that, I've never felt that Outlander qualified to be in that same category of those types of books. For 2 reasons although these reasons have already been mentioned."

Romance (and fiction) is still plagued with a lot of sexism and problematic tropes (abuse, rapde, etc.). I think it's still the majority ('cause this being a systemic problem), but thankfully, not the overwhelming majority anymore. And part of the reason there has been some changes is the fact that more and more people (readers, critics, researchers and authors) realized the systemic problem, spoke out against it and/or took a stand.

Also, I don't think it is just a matter of "personal" experience/inner fortitude, yet again because it is a systemic problem. Mass culture affects/influences everyone, one way or another, the degrees of which varying individually. When a behaviour is culturally normalized (through recurrent tropes in literary genres for instance), it shapes the consciousness of everyone, and affects the way they react to real life situations. Cf. : http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jul0.... In the instance of domestic violence it can affect every one, whether one has been abuse before or not. Women (and men) who would have never thought they could end up in abusive relationship (because of the way they had been brought up, etc.) can end up in such a situation.

But I do agree that Outlander as a whole isn't like the most problematic books of the 80s, the 90s and even nowdays. It borrows some problematic tropes (and not just the domestic abuse part) but the narrative and writing try and correct it.

I think something interesting to point out to those who say that the abuse was a one time thing, that just because Jamie does not hit Claire again does not mean that he stops all abusive behavior. He understands that it does not work on Claire but that does not change his mind as to whether it is a good form of punishment or not. I think that when the idea of domestic abuse is discussed it should not just be about husband and wife but also children. Yes, he never lays another hand on Claire but that doesn't mean that her reaction changed his mind about the whole affair. I don't think that that is something that can be overlooked when you are saying that he changed afterwards.

Maddie wrote: "I think something interesting to point out to those who say that the abuse was a one time thing, that just because Jamie does not hit Claire again does not mean that he stops all abusive behavior. ..."

I agree with this definitely. But I wouldn't really have expected Jamie to change his stance. From what we were shown of his personality it was very well ingrained deeply in him, his idea of discipline. And his idea still exists today. Many families feel spanking is an alright form of discipline (maybe not with a belt but I don't think Jamie would have understood the difference). It would have been quite the interesting story if they had have had children they raised together and see how that played out, with their opposing views on discipline. But we never got to witness that.

We will never know how he would have reacted to Clair's negativity to taking the "kids out to the shed with a belt".

Mrsbooks wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I think something interesting to point out to those who say that the abuse was a one time thing, that just because Jamie does not hit Claire again does not mean that he stops all abu..."

I didn't expect Jamie to change either. But I think that it is something that, for many people, is overlooked. It is those grey areas, those cracks and flaws, that all of the characters in the books have that make it great to me. The real world people not the perfect ones that are fun to read about.

I think that we get to see a little of it when he disciplines Fergus a few times. We also got to see a little of when it would have been like with Bri, granted she was older, but she was stubborn as well.

Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I do think that especially during the 80's there were a lot of rape and abuse in romance novels. There still is but not like back then. Can we say that this doesn't affect us? I've..."

I find we can see this in the "bad boy" trope. All the girls want a bad boy. Or how they see jealousy as a good and protective thing. *Rolls eyes*. I LOVE romance stories. LOVE LOVE LOVE. But I can't tell you how many times I cringe or roll my eyes at what's in, even the stories that I think are half decent. It's really difficult to find a love story where two people actually talk and fall in love. It's usually love at first sight with no basis, or lust at first sight with the writer trying to pull it off as love.

Although I find rape isn't so big anymore in romance novels (unless you're actually looking in that genre because they do exist) I find abuse is there in much more subtle ways, like that jealousy I already mentioned. I find more often than not, the girls kind, good and perhaps nerdyish friend is the guy mature and healthy girls should be rooting for. But nobody wants him. They want the tortured soul, the jealousy masked as protectiveness, the emotionally distant, etc.

I thought that link was interesting but I did disagree with a bit in it. Being submissive does not make you abused. It's not even a bad thing. Someone in a relationship is ALWAYS submissive although in a more healthy relationship it shouldn't be the same person all the time.

The bits about Titanic and Jack being a man still telling her what to do. I just watched this movie a few months ago (for the 9th time or so) and I got the impression that Jack was just encouraging her to do what he knew she truly wanted to do.

It seemed overly "sensitive" to me.

Red wrote: "Roweena wrote: "Thank you for sharing your thoughts Red, I was beginning to think I was the only woman who had a problem with that"

Thanks Roweena for your post and for contributing to the discuss..."

:)

Maddie wrote: "I think something interesting to point out to those who say that the abuse was a one time thing, that just because Jamie does not hit Claire again does not mean that he stops all abusive behavior. ..."
I agree Maddie, he continues to discuss the possibility of whipping their future children, and Claire doesn't argue with him, at least near the end of the first book, another thing that frustrated me. And I am also one that is not fully convinced he changed a lot, other than his treatment of Claire. I know some are going to pipe in and say he is living in a kill or be killed environment most of the book, but I believe he should keep his physical solutions to problems outside of his family life.

Roweena wrote: "I agree Maddie, he continues to discuss the possibility of whipping their future children, and Claire doesn't argue with him, at least near the end of the first book, another thing that frustrated me. And I am also one that is not fully convinced he changed a lot, other than his treatment of Claire. I know some are going to pipe in and say he is living in a kill or be killed environment most of the book, but I believe he should keep his physical solutions to problems outside of his family life. .."

In a perfect world of course there would be no physical punishment within a family. However, I can tell you that is still not the norm. I chose not to use physical punishment with my children and I was definitely in the minority and heavily criticized for it. But I stuck with my plan and it worked. I raised three very responsible, empathetic, productive and independent children. My mother did spank me though (and I can tell you from my experience it was not effective for me). As much as spanking is the majority now, it was even more so in my mother's generation (she would have been a close contemporary of Claire's). I would not consider my mother a child abuser. If she was then almost all parents were. The first surveys of discipline in the USA were taken in the late 1940s. Over 90% of children prior to the 21st century were spanked. It was not until the 21st century that opinions on spanking began to change in any significant way. Currently, public opinion has a 55% favorable rating of spanking as a discipline method - so it is still the majority opinion by a little (and even those who disapprove many still use it as a last resort). As long as we have a large contingent of conservative religious groups that believe in spare the rod, spoil the child, or unless we pass legislation prohibiting spanking, then I don't see this problem ending any time soon.

If I were to read a contemporary romance in which the hero/heroine used physical punishment against each other or a child, I would immediately have a visceral negative reaction to that behavior. However, I do give license when reading a historical novel. I truly detest historical novels that attempt to place 21st century sensibilities in a setting that would make them an anomaly, UNLESS there is a great deal of ground work laid explaining that anomaly (i.e., character was severely beaten as a child and vows not to continue the behavior). I like historical accuracy (probably because I have a history degree). I don't want a contrived plot line just to try to bring modern thinking into a historical setting. I think Gabaldon handled this situation well because she was historically accurate AND she realistically gave a reason for Jamie to change his opinions of spousal relationships. That redeemed him in my mind. He is not perfect, but he tries.

We all look at behaviors through our own personal lens. I was spanked and switched as a child. It hurt briefly and then it was over. I actually remember thinking to myself: "if I do this I will probably get into trouble and the consequences of that trouble are a stinging on my buttocks for a few minutes...???...OK...I will chance it." I would have much preferred the spanking to a long lecture with heavy doses of guilt. I am sure I will have felt differently if the spanking had been a beating instead. As a parent I KNOW it is an ineffective form of discipline, so I never used it, but most parents still do because it is still (though changing) a cultural norm.

I was just thinking again about this issue and thought of all of the regency romances I have read where either the hero or heroine marries for money/prestige. It was the norm for aristocratic marriages to be about power/money/prestige, etc. Most of those marriage of convenience stories start out about something self-serving or to help others (siblings, etc.) and the relationship eventually turns to love.

I would have a much harder time accepting a modern hero/heroine who marries for money or prestige or a hero that thinks working is beneath him because members of the aristocracy did not sully their hands with work. So context IMO is everything. What I would not accept in a modern situation, I can accept it being used in a historical setting IF it is realistic and the hero/heroine find a way through it toward a more egalitarian relationship.

I also just thought of another example of redemption that worked. Boromir in The Lord of the Rings was arrogant, thought his country's needs were paramount to all others and was contemptuous of Gandalf letting Frodo carry the ring. Then his weak mind preys on the ring and he eventually attempts to steal it from Frodo placing the entire Middle Earth in jeopardy. But in the end, he dies protecting Frodo and the ring. We forgave him. Would we have forgiven him if he had not died but just changed his mind and became very loyal to Frodo?

Many/most of the greatest love stories have an element of redemption in them. I believe that Jamie redeemed himself in this book, but what I am interested in is those who disagree with the beating scene being included in this book stating whether or not Jamie could be redeemed in their eyes and if so, what would it have taken?

Red wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "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 justic..."

Not all men are pedophiles. Does that mean that Lolita should not have been written? Not all men become obsessed and consumed with vengeance after suffering a traumatic experience in nature. Does that mean Moby Dick should not have been written? Not all women suffer from mental illness and depression. Does that mean that Sylvia Plath should not have written The Bell Jar?

I'm extremely leery of attempts to...censor and whitewash are the words that come to mind...fiction, particularly historical fiction for the sake of modern notions of political correctness. I understand that not all slaves were whipped or that not all Frenchmen witnessed beheadings or that not all 17th century men abused their wives. Those things did happen. It was common enough that people chose to document it and as such, it should not be wrong to portray it in literature.

I've been reading an abstract of the study by Dr. Julia Wood that was mentioned in the news article that you linked to.

http://www.brown.uk.com/brownlibrary/...

The study itself seems very interesting, but the news article about it is a little misleading and imo, misrepresents the intent of the study. Nowhere in this study is it documented that the 20 women interviewed got their notions of romance specifically, primarily and directly from reading romance novels.

This is a direct quote....."Within the data, a second romance narrative was evident -one that constructs violence as typical in romantic relationships. The dark script claims that it is normal for men to have 'bad spells,' as Denise's mother referred to men's violent episodes, and it is normal for romantic relationships to be hurtful to women. The dark romance narrative also insists that abuse and unhappiness are not reasons to abandon the relationships because women are supposed to be for- giving and because they need men to be complete."

"Some women tolerated violence because it was less severe than that inflicted on women they knew or than previous violence they had experienced. Mary stated that her friend Amy 'had been beat up so bad that she's been in the hospital. And I mean, maybe I looked at it as I looked at her and I saw how Luke beat her and she still stayed with him, that I considered myself lucky. That, you know, I just had, like, bruises and I didn't have a broken jaw or a broken nose or anything like that."

To me, this suggests that these women developed their notions on romance from their own mothers, from the experiences of their friends and their overall upbringing and environment....not necessarily from romance novels that they may have read or from other forms of mass media that they've consumed.


I am not arguing that romance novels do not play a part in perpetuating myths of fairy tale romances toward girls and women. I just believe that when analyzing the psychology behind why women become involved in abusive relationships, it goes far beyond a "problematic" romance novel. Why? Because not all women who read that novel are in abusive relationships and not all women currently in abusive relationships actually even read the novel being unfairly accused of causing and perpetuating this. Imo, it is a scapegoating fallacy to think this. It's a dangerous scapegoating fallacy that does a disservice to women who are in abusive relationships.

Mary wrote: "Many/most of the greatest love stories have an element of redemption in them. I believe that Jamie redeemed himself in this book, but what I am interested in is those who disagree with the beating scene being included in this book stating whether or not Jamie could be redeemed in their eyes and if so, what would it have taken?..."

The problem that I had with the scene is actually that it was in the book but the aftermath of the scene itself. Claire get to understand the why Jamie did what he did but Jame does get his redemption moment until much later in the book. So far later that it really does matter and it is brushed aside not only by all of the other things going on at that time (witch trial, going to Lallybrok, the realization that Gellie was from the future as well) but also by Claire herself. His realization for why she ran away from that spot was pushed aside because it didn't matter to her anymore. I think that if there would have been a bit more of a discussion or at least more from Jamie at that point it could have been somewhat of a redemption. However, there was next to nothing from him. I think a lot could have happened in that moment for his character to truly change and grow but he was robbed of that but more important things to move the story along. I still would not be in love with Jamie as many women are. He has too many other issues for me. :)

Maddie wrote: "The problem that I had with the scene is actually that it was in the book but the aftermath of the scene itself. Claire get to understand the why Jamie did what he did but Jame does get his redemption moment until much later in the book...."

Redemption (for me) does not need to happen immediately. Rarely do people get a eureka moment immediately. Mr. Rochester is not immediately redeemed in Jane Eyre. Mr. Darcy is not immediately redeemed in Pride and Prejudice. Most redemption tales contain a process of getting there. So I hang on for the ride and see where the story takes me.

Mary wrote: "Maddie wrote: "The problem that I had with the scene is actually that it was in the book but the aftermath of the scene itself. Claire get to understand the why Jamie did what he did but Jame does ..."

I totally agree. However in most instances the point of a redemption is to have a discussion and an obvious moment. May people forget Jamie's redemption moment because it is pushed so far into the background. There is no discussion. I think when he tires Claire tells him it doesn't matter because he didn't know. I think there needed to be more of a discussion for it to work as a redemption moment for me. With Mr. Darcy, the issue is part of the problem of the character. I mean it is the title of the book. With this scene there is so much more going on that by the time you get that part in the book the reader knows why he did it and, in most cases has forgiven him with Claire. My problem is that we don't get Jamie's understand and growth and that to me is a problem.
Although I am not sure that that would have solved it with me. My biggest issue is with how easily Claire forgives Jamie throughout the whole story. Jamie has more than this one issue with me and he always gets his say and time for explanation. Claire rarely tells Jamie her issues and why he was wrong. This scene is the first instance of that.

Maddie wrote: "Although I am not sure that that would have solved it with me. My biggest issue is with how easily Claire forgives Jamie throughout the whole story. Jamie has more than this one issue with me and he always gets his say and time for explanation. Claire rarely tells Jamie her issues and why he was wrong. This scene is the first instance of that.
..."

How much do you think that the fact this book is written in first person plays an impact on your impressions? In Pride and Prejudice, we have both the letter Darcy wrote and then his confession at the very last. So there is actually more opportunity to grovel.

In Outlander, at the time Jamie realizes that Claire is from another time, she has just been rescued by him from the witch hunters, he is still being hunted and they are hiding from redcoats on the way to Lallybroch. The pacing is very fast in the book and there is a lot going on. I think it would have interfered with that pacing and made the book a little too preachy IMO. Good books show, not tell. He showed his changing behavior throughout 8 books. If his change was immediate, there would not be any room for character growth over the next 7+ books. Just my opinion of course. ;0)

My god, have you ever wondered how our culture might have developed without the influence of TV? Commentaries almost never fail to make reference to commercial television, programming developed (or at least broadcast) to sell products. I have a lot of trouble seeing the juxtaposition of critical discussion of literature--whether good or bad--and what someone saw on TV the other day. Really??

Mary wrote: "Maddie wrote: "Although I am not sure that that would have solved it with me. My biggest issue is with how easily Claire forgives Jamie throughout the whole story. Jamie has more than this one issu..."

I also agree with you. There is no time for that discussion the way that the book is set up. And at the point in the novel I think it would have been a bad idea to go back as far as the scene. It would have come off as weird and out of place. I think that Jamie does grow over time but I don't think that he has any growth in the corporal punishment area except that he doesn't hit Claire anymore. He grows in many other areas, there is no doubt about that. But the way he treats his daughter when they first met and she is doing things that he does not approve of. You can just see how much he would like to spank her. He does with several other characters. Claire never stands in his way because she understands that her views are from a 200 year difference and that type of punishment works in this time. But I don't think that just because he doesn't hit Claire anymore means that he grew in this one area. In many others yes, in corporeal punishment no.

Maddie wrote: "Mary wrote: "Maddie wrote: "Although I am not sure that that would have solved it with me. My biggest issue is with how easily Claire forgives Jamie throughout the whole story. Jamie has more than ..."

As I stated in an earlier post, we STILL have a majority of parents using corporal punishment TODAY. Claire may also have approved of corporal punishment. I really cannot remember any discussion that she had about it in the books. Having said that, Gabaldon is currently writing book 9. We still have time for Jamie to grow as a character. ;0)

Mary wrote: "As I stated in an earlier post, we STILL have a majority of parents using corporal punishment TODAY. Claire may also have approved of corporal punishment. I really cannot remember any discussion that she had about it in the books. Having said that, Gabaldon is currently writing book 9. We still have time for Jamie to grow as a character. ;0)..."

I wasn't making any judgement for or against corporeal punishments. IMO it is pretty clear that she doesn't approve of it. But that is not for me to say for everyone. I'm not in their family I don't know the circumstances. I think that Jamie has grown a lot just not in the area and I'm not sure if it is necessary for him to. Honestly it would be out of character for him to go back on it. It works for his family just not with Claire. I think that if he would have had no growth at all he would not have held our attention for so long. I really can't wait until the 9th book!

Maddie wrote: " I think that if he would have had no growth at all he would not have held our attention for so long. I really can't wait until the 9th book! .."

I agree!!!

Mrsbooks wrote: "I find we can see this in the "bad boy" trope. All the girls want a bad boy. Or how they see jealousy as a good and protective thing. *Rolls eyes*."

Yeah, I hate how controlling or abusive male characters are portrayed as being merely "protective" in a ot of fiction/romance. eah, there is this idea that "bad" is kind of good

Mrsbooks wrote: "It's usually love at first sight with no basis, or lust at first sight with the writer trying to pull it off as love."

So (too) many romance are like that!Even the good one. And it also feeds in/develops this idea that lust = love, and that real passionate love has to be this instantenous thing. It does a disservice to the writing and the imagination in the sense that it often prevents writers to actually build increasingly deep organic (romantic/sexual) relationships through time...

Mrsbooks wrote: "Although I find rape isn't so big anymore in romance novels (unless you're actually looking in that genre because they do exist) I find abuse is there in much more subtle ways, like that jealousy I already mentioned."

Yep. Also there has been the development of the so-called "dubious consent" thematic, and the way the BDSM label have been used to write abusive relationship.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I thought that link was interesting but I did disagree with a bit in it. Being submissive does not make you abused. It's not even a bad thing. Someone in a relationship is ALWAYS submissive although in a more healthy relationship it shouldn't be the same person all the time."

I don't think that relationships HAVE TO to be based on domination dynamics, or that someone is laways either "dominant" or "submissive". I do think it is possible to build and write about equal partnerships where people learn to compromise (and thus do'nt always have their way)...

Mrsbooks wrote: "The bits about Titanic and Jack being a man still telling her what to do. I just watched this movie a few months ago (for the 9th time or so) and I got the impression that Jack was just encouraging her to do what he knew she truly wanted to do. "

Yeah, I think this bit was a bit too much : I didn't see the relationship between the two characters in Titanic problematic like that.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Not all men are pedophiles. Does that mean that Lolita should not have been written? Not all men become obsessed and consumed with vengeance after suffering a traumatic experience in nature. Does that mean Moby Dick should not have been written? Not all women suffer from mental illness and depression. Does that mean that Sylvia Plath should not have written The Bell Jar? I'm extremely leery of attempts to...censor and whitewash are the words that come to mind...fiction, particularly historical fiction for the sake of modern notions of political correctness."

Here we go again...Like haven't we been there already? Where in the freaking hell have I ever argued about "censoring" anyhting, or about what this author "should" or "shouldn't" write? Discussing and criticizing a book isn't about being "political correct" or "white washing" (sic!). It's about analyzing its different aspects, in and by itself AND in the general literary context of its genre/time.

I absolutely don't understand the point of the very examples you chose : for instance Nabokov's intent in writing Lolita was about denouncing Humbert's pedophilia, NOT glamourizing (or low key blaming Lolita) as it has been done in today's cultural landscape.

Also, what's with the "not all men" line of arguments? My point regarding the historical accuracy's line of justification is precisely that it's the author who chose what cultural/identity characteristics they are going to give their characters and that has nothing to do with wha is "historically" the majority/minority/common law/exceptions to the common law. And no, beheading people wasn't something "common" during the French Revolution. Yes, a lot of people reported about it, we even learn about it, but that doesn't make it a "common" practice. One can indeed write a story that takes place durint those times and not include this very specific judicial practice. Now you can do it (there is nothing "wrong" about it), and even create a character who has witnessed it. What I could criticize as a "wrong" writing choice is to imply that just because the story takes place during those times that character has to have witnessed it.


Mochaspresso wrote: "I've been reading an abstract of the study by Dr. Julia Wood that was mentioned in the news article that you linked to.
http://www.brown.uk.com/brownlibrary/... study itself seems very interesting, but the news article about it is a little misleading and imo, misrepresents the intent of the study. Nowhere in this study is it documented that the 20 women interviewed got their notions of romance specifically, primarily and directly from reading romance novels."

Of course not. The article summurize some of the findings of the study. I found it interesting 'cause it deals with the general argument about how collective and individuel consciousness is shaped/indluences by cultural tropes, some of which (and not all) are created/perpetuated in literature.

Red wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: Mary 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.

I admire Red's ability to cover the same ground over and over, considering each remark, and responding to the content. In my opinion, it demonstrates a degree of respect other posters have not afforded her.

Mary, thank you for your comments, my remark had nothing to do with our exchange.

Red wrote: "I don't think that relationships HAVE TO to be based on domination dynamics, or that someone is laways either "dominant" or "submissive". I do think it is possible to build and write about equal partnerships where people learn to compromise .."

I definitely agree with this Red.

Red wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Not all men are pedophiles. Does that mean that Lolita should not have been written? Not all men become obsessed and consumed with vengeance after suffering a traumatic experi..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillot...

http://www.ultimatehistoryproject.com...

"Under this system, at least 40,000 people were killed. As many as 300,000 Frenchmen and women (1 in 50 Frenchmen and women) were arrested during a ten month period between September 1793 and July 1794. Included in these numbers were, of course, the deaths of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette."

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnar...



I think we clearly have different perceptions of "common". It was "common" enough to have been documented in history and was even depicted in the art of that era. Of course, one could write a story and choose not to include certain historical facts and/or occurrences. (F. Scott Fitzgerald did exactly that by writing what many to this day deem a quintessential Jazz Age novel set in NY with no meaningful mentions of Harlem or African-Americans). However, if one does include it, that shouldn't necessarily make it "wrong". Diana Gabaldon's depiction of Claire's beating was historically accurate in the sense that some husbands of that time did punish their wives in that manner. I respect and understand that you found that scene problematic. I think that I understand why as well. However, I don't think it is fair to the author to call her choice to include it a poor writing choice. It is not her job to pander to modern notions of political correctness. Especially, not in a novel that is not set in our time.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I think we clearly have different perceptions of "common". It was "common" enough to have been documented in history and was even depicted in the art of that era. Of course, one could write a story and choose not to include certain historical facts and/or occurrences. (F. Scott Fitzgerald did exactly that by writing what many to this day deem a quintessential Jazz Age novel set in NY with no meaningful mentions of Harlem or African-Americans). However, if one does include it, that shouldn't necessarily make it "wrong". Diana Gabaldon's depiction of Claire's beating was historically accurate in the sense that some husbands of that time did punish their wives in that manner. I respect and understand that you found that scene problematic. I think that I understand why as well. However, I don't think it is fair to the author to call her choice to include it a poor writing choice. It is not her job to pander to modern notions of political correctness. Especially, not in a novel that is not set in our time."

Quick reminder : here is what I wrote in my reply to you regarding this very example :
"Forinstance, the French Revolution you're referencing. One can, indeed, write a novel whose plot is happening during the those times without having the lead characters encountering beheading and guillotines, depending on the precise time period you're dealing with (1789, 1793, 1799); the place the main action is happeing (Paris, Lyon or the countryside), and what his the social/political status of the characters involved . Cause, guess what, NOT every one in France was being guillotined, or had the power to put someone on trial, etc."

I didn't see anything in the articles you referenced that negated my earlier statement. On the contrary. Both articles talk about a precise period of time from 1793 to 1794 during which there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the guillotine. So for 1 year, during a ten years period (1789-1799), there has been mass guillotine beheadings. Yes, the estimates are very high, but that still counts for the minority of causes of death during those troubled times in France, and even more if you leave out Paris, Lyon and Bordeaux. People living in the deep countryside would sometimes only hear about what was happening without witnessing the biggest upheavels.

When I used the term "common" I meant it in the sense of something happening frequently. And in that sense, yes, during the French Revolution (which lasted for about a decade), beheading and the guillotine wasn't a common event for the majority of the population in France.

The fact that it was depicted in art and wrote a lot isn't really surprising either as it was a very dramatic event in itself. Just because something is talked a lot doesn't automatically means that it happens a lot, but rather that the people who witnessed it or heard about it were deeply impressed/affected by it. Especially when the one being guillotined at one time happened to be the King and then the Queen...

Also, bear in mind the fact that when History is written, depending on whose side you're on, some parts will be more highlighted than others : the French Revolution is the very example of this historical truth. Depending if you read François Furet or Albert Soboul, you will have a different take on the events. The anti-Jacobins have tended to emphasize the death toll (which was high during certain times) provoked by the revolutionaries, while the pro-Jacobins have worked on showing how the "white" armies were also responsible for a lot of massacres, before, during and after the revolutionary wars.

Finally, I never denied that some husbands could punish their wives by beating them the way Jamie did to Claire, for the same reason or some others. My point has always been to oppose the argument that "historical accuraccy" justify this very particular scene because the writer could have chosen another way that would have been as "historical accurate" as the one she has chosen. So what is wrong to me is the idea, defended and argued again and again here and everywhere, when it comes to this scene, History/culture at the times in itself accounts for the choice the writer made and the behaviour of the character. Cause the same History/customs of the time that are used to justify the beating can be used to explain why he did not HAVE TO beat her and could have done what the writer wanted him need to do without beating her.

So, yet again, it has nothing to do with "pandering to modern notions of political correctness" (and here I thought we had moved past this irritating non-argument...*sigh*), but about the very historical context of the story itself AND the writing choice of the author at some point regarding the evolution of the plot & the dynamics between the characters.

Maddie wrote: "Mary wrote: "Many/most of the greatest love stories have an element of redemption in them. I believe that Jamie redeemed himself in this book, but what I am interested in is those who disagree with..."
I agree Maddie, I would definitely have liked to have seen him own it a little more and Claire make him own it, when he realizes where she was trying to go that day. She dismisses it so easily and he let's it go. I mention it in the letter to Claire discussion I posted, which most people hate, lol. And I am not in love with him either the way many are, he is definitely flawed in some ways.

Roweena wrote: "She dismisses it so easily and he let's it go. I mention it in the letter to Claire discussion I posted, which most people hate, lol. And I am not in love with him either the way many are, he is definitely flawed in some ways...."

I don't think anyone hates your letter Roweena, they just don't agree with you.

As for Claire dismissing it when Jamie finally knows the truth...the incident had come and gone and they had more serious issues to be concerned about...like staying alive. Plus, they had discussed what happened at the time, and both of them have changed. They were learning to respect each other and didn't feel it was necessary to rehash what they had already put to rest. Sometimes it's best to let the past go and move forward, esp. when it is the past and has never happened again.

Jamie is flawed in many ways, which is what makes him appealing. We are all flawed and we love people inspite of their flaws. A perfect hero would be boring and unrealistic...only existing in Fairy Tales.

By the way, and I think this is true of most people, Jamie is one of my favorite heroes, just like this series is one of my favorites, but I'm not 'in love' with him...he's a 'fictional' character dreamt up by Ms Gabaldon, in a 'fictional' story that I enjoy reading. I find Jamie, Claire, and all the characters, as well the story, very entertaining...which is why I continue to read the series, and why I enjoy discussing it with others.

Sage wrote: "Roweena wrote: "She dismisses it so easily and he let's it go. I mention it in the letter to Claire discussion I posted, which most people hate, lol. And I am not in love with him either the way ma..."

I don't necessarily agree that they did not feel it necessary to rehash what had already past. I think it is more that it is just not as important as the fact that they are running from Claire's trial. Th reason I think this is because I am reading Breath of Snow and Ashes and they have a long heated discussion about this incedent then and neither of their view points have changed in the over 20 year spance since the event. Jamie still says that it was Claire's fault and Claire still says that he is "a bloody scot."

As for Jamie and the other characters having flaws, I think it is important too but what I was saying was that most of Jamie's flaws are not ones that I could move on from. I find them interesting to read about but he is not my favorite 'hero' by far. I don't think that either of us were saying that we only wanted perfect 'heros'.

I also disagree that most people are not 'in love' with Jamie. I have read many many peoples posts that say they are or that they wish they had a man like him. Just because someone is fictional doesn't mean that people don't love them. There is a difference between being in love with a real person and being in love with a fictional character but both do happen.

I say all the time that I'm completely in love with fictional Jamie. However it's not really true. It's just a saying. He is a favorite hero of mine though. But I wouldn't take him if I could. I've already got a guy I love. Jamie also just simply wouldn't fit into this century. At all. So I think when most women say they'd love a man like him or are saying they're in love with him, it's only really meant as their favorite romance hero.

I do think it wasn't necessary to rehash though. Perhaps if they had children and his ideas of discipline were going to play out with that. Except we don't really know how similar or disimilar Claire's feelings about that towards children are with his. I don't think they're the same, at all. But I think she might be a lot more lenient about it being from the decade she comes from.

But being where he did promise to never do such a thing to her again rehashing it does seem weird to me.

Although I do agree that I wish Claire hadn't forgiven things so quickly. At the same time that I wish she hadn't, I understand why she had. I just wouldn't have done that if I were in her shoes. Or at least I don't think I would have.

I think it may have already been brought up once, but there are many conversations of Jamie and Claire that we aren't privy to. And that annoys me. Maddie just mentioned how they talk about this scenario again later, but I do remember that when it was brought up Claire already knew Jamie hadn't changed his mind. Maybe she just instinctively knows this. But there are things they talk about that later they talk about having already talked about.

Like when Claire talks about how she told Jamie what the future is like. We don't really get to hear that conversation. We just get the part where her narration tells us that she told him some stuff and he can't grasp much of it. That's it. I'd love to have experienced some of her telling him these things and actually seen his response. I think the same thing might be applied to this scene. I wouldn't be surprised if they did talk about it again, at a later point. I think it would have been nice, if they did, that we got to see it.

That's one of things I don't like about these books. There is SSOOOO much detail but then some things are left out that I really wanted to experience.

Maddie wrote: "Jamie still says that it was Claire's fault and Claire still says that he is "a bloody scot."...."

And neither of them will ever change their mind because they both truly think they were/are right. But the important thing is that 20 years later, Jamie can still say he was right and Claire can call him a bloody Scot because they did reach a mutual understanding at the time and moved on.

As we grow older, we learn that life can at times be very complicated and that we need to chose our battles, forgive, and continue on. Sometimes we are surprised at what we can put behind us and at what is truly important.

Sage wrote: "s we grow older, we learn that life can at times be very complicated and that we need to chose our battles, forgive, and continue on. Sometimes we are surprised at what we can put behind us and at what is truly important. .."

Isn't that the truth!!! After 31 years of marriage, my husband and I no longer sweat the small stuff.

44 years for myself and hubby
There are some things we just don't fight about

Jeanine wrote: "44 years for myself and hubby
There are some things we just don't fight about"

Yep.

Yes, and after 46 years, if my husband or I should throw a fit about something, the response from the other is usually "do you feel better now"...because we have learned that sometimes a person just needs to let it out in order to let it go.

Telling someone you don't agree with what they've done or said does not mean you don't love them, in fact, the opposite is true, not voicing your feelings, remaining silent, or holding a grudge (as some feel Claire should have done) means you really don't care to set things straight, and accomplishes nothing.

Claire was angry with Jamie after the spanking and she told him. Jamie wasn't sorry because he truly thought his action was justified. But they did come to a mutual understanding and Jamie vowed to never raise his hand to her again. Claire was able to accept that, not because she was soft or weak, but because she listened to his reasoning and trusted him to keep his promise. Jamie made the vow because he listened to and respected Claire's opinion. What more could be accomplished?

When the subject came up later, they were able to let it go because they had already put it to rest. Jamie continuing to say he was right and Claire calling him a Bloody Scot was their way of saying 'my feelings haven't changed'.

Claire forcing Jamie to say he was sorry when he wasn't would have been living with a lie. An insincere apology is meaningless.

Well said sage

Red wrote: "Quick reminder : here is what I wrote in my reply to you regarding this very example :
"Forinstance, the French Revolution you're referencing. One can, indeed, write a novel whose plot is happening during the those times without having the lead characters encountering beheading and guillotines, depending on the precise time period you're dealing with (1789, 1793, 1799); the place the main action is happeing (Paris, Lyon or the countryside), and what his the social/political status of the characters involved . Cause, guess what, NOT every one in France was being guillotined, or had the power to put someone on trial, etc."

I didn't see anything in the articles you referenced that negated my earlier statement. On the contrary. Both articles talk about a precise period of time from 1793 to 1794 during which there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the guillotine. So for 1 year, during a ten years period (1789-1799), there has been mass guillotine beheadings. Yes, the estimates are very high, but that still counts for the minority of causes of death during those troubled times in France, and even more if you leave out Paris, Lyon and Bordeaux. People living in the deep countryside would sometimes only hear about what was happening without witnessing the biggest upheavels.


Yes, one could write such a novel as you describe set during that time period and not include it and justify that choice with a "but not all people of that time witnessed it.....but it would also be a sanitized and whitewashed novel that shies away from and doesn't depict the more gritty and disturbing aspects of that time. It might even be successful....but those stories don't always appeal to me. I've read books about "happy" slaves who were not abused by their masters and who love God above all else. I've read insipid romance books about a heroine finding love in the middle of a war with no meaningful mentions of the atrocities and hardships that war brings. To each his own, but Diana Gabaldon didn't choose to write that type of novel. I'm rather glad because the inclusion of some of the grit is what made the novel stand out to me.

Sage wrote: "And neither of them will ever change their mind because they both truly think they were/are right. But the important thing is that 20 years later, Jamie can still say he was right and Claire can call him a bloody Scot because they did reach a mutual understanding at the time and moved on.

As we grow older, we learn that life can at times be very complicated and that we need to chose our battles, forgive, and continue on. Sometimes we are surprised at what we can put behind us and at what is truly important.
"

^^^^ very well said.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Yes, one could write such a novel as you describe set during that time period and not include it and justify that choice with a "but not all people of that time witnessed it.....but it would also be a sanitized and whitewashed novel that shies away from and doesn't depict the more gritty and disturbing aspects of that time. It might even be successful....but those stories don't always appeal to me."

As I said earlier, it all depends what's the purpose/the intent of the story you are telling. Adding "violence" and so called "gritty" details just for shock value doesn't make a better story, IMHO. And you don't need to set your story in the past to add violence of all sort. Recent, contemporary history is filled nowadayswith gritty, violent details, etc.

If you are writing a story set in deep rural France in 1789 France, and there is no need, story/character/plot wise to write about beheadings or the guillotine, it doesn't mean you "shy away" from depicting "gritty and disturbing aspects of that time", or that your story is unrealistic or historically inaccurate (especially since the height of beheadings by guillotine happened 10 years later...). It just means that you chose, as a writer to focus on a very specific moment/time/place for which there is absolutely no need to depict beheadings or massacres. It's not about sanitizing or "whitewashing" history. Just because we are used to a culture of sensationalism/gritty violence doesn't mean that history is only made of sensationalistic and violence and big dramatic events.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I've read books about "happy" slaves who were not abused by their masters and who love God above all else."

The discussion I would have about an author who writes about "happy" slaves during slavery in America has nothing to do with being "historically accurate" or not (which is the point we're discussing) but rather with the author's social/racial background and their political view on slavery. And you would have to be specific. We aren't talking about mere stories here, but about romance, and about plots involving the main romantic characters. So, let's say, a "romance" between a slave and a slave master who very lawfully beats his slave mistress because she has tried to escape ('cause that was not only the "customs" and laws of the time, but that was social pressure would compel him to do even if he were opposed to do), with the beating being (framed as) "justified" (by the author and the character) and the slave "forgiving" her lover, etc. has absolutely NO appeal for me either. One could say it was the way things were at the time, yada, yada, yada...But to me it's the entire preise of the book itself that should be questionned : why try and set a romance between characters which such an imbalance of power? Just...WHY ? I know there are lots (LOTS! UGH!) of such romances (the "antebellum" genre, etc.) and I stay far away from them. Just like that book about a Jew and the SS concentration camp commander during WWII : the (very legitimate) reason it upset so many people isn't because it was devoid of gritty aspects, or it was a sanitized version of history, but because the very idea of it is just YUCK! And "historical accuracy" actually militates againg romanticizing such "relationships"...

Mochaspresso wrote: "I've read insipid romance books about a heroine finding love in the middle of a war with no meaningful mentions of the atrocities and hardships that war brings."

Were those stories "insipid" because they didn't mentionned war atrocities on every page or just because they were just badly written, on every level? I am not sure that adding grueling details is what makes good writing or good romance per se.

Mochaspresso wrote: "To each his own, but Diana Gabaldon didn't choose to write that type of novel. I'm rather glad because the inclusion of some of the grit is what made the novel stand out to me."

My OP is about one very particular scene/situation between Claire and Jamie, the rationale and writing of which I disagree with. As for the rest of the book, I found some were "useful" in the sense that it helped set the backgroung, but some other "grit" parts were "too much", too obvious IMHO : the writer was trying way too hard to tell us that this was a very very VIOLENT time, there was a lot, LOT of blood, and so Claire was very, VERY in danger of being killed at any moment. After some time, it became gratuitous to me. I understand it was effective for a lot of readers, as violence usually is. I, for one, like a more sublter kind of writing.