Outlander discussion

Mrsbooks wrote: " Ah, I found what I was looking for about Jamie leaving Claire in the woods."

I'd forgotten that they split up in the books. (And maybe in the tv show as well, I don't remember.

Still, the Bulk of the men went to continue collecting rents. There wasn't one of those men - not the men who went with Jamie - who could have stayed with Claire? Pretty thin plot point.


"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."

You had me up until the last sentence. So why send a man back at all if they are more likely to need all of them in the event they are riding into a trap?

Interestingly, even Randall remarks about the fact that she was 'wandering around' the countryside alone - and that he thought even barbarians took better care of their womenfolk than that. Granted, she shouldn't have been wandering. But neither should she have been left alone.

"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? "

I found it. Your earlier comment about memory and reliable hit a close to home for me too. :)

"How did you find me?" I asked. I was beginning to shake in reaction, and folded my arms around myself to still the quivering. My clothes had dried completely by this time, but I felt a chill that went bone-deep.

"I thought better of leaving ye alone, and sent a man back to stay wi' ye. He didna see ye leave, but he saw the English soldiers cross the ford, and you wi' them."

He goes on to say that Dougal was all for leaving her with the English and he thought of it too but that the man who saw her with the soldiers said she was struggling and he had to go and see for himself.

Claire also thinks about her horse still back in the copse for whoever comes along to find. So I don't think Jamie and/or the man he sent back knew that she left the horse. If they did, wouldn't they have taken the horse? Instead, Dougal had to buy her another mount at the inn.

From what is said here by Jamie, he did not know that she left willingly. I think he just assumed that she did. (He was right, but again, he didn't KNOW that.) It was reported to him that she was struggling against the English and the man did not see her leave the copse. For all he really knew, the English (who were obviously in the vicinity as I don't think Claire got very far on foot following the stream) came upon her in the copse and she ran to get away before they caught her.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Kat wrote: You only threaten someone with punishment for disobeying when you suspect they will disobey."

But I don't agree with you that a person only threatens a punishment if the suspect someone will disobey.

But if you had a child and were opposed to corporal punishment, would you threaten to 'tan their arse?' if they disobeyed? Or would you threaten some other punishment?

If Jamie had no notion that a husband ought to beat his wife if she disobeyed why threaten with that particular punishment?

About the threatening punishment if you expect (or suspect) someone to disobey, let me try to explain better:

Claire's punishment has been likened to a soldier disobeying orders. Okay, if that's true, how many commanding officers have to threaten lower ranking soldiers with punishment as soon as an order is given? I hope it's not many or the military is in trouble! No, orders are expected to be obeyed (like some have said how Jamie expected Claire to obey him.) So when one expects an order to be obeyed, why bother with a threat? It isn't needed: your order will be obeyed.

As another example, at work, if my boss tells me to do something, he expects me to do it. There is no threat - "and if you don't do it I'll dock your pay" for example. Yes, some bosses have made such threats to employees in the past - but those are employees who have a history of not doing what their told. And therefore, there is a certain expectation that the employee might not do what their told this time also, hence the necessity of the threat to ensure a greater likelihood of compliance. Just as in the military, a soldier who has a history of dereliction of duty would be more likely to have a threat leveled at him rather than a soldier who was known to obey orders.

Claire had a history of not doing what she was told. Therefore, Jamie must have suspected (and rightly) that she might possibly disobey his order to stay put. That's why he had to threaten her: to reinforce his instructions. If he really, truly, expected her to obey his command, no questions asked, he would not have needed to threaten her.

Wow. Did I just talk myself in a circle?

So since some part of him must have suspected that she would disobey him enough to threaten her, why not tie her to the tree like he said and be done with it? Or leave someone from the rent party with her? Was it a test? Maybe so, and I could buy that. Though not a conscious test on his part. Maybe he was just naively hopeful and went against his better judgement.

Naively hopeful that Claire would obey his orders is one thing. Naively hopeful that she would be safe all by herself is something else. I can understand and sympathize with him on the first instance. Knowing that he is an experienced soldier makes the second instance all the more incomprehensible.

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: " Ah, I found what I was looking for about Jamie leaving Claire in the woods."

I'd forgotten that they split up in the books. (And maybe in the tv show as well, I don't remember. ..."

One thing that has just occurred to me is that this doesn't matter lol. It's been interesting to talk about and sort through and for a moment I was thinking "yes that is a plot flaw!" He assumed she disobeyed and didn't know for sure.

But the more I think about it the more I realize it doesn't actually matter that he left her in the woods. He may have made an a stupid and high handed assumption but he didn't beat her based upon that assumption. He beat her after she made no denials about those assumptions.

I don't believe Jamie would have beat Claire if she had told him she was caught by the English BECAUSE she obeyed his orders and stayed in the copse. And Claire would have done that. She was spitting fire mad about the whole thing. After Jamie accuses her of disobeying the order and causing the whole debacle her response is:

"It's your own fault, for ignoring me and suspecting me all the time! I told you the truth about who I am! And I told you there was no danger in my going with you, but would you listen to me? No! I'm only a woman, why should you pay any attention to what I say? Women are only fit to do as they're told, and follow orders, and sit meekly around with their hands folded, waiting for the men to come back and tell them what to do!"

Although she does have a good point she is missing the basic reality of how he could not have protected her easily if she went with him and there had have been trouble. She's blaming him because she wanted her way and didn't get it. She's ignoring that she would have been safe had she listened to him in the first place. Claire doesn't really get the situation.

You had me up until the last sentence. So why send a man back at all if they are more likely to need all of them in the event they are riding into a trap?

But that's exactly why this situation was a conundrum. Possibly damned if you do or damned if you don't. IF Jamie and his men are walking into a trap and are subdued then Claire would be alone out in the country side. That's why he sent someone back. If there were trouble, he'd need all the help he can get, true. But that's what I mean, there really isn't a right answer here. Both situations are not good.

And maybe after he left and reflected on the situation more it occurred to him how obstinate Claire really was, he may have worried she wouldn't listen and would follow him. All the more reason to send someone back.

It's probably much easier to hide in the woods from a patrol than going into town and that's probably why Jamie left her there. You can hear things moving in the woods and it's hard for people to sneak up on you, especially a large group, if you're paying attention. I've always thought that Jamie left her in the woods hoping that her common sense would give her the knowledge to scramble up a tree or hide in some brush if she heard a patrol coming. It's certainly much safer than a town where people could kidnap you easily in a crowd or cause a confrontation.

And as far as threatening soldiers go...if you have a soldier that has a tendency to not listen, you can be damn sure their CO threatens them with punishment right after giving a command. "If you don't do this you will be scrubbing the toilets with a toothbrush until I can see my face in them!" My uncle was a MP and it isn't uncommon.

Claire doesn't listen well, because she is an independent woman taking orders, but she should know when to listen and when to make a stand. She was in a war. She should know better.

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Kat wrote: You only threaten someone with punishment for disobeying when you suspect they will disobey."

But I don't agree with you that a person only threatens a punishment if th..."

But that's just the thing. Jamie isn't opposed to corporal punishment. He may not have expectations that he's going to beat his wife but that doesn't mean he isn't opposed to such a thing if the "need" is required. So why wouldn't he threaten the use of what he's already accustomed to?

If he really, truly, expected her to obey his command, no questions asked, he would not have needed to threaten her.

As you mentioned Claire has a history of NOT doing what she's told. Or at least she's shown an independent spirit. I don't think it's out of the way for Jamie to have expected that Claire would curb some of her independence once she was married. Especially given the old fashioned views of the family arrangement at the time.

But it's also clear that Claire IS different. Jamie does actually recognize this although definitely not to the degree that he does after this whole fiasco. Perhaps that is why he threatens her with that punishment before he leaves the copse?

To me it just works both ways. Jamie DOES have reason to believe she will listen. Jamie also DOES have reason to believe she won't. It could really go either way.

Leaving her alone and then sending a man back to her just seems to show he was unsure. Perhaps because he realized Claire might not listen or perhaps because he came to the conclusion if something happened to them, Claire would need someone to see her to safety. Either way works and it was more than likely a mixture of both.

Mrsbooks wrote: "But the more I think about it the more I realize it doesn't actually matter that he left her in the woods."

I disagree. It does matter. It goes to causation: one thing led to another. If he hadn't left her alone in the woods, she wouldn't have had the opportunity to run and be captured by the English.

Yes, she shouldn't have run. She should have stayed put. (As Brittain pointed out, she was in a war and she should have known better. But we also know why she didn't stay put-and that was to get back to the stones and her own time.)

That doesn't change the fact that Jamie is the more experienced of the two in this time and this war. He knew there were English soldiers about who would take her if they found her. He knew she had a history of doing what she liked. He may have expected her to curb that tendency once she was married, but I still say his threat would have been unnecessary if he was completely convinced that she would blindly obey his orders.

It does matter because the set up for the beating started here: with him leaving her alone in the woods.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "It's probably much easier to hide in the woods from a patrol than going into town and that's probably why Jamie left her there. You can hear things moving in the woods and it's hard for people to s..."

I really can't see Claire - or any woman of that time - scrambling up a tree in long skirts, petticoats, and a corset. :/ Hide, perhaps. No, maybe he would have hoped she could hop on the horse and evade any interlopers and that's why he left the horse.

But if he hoped she'd be able to do that, why threaten to tie her to a tree where she'd be completely helpless?

Thank you. You just made my point about threatening soldiers.

Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "It's probably much easier to hide in the woods from a patrol than going into town and that's probably why Jamie left her there. You can hear things moving in t..."

I was saying that Claire is indeed being treated like a petulant soldier so the comparison still stands. Disobey direct order = get in deep shit. Deep shit = spanking in this case which is a lot better than being whipped or beaten up in public.

And common sense would also dictate tearing the damn skirt. Women aren't as helpless in a dress as people seem to think. She's a modern woman and being in a short skirt while climbing a tree probably wouldn't have bothered her that much.

And the threat to tie her to the tree is the same as when my parents used to tell me when I was in timeout that they would strap my feet down if I moved. They aren't going to follow through but it gets the point across. Although it didn't to the perpetually stubborn Claire who just had to not listen.

I don't really think climbing the tree was a necessary thing anyways. By the sounds of it this copse was thick and private. Unless she made noise, I'm doubtful she would have been found. Which is why it was picked as a place to hide.

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "But the more I think about it the more I realize it doesn't actually matter that he left her in the woods."

I disagree. It does matter. It goes to causation: one thing led to ano..."

But it doesn't matter because everything would have been fine if she had have listened to orders. Sure we can say that everything happened because she was left in the woods. That's true. We can also say that everything happened because she originally went on a honeymoon in Scotland and that is also just as true. But her decision to leave the corpse is the pinnacle of everything following. That was her decision. Everything happened because of her decision.

I'm a bit confused. It sounds like you are saying Claire should not be held to the same accountability as other adults would because she has shown a tendency to independence? That this is Jamie's fault?

I'm just saying if she felt threatened, there were other options.

Sometimes I question Claire's level of common sense. I get that she wanted to go home and this was her big opportunity. But if you know that there are English patrols out and that there is a much worse fate (AKA Randall) than staying with Jamie, you should just stay put.

Kat wrote: but I still say his threat would have been unnecessary if he was completely convinced that she would blindly obey his orders. "

You may be quite right here. I don't think he thought without a shadow of a doubt she would listen to his orders. I think that might be partially why he changed his mind and sent someone back. We will probably never get Jamie's view point on this.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "I'm just saying if she felt threatened, there were other options.

Sometimes I question Claire's level of common sense. I get that she wanted to go home and this was her big opportunity. But if you..."

I don't know... I think if I were in Claire's shoes I would have ran at this point. She's been looking for an opportunity to get a way. This is the first one she's really got and it might even be her only one. It will always be dangerous for her to head out with the English patrolling but if she doesn't ever do it, she will be stuck in that century.

I'm not sure if it should be considered blindly obeying orders. She is a woman in this time period with little to no knowledge about the geography of the area or the real danger that she could put the others in. In that case, you defer to the person who does know those things.

If I was out in Alaska for the first time, I'd certainly listen to the people who knew the land instead of running off on my own where I could get eaten by a bear or wolves.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "I'm just saying if she felt threatened, there were other options.

Sometimes I question Claire's level of common sense. I get that she wanted to go home and th..."

I guess I would have been more scared of Randall than anything else. The stones aren't going anywhere, you know? But that's just me.

Mrsbooks wrote: "It sounds like you are saying Claire should not be held to the same accountability as other adults would because she has shown a tendency to independence? That this is Jamie's fault? "

I don't know to be honest with you! Lol. I'm still trying to decide that myself.

On the one hand I don't think Claire was held to the same accountability as a man, because in the end she was treated differently. (Beaten privately versus publicly.) Jamie even acknowledged later in the room before the beating (didn't he?) that he realized things were different where she came from.

On the other hand, while I'm not quite certain she should have known better (half of me says Yes she should have known better), given that she is from the 20th century and she wouldn't have been used to the inherent dangers of that time, regardless of her previous run-ins with Randall. I think she had a bit of conceit and overestimated her own abilities. And to be fair, I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same (overestimated myself, that is, not necessarily ran). However, as I previously stated, I at least think she should have kept her promise to stay put. Period.

On the other other hand, if Jamie realized things were different where she came from and not knowledgeable of their Highland ways, and he suspected she wouldn't follow orders, then yes, in a way, it is his fault. After all, he's the husband, right? Isn't the husband supposed to make all the decisions? And based on the family dynamics of the time, the husband was responsible for the wife's actions. (At least in English society at the time - women could not be tried for certain 'white collar' crimes, if memory serves and women could not serve on juries. However, I do think that Scottish law was different. But that is not what is portrayed in the book.) She had an expectation that he would protect her mainly because HE had an expectation that he would protect her. By leaving her alone in the woods, and giving her the opportunity to run when he knew she didn't want to stay there he failed in his husbandly duty to protect her (if even from herself). Therefore, judging him according to his society's rules, it is his fault as much as it is hers.

Sigh. If I had a fourth hand, I'd probably have another opinion...

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "I'm just saying if she felt threatened, there were other options.

Sometimes I question Claire's level of common sense. I get that she wanted to go home and this was her big opportunity. But if you..."

Oh yeah. I question Claire's level of common sense all the time - especially in the second book. Sheesh. I will say Outlander Book Claire didn't seem as clueless most of the time as Outlander TV Claire. I mean, really: this is supposed to be an intelligent, educated woman who survived being on the front lines of WWII. While she was not a combat soldier, she would have been subjected to many dangerous situations. And as you pointed out, she should have known better from that experience.

Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "I'm just saying if she felt threatened, there were other options.

Sometimes I question Claire's level of common sense. I get that she wanted to go home and th..."

Almost as bad as Harry Potter's common sense.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Almost as bad as Harry Potter's common sense."

ROTFL! Yeah, I'd forgotten how bad his common sense was. To be fair to him - he was an adolescent, and Claire was an adult though.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "I'm not sure if it should be considered blindly obeying orders. She is a woman in this time period with little to no knowledge about the geography of the area or the real danger that she could put ..."

That's exactly why it is blindly obeying orders. If you have no knowledge (sight) of a situation and you follow someone else's orders, you are putting absolute blind trust in that person.

If you have knowledge of a situation/time/threat and you perceive that another person knows more than you then that is not blindly following orders. You have reason to trust them. In your Alaskan analogy, regardless how little you think you know about the Alaskan wilderness, thanks to education and technology you probably know more than Claire did about 1743 Scotland and her surrounding geography and politics. You probably would have done some research (at least I would have) before going to Alaska in the first place. But Claire was with her husband Frank safe in 1945. She thought she was perfectly safe and would have had no need to research Scottish geography. And she wouldn't have had the easy internet access that we have with which to accomplish it.

Did Claire have reason to trust Jamie blindly? Yes, and no. He did help her out by marrying her. Then again, he got something out of it too. :) But he did stop her from leaving more than once. Once at the point of his sword. I wouldn't have trusted him at all after that.

I think Claire had quite a bit of knowledge about Scotland. Her husband(Frank) was a historian and his love for this time period and Scotland was what made them choose that area for their honeymoon. And she did have quite a bit of geography knowledge of the area. When Jamie told her where she was, she knew it wasn't far from the rocks. When she first entered the past and was abducted by Murtaugh she knew where the town was supposed to be even in the dark.

I don't think she had extensive knowledge by any means but I think she was pretty well off. And I think she had a pretty good idea of the attitudes of the people as well. It's just as the narration tells us though, Claire hadn't really reconciled herself to this time period, it was all so crazy it seemed dream like.

Kat wrote: On the other other hand, if Jamie realized things were different where she came from and not knowledgeable of their Highland ways, and he suspected she wouldn't follow orders, then yes, in a way, it is his fault. After all, he's the husband, right? Isn't the husband supposed to make all the decisions? And based on the family dynamics of the time, the husband was responsible for the wife's actions. (At least in English society at the time - women could not be tried for certain 'white collar' crimes, if memory serves and women could not serve on juries. However, I do think that Scottish law was different. But that is not what is portrayed in the book.) She had an expectation that he would protect her mainly because HE had an expectation that he would protect her. By leaving her alone in the woods, and giving her the opportunity to run when he knew she didn't want to stay there he failed in his husbandly duty to protect her (if even from herself). Therefore, judging him according to his society's rules, it is his fault as much as it is hers."

I actually completely agree with this! It's actually partly what I've been trying to express lol. And I believe that the men even felt this way as well, which is why the beating was part social pence for Claire AND Jamie.

The way they would have looked at it was that Claire disobeyed, but it was Jamie's responsibility as her husband to have "trained" her or just, I don't know, reasoned with her, made certain she was "in line" and not do something so "crazy" from their perspective. When she disobeyed it did look bad on Jamie because, well it was! lol

With the way the plot played out, Jamie didn't have much of a choice. Either take Claire with him or leave her there, neither very good options. So he picked one. The option wasn't bad in itself, but it was bad because his wife didn't listen to him. For a wife to deliberately go against such an order would make Jamie appear to not have control over his household.

And from a clan perspective, with all the men taking orders and there being a pecking line, it was doubly bad.

Can you imagine if Jamie refused to do this? Can you imagine how the men would have felt? There would have been very strong repercussions to both Jamie and Claire and I doubt they would have been accepted back into the clan.

Blindly obeying orders implies that she has no knowledge of the situation at all and she has no reason to trust that Jamie knows what he is talking about. She has reason to trust that Jamie knows what he is talking about so a logical informed decision would mean listening to what he says. That being said, I go back to Claire being a little bit stupid.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Kat wrote: On the other other hand, if Jamie realized things were different where she came from and not knowledgeable of their Highland ways, and he suspected she wouldn't follow orders, then yes, ..."

Adding onto that, Jamie is laird over a castle, right? So he really needs to have his household together. Otherwise, how could he lead an entire village essentially?

Mrsbooks wrote: "And I believe that the men even felt this way as well, which is why the beating was part social pence for Claire AND Jamie.

So where was Jamie's punishment then, if it was as much his fault as hers? haha! Claire got hers. Jamie got nothing - not from the clan anyway. And he should have since he obviously hadn't done his duty and trained his wife properly (and the husband was responsible for his wife's actions) and therefore put them all in danger....

The option wasn't bad in itself. Would have been better if he'd left someone with her in the first place. ;)

Can you imagine if Jamie refused to do this? Can you imagine how the men would have felt? There would have been very strong repercussions to both Jamie and Claire and I doubt they would have been accepted back into the clan.

Actually, I do believe that Jamie would have been kicked out of Leoch and off McKenzie land. (If not worse.) Not so sure about Claire though. She did have some useful skills as a healer to them, so they might have allowed her to stay, had it been Jamie who disobeyed an order and not Claire. Especially if he'd been killed outright as a consequence of his actions, since then she would be a fairly wealthy widow as Lady Brach Tuarch (sp?) and Dougal and Colum wanted control of that land.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Blindly obeying orders implies that she has no knowledge of the situation at all and she has no reason to trust that Jamie knows what he is talking about. She has reason to trust that Jamie knows w..."

Ooh but you said "logical informed decision". Yep, can't remember Claire making one of those throughout the entire book...

Which is a bit baffling to me, given her profession, that she was a combat nurse in WWII and that she's supposed to be so logical according to her own narrative. She might reason things out, but then she seems to act in the exact opposite of what logic would dictate. And yet, as others have noted, she comes across rather cold and detached at times. Weird.

Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Blindly obeying orders implies that she has no knowledge of the situation at all and she has no reason to trust that Jamie knows what he is talking about. She ..."

Her character isn't all that consistent. But somehow I always got the impression that she was trying to reason things out and then...



She's great in medical situations but kind of shitty at just about everything else.

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "And I believe that the men even felt this way as well, which is why the beating was part social pence for Claire AND Jamie.

So where was Jamie's punishment then, if it was as much..."

Well, all I can say to this is it just doesn't work that way lol. Claire is the one that disobeyed the order. Not Jamie. While Jamie didn't have the "proper control" or influence over Claire that the others would have assumed him to have, his failure is not the same as Claire's. AND he does earn their respect back BY exerting his authority over Claire via the beating. It definitely does not seem fair but obviously nothing involving beating anyone should ever really be fair.

I don't believe they would have allowed Claire to stay despite her usefulness if Jamie were alive. For one thing Jamie would have to have "allowed" her to stay. For them to keep her without his consent would have been more like kidnapping her. By the law, she belongs to him now.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Blindly obeying orders implies that she has no knowledge of the situation at all and she has no reason to trust that Jamie knows what he is talking..."

Lol. Thanks I needed that. :)

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Blindly obeying orders implies that she has no knowledge of the situation at all and she has no reason to trust that Jamie knows what he is talking..."

A tad off topic but I find the show Claire kind of annoying. I find we aren't getting enough happy scenes with her so she's always so stern. I know there are time restraints so this stops us from seeing more of her good natured side.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Well, all I can say to this is it just doesn't work that way lol.

Obviously not in the book. However, as I've said, I think (and I'd have to do way more research to verify this) legally he would be held responsible for Claire's actions.

Okay, the term I came across in my quick research is 'coverture' whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband. There is some question as to whether this actually applied in Scotland. However, I think it has been the premise of the book that it did. (Jamie makes several comments about 'owning' Claire.)

Now then, according to the rules of coverture: A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. A wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband.

I liken it to this: if a minor causes damage to someone's property, breaks a window for example - the parent's are legally responsible. They are the ones who have to make restitution to the injured party. That satisfies the social justice. Now then, it is their prerogative to punish the child accordingly.

As has been noted by some, Claire got a child's punishment. (Turned out to be more than that, but I digress.) So the "parent" (Jamie) exercised his prerogative. But the social justice system which would have held her husband responsible for her actions has not been satisfied. Therefore Jamie should have also been punished in some manner.

Yeah, I know - moot point since he wasn't. And it didn't work that way in the book at least. I'm just saying I don't think that is entirely historically accurate.

"I don't believe they would have allowed Claire to stay despite her usefulness if Jamie were alive. For one thing Jamie would have to have "allowed" her to stay. For them to keep her without his consent would have been more like kidnapping her. By the law, she belongs to him now. "

I'm not sure Jamie wouldn't have allowed Claire to stay at Leoch even if he'd been kicked out. Okay, I'm getting tv and book confused, wait a sec...

Anyway, he still had the price on his head and would have known it would have been dangerous for Claire to be on the run with him. It would have been safer at Leoch. I think he would have let her stay.

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Well, all I can say to this is it just doesn't work that way lol.

Obviously not in the book. However, as I've said, I think (and I'd have to do way more research to verify this)..."

Interesting information. I wonder what the reality is. Not saying what you posted isn't. Just that Outlander is praised for it's historical accuracy, largely due to the clan life. Of course every writer can make mistakes. But while I'm not sold that what she wrote is 100% true, I'm not sold on what information you found either.

Where are you in the books anyways? Are you enjoying them beyond your dislike of Jamie? lol

Mrsbooks wrote: "Where are you in the books anyways? Are you enjoying them beyond your dislike of Jamie? lol "

As for the law, check out: Baron and feme, a treatise of the common law concerning husbands and wives
(London, 1700). Lays it all out.

I've skimmed through the second book and presently I'm halfway through a thorough read. (But I'm also reading about three other books at once, so I only read a little DIA at a time. It's kind of a "heavy" read for me, so I can take it in small doses.)

Funny thing is, I went from first book "Jamie's a big jerk! What does she see in him?" to second book "Dang! Claire's a witch.* What does he see in her?"

(*I did not actually think witch, but a word that rhymes. :) )

Seriously feeling sorry for Jamie being married to Claire in the second book. Lol.

The writing itself is very good. A little verbose at times, but the descriptions are usually excellent. Can't speak much about the historical accuracy of the second book - I just haven't looked into it.

Don't know if I'll read beyond the second book even though I bought the first four in a set when I picked them up. I did enjoy the show, which is why I started reading the books

I've usually enjoyed reading a book upon which a movie or tv show was based. (Can't think of one off the top of my head that I didn't.) I do generally like to read the book beforehand, but some I've read after. And usually I've preferred the book to the film adaptation, no matter how much I liked the show. I like the greater amount of detail and insight into character motivations, etc. In this case, however...I think it might be better if I just stick with the show. Pity.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Where are you in the books anyways? Are you enjoying them beyond your dislike of Jamie? lol "

Have you read all of them?

I have read all,of them

Kat wrote: " "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 lig..."

For heavens sakes, when I was a child my mother would threaten 'to box my ears'...I have no idea what that means, and I doubt my mother did either, but it was an idle threat she made to make me pay attention.
Jamie threatened Claire to make her listen, unfortunately she didn't and he ended up having to be good to his word. It's apparent that in Jamie's world, disobeying resulted in having a belt taken to one's arse.

As for threatening to tie Claire to a tree if she didn't promise to do as he said, I took that as an idle threat as well, however, Jamie probably wished later he had tied her to the tree because it would have saved him a lot of aggravation.

But if you had a child and were opposed to corporal punishment, would you threaten to 'tan their arse?' if they disobeyed? Or would you threaten some other punishment?

Yes. I don't believe in corporal punishment but that didn't stop me from telling my teenage son that he wasn't so big that I couldn't take a belt to his bottom. I never would have, and he knew that, but the threat made him realize just how upset I was with his behavior. Cool calm and collective is great, but sometimes you just aren't.

...I also threaten to pull my dog's teeth out when she nips my fingers, an annoying habit she has when she wants my attention...sometimes it just makes me feel better.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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...."

I agree. Jamie said he didn't remember Loaghaire, but then he wasn't interested in having a conversation with her, he was focused on Claire and Loaghaire was annoying him...probably much as she did when he was 16 and she was a child with a crush on him.

Actually, IMO, Jamie saved them both from humiliation...Loaghaire from being spanked at Court, and Claire from being punished or banned by Dougal.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Blindly obeying orders implies that she has no knowledge of the situation at all and she has no reason to trust that Jamie knows what he is talking about. She has reason to trust that Jamie knows w..."

I agree. Claire certainly knew the danger she was in, not only was it the reason she and Jamie were married in the first place, she had met BJR and it wasn't pleasant...plus she had seen Jamie's scars.

I don't know if Claire was stupid so much as bullheaded. She showed total disregard for the situation and Jamie's orders and did what she wanted.

The punishment she received from Jamie was severe, but had he not been able to rescue her, she would have suffered far worse.

Kat wrote: "Anyway, he still had the price on his head and would have known it would have been dangerous for Claire to be on the run with him. It would have been safer at Leoch. I think he would have let her stay...."

Jamie wanted Claire with him...always. He watched over her before he married her and he knew he was her best protection..."there are two of us now".

Kat wrote: ".I've usually enjoyed reading a book upon which a movie or tv show was based. (Can't think of one off the top of my head that I didn't.) I do generally like to read the book beforehand, but some I've read after. And usually I've preferred the book to the film adaptation, no matter how much I liked the show. I like the greater amount of detail and insight into character motivations, etc. In this case, however...I think it might be better if I just stick with the show. Pity..."


The show is good, but the books are much better. The first two books are only the beginning...setting the story up so to speak.

There's a great adventure, and many interesting characters that you haven't met yet. Some will annoy you, some you will love, and others you will love to hate.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Can you imagine if Jamie refused to do this? Can you imagine how the men would have felt? There would have been very strong repercussions to both Jamie and Claire and I doubt they would have been accepted back into the clan..."

Both Jamie and Claire had felt the tension at supper and it wasn't about to get better until Jamie did what was expected of him. Not only did they expect justice, they wanted proof. Remember these are the same men who waited outside Jamie and Claire's room to make sure the marriage was consummated.

It may seem crude, barbaric, or insensitive, but the weren't choir boys, they were warriors who lived and died by their own set of rules. When Claire told Dougal "maybe Jamie doesn't want to marry me", he pointedly replied, "he's a soldier, he'll do as he's told".

Kat wrote: "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 ..."

You would rather be with perverted, sadistic, twisted Randall, then with Jamie?? I mean really...you certainly don't have to like Jamie's character, but you prefer BJR???

Mrsbooks said.."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?"

When they left the Inn to finally return home Dougal gave Claire a new horse..."Dougal, no doubt writhing at the expense, had procured another horse for me. A sound beast, if inelegantly built, with a kindly eye and a short, gristly mane; at once I named it Thirstle".

So Claire's horse was gone, whether it wandered off or the British took it, I don't remember.

Kat wrote: "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...."

Yes, they were teasing Claire, as Jamie told her they would. They didn't feel sorry for her because they felt she deserved to be punished.

Claire may have had no choice but to endure their teasing, but that doesn't mean she couldn't have found it unbearable, demeaning, or hurtful. We can only go by what Claire said and she said it was bearable.

The men may have chaffed and mocked her, but they also cared enough to find many reasons to stop so that she could dismount and walk around. "There seemed to be an unspoken conspiracy of gallantry among the men; they took turns stopping at frequent intervals..."

Kat said: "But the social justice system which would have held her husband responsible for her actions has not been satisfied. Therefore Jamie should have also been punished in some manner.

I don't believe the men were following 'socal justice', more likely they were following 'clan' justice'.

Sage wrote: "Yes. I don't believe in corporal punishment but that didn't stop me from telling my teenage son that he wasn't so big that I couldn't take a belt to his bottom.... "

I have never made a threat with which I was not prepared to follow through. I may not have liked having to follow through, but you lose complete respectability if you don't. It also saves you from looking stupid by making threats you cannot possible accomplish.

Jamie knows this. He even tells Claire, "I don't make idle threats, Sassenach," he said, raising one brow, "and I don't take frivolous vows..."

So when he threatened to tie her to a tree, it was not an idle threat.

Sage wrote: "You would rather be with perverted, sadistic, twisted Randall, then with Jamie?? I mean really...you certainly don't have to like Jamie's character, but you prefer BJR??? "

In your owns words: Oh for Heaven's Sake.

LOL! You can't possibly think that's what I meant!? Seriously?

For crying out loud....I meant: I would take my chances facing BJR's 'interrogation' (because I could have kicked his arse, and that is not conceit talking.) rather than go against my moral principles and marry Jamie if I were already married, by which, if I loved my husband as much as Claire claims to have loved Frank, I would be committing adultery.

And if I may digress for a moment: another thing that baffles me is how Claire seems to have fought Jamie much harder than she ever tried to fight back against Randall. What's up with that?

Kat wrote: "Sage wrote: "Yes. I don't believe in corporal punishment but that didn't stop me from telling my teenage son that he wasn't so big that I couldn't take a belt to his bottom.... "

I have never made..."

In no way do you lose respectability if you fail to follow through with an outrageous threat. When I was 13, my parents sat me down and made me read two passages out of the Bible. "You shall not tattoo or pierce your body." and "Parents shall not sell your daughters into prostitution." They said if I upheld the first, they'll uphold the second. Was it a joke? Absolutely. Did it get the point across? You bet it did. Was it a convenient and funny out when all of my friends at camp were trying to get me to pierce my ears in the woods with a safety pin? Damn straight. Do I still respect my parents? Yes.

Sometimes parents/spouses do things to drive a point home. I mean...did nobody else grow up with someone quoting The Honeymooners at them?

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "In no way do you lose respectability if you fail to follow through with an outrageous threat."

My parents never made outrageous idle threats to me or my siblings. I knew if my father threatened to do something, he would if he had to. I would have eventually lost respect for them if they had made outrageous threats which I knew weren't serious, especially once I got to be an unruly teenager.

So I guess it depends on to whom you are talking. If you threaten to to "Bang Zoom" me to the moon and I know you won't (or can't) do it: I'll laugh in your face. And not respect another thing you have to say (unless you were saying it in jest, which is different.)

Anyway, Jamie said he does not make idle threats. So when he threatened to tie Claire to a tree unless she promised not to leave, we must believe that he would have done it.

I have a feeling he learned not to make idle threats from his father also. I also think that if Black Brian had made idle threats to Jamie growing up, Jamie would have lost respect for him.

Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "In no way do you lose respectability if you fail to follow through with an outrageous threat."

My parents never made outrageous idle threats to me or my sibli..."

Got it. So if people say something to drive a point across and they don't follow through, you lose respect for them. How the hell do you vote in elections?

The point of making threats sometimes is that you only have to follow through a couple of times. The threat is worse than the punishment. It's like training a dog. Give them a negative response a couple of times and eventually the threat of the response is enough to curb the behavior.

I knew my parents would never sell me into prostitution but you know what? They did ground me over my birthday and take away all of my "fun" books that I wasn't reading for school. Jamie wasn't going to tie her to a tree but it showed that he meant business.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Got it. So if people say something to drive a point across and they don't follow through, you lose respect for them. How the hell do you vote in elections?

Lol. Very carefully. Most of the time? The lesser of the two evils. Although, to be honest, most politicians don't use threats to win elections, they use promises. That's different.

Now imagine we threatened Hitler in WWII and didn't follow through on it when he called our bluff. Wouldn't the US have lost respectability? Or didn't follow through with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after we threatened the Japanese? (and yes, we did threaten them first.) Do you really think they would have surrendered just because we threatened them?

The point of making threats sometimes is that you only have to follow through a couple of times.

I disagree. The point of a threat is to ensure compliance. If you aren't going to follow through, the threat is meaningless. Your dog complies, because well - it's a dog. Dogs have short memories, and as far as we know don't have the cognitive reasoning ability that people do.

Jamie wasn't going to tie her to a tree but it showed that he meant business. ."

Sigh. Again. JAMIE said he doesn't make idle threats. I'm not making that up. That is not just my opinion. That's what he said. You don't have to believe me about losing respect, but surely, you believe what the character himself says?