Outlander discussion

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..."

Hummm...NO. Just NO! Hell to the NO!

Thanks Red!

Kat wrote: 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."

I really want to respond to this but I'm getting tired. I just ate so hopefully that will get the blood sugars flowing. I probably should have responded to this first rather than last now that my brain is a puddle of liquid.

That is not actually what I meant. But it's interesting how it can go both ways. Is it worse or better if an author has complete carte blanche because it's ALL fantasy? After all, if everything is all in their head even the law system they create aren't they supposedly still writing something quite cliche and still perpetrating the same idea's about women and submission and women and abuse and women and... I don't know, I'm sure something goes here but I can't think of what it should be.

And if Outlander is worse because it's toted as Historically Accurate and it in fact is not (I've still not crossed to this dark side but I now have doubts to it's accuracy) does it matter if the author herself doesn't tote it as historically accurate? Or if the author admits her research was insufficient and she herself was mislead? I guess I'm just asking, does it really matter if the authors intentions were to be accurate even if the out come didn't end that way?

Does it matter if the author wanted historical accuracy but also wanted to take some liberties? Does anything make any difference in the writing of a scene like this?

And if nothing makes a difference are we saying it's wrong to write it? I know Red has talked numerous times about how she's not saying things should be censored. And maybe because my brain is muddled at the moment I've perhaps forgotten what Red has stated she means. Red, are you saying that morally it shouldn't be written about in this way?

Sorry, obviously this particular topic is a little more deep for my sleep deprived brain to muddle through.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 want to reply to your other comments, but I want to do this one first. I may not get to the others - it's Friday, and I'm already in weekend mode...

So you made me go back and reread this section again! Lol.

I believe that Randall knew she was married - hadn't Dougal gone to inform him and that's why she wasn't to be turned over to his questioning? Randall just didn't know *to whom* she was married until Jamie showed up. :)

At first, Randall tells her he's not going to do anything with her. He was going to send her to The Tolbooth, a prison in Edinburgh with the next posting of dispatch (no clue when that might have been: the next morning or even later?)

It wasn't until she dropped the hint that she was also working for the Duke of Sandringham that he got violent. And if she hadn't thrown the teapot which crashed against the wall, the orderly likely would not have stuck his head in the room - at which point, Randall ordered him to hold her while Randall himself tied her hands behind her back.

So what's all that mean? Darned if I know. She found the drawer with his handkerchiefs, but not the one with the rope and knife. She said she hadn't had time to search that drawer, but I don't know how much time she actually had and how long she dallied over other stuff in the room. I mean, she was ink painting with waterweed when the chapter opened - maybe she should have been searching more drawers?

I'd have been looking for something - anything - to use as a weapon, knowing I was in enemy territory. But that's me. Like I said, she also had her little knife still on her person, but she didn't bother to have it out at the ready or within easy grasp.

She had to have expected him to get violent with her at some point. He already had in the past. Why not be prepared?

I'm just thinking - and this is only one scenario, which maybe this wouldn't work but then again it's something I would at least try - that if I had said knife pressed close to his genitals under the table, I could get him to call the orderly or someone else into the room and tell them to send a dispatch to Dougal MacKenzie and let him know I was there at least. Once the underling was gone, it would only be a matter of waiting until help arrived - and keeping Randall immobilized. I could do that (You can't see my evil grin - but it's definitely there!)

Mrsbooks wrote: "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. "

I agree that it would not have been wise to tie her up - which is the main reason I was so shocked he made the threat in the first place! It made no sense at all to me. But then again, leaving her alone at all made no sense to me, but since we've been over that, let's move on...

As to whether or not he actually would have done it when push came to shove? Hm...

You know, I actually think he might have. Right now I'm leaning toward Probably Would Have. I think it would have been one of those, well-he-said-he-would-and-she-pushed-him-into-a-corner-so-now-he-had-to-do-it type of things.

The men had all already ridden on ahead, so by this time, there was just the two of them.

So on one hand, I can imagine that he would tie her to a tree - and then be so mad that she 'made' him do it that he rode off and left her there. And maybe, after awhile, after he calmed down, he'd send someone back to stay with her. (Although he might tell them not to untie her just to further make his point!)

And on the other hand, if I squint really hard, I can kind of, maybe, sort of, see that he wouldn't really tie her up....

Yeah, but not really. Emotions were running so high right then between the two of them, I think he would have done it to prove that he said he would.

Kat 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. "

Thanks for pointing that. I didn't noticed it while reading, 'cause I mostly didn't care much about that at the time as I simply didn't expect much. That's one of the reason I bugged me so much when I kept reading about the "historical accuracy" justifications of the beating scene. The fact that the author did some researches and wrote sometimes very detailed descriptions of some aspects of the daily life and habits of the time didn't made the story historically accurate but just more "realistic" in the sense that it "felt" a bit more real. I think, some readers mistook "historical accuracy" with "detailed realism".

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "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."

Hmm...No. Beating someone doesn't necessarily involves "fists". Check any dictionary. To beat means "to strike repeatedly".

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "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."

I am of the mind that a good, interesting discussion doesn't necessarily has to change people's mind but can also entertain and "educate" you or just be enjoyable as an intellectual exercise. I, for one, enjoyed discussing with many posters who contributed here, even when I keep disagreeing with them, (and even when it got a bit heated), because I learned a few things, laughed at other things and developped and clarified some arguments thanks to the intellectual exchange with other people.
But thanks anyway for contributing.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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. "


Well, seeing as race representation" is a very long and highly problematic issue in todday's cultural landascape in general and in fiction in particular, if there is all but ONE AA character in a book and this ONE AA character is characterized as one evil caricatural one, I may not outright say the author is racist (it depends on the how, and why, and all), but I surely am going to side-eye the hell out of them.

As for the problematic LGBT representation in this very book, since we're not talking about the series but this one book, I think some of the critics are at the very least "valid" and and there shouldn't be dismissed just because in the later books there is this one "good" gay character. I remember being a bit ticked by this aspect of Randall's characterization in regards to his supposed sexual preferences and also the whay the author "handled" what happened to Jamie in the same regards. The whole thinf left me very "Hmmm...".

Regarding the "damsel in distress" reference that I made, I don't think (and never stated) that Claire is nothing but a damsel in distress in the entire book. I do think that the whole plot which led to the beating is pretty ridiculous, borrowing from the damsel-in-distress trope and doing a disservice to the character.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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. "

To me, when it comes to fantasy, it's all about coherence and consistency. The workings of the world created by the author have to be coherent in themselves, for it to work, no matter how far from our "real" present world it is set. Also, there are different kind of fantasy fiction, some heavily borrowing from "real" historical periods. Take GRR Martin's "A song of ice a fire" : it borrows from medieval times in terms of political structure. One of my favourite heroic fantasy writer, Guy Gavriel Kay, set a lot of his books during look-a-like Europe medieval time. So you know it's not the same, so you don't expect "historical accuracy" per se, but that doesn't detracts from reading a very "realistic", detailed look-alike medieval fantasy novel, with very "accurate" historically inspired references.

I think I would style question the writing in a fantasy novel that would used problematic cliched overused trope, especially regarding female and POC characters. Because to me, the problems don't steam from the time period or the fact its a fantasy world, but from the writing it self : it's about analyzing the coherence of the plot and the characterization, in the context of their real or fantasy setting, questionning why a writer would write such tired and problematic tropes, etc. And I don't think I would be convinced by arguments justifying the writing choice by people saying "well, duh, it's fantasy !", as if it was a justification by itself. Like, yeah, it's fantasy, so does that means the female character HAS to go through so much shit for the sake of the story being set in a "fantasy" land? I mean it's even more problematic when it's a fantasy book 'cause by choosing this very genre, the author does liebrate themselves from some "real world consistency" constraints.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 ;) "

Well, if it helps, let me say now out loud that I can and do like good, well written cliché story. As I said earlier, the problem it's not that a plot or a character is cliché, it's the execution. Most writer and stories aren't revolutionary and don't invent new tropes. What makes a good book/story/writer is the way they use (or circumvent) said cliché or stereotypes.

Mrsbooks wrote: "And if Outlander is worse because it's toted as Historically Accurate and it in fact is not (I've still not crossed to this dark side but I now have doubts to it's accuracy) does it matter if the author herself doesn't tote it as historically accurate? Or if the author admits her research was insufficient and she herself was mislead? I guess I'm just asking, does it really matter if the authors intentions were to be accurate even if the out come didn't end that way?

Does it matter if the author wanted historical accuracy but also wanted to take some liberties? Does anything make any difference in the writing of a scene like this?

And if nothing makes a difference are we saying it's wrong to write it? I know Red has talked numerous times about how she's not saying things should be censored. And maybe because my brain is muddled at the moment I've perhaps forgotten what Red has stated she means. Red, are you saying that morally it shouldn't be written about in this way? "

I am not arguing about "morals" at all. And when I object the "historical accuracy" arguments it is not about the whole book (even if, as Kat pointed out, there are "some" major historical inaccuracies), but about this very particular scene and the way it was "justified". To me, the rationale of this scene has nothing to do with being "historically accurate" to the way domestic disputes were resolved in 1700s upper class Scottish households and clans, but every thing to do with the author lazily using a problematic overused trope to shock and "make a (albeit ambiguous) point" about the dynamics of the lead characters' relationship. The scene/plot played out the way it did not because the author wanted to stick to her version of "historically accurate" but because she wanted to make the character behave the way they did. That's why I think using "historical accuracy" is wrong, in the sense that it not only doesn't work like that, but also that's not what is about with this very scene/plot.

Now from what I understand, the author tried to be as "historically accurate" as she could, did some research (about the time, the language, some customs, etc.) that account for the many lengthily detailed descriptions in the book. I, for one, didn't mind them much. I thought it added some realistic "colors" to the writing and liked it ok (even though I thought it was a bit too much at times, like she was trying too hard to show that she had done her researches). To me, it's kind of the basics of writing to research the setting a minimum in order to make it believable. Especially when the story is supposed to takes place in a very particular time and territory. I think DG did ok, but also nothing to be so over-hyped about : this is, after all, a "historical" romance rather than a "fictionalized" history book.

Kat wrote: "'m just thinking - and this is only one scenario, which maybe this wouldn't work but then again it's something I would at least try - that if I had said knife pressed close to his genitals under the table, I could get him to call the orderly or someone else into the room and tell them to send a dispatch to Dougal MacKenzie and let him know I was there at least. Once the underling was gone, it would only be a matter of waiting until help arrived - and keeping Randall immobilized. I could do that (You can't see my evil grin - but it's definitely there!) "

There are many ways this situation could have played out differently (and more coherently), but if it had, there wouldn't have been any justification for the beating, right? And they beating HAD to happen, one more or less well crafted way or another, for whatever reason...

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

Hmm...No. Beating someone doesn't necessarily involves "fists". Check any dictionary. To beat means "to strike repeatedly".
"

This is true, but in all fairness, the word also carries widely varying degrees of colloquial connotations depending on where one hails from.

Red wrote: "Thanks for pointing that. I didn't noticed it while reading, 'cause I mostly didn't care much about that at the time as I simply didn't expect much. That's one of the reason I bugged me so much when I kept reading about the "historical accuracy" justifications of the beating scene. The fact that the author did some researches and wrote sometimes very detailed descriptions of some aspects of the daily life and habits of the time didn't made the story historically accurate but just more "realistic" in the sense that it "felt" a bit more real. I think, some readers mistook "historical accuracy" with "detailed realism". "

Ah, yes, I agree with the 'detailed realism' of the book. That is a very good way of describing the book.

One of the reasons that the historical inaccuracies jumped out at me so much - and let me digress a moment - I'm not saying the entire book is historically inaccurate. I'm just saying that it is not entirely historically accurate either. Does that make sense?

Anyway - one of the reasons that the inaccuracies bothered me so much while reading the book was also because of the "historical accuracy" argument used to justify the beating. See, I came to the book through the tv show. And even before that episode aired, I saw hints of 'what was to come..' etc. I was pretty horrified at what I heard, and so, being naturally curious, I looked it up. I read reviews - both of the show episode and the book episode. Lots of reviews. LOTS and LOTS of reviews. And at first, mainly what I saw/read whenever someone dared disagree with the beating was the "historically accurate" argument thrown back at them. I believe even the author used that argument to justify it. Well, just to make sure that I was getting the whole picture, and not snippets of both sides, I bought the book and read it for myself.

So I was expecting a lot - a lot of historical accuracy. After all, that was the main justification that I was reading - and the author even touted it herself! And I *could* have maybe accepted the "historically accurate" argument if there hadn't been so many Historical Inaccuracies. At that point - pfft. No. Just no. If you're going to claim Historical Accuracy - you'd better be Historically Accurate in All Things. Otherwise, just don't even go there.

Red wrote: "Hmm...No. Beating someone doesn't necessarily involves "fists". Check any dictionary. To beat means "to strike repeatedly". "

Too Right. Merriam-Webster" the act of repeatedly hitting someone to cause pain or injury: the act of beating someone. An act of striking with repeated blows so as to injure or damage; also : the injury or damage thus inflicted."

Additionally, (in case there is still any doubt) according to the Oxford Dictionary (UK English, since the setting is Scotland after all:) "Strike (a person or an animal) repeatedly and violently so as to hurt or injure them, typically with an implement such as a club or whip."

As in Jamie beat Claire with his sword belt.

Red wrote: "I am of the mind that a good, interesting discussion doesn't necessarily has to change people's mind but can also entertain and "educate" you or just be enjoyable as an intellectual exercise."

You're not alone in that opinion, Red.

"When students participate in debate, they learn to study issues in depth and from perspectives, a skill I use everyday in the Senate."- BARACK OBAMA

And

"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress." - Mahatma Ghandi

Red wrote: "Well, seeing as race representation" is a very long and highly problematic issue in today's cultural landscape in general and in fiction in particular, if there is all but ONE AA character in a book and this ONE AA character is characterized as one evil caricature one, I may not outright say the author is racist (it depends on the how, and why, and all), but I surely am going to side-eye the hell out of them."

I think it also falls into the Lazy Writing category. I think it's fairly easy is it to rely on stereotypes to create an AA Gang Member from the Inner City, or a Short Chinaman who has strange habits, or Illegal Immigrant Mexican, or even the ubiquitous Obnoxious American Tourist. Why not take those stereotypes and turn them on their heads? Like a tall Chinese who likes classic Greek philosophy for example?

"I do think that the whole plot which led to the beating is pretty ridiculous, borrowing from the damsel-in-distress trope and doing a disservice to the character. "

Yes. Actually, I hadn't thought about what a disservice to the character this part of the book did, but now that you mention it...

Red wrote: "To me, when it comes to fantasy, it's all about coherence and consistency. The workings of the world created by the author have to be coherent in themselves, for it to work, no matter how far from our "real" present world it is set. "

I think that should be a guiding principle no matter what the genre.

Red wrote: "I am not arguing about "morals" at all. And when I object the "historical accuracy" arguments it is not about the whole book (even if, as Kat pointed out, there are "some" major historical inaccuracies), but about this very particular scene and the way it was "justified". "

Yes, yes yes. Very well put, Red!

Red wrote: "There are many ways this situation could have played out differently (and more coherently), but if it had, there wouldn't have been any justification for the beating, right?

Lol. Too True. And I think that was one of my points earlier.

And they beating HAD to happen, one more or less well crafted way or another, for whatever reason... "

Again, agreed. I think the author had already decided that she wanted the beating to happen for whatever reason, and had to back track her plot in order to make it at least somewhat plausible that the beating *would* happen.

I don't think she put a lot of thought into the set up for the beating at the time she wrote it. Maybe she didn't realize it would become so controversial and that she might have to be able to 'justify' it later.

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

THANK YOU THANK YOU. I am so tired of women justifying the abuse of women in the name of romance NOVELS. Outlander is a shitty Historical Romance Novel. Nothing more noting less. To think they wasted time creating a tv series based on this is redunkulous. Just way beyond ridiculous. I listen to it on tape and couldn't believe I was NEVER going to get that time back.

As a person who has loved Historical fiction for some time BEATING is NOT a must. It is a choice. Keeping it real??? REALLY in a time traveling book? We are keeping it real?

As a victim of domestic violence, I can understand how some people can be upset by this scene in the book. I get that and in some ways I "get" the outrage. The one thing that gets me is the supposed "rape scene". I never saw it that way. Maybe I need to re-read it again. Not that I haven't read it dozens of times over the 10 years that I have had this in my library. I hear all kinds of outrage about this scene but I do not hear any kind of condemnation of Jamie's rape at the hands of Black Jack and the subsequent ramifications of this act in the book, physical as well as mental. What about Claire's rape attempts at the hands of Black Jack?? Or the Compte St. Germaine?? I think sometimes people get to wrapped up in the "politics" of a subject and forget that, in the end, it is a piece of escapism. At least it is for me, anyway. I don't agree with spousal abuse in any form but this pertains to real life with real consequences. But at the end of the day, this is nothing more than a piece of fiction, nothing more and nothing less!

Corky wrote: "As a victim of domestic violence, I can understand how some people can be upset by this scene in the book. I get that and in some ways I "get" the outrage. The one thing that gets me is the suppo..."

FYI - I'm still undecided about the 'rape' scene between Jamie and Claire. I understand how it can be construed both ways. That being said...

As far as less outrage at the Jamie's rape or all the other attempted rapes of Claire (I have seen plenty of outrage over the many attempted rapes of Claire, so maybe you are reading different blogs/reviews?) versus the "rape scene" - one thing I can say about that is this: those rapes and/or rape attempts were made by either strangers or people who knew the victim but had no real feelings toward the victim. I'm not talking about whatever sick feelings BJR allegedly had for Jamie. I'm talking about the love - real love - as told in the novel that Jamie was supposed to have for Claire.

For those who do view that scene as rape, I think it is particularly heinous because it was committed by her husband; someone who supposedly loves her. The very same man who vowed that she need never be afraid of him her first night at Leoch. The very same man who slept outside her door to protect her from unwanted advances. The very same man who promised to protect her with his body if necessary.

THAT man. That man then turns the body with which he vowed protection against her?

Yes, any rape is worthy of condemnation. And I'm not saying I can understand how anyone can rape another person. But with a stranger at least, one has no expectation of safety. So when it's committed by a person you trust and who allegedly loves you, I think it is particularly disturbing and unforgivable.

To bring this post back on topic: Ditto with the beating.

Where in the books did Jaime rape Claire?

Jeanine wrote: "Where in the books did Jaime rape Claire?"

When Jamie and Claire returned to the castle after they were married, Claire thought Jamie went to see Loaghaire and he really went to buy Claire a ring...when he returned to their room they argued and he forced himself on her. Claire told him to stop in the beginning but enjoyed it in the end. I believe it was when they realized they enjoyed rough sex.

Out of curiosity, toward the beginning of Outlander, there is an incident at Castle Leoch where a young girl is brought before Collum and accused of "loose behavior" by her father and Collum rules that the girl should indeed be punished. They were going to lash her right there in the hall in front of everyone. The only reason that it didn't happen was because Jamie stepped in and offered to take her lashing. And rather than lashes, Jamie chose fists. All the while, Mrs. Fitz is explaining the clan procedures to Claire as they look on. Does this incident offend as much as the incident between Claire and Jamie? Why or why not?

This happens before Claire's beating. (at pg. 71/12% in the kindle edition) I truly do not believe that beating was thrown in as some sort of cheap sensational plot device or gimmick. The book establishes more than once that these types of punishments were part of that culture in those times. Have historians alleged that the theses depictions of this side of clan life are not historically accurate? Historians. Not angry readers. Actual historians. The reason that I ask this is because the books get a lot of criticism, but the historical accuracy is one that I have only encountered here in this thread .

Mochaspresso wrote: "Does this incident offend as much as the incident between Claire and Jamie? Why or why not?"

There's much much more - but I didn't sleep well last night and my brain is not fully functional - but without getting too much into the morality of the incident:

1. Jamie CHOSE to take the beating for Laoghaire (sp?). Claire did not have a CHOICE in receiving her beating.

2. Probably another Historical Inaccuracy as:
"The Law of the Clan
The laws and traditions of the Clan were its most sacred possession-next to its people....He (the chief) was the overall arbiter of Clan disputes and dispensed the law, as he dispensed the tenancy of land, fairly and each according to his rights an needs.

The dispensation of the law was assisted by the 'Brieve' a form of judge whos position was hereditary and whos salary came directly from imposed fines. A council of between 12 and 14 men who met on 'moothills' or mounds, coming together in a circle, helped him in the undertaking.
- "The Scottish Clans" by Donald Cuthill"

So see - the Laird, or Chief, was not solely responsible for the dispensation of the law as portrayed in Outlander.

There were also courts of law back then - yep even in Scotland. :) Laoghaire's offense would have been more likely handled by a kirk session, not by the Chief.

"Have historians alleged that the theses depictions of this side of clan life are not historically accurate? "

If you've only encountered it on this thread, you should look around more. I've seen it elsewhere as well. I could counter and ask if historians have alleged that these depictions of this side of clan life are historically accurate? I've only seen it in romance novels, and well, that's not a reliable source is it? :D

But you wanted proof.

First consider this quote depicting the attitudes of Scottish women at the time:
" 'Ye see a woman in Gallawa kens her place in the hoose, and keeps't. She's no the meesarable non-entity a woman turns in Englan' efter she's mairry't; there's nae "Love, honour, and obey" in her marriage promises; she's joost as deservin o'love, honour, and obedience as him, and she's a fule if she disna hae her share ot; she promises tae tak him, that's a'. Catch a Gallawa woman ca'in her man "my master" the wey the puir ignorant English yins dis! No likely! He's nae maister o'her's.' "
-"Women and Violent Crime in Enlightenment Scotland" by Anne-Marie Kilday

(You go, girl!)

Then this:
"The rights of women were well protected under the Clan too. Many women were given the opportunity to assist on councils and unfaithful, cruel or uncaring husbands were held in very low regard." - "The Scottish Clans" by Donald Cuthill

And finally (because there is too much good stuff in here to quote) I direct you to: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1470/
(Bailey, Joanne). FYI - this was her doctoral thesis, and she received her Ph.d. in 1999.

A few pertinent blurbs though, for those who don't want to read the whole thing (but one should as it is Very Interesting!) I've cut out some parts, as denoted by the '...'

"The law of chastisement provides an apparently strong piece of evidence for historians' entwined theories that female submission was required in return for male protection, and male correction the inevitable response to female intransigence. Men were within their right to correct their wives.

(However) Correction did not give men uncontrolled licence...husbands who simply threatened to beat their wives could be brought before the justice of the peace...in 1674 Chief Justice Hale ruled in Lord Leigh's Case that reasonable chastisement only extended to admonition or confinement to the house, and was not a licence to beat."

Did you catch that date? 1674!!! 69 years before 1743.

Things that make go "hmmmm..."

Furthermore:
"Loss of self-control was a 'serious failure of manhood.' It was considered unmanly to hit a woman. In 1769 a report of an Old Bailey trial for murder claimed that when the defendant struck a woman, three young fellows came up and reproached him saying 'He could be no man who would strike a woman'.

Catherine Ettrick's case emphasized William's (her husband) authoritarian streak. She claimed that he had announced, 'That he had a Right to Lock her up and Feed her on Bread and Water thro' a grate and that every Husband had a Right to Beat his wife'."

Sound familiar anyone?
" He raised sandy brows. "Well, I'll tell ye, lass, I doubt you've much to say about it. You're my wife, like it or not. Did I want to break your arm, or feed ye naught but bread and water, or lock ye in a closet for days—and don't think ye don't tempt me, either—I could do that, let alone warm your bum for you." - "Outlander"

btw - Catherine won that case against her husband. :)

"The formal assistance given to wives by secular law was not simply for those who suffered extreme acts of violence. Theoretically, the threat of abuse was enough to obtain both a warrant and surety for the peace because a justice was obliged to provide surety when complainants stated under oath that they feared threat to their body.

Nor did the courts dismiss men who committed minor levels of violence. For example, when William Ettrick appeared before Durham Quarter Sessions in response to his wife's complaint, he admitted that he had only hit his wife a 'Box on the Ear'. Nevertheless, the justices continued him upon his recognizance for his good behaviour to his wife until the next sessions." - JB

Kat wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Does this incident offend as much as the incident between Claire and Jamie? Why or why not?"

There's much much more - but I didn't sleep well last night and my brain is not f..."

Thank you very much for the link that you provided. I will read through her thesis. However, I am a bit confused because it seems that it pertains to marriage in England and Outlander takes place in Scotland. (The title of her thesis is "Breaking the conjugal vows : marriage and marriage breakdown in the north of England, 1660-1800".) It may or may not be relevant. I haven't read through it yet, but imo the Cuthill book actually seems like the more relevant text to reference for this discussion.

The dispensation of the law was assisted by the 'Brieve' a form of judge whos position was hereditary and whos salary came directly from imposed fines. A council of between 12 and 14 men who met on 'moothills' or mounds, coming together in a circle, helped him in the undertaking.
- "The Scottish Clans" by Donald Cuthill"

So see - the Laird, or Chief, was not solely responsible for the dispensation of the law as portrayed in Outlander.

I'm re-reading that portion of Outlander that I was originally referring to and when Collum was deciding whether or not to allow Jamie to stand in for the girl's beating, he did consult with Dougal. There was no specific mention of a council during this particular incident, although the book does mention the existence of one in other places. I think that we also have to keep in mind that the story is being told from Claire's point of view and she makes it clear that she does not fully understand everything that is happening. Mrs. Fitz is explaining some things to her but the book doesn't have massive "infodumps" (something that I consider to be poor and lazy writing and typically do not like.)

I don't know and haven't made up my mind as to whether this is wrong or not, but you've given me something to think about. Thank you.

Mochaspresso wrote: "However, I am a bit confused because it seems that it pertains to marriage in England and Outlander takes place in Scotland.

Yes, true. But it is a study of behavior/court records/social attitudes from the region - just below the Scottish border - and well, Scotland was a part of Britain then. I doubt the actions and attitudes revealed were solely confined to that one small area, just because that's the area upon which the study focused. A thesis has to be narrowed down somehow - geographically is one way. It could be that area had the most complete court records she could find. Several articles I read mention how there is a dearth of recorded information about Scottish women's lives during that time period.

Anyway, a good many of the advocates AGAINST beating one's wife were from religious texts and authorities, which were just as valid in Scotland as in England, especially with Jamie as his faith seemed very important to him.

Also, the arguments I see justifying Jamie's right to beat his wife are actually based on English law, not Scottish. Which makes it relevant.

I haven't read through it yet, but imo the Cuthill book actually seems like the more relevant text to reference for this discussion.

So you completely disregarded the quote from a SCOTTISH woman of the right time period? Interesting...

I'm re-reading that portion of Outlander that I was originally referring to and when Collum was deciding whether or not to allow Jamie to stand in for the girl's beating, he did consult with Dougal.

I think I also stated that Laoghaire's infraction would have more likely been handled by the kirk, not the Laird. And after a little more research, I'm more convinced of that. I didn't even catch that myself until you questioned it. :) See: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstrea...

Yeah, you'll probably pick on me because it's not quite the right era. ;) But at least it's Scotland. lol.

From what I've read in other sources also, Collum (the Chief) would have arbitrated LAND disputes, tenancy rights, etc - the things like neighbors disagreeing over whose sheep it was (unless there was proof of actual thievery and then that would have gone to a court session).

For what Laoghaire did:
"From the Reformation in 1560 until the turn of the nineteenth century, Scotland’s network of church courts – the kirk sessions – policed the manners and morals of their parish congregations, punishing purse and person in the name of a godly society." - HC

So what WOULD have been Laoghaire's punishment for - what was her crime?
"On 14 April 1611, Mary White appeared before the North Berwick session to answer for her fornication with Dionysus Mark: she was sent for a stint in the jougs and then ordered to perform public repentance for her fault."-HC

FYI - the jougs were like a stockade type punishment - an iron collar. You had to stand out in public to be shamed. But no mention of her ear being nailed to the pillory, or any other physical punishment; ie. No Beating.

Later in the paper, is described another woman's punishment for adultery: she had to 'sit the stool' for 3 days. That is, sit on a stool outside the kirk for 3 consecutive Sundays to be publicly humiliated.

All this being said: the book is not necessarily WRONG. And I'm not putting it down for that (as I've been accused). It's just Not Historically Accurate. So I could go along with life and punishment in the Outlander Universe, as long as it was presented as what it is: fiction. But not when it's legitimized and condoned as being Historically Accurate.

Mochaspresso wrote: Thank you very much for the link that you provided. I will read through her thesis...It may or may not be relevant."

To the relevancy question: You may also want to note that at least two of her reference sources were about Scotland:
"Disregarding the Matrimonial Vows": Divorce in Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-Century Scotland', Journal of Social History
Leah Leneman, 'A tyrant and tormentor": violence against wives in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Scotland'

Also:

"Historians rarely categorise the counties in the same way. Durham, Northumberland and the three ridings of Yorkshire have been classified as the north-east of the 'Highland' area of England, Richard Adair, Courtship, Illegitimacy and Marriage in early modern England (Manchester, 1996), p. 51. Another study makes Northumberland and Durham a different cultural province from the three ridings, C. Phythian-Adams (ed.), Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850 (Leicester, 1993), pp. 10-11. Others are struck by the similarities of the northern counties with Scotland, G. Morgan and P. Rushton, Rogues, Thieves and the Rule of Law. The problem of law enforcement in north-east England, 1718-1800"

Kat wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "However, I am a bit confused because it seems that it pertains to marriage in England and Outlander takes place in Scotland.

Yes, true. But it is a study of behavior/court r..."

This is just a quick reply for the sake of time. First, I am not picking on you or even disagreeing with you per se. I am just trying to read through source materials and texts for myself and form my own thoughts and opinions about them. This is something that takes time. At least, it does for me. I haven't yet had the time to read through the thesis yet and likely won't until later on this weekend.

As for the quote from Kilday, I did not completely disregard the quote from Kilday's essay. I didn't mention it because this is also a review of Ms. Kilday's essay that I came across......

http://www.academia.edu/4588837/Revie...

I am not completely disregarding her. I haven't read enough of her essay or this review of it to make up my mind as of yet. That's the only reason that I didn't make mention of it.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I didn't mention it because this is also a review of Ms. Kilday's essay that I came across...."

Ah interesting! Thanks for the link. I supposed though that one could find a negative review of anything if one tried hard enough. :) His criticisms seem to be due to her conclusions, not her sources. In fact he mentions "the high quality archival research".

A little o/t, but while we're talking crime and punishment, according to John McCallum in "The Reformation in Fife 1560-1640, of 931 cases prosecuted between 1602 and 1640 in the Fife kirk session, (That's Scotland. Yes, I know, wrong era. Still interesting. And I found evidence that Verbal Offenses were still prosecuted by kirk sessions in the 18th century as well.) 288 of them concerned Verbal Offenses (Slander, flyting (quarrelling) and all forms of swearing and blasphemy. "The basic insults of ‘whore’ and ‘thief’ were dominant in Burntisland, as elsewhere..."

So...LOL! All the times Claire was a 'hoor', she could have taken them to court!

I appreciate the everyone is talking about historical accuracy of Outlander, or the lack thereof. I don't mean to be critical of anyone or their opinions, but I have always been under the assumption that historical fiction was primarily fiction with some historical facts thrown in to suit the story. It has always been my experience that most authors of historical fiction will tweak the history to suit them and the story as a plot device. I don't necessarily look down on this as they are writing fiction and not a historical memoir or a biography.

If I remember correctly, DG even stated in The Outlandish Companion that not everything in the area of history she uses was positively correct. The major points of history she does write about (The first and Second Jacobite Uprisings, the Diskilting Act, ect.) are for the most part accurately portayed, but there still left room for her to twist them to her needs for her story.

IMO, I think a lot of people are getting sideways about something that is fiction, not fact.

Kat wrote: "Ah interesting! Thanks for the link. I supposed though that one could find a negative review of anything if one tried hard enough. :) His criticisms seem to be due to her conclusions, not her sources. In fact he mentions "the high quality archival research".

A little o/t, but while we're talking crime and punishment, according to John McCallum in "The Reformation in Fife 1560-1640, of 931 cases prosecuted between 1602 and 1640 in the Fife kirk session, (That's Scotland. Yes, I know, wrong era. Still interesting. And I found evidence that Verbal Offenses were still prosecuted by kirk sessions in the 18th century as well.) 288 of them concerned Verbal Offenses (Slander, flyting (quarrelling) and all forms of swearing and blasphemy. "The basic insults of ‘whore’ and ‘thief’ were dominant in Burntisland, as elsewhere..."

So...LOL! All the times Claire was a 'hoor', she could have taken them to court!


Since you have brought this up.....out of curiosity, would a Sassenech/English woman like Claire have those rights within the Scottish system of justice? If so, I guess it would put an interesting spin on the entire premise for their marriage in the first place. (They married to make her an official member of the clan thus no longer under English authority or control/jurisdiction.)

Out of curiosity, I googled "adultery kirk sessions" (not quite what Laoghaire was accused of, but I was just curious) and this google book comes up...

https://books.google.com/books?id=WcK...

Scotland Before the Industrial Revolution: An Economic and Social History C ...
By Ian D. Whyte

On pg. 217, it does talk about how cases could be handled either by kirk sessions or by the landowners themselves. It also talks about how some might actually prefer their matter to be heard locally and among their own peers as opposed to going before an anonymous and distant court.

Incidentally, on page 213 of the same book, it mentions that wife beating was considered a very serious crime. However, considering the times, I'm inclined to think that it was also probably harder for women to obtain a conviction against their husbands for "wife beating" if he alleges that he was merely "disciplining" or "correcting" his wife's "bad behavior".

I googled "wife beating kirk sessions" and this book came up...

Scotland's Hidden Harlots and Heroines: Women's Role in Scottish Society ...
By Annie Harrower-Gray

https://books.google.com/books?id=_Y7...

Pg 70 talks about how alcohol likely contributes to high incidences of domestic violence and that it was quite common and acceptable for men to beat their wives, children and servants and that cases only came before the kirk sessions if the wife was incapacitated on a Sunday or if the beating created some type of public scandal.

It goes further to reference a case where a man admits that he beat his wife, but did so because he was drunk and she provoked him. He was essentially given a slap on the wrist by the court.

Mochaspresso wrote: it does talk about how cases could be handled either by kirk sessions or by the landowners themselves. It also talks about how some might actually prefer their matter to be heard locally and among their own peers as opposed to going before an anonymous and distant court."

That's what I had always thought as well.

I was also under the impression that different clans had different rules. Not different laws exactly....but each clan dealt with things their own unique way but still following the laws of the country.

I find the internet has it's pros and cons because really, I'm sure we could ALL find information to support each and every single different opinion. It's quite difficult to find sold, trustworthy information. I prefer encyclopedia's (Not Wikipedia, it's often filled with misinformation).

I wonder if anyone has ever asked DG where her research sources came from? Because when I did my research, the historical accuracy her novel is so praised for was her depictions of clan life.

I haven't read all the links provided here yet (haven't had the time) but I do no that I can't compare English law to Scottish law. EVEN if the Scots were under English law, they still had their own way of doing things. The English generally thought the Scots were barbarians, in part for those differences. The culture was vastly different.

And correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there even quite the difference between a Highlander and a typical Scotsman? Perhaps I'm misplacing the time period for that one though. But I remember there was a time when the highlanders were considered uncivilized even by others in their own country.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I find the internet has it's pros and cons because really, I'm sure we could ALL find information to support each and every single different opinion. It's quite difficult to find sold, trustworthy information. I prefer encyclopedia's (Not Wikipedia, it's often filled with misinformation)..."

This is so true...not only can something be found on the Internet to substantiate every opinion or idea, but most articles, websites, and books are nothing more then someone's ideas, thoughts and/or interpretation of a subject.

I think those who feel so strongly about all the historical inaccuracies in this series should contact Ms Gabaldon herself and voice their concerns. And...they could also tell her how she should have written her story. I think her response would be very interesting. She has a great website and does answer questions.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Since you have brought this up.....out of curiosity, would a Sassenech/English woman like Claire have those rights within the Scottish system of justice? If so, I guess it would put an interesting spin on the entire premise for their marriage in the first place. (They married to make her an official member of the clan thus no longer under English authority or control/jurisdiction.) "

Good question! Er...um...I don't know! Lol. To be honest, I hadn't even thought of that. Argh, now you're going to make me do MORE research. :D

But without doing any research on that topic - Gee, I wish Ned were here - I have thought about this a good bit. And I *think* that she would so far as the slander was concerned at least. Let's see if I can explain it well. (It makes sense in my mind, but it might not come out in print so well...)

Even though Claire wasn't a Scot, those slandering her were, so THEY would be subject to Scot's Law.

It would be as if Collum went to London and was slandered by an English person. I would certainly think they would be able to sue them in an English court,assuming it is/was a crime under English Law.

Or well, present day, if one visits a foreign country and is assaulted by a native, then one certainly has rights under the foreign country's laws. Most of them, anyway.

Also, Claire, being in Scotland was subject to Scot's Law. So if she slandered a Scot, she could be taken to court in Scotland.

Same again if one visits a foreign country, then one is bound by that country's laws. Ask any Amanda Knox, for example.

As for the matter of making Claire a Scot so no longer subject to English jurisdiction - I believe that is a different matter. She was wanted for questioning under suspicion of being a spy. I think the English government would have been well within its right to request her to present herself for such. (Even if I don't think a Captain in the army would have been the one to question her. Kind of like the CSI techs on some shows questioning suspects. They wouldn't do it. It's not their job.)

Again, going to the present day, think of Edward Snowden. The US has tried to get him back on US soil for charges of violating the Espionage Act (being a spy). The only reason they have been unsuccessful is because he fled to countries with which the US has no extradition treaty and was granted temporary residency elsewhere.

Political asylum would not have been an option for Claire (if it was even available then). Even though Scotland had its own set of laws, it was still technically part of Britain. But an actual *citizen* was another matter. And notice - that was only good as long as she was on Scottish soil. Had she ventured into England, she still would have been detained for questioning even as a Scottish citizen. Just as Snowden would be snatched up in a heartbeat if he set foot anywhere in the US.

The more I think about it, the bigger question is - since Scotland WAS technically part of Britain then, if the English government really wanted to question her for being a spy, would her being a Scot have made any difference? What if it had been the Duke of Argyll for example? Wouldn't he have just been summoned to appear at Court, or in front of Parliament anyway? Granted, there were different rules for aristocracy and peasantry. But then, Claire was not a peasant, either even if she had no title.

Corky wrote: " The one thing that gets me is the supposed "rape scene". I never saw it that way. Maybe I need to re-read it again. Not that I haven't read it dozens of times over the 10 years that I have had this in my library. I hear all kinds of outrage about this scene but I do not hear any kind of condemnation of Jamie's rape at the hands of Black Jack and the subsequent ramifications of this act in the book, physical as well as mental. What about Claire's rape attempts at the hands of Black Jack?? Or the Compte St. Germaine?? "

Well, 1st thing: this discussion wasn't intended to be about the said scene, so...
Also, I never understand why you (not YOU personally, but in general) feel the need to oppose one abuse against the other? Some poster shave already tried to argue the same way before. Like, we're discussing one particular scene and one particular abusive 'incident'. That doesn't mean we don't care about the many other problematic scene/relationship/incidents in the book. People reacted to a lot of things in this novel, and argued about it. It's not one thing OR the other. It can be both. Or many.

Corky wrote: " I think sometimes people get to wrapped up in the "politics" of a subject and forget that, in the end, it is a piece of escapism. At least it is for me, anyway. I don't agree with spousal abuse in any form but this pertains to real life with real consequences. But at the end of the day, this is nothing more than a piece of fiction, nothing more and nothing less! "

Again, why should the 'escapist' value/fonction of literature in general and fiction in particular prevent from discussing books and stories? Like, what does one has to do with the other in terms of rendering the latter moot? We know it is a piece of fiction, that's it's not REAL (JEEZ!). That doesn't mean 1) that it isn't worth discussing, and 2) that it can't influence/impact real life through shaping our cultural expectation/representation, etc. Fiction/books don't exist in a vacuum or some fantasy imaginary worl, but into a real world where there are part of a wider culture with its many different dynamics. So discussing books, stories can be just a light entertaining moment but can also be part of more 'serious' conversations about the real world and how things happen and change into the world wide mass popular culture.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Out of curiosity, toward the beginning of Outlander, there is an incident at Castle Leoch where a young girl is brought before Collum and accused of "loose behavior" by her father and Collum rules that the girl should indeed be punished. They were going to lash her right there in the hall in front of everyone. The only reason that it didn't happen was because Jamie stepped in and offered to take her lashing. And rather than lashes, Jamie chose fists. All the while, Mrs. Fitz is explaining the clan procedures to Claire as they look on. Does this incident offend as much as the incident between Claire and Jamie? Why or why not? "

I referred to that scene in one of my earlier post to illustrate my point about the many ways the supposed "clan issue" regarding Claire's action could have played out.

I can only speak of myself, but the reason why this scene didn't bugged me is simply because whatshername public beating DIDN'T happened! Also, this was about a very secondary character that I didn't particularly cared about, and she ended up NOT being beaten. Granted, Jamie was because he volunteered to take her place, which contributed to makes him look like a very noble man in my eyes. So I read this scene as one of the way for the author to set a bit of that "detailed realism" by describing one instance of the clan dealing with social infractions AND to further help characterize Jamie as a very noble heroic man.

As I said many time before, I am not "offended" by violent scene per se. I disagree with the choice to write an unnecessary domestic violence AND with the arguments using "historical accuracy" as a way to "justify", make sense or downplay the beating scene between Jamie and Claire.

Mochaspresso wrote: " I truly do not believe that beating was thrown in as some sort of cheap sensational plot device or gimmick. The book establishes more than once that these types of punishments were part of that culture in those times. Have historians alleged that the theses depictions of this side of clan life are not historically accurate? Historians. Not angry readers. Actual historians. The reason that I ask this is because the books get a lot of criticism, but the historical accuracy is one that I have only encountered here in this thread . "

The point of the discussion isn't to say that the detailed description aren't historically accurate. They may well be. At least some of them and as much they can. As I said before, I do believe the author did some researches in order to paint the most realistic/accurate picture of the time. So this isn't a scholarly conversation about whether this particular clan discussion or that other juridical aspects thrown in the book are accurate. That could be an interesting one, by the way. But this isn't what I have been arguing about. It's about the fact that justifying the beating scene as "historically accurate" is wrong (not morally but 'factually') because NOT having Jamie beating his wife was no less historically accurate. It's about the writing choice the author made : she picked and chose that 'version' in order to make a point, whatever that point was supposed to be (I guess to remind the reader that those were awful, violent times, especially when you were a woman/wife).

Also, the "angry readers" bit was SO unnecessary. I thought we had moved past those kind of slight dig at other posters...And for your information, I am as passionate as a reader as I am as a "real historian"/History graduate.

Kat wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Does this incident offend as much as the incident between Claire and Jamie? Why or why not?"

There's much much more - but I didn't sleep well last night and my brain is not f..."

BEYSUS ALMIGHTY KAT!! Your whole post is GOLD! ;) I should edit my OP and put a link to your post (if I manage to understand how to do it). It totally complements Medieval Muse's post. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for taking the time to do the researches. See, that's what I meant when I talked about conversations about books and all that can be both entertaining AND educating.

Corky wrote: "If I remember correctly, DG even stated in The Outlandish Companion that not everything in the area of history she uses was positively correct. The major points of history she does write about (The first and Second Jacobite Uprisings, the Diskilting Act, ect.) are for the most part accurately portayed, but there still left room for her to twist them to her needs for her story."

The point of the discussion isn't about the historical accuracy of the book as a whole, even though Kat provided very insightful references on some historical inaccuracies in parts of the book. It's about the argumentation trying and justifying the beating scene as "historically accurate".

And my point is precisely that the author chose to tweak and twist some historical customs/laws in order to justify the beating scene.

Corky wrote: "IMO, I think a lot of people are getting sideways about something that is fiction, not fact. "

That may be your opinion, but that's a pretty dismissive one.

Red wrote: "Corky wrote: "IMO, I think a lot of people are getting sideways about something that is fiction, not fact. "

That may be your opinion, but that's a pretty dismissive one...."

I'm just curious...why would Corky's opinion be dismissive and not yours?

Sage wrote: "I think those who feel so strongly about all the historical inaccuracies in this series should contact Ms Gabaldon herself and voice their concerns. And...they could also tell her how she should have written her story. I think her response would be very interesting. She has a great website and does answer questions. "

Seriously? We're back to those slight digs again? SMDH. If I wanted to discuss with the author I would have contacted her directly. I started this discussion in here to discuss with other readers.

And as I (and I think Kat too) have stated before, I am not arguing that all that is in the book is historically inaccurate or wrong. I am criticizing the writing choice the author make about one particular scene, that can't be merely "justified" or "explained" by referring to some kind of "historical accuracy" thing. Because then, you have to acknowledge that that situation/scene could have turned out many other way than having the lead male romantic character beat the lead female/heroine character while still being "historically accurate". And all those different versions could have provided as much dramatic plots/impact in ensuring Claire realizes that she is in a totally different time/place (see all the references that Kat provided) that the lazy and problematic overused domestic violence trope. And that would have made for a better, tighter and more creative, writing.

Sage wrote: "I'm just curious...why would Corky's opinion be dismissive and not yours?"

Because Corky is implying (at least that's how I read her/their post) that the people discussing the historical accuracy part of that scene don't understand that this story/book is "fiction not fact" or can't make the difference between the two. And she/they state that those people are going "sideways" without any factual (sic) evidences. I've been trying to provide detailed explanations, clarifications and references each time I've been arguing a point. So did many other posters here. And she/they just dismissed all that with a 4 or 5 line post. And I never implied that those who disagreed with me were "getting sideways" because they couldn't grasp the basic concept of fiction vs reality.

Red wrote: "Because Corky is implying (at least that's how I read her/their post) that the people discussing the histori..."

My mistake, I thought all opinions were relevant in a discussion whether we agree with them, or not.

@Red: "Angry Readers" was not intended to be a dig or a slight and I am sorry if you saw it as such. It was just a descriptor and nothing more. Albeit, it was a rather straight-forward one, as I am not necessarily one to mince words, sugar coat or white wash anything. I wanted to know if historians who have extensively studied that particular time period have critiqued "Outlander" and the historical accuracy of the novels.

It's about the fact that justifying the beating scene as "historically accurate" is wrong (not morally but 'factually') because NOT having Jamie beating his wife was no less historically accurate. It's about the writing choice the author made : she picked and chose that 'version' in order to make a point, whatever that point was supposed to be (I guess to remind the reader that those were awful, violent times, especially when you were a woman/wife).

Couldn't this argument be used for just about any book? Did Rochester have to lock Bertha away in the attic in "Jane Eyre"? Charlotte Bronte could have had him put her in an institution. Horrid as those places were in those times, people did do that with the mentally ill in those times as well. Either depiction is technically historically accurate. (btw, I know that Jane Eyre is not historical fiction, but the story is very reflective of the times in which it was written.) However, the writing choice that Bronte made was just right for THE STORY THAT SHE WANTED TO TELL. I think the same is true for Diana Gabaldon and "Outlander". Yes, she could have written it differently. She could have not included that scene and still been historically accurate....but she did because it the scene fits into the story that she wanted to tell and moves the story forward in the way and direction that she wanted the story to go. I don't think any author has an obligation to pander to any specific notions of what others may or may not feel is "right or wrong". Readers can have their opinions, but at the end of the day, it is still the story that Diana Gabaldon wanted to tell. Like it or not, the beating was historically accurate. Sure, not all husbands beat their wives....but some did and it is not wrong to tell that particular story if an author chooses to do so.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Couldn't this argument be used for just about any book? Did Rochester have to lock Bertha away in the attic in "Jane Eyre"? Charlotte Bronte could have had him put her in an institution. Horrid as those places were in those times, people did do that with the mentally ill in those times as well. Either depiction is technically historically accurate. (btw, I know that Jane Eyre is not historical fiction, but the story is very reflective of the times in which it was written.) However, the writing choice that Bronte made was just right for THE STORY THAT SHE WANTED TO TELL...."

Well said Mochaspresso...

This holds true even with stories written about today ... it's the author's choice whether they include domestic violence, rape, adultery, etc. It doesn't mean it's right, wrong or acceptable behavior, it's simply part of that particular story. And, all books or stories can be written differently, that doesn't mean they will necessarily be better or worse, they will simply be different then originally written.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Out of curiosity, I googled "adultery kirk sessions" (not quite what Laoghaire was accused of, but I was just curious)

Not quite sure what she was accused of (but wasn't it later revealed in a subsequent book that she had been involved with a married man? I could be wrong about this. Thought I read it somewhere. If true, however, that would be adultery.)

Anyway, according to:Law and Order in Stirlingshire, by Stephen J. Davies, https://research-repository.st-andrew...

The difference types of sexual offenses were fornication, fornication ante-nuptual (meaning they had sex before they got married: still a no-no), adultery, and scandalous carriage. ("Cases where fornication or adultery could not be
proved but sexual misdemeanour was clear, together with a whole range of minor breaches of sexual morality" - p. 90)

Btw, Scandalous Carriage also included cases of 'sexual harrasment' - (Remember Claire getting groped by Dougal?) Yeah, check this out:

"This pattern, of women being sexually molested or harassed and then complaining to the session and bringing a charge against the man, was also found elsewhere: the case of James Elis and Margaret Mclay at Campsie in 1709 followed an identical pattern while seven years earlier the Campsie session found one James Graham guilty of this charge by putting his hands up Janet Kincaid's petticoats.

Interestingly in all such cases the man was convicted."(p91)

So Claire could have had the men of Leoch in court on Slander and Scandalous Carriage!

But back to Laoghaire, she likely would have been charges with Scandalous Carriage.

On pg. 217, it does talk about how cases could be handled either by kirk sessions or by the landowners themselves. It also talks about how some might actually prefer their matter to be heard locally and among their own peers as opposed to going before an anonymous and distant court.

That's a little disingenuous, as the reference on p. 217 is talking about bloodfeud settlements in the 16th century. Not quite the same as a sexual immorality charge in the 18th century.

Incidentally, on page 213 of the same book, it mentions that wife beating was considered a very serious crime.

Glad we can at least agree on that. :)

However, considering the times, I'm inclined to think that it was also probably harder for women to obtain a conviction against their husbands for "wife beating" if he alleges that he was merely "disciplining" or "correcting" his wife's "bad behavior"

No. I've already addresses the "disciplining" or "correcting" defense in a previous post. That didn't matter. It was no excuse. The Courts still convicted the husband of the crime.