Outlander discussion

Kat wrote: "Although, to be honest, most politicians don't use threats to win elections, they use promises. That's different. "

And I should have added, I don't know of a single politician whom really I respect. So there's that.

Kat wrote: "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?

Lo..."

That's the point though. We only had to follow through a couple of times. US bombs Japan. Russia threatens to bomb US. We have nuclear bombs. We threaten with nuclear bombs. Everybody stops threatening each other because shit we don't want to kill a few million innocents. We already did it once. Don't make us do it again. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" "Big stick diplomacy" is effective.



"I'm not going to say this again! I promise I'm going to follow through!" *says it again, doesn't follow through* *kid listens anyways*

Just because you say that you don't make idle threats doesn't mean that you don't make idle threats. Jamie didn't tie her to a tree. Ergo: idle threat.

This book has already proven to have a pretty unreliable narrator. Claire has questionable decision making skills. Jamie is 23 and still trying to figure out how to be an authority figure. Randall should have been strung up in a court square by his thumbs. Just because they are a character in a book doesn't mean they can't be wishy washy, unreliable, or a poor enforcer. I always took Jamie's "I'm going to tie you to a tree" as his attempt to look like an authority figure with the hopes that his wife would actually listen to him for once.

Kat wrote: "Kat wrote: "Although, to be honest, most politicians don't use threats to win elections, they use promises. That's different. "

And I should have added, I don't know of a single politician whom re..."

That's kind of sad though. I work in a quasi-governmental organization and most are really good people. A few crooks but most just want the best for their constituency.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Jamie didn't tie her to a tree. Ergo: idle threat."

Jamie didn't tie her to a tree because she did promise to stay put. It was not an idle threat. He would have done it. Even Claire believes that he would:

"Rope. If ye wilna do as I say, I shall tie ye to a tree until I come back."

"You wouldn't!"

"Aye, I would!" Plainly he meant it. I gave in with bad grace, and reluctantly reined in my horse.

When he beat her at the inn, he reminded her of his threat to do so if she left the copse beforehand. It was not an idle threat.

You may have interpreted it as an idle threat. But Jamie did not give it as an idle threat. Claire didn't even interpret it (either threat) as an idle threat. She just didn't intend to be there to for him to carry out the threat to tan her arse because she thought she'd be back through the stones. And if she thought he wouldn't really tie her to a tree, she wouldn't have given in.

Ah, what you're seeing as serious, I'm seeing as idle. I guess I'm used to people trying to do that. I've seen it pretty often, especially when it comes to people with authority trying to convince people to do something. I really don't believe Jamie would have tied her to a tree. I think Claire is being dramatic and rather stupid.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Ah, what you're seeing as serious, I'm seeing as idle. I guess I'm used to people trying to do that. I've seen it pretty often, especially when it comes to people with authority trying to convince ..."

Lol. It's probably from working with those "quasi-governmental" types...

Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Ah, what you're seeing as serious, I'm seeing as idle. I guess I'm used to people trying to do that. I've seen it pretty often, especially when it comes to peo..."

More like soccer coaches.

"You guys have one more chance to get this right or you're running lappies!" *royally screws up three more times* "Keep at it or you're going to run!"

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "More like soccer coaches."

Must be rec league? I don't know of any high school or college coaches (at least back in my day) that would not follow through and make you run laps.

Didn't you say your dad was in the military? An MP or something? (Or was that someone else?) Ask him if he ever made idle threats or CO's made idle threats to soldiers. I'm willing to bet the answer's No.

One last thought for the day.

I've read the "we can't trust Claire's narrative" or she's "unreliable" as a narrator elsewhere also. And I'm not sure I can agree with that.

If we can't trust her narrative, then how do we know she went back through the stones at all?

Maybe it's all just a dream and she's going to wake up and JR won't really be dead.

Kat wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "More like soccer coaches."

Must be rec league? I don't know of any high school or college coaches (at least back in my day) that would not follow through and..."

Yeah that was a professional coach in the Scottish premier League that said that to me. I played at a high level and all coaches do that. It's not productive to make people run every time they screw up but if the threat is there then people try harder.

And my uncle was an MP and I know he made idle threats.

We're seeing everything through Claire's eyes and her interpretation which may not be right. Bank to the Harry Potter analogy where for the better part of 7 books, Snape was a terrible person.

Kat wrote: "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...."

Kat - my children are adults and they respect me very much, as do my grandchildren, and I'm certainly not stupid.

Kat wrote: ".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?.."

Now I hope you know the difference between world leaders on the brink of war making threats and me telling my teenage son who was 4 inches taller then me that he wasn't so big I couldn't take a belt to his bottom...

My point is there are all types of threats, some are serious, but some are made simply to make someone think about they decide to do.

Since I can't talk to Jamie in person, I can only go with the impression I got when reading the book and I took his threat to tie Claire to a tree, or take his sword belt to her arse, as trying to make her realize he was serious and that she shouldn't leave the thicket. At the time Jamie said it, I had no idea he would truly do it, and obviously Claire didn't either.

Kat wrote: "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?..."

Maybe Claire was more afraid of Randall.

Jamie might have been going to take his belt to Claire's bottom, but she knew he wouldn't maim or kill her....she wasn't sure how far Randall would go. She knew what Randall was capable of and that he took great pleasure in torturing and hurting others. Randall had already punched her in the stomach so hard she couldn't breathe...just for the fun of it...and was about to use a knife on her when Jamie found them.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "In no way do you lose respectability if you fail to follow through with an outrageous threat. When I was 13,....."

Thank you Brittain...my point exactly.

If I threatened to take a belt to my son's bottom because I didn't like something he did, or I thought he might do, I got his attention and I made him think about how his behavior would upset me.

Like your parents made you think when you were tempted to pierce your ears, not because you feared being sold into prostitution, but because you knew how much they would disapprove.

Did Jamie mean his threat, perhaps. But I didn't think he was serious when he made it. Jamie had never shown any sign that he would mistreat Claire, which is why I was surprised when he did...I understand his reason for punishing her, but I didn't expect it, and I don't think Claire did either.

People make idle threats all the time...coaches, politicians, teachers, parents, siblings, co-workers, world leaders, even clergy, the list is endless. They make them out of frustration, to get someone's attention, or simply to make someone think about what they have done or how their actions will affect others.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can honestly say they never say anything they don't mean or that they follow through with everything they say they'll do.

I have followed through a few times I threatened to get my point across

Definitely agree with parents making idle threats. Some of the more memorable ones from my childhood

I will smack your bum until you cant sit down for a week

You will be grounded until you are 30

and if being naughty while in the car
If you dont behave, I will put you out on the side of the road & you can walk the rest of the way home

Of course none of these were followed through, nor did they actually ever plan to follow through on any of them. But they sure made me sit up & listen :)

"If you leave that copse before I come for ye, I'll tan your bare arse wi' my sword belt. Ye wouldna enjoy walking all the way to Bargrennan. Remember," he said, pinching my cheek gently, "I dinna make idle threats." He didn't, either.

JAMIE himself said, on more than one occasion, that he doesn't make idle threats. Claire, on more than one occasion admitted the truth of that statement.

What more proof do you want? If it's been stated more than once, and confirmed more than once, this is more than just Claire's opinion. This is the AUTHOR affirming that this is part of Jamie's character: He Doesn't Make Idle Threats.

Sheesh. Regardless of what you all believe you read, or what you think Jamie or anyone else would do, or even your own experience in making idle threats, the truth is that Jamie Does Not Make Idle Threats.

Did Jamie mean his threat, perhaps. But I didn't think he was serious when he made it. Jamie had never shown any sign that he would mistreat Claire, which is why I was surprised when he did...I understand his reason for punishing her, but I didn't expect it, and I don't think Claire did either.

LOLOLOLOL! Well, I'm absolutely certain that he DID mean the threat to beat her arse, since he certainly carried through with!

And just because he's never shown any sign that he would mistreat his wife doesn't mean a thing. This is going to cause an uproar, but hold on a minute and read all the way through: abusers OFTEN don't show any sign that they are prone to abuse beforehand. NOW I AM NOT CALLING JAMIE AN ABUSER. (I had to put that in all caps before the rest of you jump down my throat. So don't even call me out for that. I won't respond it it.) The point, however, is valid. Just because there's no sign, is no consequence.

Also, Claire was not his wife beforehand, was she? There was quite a difference, especially in those times, between beating your wife which was legally acceptable, and beating an unrelated woman, which was not legal! Besides, we really didn't know much about Jamie before they married, not what kind of suitor he was, anyway. They had a few mostly supervised interactions, and that was it. It's not like they had a regular courtship where some sign - if there had been any sign, and if Jamie had actually been an abusive person (which I reiterate, I do not believe that he is) - would potentially have manifested.

And once again, I never have made an idle threat - it just means that I'm more careful about the threats I do make. In other words, I wouldn't threaten to put my child out on the side of the road if they misbehaved in the car, if I wasn't prepared to do it. What I would threaten them with is some punishment like no TV or internet or cell phone when we got home which I could carry out. My father was the same way, and that's what he taught me: you don't make promises you can't keep and don't say anything you are not prepared to do.

As for the soccer coach - well, that's very different from my experience with American high school and college football coaches. If they threatened to make the players run laps and the players didn't perform like they were supposed to, they ran laps. Maybe it's a cultural thing? Then again, Jamie is Scottish - and he's said time and again that he doesn't make idle threats.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "We're seeing everything through Claire's eyes and her interpretation which may not be right. Bank to the Harry Potter analogy where for the better part of 7 books, Snape was a terrible person. "

For the better part of seven books Snape was a terrible person. ;) He just wasn't quite as bad or trying to kill Harry like Harry thought...

So if we don't believe Claire when she says that she believes that Jamie doesn't make idle threats, because her interpretation might not be right - can we believe her when she says that Jamie tells her he's loved her since she cried in his arms that first day/night at Leoch? Maybe she's exaggerating. Maybe she's remembering the way she wanted it to be, not the way it was.

See what I mean? I think you pretty much have to trust the narrative because that's all we've got. Just like we had to trust the HP narrative, until a different truth was revealed. But for now, this is all we've got. Besides, I might have pointed this out before, Harry was an adolescent and Claire (regardless of how stupidly she acts at times) is an adult. I think we have more reason to trust her interpretation than HP's.

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..."

The two things aren't contradictory : this scene was written to drive "some" points home (for the readers and for the character) by using a shoking conflict device (the beating). It created a shock, to which people reactec differently : either they felt it somehow "justified" and moved on, or it bugged them. Either way, this scene wasn't written for the reader to be indifferent.

I am not sure having the eroine beaten by her husband/love insterest is the kind of memorable moments one should aspire to in reading books. And I don't see what the battlefields in Scotland have to do with Claire being beatn by her husband, really. To use Claire's body and physical integrity to in a domestic contest to parallel some kind of "war" happening colonized Scotland si not only far-feteched but also of dubious taste. That's what is cheapening the story IMHO. The beating doesn't add any depth other than making the characters' relationship unappealing, even if for a moment.

Sage wrote: "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 really don't understand how being beaten by your husband has anything to do with the atrocities of WWII...Like she has witnessed men/soldiers dying horribly so she can "handle" being beaten ? So it's not a big deal compared to what happened in the future/past WWII? I mean, if we're going this route, I might argue that what happened with Jamie should be worse from Claire's point of view. It's one thing to witness indifferentiate violence on a large scale, and get used/desensitized/detached to it at some point (since she was a nurse, she had to build some emotional distance and all...). It's another to be the target of vioelnce into a very intimate setting, from someone with whom one has shared very intimate moments and who just promise defore God to protect you...
Besides, I still think that using a woman's body and physical intergity to drive some point home (whatever it is) is problematic in and by itself, whatever the "point" may be.

Sage wrote: "At the time Jamie said it, I had no idea he would truly do it, and obviously Claire didn't either. "

I'm not sure Claire didn't think he would truly do it. (She comments repeatedly that she believes him.) Like I said, she just didn't intend to stick around to find out!

YOU may have had no idea that he would truly do it, but obviously JAMIE did. Since, you know...he followed through and all.

And that's the point I've been trying (albeit in vain, it seems) to get across: JAMIE meant it. It doesn't matter if you or Claire or Dougal or Randall or Harry Potter didn't take the threat seriously.

JAMIE did.

Kat wrote: "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."

THIS !

Sage wrote: "Thank you Brittain...my point exactly."

Why have you changed your mind on this Sage? This is your statement from message 616:
"First of all, Jamie warned Claire that if she left the safety of the grove he would beat her with his sword belt, and later when he came to their room at the Inn, he not only told her what he was going to do and why, but that if she resisted, the punishment would be worse. Jamie didn't lie or mislead Claire and he truly expected her to comply."

(Bold emphasis mine)

YOU stated that Jamie didn't lie or mislead Claire. So obviously when he makes a threat, he means it. You even admit that.

So why now are you saying that he makes idle threats?

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "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. "

Hummm...NO. Just NO! Hell to the NO!
It's one thing to enjoy "spanking" or being spanked as a sexual practice between two (or more) CONSENTING partners and getting turned on by it, and do it repeteadly. It's an entirely other thing to go against someone's will and physical resistance and inflict physical pain to them : that's called abuse/assault, plain and simple.

That's the problem with labelling what happened as a mere "spanking" (I know, I know, we've been there before...But I can't help). It not only downplays the act but create a confusion with some BDSM practices. You "spank" a child (to punish them of something), or you "spank" a consenting sexual partner. You don't "spank" a grown adult to punish them : you beat them.

Kat wrote: "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."

Again, this! All this!

Kat wrote: "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."

That's the problem with taking what a character/writer says to justify an action at face value. There is no real customs/clan law (as presented to us in the book) that would apply to the very specific situation Claire and Jamie got themselves in. That's why all the argumentation stating that Jamie HAD to beat her in order to fulfill some clan/marital law are son unconvincing to me. Hence the discussion about "historical accuracy" and all...

Kat wrote: "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 t..."

I liked your rant ;). I would do without the Middle East comparison thing though, even if I understand why you used it and I think your illustration was good : 1st beacuse I think in any other region at war nowdays, such a situation wouldn't happen or the people leaving a woman (or a man) behind by themselves in a territory under foreign hostile occupation would be pretty dumb; and 2dn if one were left behind nowdays, even in the Middle East, they would leave them with at least a mobile phone or something...But overall, good point. I do thing, however, that it's not the only weak point in the writing of the whole situation : this whole "dmasel in distress who put men into danger by foolishly going to wander into the wood and get captured by the enmy" plot is weak writing. The "justification", and the results (the beating) is weak and contrived to me.

Red wrote: "I liked your rant ;).

Well I'm glad someone did! Lol!

I would do without the Middle East comparison thing though, even if I understand why you used it and I think your illustration was good

Perhaps I should have pointed out that I have been to Egypt within the last several years, and this is behavior that I witnessed first hand. A woman would not be left alone on the side of the road if the car broke down, even with a cell phone. It wouldn't happen.

So for Jamie to leave Claire alone in the woods, even with her sghian dhu (sp?) is ludicrous.

I do think, however, that it's not the only weak point in the writing of the whole situation : this whole "damsel in distress who put men into danger by foolishly going to wander into the wood and get captured by the enemy" plot is weak writing. The "justification", and the results (the beating) is weak and contrived to me."

Oh, agreed. Like I said, I think the author had already decided that she wanted Jamie to beat Claire, for whatever reason. She just had to figure out how to set it up - and this was her hastily constructed scenario.

Kat wrote: "Actually, I do believe that Jamie would have been kicked out of Leoch and off McKenzie land. (If not worse.) "

Actually, we don't know that. We only know what the character says about it, a character who isn't that big on matrimony lwas and shit. If this was really a clan issue, there is no reason why this matter couldn't have been discussed later, with the actual clan leader. After all, Jamie was the highest in rank, and if he had to report to someone it was Dougal and not the man below him...

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. "

We don't know about that. We don't know about that at all...

Red wrote: "That's the problem with taking what a character/writer says to justify an action at face value. There is no real customs/clan law (as presented to us in the book) that would apply to the very specific situation Claire and Jamie got themselves in. That's why all the argumentation stating that Jamie HAD to beat her in order to fulfill some clan/marital law are son unconvincing to me. Hence the discussion about "historical accuracy" and all... "

Oh, don't even get me started on "historical accuracy". I heard about how "historically accurate" the book was before I started reading it, but mostly what I remember are all the glaring historical Inaccuracies.

The witch trial was another one. (already outlawed: See: http://www.shca.ed.ac.uk/Research/wit... which is a Univeristy of Edinborough site - so I'm thinking they should know their own history, although I'm sure someone on this site will argue with me.
"A trickle of local prosecutions continued—the last was in 1727. The Scottish Witchcraft Act was repealed in 1736 when the British Parliament decided to repeal the parallel English act. The 1736 Act abolished the crime of witchcraft and replaced it by a new crime of 'pretended witchcraft' with a maximum penalty of one year's imprisonment.)

Then there was the "swim test" where Jamie rescues Claire in the book (Same site) "Q. What about the swimming test?
A. This was hardly ever used in Scotland, though it was in some other countries. It's often said that witches were detected by dropping them in water. If they floated they were guilty; if they sank they were innocent—but they drowned. This is a misunderstanding, since ropes were tied to them to pull them out of the water. In Scotland the swimming test was used for an unknown number of suspects in 1597, but it seems to have been discredited on that occasion, and we have found no evidence that it was ever used again."

Remember, Claire was in 1743, not 1597.

Again, I'm sure someone will argue with me.

Oh, and in the book, Jamie makes a reference to "Germany". There was no "Germany" in 1743. There was Prussia and the Hapsburg Monarchy. At least they corrected that in the tv show.

Ditto with references to "Italy". Italy was not united until 18-something. In 1743, the northern parts of Ital were technically part of Austria. In the south, there were still individual "kingdoms" - the largest would have been the Kingdom of Naples. But no unified Italy.

Kat wrote: ""If you leave that copse before I come for ye, I'll tan your bare arse wi' my sword belt. Ye wouldna enjoy walking all the way to Bargrennan. Remember," he said, pinching my cheek gently, "I dinna ..."

My American soccer coaches did it as well. And the US men's national team coach. And my college coaches. It's not cultural. Authority figures do it all the time. And you know what? The threat of lappies was enough to get our asses in gear most of the time. I'm a soccer coach too and I hate making my girls run because it wastes my time. I usually get them familiar with the various running punishments during fitness at the beginning of the season so they know what I mean when I say "One more time and we're running stinkers!". The threat and dread of it is more than enough.

And Red, those are two separate points. I was discussing the grand scheme of the book. The deeper point of it all. Why the passages depicting gore and death are in the book when some people argue that they are unnecessary. My point of war being hell is separate from disciplining someone that you have authority over in that time period.

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

While it is a punishment traditionally for children, there's a massive difference between beating someone (which implies fists) and spanking them. Just as there is a difference between a slap and a punch. Just because emotions are involved doesn't mean you get to expand on the act.

And as a final thing, I'd like to say thank you to the people on this thread that actually want to engage in real discussion about the topic instead of attacking people for their opinions. Discussions on GR are meant to be fair and polite. I can't tell you how many times people just take offense to nothing and resort to personal attacks. All of that being said, this thread is accomplishing nothing because we are all sticking by our opinions, which is what we were all going to do in the first place, so I bid y'all adieu.

Kat wrote: "Red wrote: "Oh, don't even get me started on "historical accuracy". I heard about how "historically accurate" the book was before I started reading it, but mostly what I remember are all the glaring historical Inaccuracies...."

Yes there are a ton of historically inaccuracies in the first or first two books. She gets a lot of Gaelic wrong in the first if not the second one as well. It is the later books that people talk about her having tons of historically accuracy. The first book was her trying to write a book. Outlander is what came of that first attempt.

I agree with so many things that you have said Kat. Especially the rant that you had. I have never thought about going that far back into the event before. But IMO you are soooo right! It does come from Jamie leaving her alone. I wonder why they changed it in the TV show. I also really agree with your idle threat thing. I am the same way. I was never seriously threatened (not sarcastically, there is a difference) with something that would not have followed through. How else did I learn to be afraid of the threats? When they count to three or ten there would be something at the end not just counting or yelling. From that I learned to never make a threat that I could not follow through on.

You have done a marvelous job in keeping your sence of humor during the discussion and not taking things personally without loosing your passion for what you are saying! I applaud you. :)

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "And as a final thing, I'd like to say thank you to the people on this thread that actually want to engage in real discussion about the topic instead of attacking people for their opinions. Discussi..."

One person changed their mind because of this discussion. Me. :) I came into this trying to defend it by using historically accuracy but by having some good conversations with Red and a few others I question many things about this scene now. It changed my mind. That's why I'm still here. :)

Sage wrote: "Jamie might have been going to take his belt to Claire's bottom, but she knew he wouldn't maim or kill her....she wasn't sure how far Randall would go. She knew what Randall was capable of and that he took great pleasure in torturing and hurting others. Randall had already punched her in the stomach so hard she couldn't breathe...just for the fun of it...and was about to use a knife on her when Jamie found them."

All the more reason to put more of a fight against Randall than Jamie, isn't it?

Against whom would you fight harder? Even if you were still a young girl or teenager: a potential rapist where your very life is in danger (and Claire believed that Jamie did not know where she was, remember) or your parents who said they'd tan your arse for not cleaning your room when you said you would?

Maddie wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "And as a final thing, I'd like to say thank you to the people on this thread that actually want to engage in real discussion about the topic instead of attacki..."

I don't know that I've changed my mind on anything per se, but Mrs. Brooks did has given me new insight to different topics, so I do appreciate that. (The thing that sticks out most is Jamie giving up his right to beat Claire by making the vow.) I'd never considered it from his point of view. If it hadn't been for conversation on this board, I never would have considered it from his point of view. So imo, this is a valuable discussion. Sorry you're leaving.

Kat wrote: " but Mrs. Brooks "

Oops. Mrsbooks. :)

Maddie wrote: "Yes there are a ton of historically inaccuracies in the first or first two books. She gets a lot of Gaelic wrong in the first if not the second one as well. It is the later books that people talk about her having tons of historically accuracy.

Well I can't comment on the Gaelic, since I don't know any of it myself! lol. I haven't read them, but the later books move to America and involve the American Revolution, from what I understand. So, I think it's reasonable that there is more historical accuracy in those books - probably a subject with which the author was more familiar.

It does come from Jamie leaving her alone. I wonder why they changed it in the TV show.

Probably because the TV writers recognized it as a weak plot point.

I was never seriously threatened (not sarcastically, there is a difference) with something that would not have followed through. How else did I learn to be afraid of the threats? When they count to three or ten there would be something at the end not just counting or yelling. From that I learned to never make a threat that I could not follow through on.

Exactly. Thank you. And I agree about the sarcastically given threats. But you know the difference between those when you hear them and the serious threats.

I think Jamie also threats Claire sarcastically - at least in the second book. Can't remember if he does later in the first, after the beating. At first I think she has a problem discerning the difference between the two (as anyone would getting to know a person), but eventually "gets" it.


You have done a marvelous job in keeping your sense of humor during the discussion and not taking things personally without loosing your passion for what you are saying! I applaud you. :) "

Ah, Thank you! I can only try. Besides, it is only a book. While I have strongly held convictions, I know it's all fiction.

Kat wrote: "Sage wrote: "Thank you Brittain...my point exactly."

Why have you changed your mind on this Sage? This is your statement from message 616:
"First of all, Jamie warned Claire that if she left the ..."

I didn't change my mind...when Jamie made the threat (before the beating) 'I' thought it was an idle threat to make Claire listen to him and 'I' felt Claire didn't take him seriously either...after Jamie returned to their room at the Inn it was clear he meant what he had threatened so therefore he didn't mislead Claire.

Against whom would you fight harder? Even if you were still a young girl or teenager: a potential rapist where your very life is in danger (and Claire believed that Jamie did not know where she was, remember) or your parents who said they'd tan your arse for not cleaning your room when you said you would?

This questions doesn't even apply.

Randall was armed and dangerous, Claire had a lot more to consider then being spanked she didn't want to die.

Kat - you are taking this whole situation far more seriously then I am...you went back nearly 200 threads to challenge my opinion, not to mention challenging how my children could respect me and implying I was stupid.

It's obvious you hate the main characters, which is fine, but I don't, and just like you aren't going to change the way you feel (sort of like Jamie and the spanking) neither am I...therefore I see no reason for me to continue this debate (it has certainly gone far beyond a discussion).

I've missed quite a bit so I won't be responding to any comments directly.

For me, when Jamie made the threat to tie Claire to the tree, I don't believe he was serious. That does NOT mean, I don't think he would have done it. As Kat already said (and Jamie himself), he doesn't make idle threats. So I'm kind of somewhere between Kat and Sage on their opinions. When Jamie said what he said about beating her for leaving the copse and tying her to the tree, I don't think he thought either would be necessary.

Had Claire kept arguing with him and not taken his threat to tie her to the tree, Jamie may have been quite shocked that he *had* to tie her to the tree. I say *had*, because, well, Jamie said he doesn't make idle threats. He may have done it simply because he said he would. He's that kind of guy when it comes to his word.

Tra la la la la la I'm trying to think of what else has been talked about....

I understand about Claire not fighting harder with BJR then she did with Jamie. With Jamie, Claire already has developed a form of trust. And she knows what's coming. With Randal she doesn't. If I were in her shoes, I would be afraid to do something to make things worse. Do you know what I mean? He's obviously an unstable nut job he LIKES to hurt people. I would be afraid to instigate him. By the time she's absolutely certain he's going to take a physical approach with her she's already restrained, which, well, also makes it harder to fight. And didn't another officer help Randal tie her up? Another thing to make fighting more difficult. Then when she's already restrained she has a knife to her throat.

I also don't like singling out this whole scene, Claire being the damsel in distress thing and picking at that because it's ONE scene. Claire is not the damsel in distress though much of this whole series. People save each other numerous times and Claire is often the savior not the rescued. So to say it's cliche, is ignoring the rest of the characters actions.

To me it's like suggesting an author is racist because her one African American character is evil. Or in Outlander's case, numerous reviewers claim the book is prejudice to gay people and helps instill a bigotry view of Homosexuals because of BJR while they ignore another prominent important and all out good gay character that's in all the rest of the books.

I certainly have a love, hate relationship with this thread. There have been a lot of VERY insightful comments through out this whole discussion. Most times I feel quite done with it though because it's really just all talking in circles. But then every once in a while someone new posts something actually new that gets the ball going again.

For one thing, I just love talking about Outlander - period!

And I love love love how often someone comments praising someone with their same opinions and views on the subject. Saying how they've been so patient during this topic and etc etc. When in truth practically everyone in this discussion, no matter which side they're on has been clearly exasperated at times and shown a lack of patience and in the least a lack of kindness in expressing themselves. I find it kind of condescending actually and hypocritical.

Sage, you're doing a wonderful job with keeping your patience and sticking with your view in the face of this heat. -------------> See what I just did there?

In actuality I think we've all done a pretty good job and sometimes not so good. I don't think there is anyone innocent here unless they stopped by to leave a quick comment and left.

Kat wrote: "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 hu..."

I've always enjoyed books more than the movies/show as well. With the one exception of The Notebook. I enjoyed the movie much more and barely liked the novel. If you enjoy the show more, that's not a good sign :O

I've read the whole series and I can't wait for the next book. I'm doubtful this would happen because, well it seems kind of wrong... lol but when it's all over I would love if someone edited it and made a condensed version. Probably not a popular opinion. But I find there is just too much non important side stories. One thing with DG is that she may write something important and then not bring it up again for five thousand pages, so it can't be edited yet because no one really knows what's really important until the series is over. But I'm not one for so much side detail.

Argh, please don't burst my historically accurate bubble! LOL
That is honestly one of my favorite things about these novels. I knew already that the Gallic wasn't exactly up to par, I think DG has even commented on that herself with a few of the sayings being written wrong in the first if not the second book as well.

I had researched Outlander after I first started reading it and everything I found was praise for it's historical accuracy. Don't ask me exactly what I found because that was years ago. When I read historical setting novels I love it when they're accurate and it irritates me when they're not. It brings so much more to the story in my opinion.

This is my preference. Definitely my preference. Would I like Outlander less if there were some major historical inaccuracies? I would be quite disappointed that's for sure.

Having said that, what if this whole world was fantasy and made up by the author? What if Claire gets sent through the stones to this fantasy world where women have no legal rights, are owned by their husbands. What if she's traveling with a group of men and then disobeys their order, resulting in this whole fiasco. What if in this fantasy world, if a man had done what she had done he may have had his ears cropped, been flogged or even killed and she was presented with beating beaten on the rear end with a belt?

I've thought about this before. I mean I've read some crazy stuff in fantasy books some that seemed cliche. My passion is for the historically accurate and Red is very hung up on it not really mattering in the first place. And to a large degree I agree with her. But I just wouldn't want to see a novel that WAS *trying* to be historically accurate put in some crazy shit that wasn't likely to happen in the way of culture , etc lol.

But sort of getting back to the root of what this thread is about...

Since the historical accuracy of Outlander seems to be under question right now...
Is it lazy writing or cliche if an author writes about this sort of scenario in a fantasy land? It would be even more so the authors *choice* to create these laws and attitudes in the first place that cause what the heroine goes through.

Sage wrote: "Kat - you are taking this whole situation far more seriously then I am...you went back nearly 200 threads to challenge my opinion, not to mention challenging how my children could respect me and implying I was stupid.

First, let me respond to this heinous accusation...

I NEVER implied that you were stupid or that your children do not respect you.

I believe if you go back and read my actual posts (go ahead! I won't upbraid YOU for it...) you will see that what I said was that *I* would not respect some one who made idle threats. And that *I* would have lost respect for my own parents had they done so while *I* was growing up.

You stated that your children and grandchildren still respect you. I did not respond. Why didn't I respond? Because I had nothing further to say about it. The truth is that I don't know you. And you don't know me. So if you say something on this thread, without proof to the contrary, I believe you! You tell me that your children and grandchildren respect you - Okay! I believe you!

And if you are able to make idle threats and still have people take you seriously - maybe you should teach a class, cause I would sure love to learn how to do that! Really. Impressive. More power to you.

Likewise when you stated that you were not stupid - Okay! I believe you! (For the record, I never thought you were.)

Now what I said there (if memory serves) was something to the effect of "keeps you from looking stupid." (in reference to making idle threats.) That 'you' was not aimed at YOU personally and I am sorry if you took it that way. That 'you' was meant to be more of a universal 'you' - kind of like a 'they' as in 'they say...'.

A better phraseology would have been 'keeps one from looking stupid'.

Again, I apologize if you thought I meant you personally. But I will not and do not apologize for the sentiment. Speaking only for myself of course: *I* would feel foolish and, yes, stupid, were *I* to make idle threats (in a serious manner and not sarcastically as has been discussed) which I either could not or would not carry out.

Now, if we are laying out accusations here...then I would certainly be justified in saying that YOU, madam, have implied that I am a liar. (Allow me to refresh your memory: I stated that I do not make idle threats, and that I have never made a threat which I was not prepared to follow through. I believe you said that you could not believe that.) Ergo, you called me a liar: at which I take serious umbrage. I will admit that in my younger days I told some untruths. But I have endeavored for nigh on many a year now to live my life authentically and HONESTLY.

Now I've been told that I should be more tactful, hold my tongue, etc. And many a times I've thought that might be true. And then I had a friend (yes! I have those! IRL too! I know you're probably shocked. Hope I didn't cause you to have 'the big one' there.) thank me for always being honest with them. And I realized something: as much as the world needs diplomats, (and it does!) it also needs honest people; perhaps especially today with all the crooked politicians and public figures making promises they don't intend to keep and news anchors/journalists making up stories so that you don't know what's true and what's false anymore.

You won't get that from me. But then maybe (in my best Jack Nicholson voice) you can't handle the truth? ;)

As far as taking the discussion far more seriously than you - mmm...No I don't think so. As I previously stated, I realize that these are fictional characters and nothing about which to get overly upset. I've tried - even in this post - to inject a little humor so that people would know that I'm NOT taking it too seriously, even if I do defend my opinions. And surely, I'm allowed to do that, just as you are?

Yes, I went back nearly 200 posts (if you say so - I didn't count. But I BELIEVE YOU.) I was rereading a lot of old posts, seeing if I had missed anything relevant. (psst. I do that in books, too!) I didn't realize looking up the truth was a crime. :( Feeling a little like Galileo right now - you're not going to lock me up in a tower for that are you?

It's obvious you hate the main characters,

Wait...

ROTFLMAO!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Ahem...

Mercy! WHEN did I ever say that? Yep - I stated the first time through the book I thought Jamie was a big jerk. Even on rereads, there are many a time I think 'what a jerk!'. Then I said in the second book I thought Claire was a...well, not a nice wife shall we say. :) And I felt sorry for Jamie.

But Hate them?

No.

Hate's a mighty strong word. Like Love. I think both are overused and therefore undervalued a good bit in present society, so I've tried to quit using them both so much. I find I don't truly Hate many things or people - even fictional characters. Right now I can't think of anything or anyone off the top of my head I Hate. I might Dislike it. I might Dislike it Very Much. Even Abhor something. But not Hate.

And for the record. I Do Not Hate Jamie and Claire. I don't Love them either, but I don't Hate them.

Against whom would you fight harder?

This questions doesn't even apply.

Oh! LOL! I see what you're doing there! (Waggling my finger at you!) Nice try! Classic evasion technique: when you don't want to answer a question, go on the defensive and/or change the subject. But that's not going to work with me. (Haven't you noticed I'm a little tenacious by now?) Tell you what: I'll go first (in case I haven't already)

I would fight To The Death against someone like BJR.

Not against Jamie.

You're turn.

Randall was armed and dangerous, Claire had a lot more to consider then being spanked. I'm sure (my opinion) she didn't want to die.

Absolutely she didn't want to die! And yes, BJR was much more dangerous than Jamie. (See? I can actually agree with you and it doesn't bother me a bit! :D ) But that's why the fact that she didn't fight back makes even less sense to me. Claire didn't know that Jamie was going to come rescue her! She knew from previous encounters with BJR, what kind of man he was. As you pointed out, he'd already hit her hard enough to knock the breath out of her. Why didn't she fight back? What did she have to lose at that point?

Also - remember the knife she pulled on Jamie on the way to Bargrennon (sp?) That was her sghian dhu which she had in her stocking I believe, even in Randall's company. (I think there was a line about how she couldn't reach it with her hands tied behind her back.) But what I don't understand is why she didn't already have it in her hand, hid in the folds of her skirt, before Randall ever walked in the room? (Remember, she was in the room and peaked around a bit before he got there.) If I had been in that situation: knowing what kind of man Randall was - I'd have been holding the knife at the ready.

therefore I see no reason for me to continue this debate (it has certainly gone far beyond a discussion).

Yes, it has. But then, I've always enjoyed a good debate. Used to do it with my father growing up. I guess that's where I learned. I forget sometimes that other people do not take debating in the spirit intended. Sorry if I have offended you.

Mrsbooks wrote: "When Jamie said what he said about beating her for leaving the copse and tying her to the tree, I don't think he thought either would be necessary.

Agreed. I don't think he thought it would be necessary - or at least he naively hoped it wouldn't be. :) But that is not to say that he was not fully prepared to carry out the threat if need be.

I understand about Claire not fighting harder with BJR then she did with Jamie. With Jamie, Claire already has developed a form of trust. And she knows what's coming. With Randal she doesn't. If I were in her shoes, I would be afraid to do something to make things worse. Do you know what I mean? He's obviously an unstable nut job he LIKES to hurt people. I would be afraid to instigate him. By the time she's absolutely certain he's going to take a physical approach with her she's already restrained, which, well, also makes it harder to fight. And didn't another officer help Randal tie her up? Another thing to make fighting more difficult. Then when she's already restrained she has a knife to her throat.

I do understand about not wanting to make things worse. You make a good point about that. However, and this is just me if I'd been in that position - she should have realized by now what kind of man he was. She's seen Jamie's back. She's been hit by him herself, and nearly raped upon their first meeting. Come on! She had her little knife on her person. As far as she knew, no one else knew she was there, so she would have had NO hope of being rescued...

How much worse could she make it by fighting back?

Imo, should have had that knife in her hand and it to his genitals before he was ever able to call that other officer into the room. :) (Yes, he did have another officer tie her hands behind her back and then leave.)

For one thing, I just love talking about Outlander - period!

It has certainly gotten some passionate responses both positive and negative - and that's what makes for an interesting discussion. :D And I do like interesting discussions - and debates! lol.

I think one thing that may influence some readers views on Outlander - are those who have read the entire series. They have 'seen' the character develop over their lives and now, looking back at the first book - maybe those developments are retroactively affecting the way certain events are viewed?

But remember, for those of us who have not read all the books, or even past this one - those future developments are irrelevant to the actions in this book.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Argh, please don't burst my historically accurate bubble! LOL

Oh Sorry! Lol! That's just me - so ignore at your own pleasure. I can be nitpicky about things. (I'm a scientist, btw...so it's in my nature.) I like to dissect things (NOT living things - just so we're clear.) and take them apart. I know it can drive other people crazy. That's why I get so happy when I find someone else with whom I can discuss things like that!

When I read historical setting novels I love it when they're accurate and it irritates me when they're not. It brings so much more to the story in my opinion.

Eh, don't feel too bad. I loved The DaVinci Code. Then I looked into it harder and found the author took a lot of 'literary freedoms' so to speak. Still a good book. Just don't read it thinking it's really historically accurate. :)

My passion is for the historically accurate and Red is very hung up on it not really mattering in the first place. And to a large degree I agree with her. But I just wouldn't want to see a novel that WAS *trying* to be historically accurate put in some crazy shit that wasn't likely to happen in the way of culture , etc lol.

Actually, I would have LESS of problem with many of the scenes if it was a pure fantasy book - and not promoted as historically accurate. Is that what you meant? Maybe we said the same thing but in different ways. I think we do that a lot. :)

And maybe the later books are much more historically accurate. I read where the author said the newer books took 2+ years to write because of all her research, versus Outlander which only took 18 months. That's a big difference.

Is it lazy writing or cliche if an author writes about this sort of scenario in a fantasy land? It would be even more so the authors *choice* to create these laws and attitudes in the first place that cause what the heroine goes through.
"

Ooooh, that's a good question. I agree in a fantasy land, the author can do whatever they please. Whether or not it would be lazy or cliche I think would depend the book itself: how well is it written and how it is used in the book. Too many of the same old same old tropes would definitely get cliche, perhaps even lazy. But again, I think it would depend on the book.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Had Claire kept arguing with him and not taken his threat to tie her to the tree, Jamie may have been quite shocked that he *had* to tie her to the tree. I say *had*, because, well, Jamie said he doesn't make idle threats. He may have done it simply because he said he would. He's that kind of guy when it comes to his word."

I've been thinking about this some more. (Stop that! I can hear the collective groans from here!) This may be a little OT from this thread, but, eh..it might still pertain. Let me apologize in advance to anyone who thinks I'm being redundant. I probably am. I post responses and then think about things some more and go back an analyze some more (did I mention I'm a scientist?)...

Anyway. I would really enjoy hearing/reading opinions on what would happen in an alternate scenario (kind of like the alternate endings on some dvds) where Claire didn't promise to stay in the copse and Jamie did have to tie her to a tree, because well, he said he would. I wonder what the fallout from that would be? (Or would he have not tied her up after all?) Like Mrsbooks mentioned, I think Jamie probably would have been quite shocked that he had to follow through on the threat which he really didn't want to. And Claire likely would have been quite shocked that he actually did follow through (much like she was shocked when he followed through with the beating.)

Hm...just musing 'out loud'...

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Had Claire kept arguing with him and not taken his threat to tie her to the tree, Jamie may have been quite shocked that he *had* to tie her to the tree. I say *had*, because, well..."

I'm actually leaning towards him not tying her up at all. For two reasons. One because after he left he had second thoughts and sent someone back to be with her. So I'm thinking if she still refused, that might have been the nudge he needed to make that decision a little earlier then when he really did. And Second, it just wouldn't have been wise to tie her up. It would have been dangerous to leave her tied to a tree in case something happened to him and his men. I have no doubt he would have done so if he absolutely had to in order for her to comply. But in sending someone back afterwards, it shows he wouldn't have had to regardless if she still argued or not.

Kat wrote: she should have realized by now what kind of man he was. She's seen Jamie's back. She's been hit by him herself, and nearly raped upon their first meeting. Come on! She had her little knife on her person. As far as she knew, no one else knew she was there, so she would have had NO hope of being rescued...
How much worse could she make it by fighting back?

While I do agree that if I were Claire, I would have my dagger at the ready I do think she could have made it a lot worse by fighting back for those very reasons you listed as a reason to fight lol. To attack an officer in a situation where she has no reason to suspect she'll be rescued would put her in an even worse situation, possibly imprisonment. At the start of this, Randal doesn't even know she's married yet and she was supposed to have gone in for questioning. If I imagine myself in her shoes, I would have been quite careful and fearful of instigating his unstable side.

There is the other obvious reason. She can't go anywhere. And she's in a garrison full of BJR's Soldiers under his command. Sure she can fight BJR for.... how long? I'm not saying "let yourself be raped because you can't get out of it anyway" but I'm saying until she knew for certain he was going to get physical with her, if I were her, I would't have fought.

I think one thing that may influence some readers views on Outlander - are those who have read the entire series. They have 'seen' the character develop over their lives and now, looking back at the first book - maybe those developments are retroactively affecting the way certain events are viewed?

But remember, for those of us who have not read all the books, or even past this one - those future developments are irrelevant to the actions in this book.

That is another excellent point. I'm certain my opinion of the characters is influenced from more than just this book since I've read them all.

But even in this book, Claire saves the day so to speak. There are the English soliders (or deserters?) that come across her and Jamie while they're doing it in the woods. If Claire didn't stab the one guy Jamie would have been unable to take care of the other guy.

And there is when Jamie is taken by BJR. She gathers a crew together for his rescue and tries to do this twice.

There is certainly a give and take with saving and being saved. I would agree whole heartedly that this was cliche if it was the only time anyone saved anyone or if the only times anyone was ever saved was always Claire.

And there is the other thing that keeps running through my mind. Perhaps this is cliche and I tell myself it's not because I still like it even if it is cliche and the word cliche has a negative implication. Actually this is true, I do like cliche things. There, I said it. I shall shout it I LIKE CLICHE THINGS. I am going to embrace this. To hell with ya'll ;)