Outlander
discussion
*SPOILER* The beating scene and why it is just plain WRONG to try and justify it
Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "I've always felt that one of the purposes or themes in this book is the juxtaposition of the Jamie's war versus Claire's war..."Very interesting Brittain.
I think sometimes readers forget that Claire had just returned from a terrible war herself and not only has dealt with and seen many horrific things, but knows how quickly people's lives can be shattered....which may be one of the reasons she seems to be able to handle situations, like the spanking, easier then some would prefer.
Claire not only has dealt with the atrocities of WWII, she knows what is to come in Jamie's world.
Sage wrote: "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. "
I don't think that it is a matter of how long you have been married to know if something like a beating is something that you can live with. It is either something that you forgive or you don't. Yes Claire forgave him, after a time, but she never forgot about it.
As we should learn in relationships there are faults in people that we learn to live with and overcome or we must end the relationship. This is a fault that I for one would never be able to forgive no matter the explanation or the amount of time that I had been married. It felt to me that it was a very condescending comment to say that after X amount of years of marriage you learn a thing or two. In my life I didn't need to be married to know to pick my battle and figure out which faults to live with and which not to. But this is not something small like never emptying the dishwasher. Claire herself considered it abuse. Yes she forgave him but she also said that if he ever touched her again she would kill him. To me that is not a small thing that you just learn to choose your battles. The fact that she did forgive him is part of her character throughout the whole series. This is just the first time we ever see that part of her character in action.
Maddie wrote: "It felt to me that it was a very condescending comment to say that after X amount of years of marriage you learn a thing or two...."And just exactly where did I say that "after x amount of years of marriage you learn a thing or two", or that you need to be married to learn to pick your battles. You not only misunderstood what I was saying, you twisted my words.
I don't know that I could forgive a beating either, and fortunately I never had to decide, but that wasn't my point...the point was that 'Jamie and Claire' came to an understanding at the time and therefore didn't feel the need to continue discussing it in depth later because their feelings about it never changed and it never happened again.
Furthermore, when I implied Claire was choosing her battles, I was referring to the times the incident was brought up later, not when it happened.
Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "You say that this scene was used for shock value when it was actually used to drive their relationship into a conflict. Using something for shock value would be akin to having a bloody and horrific..."Hi, new commentator here. First, let me say that I have really enjoyed this discussion. And yes, I have read it in its entirety. So to those who say it should be dropped, then by all means leave the discussion yourselves and let the rest continue on.
As to the above post (which finally lured me out of lurkdom) - that is exactly what happened in Outlander, as far as I can tell. At least on Jamie's part, there has been no real development come out of the beating. Maybe for Claire there was development (She seriously developed Stockholm Syndrom, IMHO but I digress....)
As has been mentioned several times, Jamie never apologized for beating Claire - even after he learned why she ran. I'm currently reading DIA and he even 'threatens' here - or at least remarks several times about how he wishes he'd never made the vow not to beat her again, etc, etc, etc. And now I read that 20 years later - after she RETURNS to him - after he sent her away in the first place, he STILL says she deserved that beating? Show me his "development" because I'm not seeing it.
message 656:
by
Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink*
(last edited Aug 27, 2015 08:48AM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "You say that this scene was used for shock value when it was actually used to drive their relationship into a conflict. Using something for shock value would b..."I'd have to filter back through some of these discussions to find the exact passage where they move on from this incident but the point is that while Jamie wishes he could spank her in various scenes throughout the series (I'll confess, I stopped after a certain number...trying to keep Jamie sexy as an old man isn't really appealing to me) he *doesn't* where it would otherwise be accepted.
So let's put this in perspective and I'll use probably a slightly offensive analogy here since it's something I can currently relate to.
I have a dog. She isn't a good dog. She hates people and other animals and will try to bite them given the opportunity. She is absolutely terrified of them and has no way to cope appropriately so she lashes out, but she loves her people and is affectionate, smart and loyal. Now, do we write her off as a bad dog permanently and put her down because she has issues or bad tendencies as a youth or do we work to fix it? We have changed her response through training to the point where she no longer lashes out but prefers to hide which is exactly what we want. While she may still have the initial impulse, we have controlled the response.
Long story short, the same thing is basically happening with Jamie. His initial response is the same because he was 20 something years old and was brought up and still lives in a culture where it is acceptable to punish a wife but Claire changes his mind and demands his respect to the point where he resists his upbringing and learns, I think, to respect her as an equal.
TL;DR Jamie isn't a bad person, the culture in which he was raised objectifies and belittles women. Claire changes his response to her although the impulse may initially be there because of the way he was raised.
Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: Long story short, the same thing is basically happening with Jamie. His initial response is the same because he was 20 something years old and was brought up and still lives in a culture where it is acceptable to punish a wife but Claire changes his mind and demands his respect to the point where he resists his upbringing and learns, I think, to respect her as an equal.TL;DR Jamie isn't a bad person, the culture in which he was raised objectifies and belittles women. Claire changes his response to her although the impulse may initially be there because of the way he was raised. "
Oh - LOL. Okay, I get it: Jamie is a dog. (j/k!) (Though to be honest, book Jamie does act like one sometimes.) But seriously folks, while I understand what your trying to prove with your analogy, it falls flat for this reason: Jamie is not a dog. He shouldn't have to be "trained" over and over again. If he truly respected Claire - as an equal - should the initial impulse to beat her into submission still be there after 20 years? That shows an astounding lack of maturity - lack of development if you will - that he hasn't discovered better, more effective ways of solving disagreements with his wife than to automatically devolve back into the corporal punishment fix.
And personally, I believe the only reason he resists his upbringing and doesn't beat her again is because he did make the vow. Jamie does keep his word. But this was a character trait of his before he even met Claire.
I also believe the only reason he made the vow in the first place is not because he came to respect Claire as an equal but simply because he wanted back in the marriage bed with all its attendant benefits (which is, I think, what he even told her before she pulled the knife on him in the book.)
Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: Long story short, the same thing is basically happening with Jamie. His initial response is the same because he was 20 something years old and was brought up an..."Then put yourself in his shoes. A person from year 2200 comes to your house, you end up marrying them and end up having an argument with them where their response is to tell you that arguing and yelling is barbaric because it upsets people. Imagine that you can argue and solve problems with all of your friends but you aren't allowed to argue with your spouse. After all, problems were solved in Jamie's era using physical punishments and fist fights. So everybody around you is telling you to just argue with your spouse and get it over with but you know that you shouldn't.
I think Jamie has a lot more depth than you are giving him credit for. The spanking upset her and that confused him on so many levels but he still stepped back and said that he'd never do it again. And he loves his wife and is deeply attracted to her. And they are pretty much newly weds. Any man would want to get back in bed but I think the point is that despite his upbringing and all of the pressure around him, he kept his word.
Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Then put yourself in his shoes. A person from year 2200 comes to your house, you end up marrying them and end up having an argument with them where their response is to tell you that arguing and yelling is barbaric because it upsets people. Imagine that you can argue and solve problems with all of your friends but you aren't allowed to argue with your spouse. After all, problems were solved in Jamie's era using physical punishments and fist fights. So everybody around you is telling you to just argue with your spouse and get it over with but you know that you shouldn't."
Okay, I'll play. If I had a spouse (regardless of what time from which he hailed) whom I loved and respected and he told me that yelling during an argument was barbaric and not the way disagreements should be solved (And btw...I will give you this - Claire never had that conversation with Jamie that we read in the book. We read all about his punishments growing up, but all we ever read from her side was how she couldn't forgive him for enjoying it. Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but that's what I seem to remember.) being the rational person that I am (and which Claire professes to be) I would ask said spouse, how disagreements should be resolved and then do my utmost best to respect (there's that word again!) their wishes and model the correct behavior. What I would not do was mention every single time we had a disagreement how I regret having vowed to not raise my voice to them ever again. That's childish. Not mature. I read many people saying Claire did the right thing by letting the beating go - getting over it. But apparently Jamie can't get over the fact that he made the vow not to beat her again.
Also, not all problems were solved in Jamie's day by physical punishments and fist fights. After all, that's not how Colum's problem with Dougal collecting money to support the Jacobite cause was solved, was it? Much is made of Jamie being a diplomat, so obviously he knows better ways to solve problems than by beating, or even wanting to beat, his wife.
I think that Jamie kept his word to not ever beat Claire again, not despite his upbringing, but because of it. Because he made the vow - whether made in a moment of weakness or not having thought it through thoroughly - he still made the vow and he had to keep his word because that's what gentlemen did back then. (As future Laird of Lollybroch he would have been taught that by his father.)
Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Then put yourself in his shoes. A person from year 2200 comes to your house, you end up marrying them and end up having an argument with them where their respo..."Jamie has his flaws and there are many. I'm not sure if getting turned on by spanking his wife is necessarily one of them. We wouldn't really vilify that tendency now but rather rope it off into a certain tendency.
You're right. Claire doesn't like that he gets turned on by it. She thinks it's demeaning and if I remember correctly, says so. We all say that we would confront people and act in certain ways if XYZ happens but it's hard to do so when it really comes down to it. I *still* have conversations (mostly with my mother who is the queen of human resources and always has another way of handling things) about how issues should be approached rationally and with a full discussion but when things actually happen, I rarely react as I should despite being rational and sound.
As far as not all problems being solved with fists, not all problems are solved now with yelling arguments so the point still stands.
The important part is that Jamie kept his word. If there was one person in the world that said I couldn't argue with them, it would bother the hell out of me but I'd still respect it. Saying "I wish I could argue with you right now" is not the same as actually doing it. That shows change, no matter how small. Jamie isn't perfect and by saying these things, to me, it means he is human. I had a grandfather that was brought up in a systematically racist system and it took years of people telling him he was wrong to change. Isn't any positive change, no matter how small, something to be celebrated, especially with supremely mule headed people as Jamie proves himself to be on several occasions?
I like Jamie as a character because he shows change but I'd probably want to smack him as a person. He's stubborn and kind of a jerk but I can respect him for protecting his sister, his wife, his land, and his country.
Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "We all say that we would confront people and act in certain ways if XYZ happens but it's hard to do so when it really comes down to it."True, and I meant to make that caveat in my last post. I also have friends (one in particular) who I use as a sounding board to work out problems before I actually confront them. But having done that, I usually do act in the manner which I have decided best.
The important part is that Jamie kept his word.
Is it? I'm not sure I agree. After all, the original statement to which I first responded was this: "Using something for shock value would be akin to having a bloody and horrific death right in front of the main character without having any real development come out of it." (and I apologize if it was not clear in my first post to what I was actually replying. Took me a while to get the hang of replying on this board.)
Yes, Jamie kept his word. Again, my belief is that he kept his word because that's what he was raised to do NOT because of any special respect for Claire. If that is correct, then there was no real development for Jamie to come out of the beating his wife incident.
If there was one person in the world that said I couldn't argue with them, it would bother the hell out of me but I'd still respect it. Saying "I wish I could argue with you right now" is not the same as actually doing it.
And I don't think that carries the same weight as saying "I wish I could beat the hell out of you right now."
Isn't any positive change, no matter how small, something to be celebrated, especially with supremely mule headed people as Jamie proves himself to be on several occasions?
Again, I'm just not seeing this change.
He's stubborn and kind of a jerk
Well there's something at least upon which we can agree. :) First time I read the book - and let me preface this by explaining that I came to the book through the television show - I thought that Jamie was a complete jerk. If not for the actor's portrayal on TV, and my own morbid curiosity, I probably wouldn't have finished the book. And that was before I got to the beating. I've reread most of it several times, and am currently working on a more thorough reading of the second book after having skimmed it through. I keep hoping I'll see this change and development in Jamie that others obviously see. But so far I haven't.
Also, every time (so far) he has mentioned regret for the vow in the second book (and I'm only a third of the way through the book and he's said it at least 3 times) let's keep in mind that this is AFTER Claire stayed with him. When he KNEW she could go back through the stones to a husband who did not beat her - and probably would never think of beating her. This is also AFTER all she did for him at the abbey. And he STILL says that to her whenever he gets mad? To me that shows an inexplicable lack of respect. No development there.
Plus, SPOILER....(view spoiler) So far, I just haven't seen this change of which you speak.
Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "We all say that we would confront people and act in certain ways if XYZ happens but it's hard to do so when it really comes down to it."True, and I meant to ..."
I saw it in the later books more, personally. And to be honest, it's been a few years since I've read the book so I'm sure I'm approaching it differently and forgetting stuff.
Jamie is an idiot some of the time but he is still pretty young and has been confronted with a strong older independent woman. He's going to make mistakes (big ones obviously) and those things take a long time to get over.
We're really not going to agree here but I completely respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine. I like that the author has written about such a flawed character and she didn't go down the road of Highland hunk that is perfect and wonderful when it could have been easy to do so. It's still a historical romance in many ways and I thought it was done well for the most part. The fact that we are sitting here discussing this means that, in some part, it was a successful novel.
Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "I saw it in the later books more, personally.Well, not sure I'll make to the later books to be honest with you. :) We'll see.
Jamie is an idiot some of the time but he is still pretty young and has been confronted with a strong older independent woman.
I see Jamie's age and fact that Claire is an "older" woman used quite a bit to either explain or justify behavior. I don't buy either argument.
He's 22 or 23 in the first book. That's as old as college graduates who go into the work force now, get jobs and act like responsible adults. Some even marry at that age now. I think many women using his relatively young age are now older (Just a theory! I could be wrong!) and they are looking back on their youth/lives. However, I'd bet when they were 22 or 23, they would have thought they were pretty darn mature and would have expected the same age men with whom they came in contact to act mature also.
Also, let's keep in mind that the average life expectancy was a lower then and Jamie's own experiences would have/should have made him mature much more than a contemporary 22 or 23 year old male now. (Having said that, I disagree with myself. If we were to look at a 22 or 23 year old Afghanistan veteran wounded in combat, I'd be willing to bet that young man would be very mature.)
Having said all that - as we all know, attaining a certain age does not mean one never makes mistakes.
As for Claire being an "older" woman - yes, but not by much! 5 years, isn't it? 5 years is nothing. Maybe if he was 16 and she was 21, I would buy that it should be a big deal. But it shouldn't be a big deal at this point in the first book and it really shouldn't later on when they are both much older. If we are going to excuse Jamie's bad behavior because of his tender age, shouldn't we do the same for Claire? 27 ain't that old at all. I've known women in their 30's who still acted like they were 20 something.
We're really not going to agree here but I completely respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine.
Thank you for this wonderful exchange! I do respect your opinion. If I didn't, I would not reply to you at all.
I keep reading this board, and others, still trying to come to grips with this scene myself, I guess. I've read where other people have said (may have been in this discussion, may have been elsewhere) that although they didn't like the beating and disagreed with it, they just overlooked it so they could get past it. For whatever reason, I can't quite do that. And yet, I think I want to see what other readers like you like so much about this character.
Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "I saw it in the later books more, personally.Well, not sure I'll make to the later books to be honest with you. :) We'll see.
Jamie is an idiot some of t..."
I never made it to the later books. I stopped when Jamie is supposed to be a sexy old man. But I rarely finish series so I have no idea how this one ended up.
Thank you so much for this awesome discussion! Debates like this can so often turn to name calling and dismissive behavior and I'm so happy this one didn't. High five for us. :-D
Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "I saw it in the later books more, personally.Well, not sure I'll make to the later books to be honest with you. :) We'll see.
Jamie is an idiot some of t..."
Kudos to you Kat for reading this whole thread. That's quite an undertaking lol. I'm not sure if I could have done it.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Kudos to you Kat for reading this whole thread. That's quite an undertaking lol. I'm not sure if I could have done it. "Yes well, just don't ask me what all has been said or not! Lol!
I personally think saying Jamie is young is a cop out. Saying he's new to marriage isn't so much though. He's looking at his own up-bringing, his parents marriage, his friends marriages and the general attitude of the people of his time. This all affects him. This would affect anyone at any age.Maybe it's just me but the hardest part about this whole scene and the way it plays out.... I guess what bothers me the most is that Jamie DOES make the promise not to do it again. The same way it bothers me that Claire got over it so quickly, it bothers me the same way that Jamie so willingly and quickly gave up his "right" to do this.
Let me try to explain. With his back ground and the way he feels about disciplining children and wives, I just find it a tad far fetched. From his perspective here, he's got a well known hot headed, opinionated and disobedient wife. She also, from his perspective appears to lack common sense. So all this combined makes me feel his promise to never do such a thing came a little too quickly. If I were him, I'd have never made such a promise.
In his shoes, with his outlook I'd be thinking "wow, I've got something here that she really hates, maybe this will make her not act so stupid" lol.
This attitude might make me seem a little too, I don't know accepting (?) of the whole thing....
A lot of people in this thread continue to call it a spanking and by definition it is. I choose to keep the word beating because that's the word used in the book. But to me, it is a spanking. It's a naughty child's punishment. To me, he wasn't "beating" his wife. Claire later brings up that if a man did that to his wife in her time he'd be likened to a man who beats his wife with his fists. He can't reconcile the two things and is actually quite appalled by the idea. He would never actually beat Claire or a woman that way.
I'm not bothered that Jamie may have regretted making the promise to Claire never to do that again or that he may have only never done it because he had to keep his word. I don't think he really did regret it though. I can't recall those exact times Kat is referring to when he brings it up but I do remember when I was reading it through that it felt like a hollow complaint.
Jamie does grow to respect Claire. It may not be as clear when we hear him grumbling over his regret about not being able to beat her lol. But there are many times through out the series that Claire makes decisions without him and numerous times goes against what his wishes are. In a time when women deferred practically everything to their husbands as the head of the house, Claire does have a partnership with Jamie rather than the general archaic marriage.
Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "We all say that we would confront people and act in certain ways if XYZ happens but it's hard to do so when it really comes down to it."True, and I meant to ..."
Responding to comment # 678
I think you might be getting a few scenes confused or something? Jamie doesn't say he wouldn't beat a pregnant woman.
From the book:
(view spoiler)
But this one is actually an example of what I mean about his complaint sounding hollow. He's laughing and exasperated. I can't take his complaint serious.
Mrsbooks wrote: "I personally think saying Jamie is young is a cop out. Saying he's new to marriage isn't so much though. He's looking at his own up-bringing, his parents marriage, his friends marriages and the general attitude of the people of his time. This all affects him. This would affect anyone at any age.Maybe it's just me but the hardest part about this whole scene and the way it plays out.... I guess what bothers me the most is that Jamie DOES make the promise not to do it again. The same way it bothers me that Claire got over it so quickly, it bothers me the same way that Jamie so willingly and quickly gave up his "right" to do this.
Okay, I can agree with the new to marriage thing. And I understand what you are saying about how quickly Jamie gave up his right to beat Claire. To be honest, I never thought about it from that perspective. And this is a man who just a few hours (? - how long were they walking all night?) ago was laughing at his wife at her indignity over the situation.
I also have a problem with how quickly Claire got over it. Still shaking my head...
I don't have a problem that he made the vow eventually though. That's probably the only thing (other than an apology, which we never got) that kept me reading at all.
In his shoes, with his outlook I'd be thinking "wow, I've got something here that she really hates, maybe this will make her not act so stupid" lol.
Oh, leverage! Lol! That's mean. I like it! :D
A lot of people in this thread continue to call it a spanking and by definition it is.
I disagree. It was a beating. As you said, that's the word used in the book. That's the description given by both Jamie and Claire: repeatedly. I was spanked as a child. Once or twice with a belt. (I had to go get the belt - dreading it was worse than the actual spanking.) And those were spankings. To me the difference is in the result. Claire had bruises on her buttocks that lasted DAYS. She couldn't sit for at least two days after. That is NOT a spanking. That is a beating. I never could not sit for days after a spanking - and they hurt plenty at the time. I also never had bruises that lasted days after.
Think about it this way: many parents still use corporal punishment today. And that's okay. It's legal. What's not legal is leaving bruises on your child. If a teacher were to see that in school, they would be calling the appropriate agency.
Calling it a spanking does make it a child's punishment. It also diminishes the severity of what actually happened and does disservice to what Claire actually suffered.
For the record, if it had actually been a spanking and not a beating, I still think that would have been incredibly demeaning and disrespectful of Jamie toward his wife.
I can't recall those exact times Kat is referring to when he brings it up but I do remember when I was reading it through that it felt like a hollow complaint.
This might be the same problem I have reading where I don't see the humor that other readers see. (I don't mean your problem, I mean mine.) I must be reading it differently.
Mrsbooks wrote: "I think you might be getting a few scenes confused or something? Jamie doesn't say he wouldn't beat a pregnant woman."
That was in DIA. And I can't remember exactly when - they were in Paris (view spoiler)
Mrsbooks wrote: "I'm not bothered that Jamie may have regretted making the promise to Claire never to do that again or that he may have only never done it because he had to keep his word. I don't think he really did regret it though. I can't recall those exact times Kat is referring to when he brings it up but I do remember when I was reading it through that it felt like a hollow complaint...."I only vaguely recall him saying that in later books, but if I remember correctly, I took it as "humor" when he was exasperated with Claire, not a serious stance. I only read the 2nd book once or twice and it was a number of years ago, so I don't recall as much about DIA.
Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I personally think saying Jamie is young is a cop out. Saying he's new to marriage isn't so much though. He's looking at his own up-bringing, his parents marriage, his friends marr..."I don't have a problem with him making the vow either and I'm glad I did. But when I put myself in his shoes at this time it feels SSOOO far fetched to me.
So this is what I get for reading everything quickly and not writing everything I meant to lol.
I keep with the word beating because as I already mentioned, that's the word used in the book. However it's used in the book because "the word "spanking" isn't a customary term in Scots dialect, which is why he doesn't use it. "Skelp" means to fetch someone a blow, and covers everything _from_ minor spanking to a clout upside the head. A "beating" in the accepted meaning of the times could likewise cover everything from boxing a kid's ears to breaking somebody's head with a club--but certainly encompasses taking a belt to one's wife's bottom.)" - Quote from DG found here: http://forums.compuserve.com/discussi...
(Speaking of said link, Diana discusses Jamie making this vow so quickly on that thread. While I see where she's coming from I still can't see it really happening.)
Claire wouldn't have used a term he didn't understand either.
I don't recall Claire having bruises? I'd have to re read it. From what I recall she was sore and didn't want to sit down for the day. And then her butt was sore the next day riding in the saddle. I do agree with you that this is beyond what we feel is a typical spanking regardless if an instrument is used. But do I think it was beyond what could have constituted as a spanking in Jamie's time? I can't say either way. But by the stories Jamie was telling Claire about his upbringing it seemed like this would have been common for him if not other children. I don't think Jamie would have carried it as far if Claire had have submitted (like he assumed she would) but I guess that's kind of moot.
I get stuck in a perspective sometimes. I was trying to look at things from Jamie's perspective so I could explain what bothered me about him making the vow to never beat her again but I never quite left his head lol. Do you know what I mean? So while I do agree that this punishment went beyond what we today feel is a spanking, I don't think it necessarily was to Jamie.
Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I think you might be getting a few scenes confused or something? Jamie doesn't say he wouldn't beat a pregnant woman."
That was in DIA. And I can't remember exactly when - they ..."
Thanks! I barely remember that!
Mrsbooks wrote: "I don't have a problem with him making the vow either and I'm glad I did. But when I put myself in his shoes at this time it feels SSOOO far fetched to me.Yeah, a lot of it is far-fetched to me. (cough) Waterhorse? (cough) ;)
Like I said, I never thought about that from his point of view, so thanks for pointing that out!
"I keep with the word beating because as I already mentioned, that's the word used in the book. However it's used in the book because "the word "spanking" isn't a customary term in Scots dialect, which is why he doesn't use it. "
I've heard (read) that explanation before. I just don't agree with it. See my previous post for my reasons for calling a beating a beating. Jamie also doesn't call it a skelping or a thrashing. He calls it a beating. Because that's what it was.
"Claire wouldn't have used a term he didn't understand either."
Pfft. You mean like "sadist" and "f'ing"?
"But I don't think Claire did have bruises?"
She did. And they talk about them after they get back to Leoch. When he apologizes for the bruises on her arms from shaking her too hard at the river but says she deserved the bruises on her bottom and he won't apologize for those.
"But do I think it was beyond what could have constituted as a spanking in Jamie's time? I can't say either way. But by the stories Jamie was telling Claire about his upbringing it seemed like this would have been common for him if not other children. I don't think Jamie would have carried it as far if Claire had have submitted (like he assumed she would) but I guess that's kind of moot."
That is a good point about the stories he told Claire about his father beating him. And yes, I agree that it wouldn't have been so severe if she'd submitted like he wanted her to. In fact, he said as much. However, the fact that he made it even worse because she didn't submit, in some way bothers me even more. He had to be extra cruel to get his point across? He couldn't reign in his temper?
Like I said I was spanked as a child. And no matter how much I squirmed and wriggled (and even hid beforehand a couple times trying to avoid the inevitable) my father didn't make it worse because I didn't properly submit.
What that reminds me of is my older brother when we were younger. He's several years older than me, and much bigger/stronger. He would hit me joking around and it would HURT. He didn't realize how hard he was hitting.
If that were the case with Jamie though, I would have expected him to apologize if not for the beating itself, which he still would have felt she deserved at that point, then at least for the severity of it. (I'm sorry, I got carried away...didn't mean to hit you that hard...etc. Something to that effect.) But he didn't even apologize for that.
Mrsbooks wrote: "That was in DIA. And I can't remember exactly when - they ..."Thanks! I barely remember that! "
Well, I recently read it, so it's kind of fresh on my mind. It also struck me as hypocritical, given that, as I said, Jamie didn't know that she wasn't pregnant when he did beat her.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Quote from DG found here"Re; the quote from DG. She also says this about Jamie: "Jamie (sic) model of marriage probably doesn't include spanking... He has no particular notion that husbands _ought_ to beat their wives; this is a singular and urgent contingency that's arisen, not a pattern of behavior that he's enacting."
Okay, I can get the singular and urgent contingency - maybe. I still think it's because he was just really really mad and upset and didn't deal with it well. I also (view spoiler) So I get that maybe he didn't have a choice in the matter but to "do his duty" as was put to him. That being said, The Exile was written AFTER Outlander. But maybe DG always had that in the back of her head when she wrote the scene. We just weren't privy to it as the point of view is all Claire's.
However, as I previously wrote, I don't think the "singular and urgent contingency" excuses the severity of the beating at all. In fact, if Jamie's model of marriage did not include beating one's wife, and he has no notion that husbands _ought_ to, then the severity is all the more inexplicable.
Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Quote from DG found here"Re; the quote from DG. She also says this about Jamie: "Jamie (sic) model of marriage probably doesn't include spanking... He has no particular notion ..."
"Claire wouldn't have used a term he didn't understand either."
Pfft. You mean like "sadist" and "f'ing"?
I had to comment on this part before I get into the rest because I thought it was marvelous and I burst out laughing when I read it lol. But in all seriousness, I don't think Claire would have used the word spanking (I don't think she viewed it as one anyways) even if she really had viewed it as that. Claire says those other words in anger and she's not about to "downplay" her beating by calling it a spanking especially when he doesn't understand the word.
Ok, moving on to the other comment.
DG said that Jamie doesn't have a particular notion that husbands ought to beat their wives and I agree with that. But where this is a clan issue as well, it complicates things. Jamie is a product of his time in that he knows it's his responsibility to deal with his wife. Had this been between the two of them alone, I'm curious to know what would have happened but we never will know. But knowing how Jamie's own up bringing was like and how he explained how the clan would have beat Leghair (I can't remember how to spell her name right) the same way, it stands to reason to me, that this is how he would process how to deal with the situation.
I think Jamie's having no notion that husbands ought to beat their wives is also because Jamie's notion of marriage is that wives obey their husbands. The way Claire took matters into her own hands may have been something he never supposed would ever happen just simply because he assumed (by the general attitudes of the times) she would listen to him.
I mean really, what could a person's wife ever do that would be so terrible to deserve a beating? Adultery would probably be high on the list and I doubt he thought Claire would do such a thing. A situation where she disobeyed orders, causing a kidnapping, a rescue, a murder, putting many lives at risk and possibly making him more of a priority in being a wanted man probably never occurred to him lol.
Mrsbooks wrote: "I think Jamie's having no notion that husbands ought to beat their wives is also because Jamie's notion of marriage is that wives obey their husbands...."I agree Mrsbooks...Jamie was not a wife-beater. He punished Claire because he felt it was his responsibility to do so, and when he entered their room, he truly felt Claire would comply. Thing got out of hand because Claire, of course, didn't comply. Jamie did what he would have expected to be done to him, or worse, had he been the one to disobey orders.
When Jamie left Claire in the safety of the woods and threatened to take his sword belt to her if she left, he wasn't thinking she would disobey and cause all you listed above, he was trying to keep her safe. He threatened her because he thought it would reinforce his order...he didn't plan on Claire not taking him seriously. If he had, he would have left a stronger man to watch over her, not a young boy.
Kat wrote: "I also believe the only reason he made the vow in the first place is not because he came to respect Claire as an equal but simply because he wanted back in the marriage bed with all its attendant benefits (which is, I think, what he even told her before she pulled the knife on him in the book.)..."Jamie hadn't come to respect Claire at the time he made the vow, he made the vow because he respected the way she felt about what happened, his respect for Claire, and Claire's for him, grew with time. I don't know that Jamie regretted making the vow so much as he enjoyed telling Claire he regretted it when she frustrated him, as she often did.
As for wanting to get back in their marriage bed, if you knew Claire at all, you would know Jamie would have regained that right with or without the vow, because Claire enjoyed the benefits as much as Jamie did. In fact, Claire considered inviting him back to bed the night of the spanking/beating.
As for Jamie being young, only 23, he had lived on his own, been to war, survived a serious head wound, was a warrior, and had he not been a wanted man, would have been Laird of Lollybrook. Jamie lived according to way he had been raised and the time period. He didn't make decisions according to today's standards, he made them according to the life he lived.
Jamie may have made mistakes in the beginning of his and Claire's relationship, but he did love her totally and completely, and as in all good relationships both him and Claire improved with time.
Mrsbooks wrote: ""Claire wouldn't have used a term he didn't understand either."Pfft. You mean like "sadist" and "f'ing"?
I had to comment on this part before I get into the rest because I thought it was marvelous and I burst out laughing when I read it lol."
Oh good. I'm so glad you thought it was funny, because that was the way I intended it. I did worry after I clicked the "Post" button that it would come across the wrong way. I'm sure you know how hard it can be at times to convey humor or sarcasm via typed medium!
And I really think sometimes that is my 'problem' in reading DG. I just don't get the humor that she is possibly trying to convey - at least that other readers seem to find.
"But in all seriousness, I don't think Claire would have used the word spanking (I don't think she viewed it as one anyways) even if she really had viewed it as that. Claire says those other words in anger and she's not about to "downplay" her beating by calling it a spanking especially when he doesn't understand the word.
"
No, I don't think she did view it as a spanking at all. If she had, I think she would have used spanking in her narrative, (if not immediately after, somewhere down the line after she was no longer angry) but not to Jamie directly.
I mostly agree with the rest of your comment. If it had just been between the two of them, I don't think he would have beaten her at all. He says as much, so we have to trust his word.
One thing that does bother me though (since you brought it up) is that he took Laoghaire's (sp?) beating for her - not knowing her. Yes, he chose fists because he could, because he's a man (insert Tim Allen grunts). The fact remains that he took another woman's beating to spare her humiliation. But wouldn't spare his own wife such humiliation.
And before anyone starts, yes - he beat her in the relative privacy of their room instead in front of all the others. But the scene the next morning (in the book) where all the men are patting Claire's bottom - and he's letting them - just really bugs me.
Sage wrote: "I agree Mrsbooks...Jamie was not a wife-beater. He punished Claire because he felt it was his responsibility to do so, and when he entered their room, he truly felt Claire would comply. Thing got out of hand because Claire, of course, didn't comply. Jamie did what he would have expected to be done to him, or worse, had he been the one to disobey orders."Yes, yes I know all that. I've seen it written time and again. But really, if we are to believe what Jamie says about a man getting a worse punishment - I believe one listed was killed outright - do you honestly think that they would have bothered to rescue said man in the first place only to kill him for disobeying orders? That's a ludicrous argument and therefore that threat cannot be taken seriously.
"When Jamie left Claire in the safety of the woods and threatened to take his sword belt to her if she left, he wasn't thinking she would disobey and cause all you listed above, he was trying to keep her safe. He threatened her because he thought it would reinforce his order...he didn't plan on Claire not taking him seriously. If he had, he would have left a stronger man to watch over her, not a young boy."
Whoa - now are you talking book or tv show? I've been talking book. Yes, the scenarios are similar but not the same. In the book HE LEAVES HER ALONE IN THE WOODS. (Yes I typed that in all caps. I thought it was that important. Maybe I should have bolded it too? :) )
Let's revisit that. Jamie left Claire alone in the woods - where there was known to be English soldiers AND deserters about (after all, he was going to meet one) for her safety? What kind of mucked up logic is that?
Now if you're talking TV show - he never threatened to take his sword belt to her. So for him to do that, in the show, is even a greater breach of trust, imo.
I will give you this - in both (I think - I'd have to double check the book, but I'm pretty sure this is right) she did promise to stay put. And Jamie - being a man of his word - completely and correctly expected her to keep her promise.
In fact, in both cases, I'M disappointed that she didn't keep her promise. (I mean, I get she wanted to get back home - but even I don't make a promise I don't keep.)
Sage wrote: "Jamie hadn't come to respect Claire at the time he made the vow, he made the vow because he respected the way she felt about what happened, his respect for Claire, and Claire's for him, grew with time."Hm. Yes and no. I think in many ways Jamie did already respect Claire by this time. He certainly respected her skills as a healer. Whether or not he respected her as "an equal" at the time, I can't say because we don't have his perspective.
"I don't know that Jamie regretted making the vow so much as he enjoyed telling Claire he regretted it when she frustrated him, as she often did."
LOL. Okay, I can believe that.
"As for wanting to get back in their marriage bed, if you knew Claire at all, you would know Jamie would have regained that right with or without the vow, because Claire enjoyed the benefits as much as Jamie did. In fact, Claire considered inviting him back to bed the night of the spanking/beating.
Yes, but HE didn't know that.
And the only reason she considered inviting him to bed the night of the spanking was not to do her wifely duty, but because she felt sorry for him sleeping on the cold floor.
However, she had already agreed to let him back in the bed (book Claire) before the vow. But only AFTER she threatened him, so he knew where she stood on that point.
Kat wrote: Yes, but HE didn't know that. And the only reason she considered inviting him to bed the night of the spanking was not to do her wifely duty, but because she felt sorry for him sleeping on the cold floor..."
Jamie, more then anyone, knew how much Claire enjoyed the benefits of the marriage bed. And, as for Claire considering inviting him back to bed because she felt sorry for him, that's true, but she also knew if he returned to their bed what may result, and I doubt she would have refused.
In the book HE LEAVES HER ALONE IN THE WOODS.
You're correct, he did leave her alone in the book, which, IMO, further proves he expected her to obey him and stay put. As for her safety, Jamie had 2 choices and he felt Claire was safer there alone in copse then in town with him and his men where she would have certainly stood out and there would be a greater chance of running into Randall's men, who would possibly have orders to take her by force...which they obviously did because when they found her at the creek, they knew Randall wanted her.
As for details that are important, almost every detail/event in this series is important, if not at the time, then later.
But really, if we are to believe what Jamie says about a man getting a worse punishment - I believe one listed was killed outright - do you honestly think that they would have bothered to rescue said man in the first place only to kill him
Jamie was talking about the punishment the men would receive for 'disobeying' orders...he never said they would rescue one of the men and then kill him themselves. Depending on what the man did, they would punish him accordingly.
I agree, Claire was wrong to agree to a promise she had no intention of keeping...just as I agree Jamie was wrong to beat her for disobeying. But in both instances I understand why they did what they did. I guess that's why I don't understand the negativity and dramatic reactions.
I feel both Jamie and Claire did what they thought was right, and even though they reached an understanding and moved on, neither of them were ever going to change their minds or say they were wrong when they didn't think they were. Saying you're sorry when you really aren't, just to make someone else happy, is not honorable either.
Kat wrote: "One thing that does bother me though (since you brought it up) is that he took Laoghaire's (sp?) beating for her - not knowing her. Yes, he chose fists because he could, because he's a man (insert Tim Allen grunts). The fact remains that he took another woman's beating to spare her humiliation. But wouldn't spare his own wife such humiliation. ..."Jamie did know Loaghaire, in fact, they had know each other since she was a little girl and he was 16.
Jamie took the beating for Loaghaire because she would have been 'publicly' humiliated at court. He didn't want her, a young girl who he obviously found attractive, to be humiliated like he was at her age.
Jamie spanked/beat Claire privately to spare her from being 'publicly' punished, or banned from the clan, by Dougal. Jamie knew Dougal and his men would know whether or not he punished her because they were downstairs waiting and listening.
As for the spanking/beating controversy...Jamie meant to 'tan Claire's bare arse' or 'warm her bun', a spanking that turned into a beating because she resisted, as he promised it would. I'm not saying Jamie was right, I'm just clarifying what I think Jamie intended as opposed to what happened, and that even though the word 'spanking' was not in his vocabulary, it was his original intention, as well as Dougal's.
Kat wrote: "But the scene the next morning (in the book) where all the men are patting Claire's bottom - and he's letting them - just really bugs me...."What do you think Jamie should have done? This was their way of letting Jamie and Claire know they were satisfied, and the less said, the better. Barbaric perhaps, but then they were barbaric people.
By the same token, they padded her saddle with blankets and stopped riding when she requested.
Sage wrote: "Jamie, more then anyone, knew how much Claire enjoyed the benefits of the marriage bed. And, as for Claire considering inviting him back to bed because she felt sorry for him, that's true, but she also knew if he returned to their bed what may result, and I doubt she would have refused."Please, Jamie had been a virgin until he got married. Now, yes, he seems like quite the quick study. But to say he knew more than anyone...he wasn't that much of an expert on female sexual response.
As for what may or may not have happened had Claire invited him to bed that night, that is certainly your take on it. But it is in no way in evidence based on the narrative. As such, it is just as valid for me to suppose that she would have let him sleep on the bed and nothing else! We will never know as it wasn't written that way. It's a moot point. What we do have to go on though is the fact that the next day, when they went up to rest, she shut the door in his face. Ah...see? She still wasn't ready to start enjoying the benefits of the marriage bed again. So that's twice she shut him out. Hence, his eagerness on the way back to Leoch to make up with her.
"You're correct, he did leave her alone in the book, which, IMO, further proves he expected her to obey him and stay put. As for her safety, Jamie had 2 choices and he felt Claire was safer there alone in copse then in town with him and his men where she would have certainly stood out and there would be a greater chance of running into Randall's men, who would possibly have orders to take her by force...which they obviously did because when they found her at the creek, they knew Randall wanted her."
I'm about to go into a full scale rant, so you might not want to read this part.
I agree that Jamie expected Claire to obey his order.
But you cannot - no way, uh-uh, not happening in a million years - convince me that Jamie left her alone in the woods because that was the best for her own safety? And those were his only two options? Leave her alone or take her with him? Really? REALLY? If that's true, that does not explain why, in the book, Jamie changed his mind and sent someone back to stay with her. There's your third option right there.
Now let's examine this logically: Jamie was a soldier, yes? And a mighty good one from what we've been told. He knows there are known to be English soldiers in the area. This being 1745 - and way before the internet, he had no way of knowing where the English patrols were going to be that day. So you want me to believe that Jamie just assumed that Claire would not be found in some random copse, just because it was all clear when he left her - and he meant to be gone all day if you recall. That sounds pretty darn stupid to me. And Jamie is not supposed to be stupid. Add in on top of that, that, as you pointed out, Claire was wanted by the English. So now he's leaving his wife - who most of the men still don't entirely trust and probably think still maybe a spy - and is wanted by the English even if she is not a spy - BY HERSELF to potentially by found by English soldiers. Or random wandering deserters as had already happened.
And really, that he left her by herself after the run in with the deserters makes even less sense. This wife of his, whom we later find out that he loved since he first met her, who was as "precious to" him (his words) as his mother's pearls. THIS is the woman he's leaving ALONE and defenseless. Because his ONLY other choice was to take her with him and that was too dangerous. Right. I'm not buying that.
How many were in the rent party? Claire was the only woman, from what I understand. On the show it looked like at least a dozen, maybe two. I can't remember if it said in the book. But even if there were only one dozen men, they ALL had to accompany Jamie (who was an experienced and very good warrior) to watch his back while they left one woman, who barely knew how to use a knife to defend herself, alone in the woods?
And do you honestly think that makes perfect sense? Cause I don't. You cannot justify that. Tell you what. If you don't believe me, ask someone in the military now if that's what they would do in hostile territory. I know what the answer would be. There'd be at least one man, if not two, left behind to guard Claire.
No, it's fairly obvious to me (and it should be to others at this point), that THIS is the real weak point of the plot in the whole beating scene. Even if you agree that Jamie had to beat Claire for disobeying him, yada yada yada - He. left. her. alone. in. the. woods. For those who like to tout the "historical accuracy" of the beating - tell me please how historically accurate that would be? That a woman, who is wanted by the English, and may or may not still be and English spy, is left alone in the woods while every other member of the party goes off to protect a man who can protect himself.
Still shaking my head. Let me be perfectly clear about this: IT. WOULD. NOT. HAPPEN. The best example I can give you would be modern day Middle-East. Imagine a man, his wife, and some male extended family members were traveling somewhere and the car broke down. Then ALL of the men walk off down the road to get gas or help or what ever, and leave the woman alone in the car on the side of the road, which although deserted the moment, does get some traffic every now and again. It. Would. Not. Happen. At least - AT LEAST - one man would stay with her. A woman would NEVER be left by herself.
And yes, I know this is 18th century Scotland and not the Middle East, but you have to admit that the attitudes and behavior toward women are much the same. My example hold true.
But back to our story: Oh, and then the man came back to check on her. How convenient. Yes, because Jamie had to find out somehow that she'd been taken by the redcoats, right? Otherwise, he wouldn't have know what would have happened to her.
Now this is another really weak plot point. I can't remember exactly from the book, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. When did the McKenzie man get back to Claire? She'd wandered off a good way, in the book, before the English found her and took her. So I'm thinking when the man got back to the copse, she wasn't there and he had to go looking for her in order to determine that the English had her, right?
But how did he know that she LEFT? Couldn't it have been that the English came upon her, she ran from them, and then they caught her? Yes, I know that's not what happened. My point is that Jamie and the rest didn't know that's not the way it happened either.
Like I said, the set up - leaving Claire alone in the woods was a terribly weak set up. It's pretty obvious that the author had already decided that she wanted Claire to get beaten - (don't know why, maybe it's a fetish of hers) - ah but how to go about it? Oh, well, she'd have to disobey orders. But she couldn't very well disobey orders if there'd been a man or two watching her, could she? (Using Willie in the tv show was a case of the weakest link. Now, don't get me wrong. I like Willie. I really like Willie. If I was younger and it was all real, I'd totally marry Willie. In fact, since Jamie doesn't want the job and Dougal is an unreliable jerk, I say Willie for Laird! I'll make the posters...) So she had to be left alone. (as previously stated, would never happen. Historical accuracy and all...) But wait! If Claire's left alone and taken by the English how will Jamie find out? Oh, well then, he must have a sudden rush of conscientiousness and send a man back to guard his precious wife, who he thought would be fine and dandy all by herself (because that's how much he loves her and was worried about her safety that he left her there alone.)
Okay, rant over. Whew! If anyone made it all the way through - Bless your heart! But don't bother trying to make me change my mind or defend Jamie for leaving Claire alone in the woods, because you won't change my mind and there is no logical reasoning for it.
Sage wrote: "Jamie did know Loaghaire, in fact, they had know each other since she was a little girl and he was 16.I believe he also tells Laoghaire that he didn't remember her. And I thought (now I could be wrong about this) that Claire asked Jamie afterward if he knew her and he said no.
"As for the spanking/beating controversy...Jamie meant to 'tan Claire's bare arse' or 'warm her bun',
By all means you can say what you think Jamie meant to do. But you don't know that for certain. It is not in evidence in the narrative, and that it all by which we can judge. I could just as well say Jamie meant to hurt Claire as much as he did because he was angry and wanted revenge. And you can't prove me wrong.
Sage wrote: "Kat wrote: "But the scene the next morning (in the book) where all the men are patting Claire's bottom - and he's letting them - just really bugs me...."What do you think Jamie should have done?..."
Gee, I don't know. I'm pretty sure he could have muttered something in Gaelic without causing a big confrontation that would have gotten the point across to keep your filthy stinking hands off my wife... And I think the men would have respected that. (after all, in their view, she was his property, was she not?) But he didn't.
No, that wasn't their way to letting Claire know they were satisfied with the punishment per se, unless you mean satisfied that she got put in her place by her husband. That (patting her bottom) was another way of putting her in her place - this time by the rest of them.
If the less said the better, why did they keep bringing it up and patting her bottom? Oh, that's right. The less said by CLAIRE the better. Because, after all, she's just a woman who should only speak when spoken to.
Good grief Kat - You're right...I don't know for certain, it's only my opinion (I believe I mentioned that somewhere in my comment), but then it's also only your opinion because you don't know for certain either.It's nice to discuss things and see other people's opinions, but when someone needs to go into a rant and say 'you might not want to read this' then it's time to draw a line. No discussion, esp. one about a fictional story and people and events that don't exist, is worth getting so emotionally involved that you can't accept that someone feels differently then you.
By the way, I ignored you 'warning' and did read your rant and I still feel the same way I did. Sorry.
Kat wrote: "By all means you can say what you think Jamie meant to do. But you don't know that for certain. It is not in evidence in the narrative, and that it all by which we can judge. I could just as well say Jamie meant to hurt Claire as much as he did because he was angry and wanted revenge. And you can't prove me wrong....""I'm going to punish ye for it, Claire. Ye'll recall what I told ye when I left ye this morning?" [what he told her that morning was "If you leave that copse before I come for ye, I'll tan your bare arse wi' my sword belt."] Thus he continues "Ye know quite well what I mean, kneel down by the bed and lift your skirts."
I believe that means he intended to 'tan her arse'.
Sage wrote: "Good grief Kat - You're right...I don't know for certain, it's only my opinion, but then it's also only your opinion because you don't know for certain either.Yes, and I believe I did make that qualifier. :)
Because we all have opinions - and we are all entitled to our opinions, that's why I tried to keep my responses based in fact. (Or the facts as presented by the narrative as the case may be.)
Now I am perfectly willing to entertain ideas and opinions as to why a certain character acted the way they did as long as they are qualified as opinions and not presented as fact. I have tried to do that in all my responses. At least I hope that I have. If I have not, then I apologize for that and will endeavor to do better in that regard the future.
It's nice to discuss things and see other people's opinions, but when someone needs to go into a rant and say 'you might not want to read this' then it's time to draw a line. No discussion, esp. one about a fictional story and people and events that don't exist, is worth getting so emotionally involved that you can't accept that someone feels differently then you.
By the way, I ignored you 'warning' and did read your rant and I still feel the same way I did. Sorry.
Hey don't be sorry. And for the record, I never said I couldn't accept the fact that someone might feel differently than me. I said that no one could make me feel differently about that particular scenario.
There is a difference.
And at least I gave fair warning about the rant. ;)
For what it's worth, I do respect that you have a difference of opinion. As I wrote to another commentator earlier, if I did not respect your opinion I would not reply to you at all. I just don't agree with it.
Thank you for the discussion! I really have enjoyed it.
Sage wrote: ""I'm going to punish ye for it, Claire. Ye'll recall what I told ye when I left ye this morning?" [what he told her that morning was "If you leave that copse before I come for ye, I'll tan your bare arse wi' my sword belt."] Thus he continues "Ye know quite well what I mean, kneel down by the bed and lift your skirts." I believe that means he entended to 'tan her arse'. "
Ah! Lol! You are right. I'd forgotten that he said that. Thank you for correcting me.
That being said, I hope that we can agree that "tan her arse" might have different levels of punishment to different people. That is to say, what I would consider 'tanning someone's arse' might be different than what you would consider the same. Or even mean different things to Jamie and Claire.
Personally, I think 'tan her arse' to Jamie meant a bit more than 'warm her buns'. Your opinion may differ of course.
Kat wrote: "If the less said the better, why did they keep bringing it up and patting her bottom?..."I meant the less said by Jamie and Claire the better.
Claire said (thought) herself "There was a bit more good natured chaff during the day and each of the men made some excuse to pat my rump in mock sympathy. On the whole, though, it was bearable, and I grudgingly began to consider that Jamie might have been right, though I still wanted to strangle him."
And by right, I believe she was referring to the morning when Jamie told her 'the men would chaff her a bit but it wouldn't be bad'. Jamie knew how the men would react.
Kat wrote: "Personally, I think 'tan her arse' to Jamie meant a bit more than 'warm her buns'. Your opinion may differ of course...."A dozen strokes with a sword belt would definitely 'warm ones buns'...
And you're right we all have different opinions of what Jamie intended and why. The fact remains he beat Claire and felt he was justified, and his opinion never changed. Claire felt he was wrong and her opinion never changed. But they were able to put it behind them and if you read the rest of the series you'll find that it never happens again...whether it's due to the vow, Claire's threat, or their growing respect and love, is not important, what's important is it was a one time incident that was never repeated.
Personally, I feel hitting, spanking, or any type of physical abuse in the name of punishment, discipline, or anger is a violent and unjustified choice and certainly not a solution to any problem.
Kat wrote: No, I don't think she did view it as a spanking at all. If she had, I think she would have used spanking in her narrative, (if not immediately after, somewhere down the line after she was no longer angry) but not to Jamie directly. I mostly agree with the rest of your comment. If it had just been between the two of them, I don't think he would have beaten her at all. He says as much, so we have to trust his word.
One thing that does bother me though (since you brought it up) is that he took Laoghaire's (sp?) beating for her - not knowing her. Yes, he chose fists because he could, because he's a man (insert Tim Allen grunts). The fact remains that he took another woman's beating to spare her humiliation. But wouldn't spare his own wife such humiliation.
if we are to believe what Jamie says about a man getting a worse punishment - I believe one listed was killed outright - do you honestly think that they would have bothered to rescue said man in the first place only to kill him for disobeying orders? That's a ludicrous argument and therefore that threat cannot be taken seriously. "
We actually do agree about how Claire felt about it. I think you might have misunderstood what I wrote. Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly.
I can't recall if he knew Leghair before or not but I think it's a moot point anyway. But Comparing Jamie to taking Leghair's punishment and not Claire's doesn't make sense. Leghair was being brought forth for "loose behavior" of some sort. That's not the words that were used, I can't remember exactly but she was caught messing around with some guy and I remember it didn't sound like she was caught having sex, just making out or something. Leghair's "sin" wasn't against all those men. Which is how they perceived what Claire did..... because she disobeyed an order. The biggest point about the beating was for social penance, allowing her (and him) to be redeemed and reaccepted by the group of men.
I also don't believe Jamie and his men would have rescued a man only to punish him by possibly killing him. That would be really stupid lol. But I think you're misapplying what he said. He told her "Do ye know that if a man among us had done such a thing, to put the rest in danger, he would ha' likely had his ears cropped, or been flogged, if not killed outright?"
This doesn't have to be applied to this situation exactly. It could be ANY situation where a man deliberately disobeyed an order and put the lives of the others in danger.
I do have more to say about Jamie leaving Claire in the woods but I have to do more research first to make sure my memory is reliable.
"Sage wrote: [what he told her that morning was "If you leave that copse before I come for ye, I'll tan your bare arse wi' my sword belt."]"."I've been thinking about this some more. And in light of what the author said about Jamie not having any notion that he "_ought_to beat his wife" - it seems contradictory. If Jamie had no no notion that husbands ought to beat their wives and that mode of 'punishment' was not modeled in his parent's relationship, then why make the threat in the first place? (Yes, I know he wanted to make sure she stayed put, but still...) Where would he have even gotten the idea to make such a threat? Surely, he could have made another, as effective, threat without resorting to physical violence.
Also he was going to tie her to a tree if she didn't agree to stay. (wow. What a prince! Yeah, this is one of my many "what a jerk!" moments in the book.) So why didn't he just do that instead of threatening her, especially since he was not supposed to have any notion that husbands ought to beat their wives?
And if - as has been suggested, he expected her to obey his order to stay. Then the threat should not have been needed either.
You only threaten someone with punishment for disobeying when you suspect they will disobey. And in that case, why put the temptation of disobeying within their reach? Remove it (tie her up) and be done with it.
A woman, who is wanted by the English, and may or may not still be and English spy, is left alone in the woods while every other member of the party goes off to protect a man who can protect himself. Ah, I found what I was looking for about Jamie leaving Claire in the woods.
I had thought I remember that the group of men had to split up and only some staying with Jamie. This is true.
Here is the paragraph and it tells us more than just that.
"Stay here?" I said in disbelief. "No! I'm going with you."
"You can't," said Jamie patiently, once more. "The bulk of the men will go on to Lag Cruime wi' Ned, to collect the rents as expected. Dougal and a few of the others are coming wi' me to the meeting, in case of any treachery by Horrocks. You can't be seen in the open near Lag Cruime, though; Randall's men may be about, and I wouldna put it past him to take ye by force. And as for the meeting wi' Horrocks, I've no idea what may happen. No, there's a small copse near the bend of the road--it's thick and grassy, and there's water nearby. You'll be comfortable there, until I come back for ye."
"It's safe," he said. "Ride up well into the thicket, Claire, and hide yourself and the horse. I'll be back for ye, as soon as our business is done. I canna tell how long, but surely by sunset."
"It's verra dangerous, and I'll not have ye there, Claire. I shall be busy, and if it comes to it, I can't fight and protect you at the same time."
I don't know but this makes good sense to me. Jamie only has a few men, he has no idea if the situation he's going to is a trap. If he takes Claire she could be in danger. If he leaves Claire, she could be in danger. So he weighs which is more dangerous. Leaving her in a thick copse which would hide her verses taking her with him to meet a man who has already shown he's disloyal and treacherous. To me it sounds like there is a clear winner.
I think it would be a difficult situation as well in deciding to leave someone there with her. After all, she's less likely to need someone with her as they are to need someone with them. If Jamie and his men do come across a trap and are subdued, then Claire is once again left alone and unprotected. But if the men do come across a trap, they are more likely to come out victorious by having more men in their group. That for me, would be a more difficult decision so I'm not surprised that he changes his mind and sends someone back.
When did the McKenzie man get back to Claire? She'd wandered off a good way, in the book, before the English found her and took her. But how did he know that she LEFT? Couldn't it have been that the English came upon her, she ran from them, and then they caught her? Yes, I know that's not what happened. My point is that Jamie and the rest didn't know that's not the way it happened either.
I can't find the other part I'm looking for, I probably could if I spent more time on it but didn't Claire leave her horse in the copse? I had always figured that's how they knew she left and wasn't taken. When the man they sent back finds her he sees her struggling with the English. Wouldn't the english have taken her horse too? Seems like too good a boon to leave in the forest. But that's just how my mind works. Maybe this is technically a plot flaw. Would there have been any other reason to leave her horse behind?
Sage wrote: I meant the less said by Jamie and Claire the better.Claire said (thought) herself "There was a bit more good natured chaff during the day and each of the men made some excuse to pat my rump in mock sympathy. On the whole, though, it was bearable, and I grudgingly began to consider that Jamie might have been right, though I still wanted to strangle him."
I believe the key words here are 'mock' and 'bearable'.
As in mock sympathy - not real. They weren't sorry for her. They were laughing at her. It came across as very demeaning and condescending.
It might have been bearable - but only because what other choice did she have?
Mrsbooks wrote: "Leghair's "sin" wasn't against all those men. Which is how they perceived what Claire did..... because she disobeyed an order. The biggest point about the beating was for social penance, allowing her (and him) to be redeemed and reaccepted by the group of men."Thank you for explaining that. Makes more sense in away now.
Still don't think he was right. Still think he was a big jerk through most of the book. Still would have rather taken my chances with Randall rather than marry him, if it'd been me. But then, it would have been a really short book if it'd been me, as I'd have picked up Randall's sword and stuck him with it right after Murtaugh knocked him out. haha.
I also still think a big point about the beating was social penance yes - but only Claire's. I don't think Jamie was in danger of not being accepted by the group of men. They wanted what they considered justice as they would demand whether it had been a man or woman to disobey the order, but they also especially wanted the woman put in her place.
Kat wrote: in light of what the author said about Jamie not having any notion that he "_ought_to beat his wife" - it seems contradictory. If Jamie had no no notion that husbands ought to beat their wives and that mode of 'punishment' was not modeled in his parent's relationship, then why make the threat in the first place?" Where would he have even gotten the idea to make such a threat?You only threaten someone with punishment for disobeying when you suspect they will disobey.
I agree that it does sound kind of contradictory but I think I understand it.
He made the threat in the first place because she was being obstinate and wanted to go. Corporal punishment being the general punishment of the time, it doesn't sound far fetched that's what he would threaten with. Corporal punishment is the staple punishment of the era. From nailing a kids ear lobe to a post for stealing food or having a girl's backside beaten with a belt in a room full of clan members for getting caught kissing or getting punched in the face for calling a housekeeper fat.
But I don't agree with you that a person only threatens a punishment if the suspect someone will disobey.
I don't have children but if I did I would try to have clear cut rules and punishments for disobeying those rules. If my child knows they are going to receive a particular punishment if they steal cookies from the cookie jar because I told them they would it doesn't mean I suspect they are going to disobey. Just that I'm laying out the lay of the land "in case" so they know what they're getting into if they don't listen.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Breath of Snow and Ashes (other topics)The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Books have to have something that is memorable, whether it be good or bad. The cheesy romance novels previously mentioned don't stay with us because there is no depth and nothing to remember from them other than girl loves boy in adverse conditions. I've always felt that one of the purposes or themes in this book is the juxtaposition of the Jamie's war versus Claire's war. The atrocities of WWII versus the battlefields of Scotland. That old adage is true in both senses and to remove it as far as taking out the bloody and grotesque scenes is to cheapen the book entirely. Galbadon is subtle in different ways but I think the "War is Hell" point was written to be a big point. Sort of like the fight of good vs. evil in Harry Potter.