Outlander discussion

Mochaspresso wrote: "Pg 70 talks about how alcohol likely contributes to high incidences of domestic violence

Is that surprising? Is that any different than today?

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.

While it may have been common, (and common is a subjective word. One could just as well say wife beating is common today. Or based on statistics, that murder is common today. Sounds depressing, doesn't it?) it was NOT acceptable. (Just as wife beating today is Not Acceptable.) I've addressed that in a previous post as well. (I'm beginning to think some people don't actually read my posts..) After all, if it were ACCEPTABLE, it would not be ILLEGAL, would it? Just like corporal punishment of a child is acceptable (though some may disagree) and LEGAL. However, Beating a child (leaving bruises that last for days) is neither ACCEPTABLE nor LEGAL. Just as beating your wife so that she was left with bruises that lasted for days was neither acceptable nor legal.

Continuing with the comparison between olden days and now: "Wife-beating, for its part, was regarded as a serious offence and could arise out of either a complaint by the wife or reporting of the misbehaviour by neighbours." (Davies, S. p.95) Sounds like now, huh? And if a wife did/does not come forward, does that mean the beating didn't happen? Common sense dictates that many more beatings occur/occurred than are/were ever reported to the authorities.

After all, women were not allowed to own property then. If a man was put in jail for beating his wife (did happen is severe cases) SHE was the one economically disadvantaged. And if she had children at home to feed, it was even worse. Think how many times women today do not report abusive husbands - and in western societies for the most part, women are emancipated. Think you that it would be different in those days when women had much more to lose? Did that make it right? No. It may have given the perception that wife-beating was acceptable (because wives did not report their husbands) but that would be tantamount to saying that domestic violence is acceptable now because most women do not report abusive partners.

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. "

But he WAS convicted. That is what is important there.

As for your 'slap on the wrist' - that depends on perspective. According to Stephen Davies on ecclesiastical punishments: "The mildest was the sessional rebuke, meaning a severe warning and lecture delivered to the guilty party in private before the session. The second level of punishment was the public rebuke. This was a lecture and reproof like the sessional rebuke, but was delivered in public, during divine worship. The offender had to receive it sitting on a special bench at the front of the congregation or, more often, standing up in front of the pulpit. According to eighteenth century accounts these rebukes could be very long and vitriolic and the event was popularly known as the 'wee sermon.' The party, having taken the rebuke, had to ask the minister and congregation for pardon and forgiveness." (p121)

While the sessional, or private, rebuke may have been a slap on the wrist, in both cases cited in your reference, if the defendant came before the court again, they would be 'rebuked before the congregation' or threatened with 'public appearance.'

Why would that be so bad? Well, one because the Kirk, or church was very important in Scottish society at that time. And two because HONOR was an important characteristic. A man's name was his livelihood. While the following addresses cases of slander, the remarks about maintaining one's good name hold true in all circumstances. A man would have been publicly shamed had he been publicly rebuked.
"maintaining one's good name was of great importance and rumour could damage it very severely. Even a casual accusation of wrongdoing, of theft or adultery for example could be picked up and amplified by the 'vox populi' if the slandered did not seek redress and restoration of their good name. This was true even of accusations made in the heat of argument. Unchecked rumour could lead to the emergence of what was called a 'fama clamosa' which would then lead the victim into appearances before courts, their loss of livelihood and even their expulsion from the community, whether barony or parish." Davies, S.J. (p97)

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 would say that was more true in the 14th and 15 century (even into the 16th) but not the 18th century. Especially after the first Jacobite uprising of 1715, baronies (Clans, in other words) were stripped of much of their power. It was after this time that the central court system I've been describing was instituted. The local Chiefs didn't have as much say as they used to.

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).

Wikipedia is not a reliable resource, and none of the information I've been quoting (or Mochaspresso for that matter) was from that source.

All of my sources, thus far have been what is termed a "Scholarly Source". That is:"a source that is peer reviewed or published in a recognized scholarly source, like a journal or a university publisher." (Scholarly peer review is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book.)

For more information see:
https://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/cou... (easy to read)

or:
http://guides.library.cornell.edu/c.p...

Unless you don't trust Cornell University, that is. ;)

Because when I did my research, the historical accuracy her novel is so praised for was her depictions of clan life.

Imo, her depictions of clan life would be better suited to the 14th and 15th century or earlier rather than the mid-18th century. This weekend I read "The Highlanders of Scotland" by Willliam Skene (regarded as one of the oldest and most authoritative books on the subject) and "Women of Scotland" by Helen Susan Swift. Nothing I read in either of those books indicate I'm wrong in that assessment.

(In fact, Women of Scotland had several stories of Scottish women - particularly Highland women kicking derriere! Their husbands and/or invading forces. They were not to be messed with. Which could explain why, if this is so, there were fewer cases of wife-beating in Highland courts than Lowland courts. Their husbands didn't dare!)

EVEN if the Scots were under English law, they still had their own way of doing things.

FYI, the Scottish Parliament was gone by 1720. In 1690 the constitution was reformed and the Lords of the Articles were abolished. Heritable jurisdictions were also abolished (that means, Clan lands were not inheritable anymore.) (FYI, also, incorrect is DG's portrayal of Clan Chief ascension. The brother (meaning Dougal) would succeed the Chief before the son. This according to Skene. Jamie, however, being Collum's sister's son, would have also been in line for Chief ahead of Hamish. So she got that right.)

Different parts of England had different ways of doing things also. Wales vs. London, for example. What's the point? The law was still the law. Many of the examples I've cited were from the 18th century Highlands. If one would care to better examine the records, one would find not so much difference in either court cases or convictions/sentences between Highland records and Lowland records.

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."

Yes, more so in the previous century, I think.

@kat...this is from the introductory paragraphs of the doctoral thesis that you posted.....

"It is important to stress the need for caution in
the use of these manuscripts, both when drawing specific
conclusions from them about legal history and When using
9
them as a source for more general social study. In the
first place, there is the inherently slippery nature of
legal and criminal statistics. Changes in the composition
of a court's business do not necessarily reflect changes
in real crime rates : they are more often the result of
variations in prosecution rates or the number of arrests.
On top of this there is the problem, particularly
significant in the early modern period, of the 'dark figure'
of unreported and hence often unrecorded crime. This is a
great difficulty when studying societies and historical
periods in which people were generally averse to litigation
and pref~red to settle disputes extra-legally : so much so
that some have argued that it is impossible to use court
records to determine crime rates at least before the early
nineteenth century.11 "

I'm inclined to agree that court records might not necessarily be the most definitive and absolute evidence for determining the prevalence of domestic violence in that society. I think the same is probably true of today since so many cases of abuse and domestic violence go unreported.

You are trying to use this document to argue that domestic violence is not as prevalent as we have come to believe, hence "Outlander" is not historically accurate in that regard yet the author of the thesis specifically says that the manuscripts that he studied and referenced for his thesis should not be used that way. I don't understand your goal. How does this prove that "Outlander" is historically inaccurate? Also, I don't believe that anyone is arguing that the beating was "acceptable". This seems to be what you are implying. I certainly am not and never was. Understanding what motivates characters to commit certain actions within the context of a fictional narrative is not the same thing as thinking that those said actions were "acceptable". I understand how Othello was compelled to kill Desdemona....it doesn't mean that I actually thought it was okay.

I'm kind of torn here. Because I get the historical accuracy argument but at the same time, IF the way DG wrote about what happened WAS actually the law and more than likely would have happened, I would have hated to see her write something less controversial simply to avoid the common trope and not be "cliche". So for me this is where the historical accuracy comes into play. I enjoy reading novels that are a fair representation.

The links Kat is providing are definitely interesting. I don't have to much time at the moment to talk indepthly about them but I will say this. It's not enough to change my opinion. Here me out... I'm not being obstinate. I am willing to change my opinion on Outlander being historically accurate. But a few links are not enough. If I'm being honest, I'd probably have to sit and research this myself (again) for hours upon hours. Mostly because I already did this. I think I'd really like to find out where DG got her information from.

Perhaps she did step out of the box when she wanted to. It's quite probable. I haven't heard her, herself say anything about the historical accuracy, only things in this thread and research I had done years ago. Maybe this is all moot? Does anyone know if DG says Outlander is historically accurate? If the author herself doesn't endorse it as such, I would imagine there would be quite a few accuracy flaws. And if she DOES say it is, I have to weigh how much time and effort that would take and compare that to a few measly hours I may exert on the same thing. I mean, if I were writing a novel that I was trying to make historically accurate I'd be visiting the area in which it's written in, museums, reading old archives, books that had nothing to do with my topic but just showed the general culture of the time period, etc. I'd be doing none of those things in my efforts to refute what's been written. Having said that, I don't know for sure if DG did those things. I only know that's what I WOULD do, if I were in her shoes.

If a novel is trying to stay historically accurate, I would like it to remain historically accurate. Do you know what I mean? I would rather it didn't take liberties. And if it did, a foreword or something mentioned somewhere in the book about that. I find that quite frequently, at the end of a historical novel, they'll say where they got their information from and what things they "tweeked" to make it fit their story. I don't mind when authors do that, as long as I know they're doing that.

I also don't mind when authors AREN'T being historically accurate at all. I much prefer when they are. But as long as I KNOW all these little facts, laws, etc aren't based upon anything much then I'm okay with that. I can appreciate the book for what it is, just a story.

I was going somewhere with this and I can't remember where it was.... so I'll stop now lol.

Mochaspresso wrote: "You are trying to use this document to argue that domestic violence is not as prevalent as we have come to believe, hence "Outlander" is not historically accurate in that regard

I posted links to several doctoral theses, and you did not specify which one so I do not know to which one you refer off the top of my head.

No, that is actually not what I wrote. I believe I said that there were probably many more cases of domestic violence that were not reported to the courts then - just as there are today.

What the research shows is that domestic violence was NOT culturally tolerated and encouraged like it is portrayed to be in Outlander.

To refresh your memory, your question was:
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?

So what the research - by Historians, not angry readers - PROVES is that these depictions of this type of punishment were NOT part of the accepted culture (even though it happened) in those times any more than one can say wife beating is part of accepted present day culture (even though it happens).

And that these depictions of clan life are NOT historically accurate.

I don't understand your goal. How does this prove that "Outlander" is historically inaccurate?

See above.

Also, I don't believe that anyone is arguing that the beating was "acceptable". This seems to be what you are implying. "

Really? Because I have seen that exact argument justifying Jamie's beating of Claire. (Don't make me go look it up. I can probably find a few on this thread...) That is was "acceptable" in that time period (even 'expected' of him) and that he acted like a "typical 18th century man".

My point is that beating one's wife was NOT acceptable then, even if it happened. Just as it is Not Acceptable now, even if it happens.

And that by beating Claire, Jamie was NOT acting like a 'typical 18th Century man' any more than a present day abuser could be said to be behaving like a 'typical 21st century man'.

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

Been there. Done that.

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing that the the author should not have included the beating, therefore changing the plot line - although I do think it was totally contrived and a weak excuse to have Claire beaten - been over that too. And that's not what Red is stating either, so far as I can tell. We are both simply arguing against justifying the beating by using the ubiquitous Historical Accuracy argument. (I think - sorry if I got that wrong, Red.)

I have also stated that I came to the book through the TV show. When I read spoilers for the TV show about the upcoming beating scene, I read up on it more - and then read the book. Most of the justification I saw online or in interviews - including at least one from the author herself - was something to the effect of 'Well, that's just what happened in that those days, so it's no big deal. get over it.' Or 'Jamie had every right to beat her.' Or other things along that line. I disagreed. So I started looking around to see if I was the only one who disagreed. Felt like it for awhile. But Lo! and Behold! I found other readers who also disagreed with the beating; disagreed that it even had to take place, but mostly disagreed with people JUSTIFYING it saying 'it was the time period' and 'that's just the way things were'. And blah blah blah Outlander is so historically accurate, blah blah blah.

No It Is Not.

So for anyone out there who still thinks that a 'historical accuracy' argument can justify Claire's beating as punishment for some imagined Clan infraction, then I ask you - have Historians, not angry posters, but actual historians, alleged that these depictions of Clan Life in mid-18th century Scotland ARE historically accurate?

If so, show me. PROVE it.

Mrsbooks wrote: "IF the way DG wrote about what happened WAS actually the law and more than likely would have happened,

While there was an English Law - not sure about Scottish - that husbands could chastise wives, (I've seen it referred to as "the Law of Chastisement" but I can find no actual wording of the Law itself, and according to historians the law was actually pretty vague on what "chastise" meant) there are plenty of court rulings that demonstrate beating was Not part of the law.

Does anyone know if DG says Outlander is historically accurate? If the author herself doesn't endorse it as such, I would imagine there would be quite a few accuracy flaws. I mean, if I were writing a novel that I was trying to make historically accurate I'd be visiting the area in which it's written in, museums, reading old archives, books that had nothing to do with my topic but just showed the general culture of the time period, etc. I'd be doing none of those things in my efforts to refute what's been written. Having said that, I don't know for sure if DG did those things. I only know that's what I WOULD do, if I were in her shoes.

To be fair, (and yes! Believe it or not, I try to be fair. :) ) I have read where the first book was not researched as thoroughly as subsequent books. I believe other posters here have mentioned that, and perhaps it's even on the author's website as well. Outlander - the first book, not the entire series - was an 'experiment' and she wrote it in 18 months or so. Recently I have read where the author states it takes her 2-3 years to write a book due to the amount of research she puts into it (for one thing.) If that is so, she is obviously doing much more research than she did for the first book.

Also, she did not visit Scotland at all PREVIOUS to writing Outlander. (The first book.)

However, like I said early, in interviews about the upcoming tv episode that included the beating, the author did refer to that as being historically accurate.

If a novel is trying to stay historically accurate, I would like it to remain historically accurate. Do you know what I mean?

I also don't mind when authors AREN'T being historically accurate at all. I much prefer when they are. But as long as I KNOW all these little facts, laws, etc aren't based upon anything much then I'm okay with that. I can appreciate the book for what it is, just a story."

I completely agree with this! I actually can (and would) enjoy Outlander MORE -much More = if I hadn't heard so much praise for it's historical accuracy. I probably wouldn't have thought twice about the beating. Okay, maybe I would have. But I probably wouldn't have gone online and done research and started posting here - and the rest of you probably would have been happier about that! :D

Kat wrote: "I posted links to several doctoral theses, and you did not specify which one so I do not know to which one you refer off the top of my head.

It was the Stephen J Davies one. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the links and think that the info in them is quite fascinating and interesting. I just think that it's very dangerous to start going down the route of using court cases to prove or disprove how prevalent domestic violence is.

No, that is actually not what I wrote. I believe I said that there were probably many more cases of domestic violence that were not reported to the courts then - just as there are today.

Fair enough. Then we are actually saying the same thing. :)

What the research shows is that domestic violence was NOT culturally tolerated and encouraged like it is portrayed to be in Outlander.

I understand that, but I also think that you are losing sight of the important fact that the beating in Outlander was not portrayed or thought of as domestic violence from the perspective of the clan. It was portrayed as a disciplinary action. That was the whole point of the understanding that Claire and Jamie eventually reach where he promises to never do it again. They came to realize that they were from different times, different cultures and had entirely different perceptions of what constitutes "domestic violence".

To refresh your memory, your question was:
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?

So what the research - by Historians, not angry readers - PROVES is that these depictions of this type of punishment were NOT part of the accepted culture (even though it happened) in those times any more than one can say wife beating is part of accepted present day culture (even though it happens). And that these depictions of clan life are NOT historically accurate.


The research doesn't actually prove this because it only refers to incidents that were severe or serious enough to make it to a court of law. It also does not account for cultural differences and perceptions of what is and is not considered to be an act of "domestic violence". Kind of like when you told me that what I perceived as merely a "slap on the wrist" punishment for the man, might have actually been perceived as being much more severe in those times....cultural relativism works both ways, I think.

I've been reading through some of the material and thus far, none of the cases presented actually mirror or are similar to the scenario that was portrayed in Outlander. I'm not yet convinced that you have presented evidence that what Jamie did would have actually been percieved as a prosecutable act of "domestic violence" in those times.



Also, I don't believe that anyone is arguing that the beating was "acceptable". This seems to be what you are implying. "

Really? Because I have seen that exact argument justifying Jamie's beating of Claire. (Don't make me go look it up. I can probably find a few on this thread...) That is was "acceptable" in that time period (even 'expected' of him) and that he acted like a "typical 18th century man".

I have not said that...EVER. Please look it up if you feel that you must. You are also playing very deceptive semantics bait and swith game here. Several posters have said that it was common. That is not the same thing as "acceptable". That is also not the same as saying that the "typical 18th century man" beat his wife. I am willing to chalk this up to colloquial differences and misunderstandings in language depending on where one comes from. Where I am from, "common" and "acceptable" are not necessarily used interchangeably as synonyms for each other.

For shits and giggles, I actually decided to go back and read through some of the thread.

MrsBrooks post#5 in this thread...

"5. "Saying domestic violence is just a characteristic of the time period does a disservice to the era."

This may be how you feel but it doesn't make the statement any less true. It WAS a characteristic of the era. I don't think that any woman (or man) feels that ALL men in that era beat their wives because that wouldn't be true and I've yet to read a post that suggests that any of us think that. Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that it did happen.

Diana chose to write about one of those times, fictional as it may be."

Mary, message #58:

do not think anyone who has been discussing the beating scene here thinks it was Jamie's shining moment or in any way thinks it was romantic. It wasn't and it was not meant to be. It was meant to show the very harsh era that Claire found herself in. It was meant to show the very great danger that existed which Claire mostly disregarded up until that point. It was meant to show the great danger both Jamie and Claire were in by virtue of Jamie having a price on his head and no refuge except Castle Leoch. In order to continue to HAVE a safe refuge at Castle Leoch for both Jamie AND Claire, Jamie had to appease the men who Claire put at risk (their lives and the continued safety of Castle Leoch). It actually was a turning point in Jamie and Claire's relationship because Claire made it so by threatening Jamie if he ever hit her again. From that point on, it became more egalitarian. He CHANGED and GREW as a character. He learned that his wife would NOT put up with domestic violence in their relationship, even though it was pretty much a given that men could physically discipline their wives in the 18th century."

You are arguing that this last sentence is not true (that men could physically discipline their wives in the 18th century) and you are citing court cases as evidence. However, the cases that you are citing are not instances of men "physically disciplining" his wives. These are cases where the act(s) of violence are far more severe.

I have seen that exact argument justifying Jamie's beating of Claire. (Don't make me go look it up. I can probably find a few on this thread...) That is was "acceptable" in that time period (even 'expected' of him) and that he acted like a "typical 18th century man".

All those statements you just mentioned are not necessarily untrue. But that doesn't mean I think it was right. All it means is I understand where he was coming from and I FORGIVE him. NOT think he was justified. - Although I understand why HE THINKS he was justified.

I feel like this has been covered quite a lot but I'll explain again I guess. When we talk about Jamie and are arguing from HIS point of view, every time we make a statement we don't feel the need to say every single time "but this doesn't mean he was right" or "This doesn't justify it for me" or any other phrase that says that NO, we don't think it was right. We are simply arguing from his perspective not necessarily our own.

I've said it quite a few times as well as others so I don't feel the need to keep saying it. But to reiterate:

We can forgive Jamie. That is the BIGGEST key. We understand where he was coming from - This may be the second key.

The historical accuracy does give this a huge bump. Lets say it is historically accurate, with no question. Jamie is exhibiting a not so uncommon punishment on his wife. It doesn't go over so well. But because of the time period, I can understand his mind. Here comes the biggest key though: Claire makes him promise to never do such a thing again. - Because of this she is able to forgive him.

A person might not be able to forgive someone if their perspective didn't change along with their actions and conduct. I can fully understand that. Other people would be able to forgive someone if they promised to never do something again, even if said person didn't fully comprehend or understand completely why. I can understand both sides.

As a reader though, I feel like I can forgive Jamie. I may not feel the same if I were actually in Claire's shoes but hopefully I'll never have to make a decision like that.

Kat has definitely given me lots of food for thought. And although I haven't gone down the path and said for sure "this isn't historically accurate" I have looked and examined the "what if this isn't historically accurate path."

Let go with that. Lets say this whole scene is NOT historically accurate and that these rules and laws and this culture exists only because DG created it to be that way. I find myself realizing that the same rules apply. I can STILL understand the why's. I can still see where the men are coming from. And I can still forgive Jamie.

I never thought I'd be saying that the historical accuracy argument doesn't matter. Honestly. But apparently I was wrong. I think I may be crossing over lol.

But seriously. This isn't about justifying anything so much as it is forgiving. If something is forgivable or not is largely up to each person who does the forgiving. Some of us might have real life experience and others can only use their imaginations - and make that call "can I forgive this?"

I could probably forgive some pretty serious offences. IF , I can understand why the offence was made in the first place and IF I feel confident it will never happen again.

Mochaspresso wrote: the important fact that the beating in Outlander was not portrayed or thought of as domestic violence from the perspective of the clan. It was portrayed as a disciplinary action.

It also does not account for cultural differences and perceptions of what is and is not considered to be an act of "domestic violence"."

Good points. Even Jamie thinks domestic violence is wrong. He obviously has a very different perspective of what it was.

Is there any place that we ca ask DG questions? Anybody know of anywhere?

I follow her on facebook and I have seen that she answers fans from time to time. Anne Rice interacts with her fans and critics alike on facebook too. So does John Green. I supposed facebook is as good as any place to start.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I just think that it's very dangerous to start going down the route of using court cases to prove or disprove how prevalent domestic violence is.

My intent of showing the court cases (and results) was not to prove or disprove how prevalent domestic violence was, but to demonstrate that it was frowned upon.

It was portrayed as a disciplinary action.

Oh, I didn't lose sight of that at all, though perhaps I failed to explain properly. What the court cases prove is that, even as a disciplinary action, beating one's wife was illegal.

The research doesn't actually prove this because it only refers to incidents that were severe or serious enough to make it to a court of law.

Not true. There were also court cases cited where a husband simply *threatened* to beat his wife (I believe I actually posted that) and he was found guilty. Even *threatening* physical violence upon one's spouse (for the record, there are also court cases where the husband took the wife to court for the same thing) was illegal.

It also does not account for cultural differences and perceptions of what is and is not considered to be an act of "domestic violence".

Well, true, since they didn't use the term "domestic violence" back then. The courts referred to it as beating. Which is what Claire got - a beating. A beating that left her bruised for days.

I'm not yet convinced that you have presented evidence that what Jamie did would have actually been percieved as a prosecutable act of "domestic violence" in those times.

He beat her so badly she had bruises. That would have been a actionable offense. Again, refer to where women could and did take their husbands to court for simply threatening them with physical harm.

I have not said that...EVER.

No, I never said you. And I realize I should have made that distinction. But I have seen other posters make remarks that led me to believe that's what they were inferring.

You are also playing very deceptive semantics bait and swith game here. Several posters have said that it was common. That is not the same thing as "acceptable". That is also not the same as saying that the "typical 18th century man" beat his wife. I am willing to chalk this up to colloquial differences and misunderstandings in language depending on where one comes from. Where I am from, "common" and "acceptable" are not necessarily used interchangeably as synonyms for each other.

If I am playing the bait and switch game as you say, then I am not the only one. At least I have been, I believe, attempting to address all questions/concerns directed to me directly. As have you, I think. And I appreciate that. :) I really do. There have been other posters though, who when asked a direct question or charged with a direct allegation conveniently ignore it and change the subject.

And I agree with the "common" and "acceptable" being noninterchangeable remark.

It WAS a characteristic of the era. I don't think that any woman (or man) feels that ALL men in that era beat their wives because that wouldn't be true and I've yet to read a post that suggests that any of us think that. Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that it did happen.

Again, I don't think I've ever said that it didn't happen. What I've said is that it was illegal. Moreover, a man who truly considered himself honorable, would not have done such a thing.

In order to continue to HAVE a safe refuge at Castle Leoch for both Jamie AND Claire, Jamie had to appease the men who Claire put at risk (their lives and the continued safety of Castle Leoch).

Ah, see - I disagree with this. And I think the research shows that physically disciplining Claire would not necessarily have been the correct action - certainly not the only action available - of the time to 'appease' the men. And in fact, it was an illegal action.

He CHANGED and GREW as a character.

And we're back to what drew me out of lurking in the firsts place. :) From what I've read so far (halfway into the second book) he didn't change and grow as a character. And since this board is only about the first book - then I don't read that at all. Not when he *laughed* and ridiculed Claire when she flinched when he took off his belt after they got back to Leoch.

even though it was pretty much a given that men could physically discipline their wives in the 18th century.

Is this another colloquial difference? Is that the same as saying it was acceptable? I don't think any of research shows that men *could* physically discipline their wives, as in it was okay for them to do it. Yes, they *could* do it because they were generally bigger and stronger. Which is how Jamie got away with it as well. But it still was not legal, accepted, or even customary in clan law, civil law, criminal law, or society.

However, the cases that you are citing are not instances of men "physically disciplining" his wives. These are cases where the act(s) of violence are far more severe.

Not true. Again, reference the court cases where the wives were only threatened. Or the man said he only gave his wife a "box on the ear". I cited those as well.

Mrsbooks wrote: "All it means is I understand where he was coming from and I FORGIVE him. NOT think he was justified. - Although I understand why HE THINKS he was justified.

We can forgive Jamie. That is the BIGGEST key. We understand where he was coming from - This may be the second key."

I put these two statements together because they were basically the same. Anyway..THANK YOU for taking the time to explain. Again. :) YOU (specifically and perhaps Mochaspresso?) might be the only ones who feel that way! Lol. To be honest, I've not seen many other posters - here or elsewhere - verbalize those opinions.

A LOT of what I've seen - and to what I'm mostly responding - is of the 'Jamie was right and you are wrong to condemn him for it and how DARE you even question him!' variety. I realize that's not everyone. And please don't feel like I'm lumping you (that's a general you, not a specific you) into that category if it does not apply.

When we talk about Jamie and are arguing from HIS point of view, every time we make a statement we don't feel the need to say every single time "but this doesn't mean he was right" or "This doesn't justify it for me" or any other phrase that says that NO, we don't think it was right. We are simply arguing from his perspective not necessarily our own.

Not trying to place blame here - so please don't take this personally - but don't you think that that could maybe contribute to misunderstandings? While it may seem redundant, it may be worth constantly reiterating the "but this doesn't mean he was right" parts. Just as I have had to constantly reiterate some things, such as I don't actually hate the characters...or the book...or even the author. :)

The historical accuracy does give this a huge bump.

I cut out a lot of stuff to save space. I just wanted to say I agree with all that you said in that section. :)

As a reader though, I feel like I can forgive Jamie. I may not feel the same if I were actually in Claire's shoes but hopefully I'll never have to make a decision like that.

This may be where we differ the most. I'm not sure I can forgive Jamie. I definitely don't think I could have if I were Claire. Someone is probably going to rail against me for that - but it is what it is. And while I respect - and definitely admire - you and others who have the ability to forgive Jamie, I hope that others at least respect my right to have my opinion as well.

"Lets say this whole scene is NOT historically accurate and that these rules and laws and this culture exists only because DG created it to be that way. I find myself realizing that the same rules apply. I can STILL understand the why's. I can still see where the men are coming from. And I can still forgive Jamie."

LOL! I can understand why also, even more so if it is not historically accurate than if it was supposed to be historically accurate. Still not sure about forgiving Jamie though...

"This isn't about justifying anything so much as it is forgiving. If something is forgivable or not is largely up to each person who does the forgiving. Some of us might have real life experience and others can only use their imaginations - and make that call "can I forgive this?"

I can forgive so many offences. IF , I can understand why the offence was made in the first place and IF I feel confident it will never happen again. "

Hm..definitely food for thought there, Mrsbooks! I don't think I've considered that it was about forgiving rather than justifying. That, as they say, is a horse of a different color!

Mrsbooks wrote: "Good points. Even Jamie thinks domestic violence is wrong. He obviously has a very different perspective of what it was."

Well, like has been pointed out, 'domestic violence' was not part of the terminology back then. Even if one granted that Jamie didn't think it right to beat his wife (although he that's what he did...) then, I think what you are saying is that he might have a different perspective on what constituted proper discipline? Is this right?

I'll probably get lambasted for this, but hey, it's the man's own words... And really, if I'd been Claire, when I heard this, I would have been mad as a hornet all over again.

This is Ian telling a story after they get to Lollybrach (after the beating, after Jamie's vow):
"One of Jamie's better arguments, that was," he said, rolling his eyes upward. "He told Brian it was uncivilized to use physical force in order to make your point of view prevail. Corporal punishment was barbarous, he said, and old-fashioned, to boot. Thrashing someone just because they had committed an act with whose ram-ramifications, that was it—with whose ramifications ye didn't agree was not at a' a constructive form of punishment…"

Really Jamie? Uncivilized to use physical force, huh? And read that last line again, please. What was your name again? James Alexander Malcolm MacKenzie 'Hypocrite' Fraser?

Mrsbooks wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: the important fact that the beating in Outlander was not portrayed or thought of as domestic violence from the perspective of the clan. It was portrayed as a disciplinary actio..."

I saw this as part of a more militaristic aspect. Let me explain.

Correct me if I am wrong, but tis scene happens when Dougal (War Chief) and Jamie, Murtaugh and others were supposedly collecting rents from the crofts throughout the clan territory and was used as a guise for fund raising for the raising of a 2nd Jacobite Army to restore Bonnie Prince Charlie to the throne. Jamie being used as propaganda, Ned Gowan to ensure the proper record keeping of the rents paid and the others to ensure the safety of the group should any Lobsterbacks or rival clans set upon them during the travels.

That being said, what Claire did could have been construed as a serious breach of military protocol (even though as a female she was being used as "bait" of sorts). She distinctly and directly disobeyed a direct order from a high ranking officer(Jamie) and by doing so, seriously put the others in very real and distinct danger. It would be construed as possible desertion or, at the very least, disobeying a direct order. As such, the standard punishment for this offense was ususally flogging and time in the brig. Looking at it from a simply militaristic POV, she really did get off lucky with Jamie administering the punishment and not Dougal, as was his right as the acting Laird.

Again, I know this NEVER justifies domestic violence at all. This seems more a plausible explanation for the reason Jamie "tanned her arse".

I wonder if anyone had possibly considered this POV instead of jumping to the more immediate domestic violence angle.

There have been so many comments that have been made since I was last here that I am just going to make a general statement. :) The idea that historical accuracy cannot be found by using court documents is hard for me to handle. I am a history major and any court document, legal document, or religious document is the way that we know so much about certain cultures that did not leave behind much else. This is basically how we have almost all of our knowledge of Egyptian culture. Maybe I am misunderstanding what was said about this but as a historian myself that is the most reliable way of understanding what was acceptable and what was not.

From things that I have read from the author, she says that there was not nearly as much research put into the first book than any of the others. Like Kat said, it was an experiment to see what it was like to write a fiction book. She has admitted that she got things wrong, not only in the Gaelic words but in some of the time frame stuff as well. That is why there is a discrepancy in the year at the beginning of the book from the American version to the British version. Someone told her that they would not be able to leave the army at that time and so later she changed the year. As for the beating scene, I have never heard her say that it was historically accurate. I have also never heard her say that it wasn't. She has spoken as to the justification for Jamie's action (justification not correctness) on Compuserve. (a sight that she is on all the time talking to readers and other authors) She has given several accounts on that site as to why it was in his character etc. The historical accuracy praised for the clan life I think are more for the later books. I know that there would seem to be less of it in those but there actually is not. There is not an actually laird so much in many of the later books (not including the second) but I think this is what that praise was from not the first book.


As to being able to forgive Jamie. Before I began reading this thread I had forgiven him. Mainly because I did not give this scene much thought since I read through the books so fast. After talking to some people on this thread it made me look at the story as a whole in a lot more depth. I think that on this thread I started out using the argument that he was given a chance to grow and change from these actions, and that he never did it again and that was why I could forgive him for it but never forget. After having thought more about Jamie's interactions, not just with Claire when he was upset, but with many others I take back this argument. He never changed. He is a man of his word. Like in many different parts of the books he never goes back on his word. He gave his word to Claire that he would not hit her again. At one point she asks for it and he refuses (the second book). As Kat has pointed out in a previous statement later in the first book he laughs as Claire when she thinks he is going to hit her again. He does not get in the way of other men beating their wives or children, in fact he defends them from Claire's ridicule. At one point in later books he even says that he has moments of regret for the oath he gave to Claire because it would relieve some of his anger. All of these and many others are reasons that I can no longer forgive Jamie for what he has done. Even though I can understand his perspective he is unwilling to see that it might not be the best way to deal with things. He only 'changes' because he is a man of his word and that only applies to Claire.

Sorry for the rant. I think I got out what was in my head. If not I can make it more clear (hopefully :))

Maddie wrote: "There have been so many comments that have been made since I was last here that I am just going to make a general statement. :) The idea that historical accuracy cannot be found by using court documents is hard for me to handle. I am a history major and any court document, legal document, or religious document is the way that we know so much about certain cultures that did not leave behind much else. This is basically how we have almost all of our knowledge of Egyptian culture. Maybe I am misunderstanding what was said about this but as a historian myself that is the most reliable way of understanding what was acceptable and what was not.


I just want to say that my leeriness to rely on exclusively court documents had more to do with the conclusions that were being drawn from them. Imo, it's akin to using police reports to determine whether or not rapes are occurring on college campuses and then concluding that they don't happen. This method of research doesn't account for rapes that were unreported. It doesn't account for rapes that were improperly investigated or not investigated at all. It doesn't account for cases that the college chose to handle internally as a disciplinary action.

Also, doesn't it depend on the culture that you are trying to research? If you want to understand slavery, slave narratives are a better source than court documents in some instances. For example, there were laws on the books in some states that made it illegal to mistreat a slave. It was punishable by fines and the slave could be sold if the master was convicted of cruelty and there are court cases to document this. However, these court cases are not proof that said cruelty did not exist in those times and should not be interpreted as such. This is what it seemed like what Kat was doing with the court cases. I think it's a very dangerous road, especially when you are dealing with marginalized/disenfranchised/oppressed etc. segments of society.

...or it could just be that I have been reading the end notes of "The Handmaid's Tale" and have been taking them a little bit too seriously. :)

Mochaspresso wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I just want to say that my leeriness to rely on exclusively court documents had more to do with the conclusions that were being drawn from them. Imo, it's akin to using police reports to determine whether or not rapes are occurring on college campuses and then concluding that they don't happen. This method of research doesn't account for rapes that were unreported. It doesn't account for cases that the college chose to handle internally as a disciplinary action. "

I totally understand where you are coming from. There is not really going to be any form of reliable research for things that are unreported. Even today the percentage of rapes that are unreported is a guess or at least an approximation. You will never know for sure. But you have to start somewhere to find out if it is something that is legal or not. I think that is more of what Kat is looking at. (sorry if it is not Kat feel free to correct me :)) But yes I agree with you that it should not be the only thing that you look at if there is some other form of documentation that you can get obviously you would look at both. However, in this instance I am not sure if there would be many other sources to look at to find out the acceptable forms of inter-family discipline (as Jamie mostlikely viewed it).

Also, doesn't it depend on the culture that you are trying to research? If you want to understand slavery, slave narratives are a better source than court documents in some instances. For example, there were laws on the books in some states that made it illegal to mistreat a slave. It was punishable by fines and the slave could be sold if the master was convicted of cruelty and there are court cases to document this. However, these court cases are not proof that said cruelty did not exist in those times and should not be interpreted as such. This is what it seemed like what Kat was doing with the court cases. I think it's a very dangerous road, especially when you are dealing with marginalized/disenfranchised/oppressed etc. segments of society.

It also depends on the types of documents that are available and what you are trying to learn. In your scenario I think that looking at slave narratives would not actually give you much on the laws of punishments. Most slaves, complete generalization because there are several documented cases to the contrary, would not know what was legal or illegal for the master to beat them for. They worked more under fear than because it was the law. American law would not matter to them. I think that we can infer, from the fact that there was a law that made cruelty to slaves as punishable in someway, that it was a problem that more than just the documented cases.

If for example you were to look at the drug laws of today. Not nearly all of the users and buyers are documented. We only have a relatively small amount of them. We can infer that this is the amount that go unreported. Like with the unreported rapes that you mentioned. The statistic comes from a guess. But that statistic has to start somewhere. If there was no problem then there would be no law. If there was no one to complain about it there would be no reason for someone to say lets make this illegal. That is what you can gain from court cases. You can learn the types of things that were felt at the time to fall under the legality of the law and if there are a lot of cases or a very small amount of cases you can infer how many are unreported or handled in a different way outside of court. While basing a conclusion solely on that of one type of source can be a dangerous road, you have to start your hypothesis somewhere. For some people it is enough and others it is not. That is normally why in a paper or thesis you would have multiply types of documents that are pulled from as well as multiple of one type.

@maddie. Fair enough to everything that you've said. I just don't want to go down the road of concluding that domestic violence didn't happen in that society simply because there are court cases where men were prosecuted for it. Someone studying our society 300 years from now should not conclude that murder does not occur in our society just because they can find court cases dealing with it. That would be a very wrong conclusion. That is all that I am really saying.

Mochaspresso wrote: "@maddie. Fair enough to everything that you've said. I just don't want to go down the road of concluding that domestic violence didn't happen in that society simply because there are court cases..."

I totally agree with you there. :) For me a court case is just a starting point to find more information. And sometimes that is all that you have.

Mochaspresso wrote: "@maddie. Fair enough to everything that you've said. I just don't want to go down the road of concluding that domestic violence didn't happen in that society simply because there are court cases..."

I'm confused by this. Once again, I never said that men did not beat or abuse women in the 18th century. Maddie got it right: I was using the court documents to show that it was illegal to do so and not condoned by society at large. There's a difference as you pointed out. Murder happens now. That doesn't mean it's legal or that we as a society condone it.

If someone 300 years from now only studied murder statistics, they might well infer that it was acceptable, since it was so prevalent. However, if they then studied court records, I think they would definitely be able to conclude that it was illegal an not appropriate.

Yes, husbands beat their wives in the 18th century. However, it was not legal or appropriate or condoned by society.

As far as other documentation you mentioned - I also cited more than just doctoral theses and court cases. I cited books written specifically about Scottish Clans and their customs.

Corky wrote: "I saw this as part of a more militaristic aspect."

I think you got the setting correct. And I understand what you are saying about a breach of military protocol. I agree with all that there. I think I've even seen this argument elsewhere. And doesn't Jamie, in some of his exposition prior to the beating, say something to that effect also? ("If you'd been a man" or something like that.)

The problem with this pov for me is that Claire is not in the military. :) She's not even in the Clan MacKenzie. She's a Fraser by this point. And while Jamie pledged, not his fealty, but only his obedience to Collum while he was on MacKenzie land, Claire made no such oath.

Also, her marriage was made under duress. To me, that's like sailors during the time period of the American Revolution who were pressed into service on British ships that overtook American merchant ships. They didn't volunteer. They weren't even drafted like men during WWII and on. They were forced - like slaves. Those sailors had no obligation to follow orders and remain faithful to the England if they were able to make good their escape, any more than a slave had an obligation to stay with their owner if they were able to make it to the underground railroad. Therefore Claire had no obligation to follow orders - strictly from a militaristic pov.

And while sailors pressed into service would certainly have been beaten, or worse, for disobeying orders, does that make it right? Again, they were not there under their own free will. Let's not forget, that even before her marriage to Jamie, Claire was not in the company of the MacKenzies on her own free will. She was a prisoner. A prisoner of war, if you will. Do prisoners of war have an obligation to obey orders from their captors if they can get away with not doing so?

Kat wrote: "I'm confused by this. Once again, I never said that men did not beat or abuse women in the 18th century. Maddie got it right: I was using the court documents to show that it was illegal to do so and not condoned by society at large. There's a difference as you pointed out. Murder happens now. That doesn't mean it's legal or that we as a society condone it.

If someone 300 years from now only studied murder statistics, they might well infer that it was acceptable, since it was so prevalent. However, if they then studied court records, I think they would definitely be able to conclude that it was illegal an not appropriate.

Yes, husbands beat their wives in the 18th century. However, it was not legal or appropriate or condoned by society.

As far as other documentation you mentioned - I also cited more than just doctoral theses and court cases. I cited books written specifically about Scottish Clans and their customs.



To my knowledge and recollection of this thread, I do not think that there have been any posts where people have said that it was "appropriate or condoned". Speaking for me, that is not synonymous with "historically accurate". Those are two entirely different concepts.

But at least the air has been cleared now and we all understand each other a little better even if we don't necessarily agree.

Maddie wrote: "Maybe I am misunderstanding what was said about this but as a historian myself that is the most reliable way of understanding what was acceptable and what was not."

Thank you Maddie! That's what I was trying to get across. Not whether or not something happened. But whether or not it was acceptable.

"That is why there is a discrepancy in the year at the beginning of the book from the American version to the British version. Someone told her that they would not be able to leave the army at that time and so later she changed the year."

I didn't know that! That's very interesting. Thank you for sharing that.

"There is not an actually laird so much in many of the later books (not including the second) but I think this is what that praise was from not the first book."

And *that* would be more historically accurate than the portrayal in Outlander.

"As to being able to forgive Jamie."

Oh No! I never meant to make anyone change their mind about forgiving him or not. :) Like I said, I admire those who can/have forgiven him. I'm still not exactly sure where I stand on that myself. Sometimes I think I can move past it, then other times I get get burned up about it again.

I only wanted to refute the 'historical accuracy' justification for the beating. If, I think as I said earlier, it had been framed as 'well, it's just something he did, it's fiction, and there it is, etc' I would have been much more okay with that.

I do wholeheartedly agree with this "He only 'changes' because he is a man of his word and that only applies to Claire."

Kat wrote: "Oh No! I never meant to make anyone change their mind about forgiving him or not. :) Like I said, I admire those who can/have forgiven him. I'm still not exactly sure where I stand on that myself. Sometimes I think I can move past it, then other times I get get burned up about it again."

Don't worry Kat it wasn't one specific person that changed my mind. And I think it was before you actually came onto the thread. :) It was a combination of reading everything that Red wrote and having some conversations with her and other people on the tread that just made me think about the whole scene in more detail.

Mochaspresso wrote: "To my knowledge and recollection of this thread, I do not think that there have been any posts where people have said that it was "appropriate or condoned". Speaking for me, that is not synonymous with "historically accurate". Those are two entirely different concepts.

But at least the air has been cleared now and we all understand each other a little better even if we don't necessarily agree. "

Speak for yourself woman! I'm still confused! Lol. (Don't worry - it seems to be a perpetual state with me at times.)

Are you saying that the 'historically accurate' justification does not condone Jamie's behavior even from his pov? Because, I thought that was one of the main reasons why he beat Claire in the first place - he thought it was appropriate discipline for his wife like 'a typical 18th century man' would and that by allowing it to happen, and indeed encouraging it, and 'chaffing' her the next day about it, the rest of the men of the clan certainly condoned it.

But what I've tried to show through court judgments, ecclesiastical pronouncements, and quotes from contemporaries, is that it certainly would not have been condoned by other men *of the time period* - not just by us today. And that *even in the 18th century* physical punishment of one's wife was not appropriate behavior, legal, or endorsed by any gentleman of honor.

Kat wrote: "Speak for yourself woman! I'm still confused! Lol. (Don't worry - it seems to be a perpetual state with me at times.)

Are you saying that the 'historically accurate' justification does not condone Jamie's behavior even from his pov? Because, I thought that was one of the main reasons why he beat Claire in the first place - he thought it was appropriate discipline for his wife like 'a typical 18th century man' would and that by allowing it to happen, and indeed encouraging it, and 'chaffing' her the next day about it, the rest of the men of the clan certainly condoned it.

But what I've tried to show through court judgments, ecclesiastical pronouncements, and quotes from contemporaries, is that it certainly would not have been condoned by other men *of the time period* - not just by us today. And that *even in the 18th century* physical punishment of one's wife was not appropriate behavior, legal, or endorsed by any gentleman of honor.


The fact that she was his wife is not truly the issue. He thought it was appropriate discipline according to what he perceived she did wrong regardless of who she was to him....disobeying an order and endangering the lives of several people in the process. This is Jamie's pov in the novel, not my own personal one. I don't condone his actions. However, within the context of the story, I understand how and why he was inclined to think the way that he does. He was a product of his time and upbringing. Someone likened it to a military action and I think that I agree with this. Jamie was a soldier and to him, actions such as Claire's have life or death consequences. I think he even says something to that effect to Claire at one point. Had Claire been in the military today and did what she did, I think it is very likely that she would have at the very least been hazed by her peers in some manner....and then possibly court-martialed. (Again....this is not me condoning. For example, I understand why Carrie burned down the entire gym. That doesn't mean that I thought that she was right or justified to do it. Understanding and condoning are also not synonomous.)

I've said this before and I will say it again, I don't think the beating was a marital issue. Claire would have been disciplined by the clan for her actions regardless of whether she was married to Jamie or not. The beating was not about a husband and wife and some type of marital dispute. It was a clan issue.

Corky wrote: "I saw this as part of a more militaristic aspect. Let me explain.

Correct me if I am wrong, but tis scene happens when Dougal (War Chief) and Jamie, Murtaugh and others were supposedly collecting rents from the crofts throughout the clan territory and was used as a guise for fund raising for the raising of a 2nd Jacobite Army to restore Bonnie Prince Charlie to the throne. ..."

I agree with Corky and Mochaspresso...the punishment was due to Claire's disobeying a military order that endangered the group. Jamie administered the punishment to save her from being punished by Dougal or banned from the group/clan. It was not a domestic issue.

Claire may not have taken an oath, but when she married Jamie she became a member of his family and the clan.

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Good points. Even Jamie thinks domestic violence is wrong. He obviously has a very different perspective of what it was."

Well, like has been pointed out, 'domestic violence' was ..."

That does sound like quite the contradiction in personality. Can you tell me where this is? I'd like to read it in the setting because I don't remember it.

Maddie wrote: As to being able to forgive Jamie..... I started out using the argument that he was given a chance to grow and change from these actions, and that he never did it again and that was why I could forgive him for it but never forget. After having thought more about Jamie's interactions, not just with Claire when he was upset, but with many others I take back this argument. He never changed. He is a man of his word. Like in many different parts of the books he never goes back on his word. He gave his word to Claire that he would not hit her again. At one point she asks for it and he refuses (the second book)...... He does not get in the way of other men beating their wives or children, in fact he defends them from Claire's ridicule. At one point in later books he even says that he has moments of regret for the oath he gave to Claire because it would relieve some of his anger. All of these and many others are reasons that I can no longer forgive Jamie for what he has done. Even though I can understand his perspective he is unwilling to see that it might not be the best way to deal with things. He only 'changes' because he is a man of his word and that only applies to Claire. "


I can totally understand this. I do understand why some people can't forgive him. Just this week I read a romance novel that tons of people love and the Hero does something that I would never have been able to forgive. Everyone has their lines drawn and most peoples are different. Especially when you weigh other things in the balance. Most people don't just take under consideration just this one thing that was done to them. They weight it with other things, other good things and other bad things.

Sort of like if a mate commits adultery. Each person is different in what they can forgive. I'd try my best not to judge someone who decided to forgive their partner for that. If we take just that one offense and only think of that, the answer seems really easy to make but when you weight it with years spent together, perhaps children in the mix, how happy you once where, etc. There are so many variables.

I will always be irritated with how quickly Claire forgave Jamie. I think out of everything that seemed the most unrealistic to me. And perhaps this is because of the type of person I am. If someone does something that hurts me I tend to stew in it for a while. I can't think of anything else and in order to actually move on and forgive I NEED to stew for a while. It is a part of the healing process for me. I need to wallow in those feelings of betrayal before I can let it all go.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Kat wrote: "That does sound like quite the contradiction in personality. Can you tell me where this is? I'd like to read it in the setting because I don't remember it. "

Chapter 29 "More Honesty". Pretty much near the beginning, so you won't have to read far into the chapter to find it. They are all sitting around after dinner at Lollybroch(sp?) telling stories.

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Kat wrote: "That does sound like quite the contradiction in personality. Can you tell me where this is? I'd like to read it in the setting because I don't remember it. "

Chapter 2..."

I reread that part. I have to be frank. It bothers me when isolated lines are quoted from a book out of context like this. It misrepresents the book, misleads people who haven't read it for themselves and this isn't fair.

It isn't really the dramatic contradiction or hypocritical change of character that is being implied. Ian was telling a funny childhood story about how he and Jamie got into trouble. Jamie was a child at the time and was precociously attempting to get out of a spanking using that argument. So, instead of the spanking, his father ordered both boys to clean the tower and it was so big that it took them 5 days to finish. Ian thought it was a far worse punishment and would rather have had the beating. He was so mad at Jamie that on the 3rd day of cleaning, he hit Jamie over the head with his broom.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I reread that part. I have to be frank. It bothers me when isolated lines are quoted from a book out of context like this. It misrepresents the book, misleads people who haven't read it for themselves and this isn't fair. "

Well Frank, I disagree. I don't think it's out of context at all. In fact, when I first quoted the passage, I gave the setting. It demonstrates what Jamie thought process and beliefs he was beginning to form when he was younger. He believed it enough then to make the argument. I don't think Jamie was a 'child' at the time. I think they were both at least adolescents - certainly old enough to form an opinion and make a well spoken argument. Using words like "ramifications" and "corporal punishment" is far beyond a 'precocious' child's capabilities. I also don't think if he'd only been a 'precocious child' that his father would have listened to him and taken him seriously enough to even consider doling out the alternative punishment that he did.

And at least his father listened to him and took his argument seriously. Something Jamie never gave Claire the chance to do.

Or do you often argue in favor of things that you don't really believe?

Kat wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I reread that part. I have to be frank. It bothers me when isolated lines are quoted from a book out of context like this. It misrepresents the book, misleads people who haven..."

I have to agree with Mochaspresso on this one.

Jamie is a kid (or adolescent, early teen, etc) who doesn't want his punishment and he's making a very good argument against it. He's doing the best he can to get out of it.

But we KNOW Jamie doesn't believe what he said when he was younger because he already beat Claire and thought it was justified. That right there tells us how he feels about it. Plus in book 2 he hands over a belt or whip or something to the men under his charge during the war because he failed to keep guard and he lets them beat him with it as his punishment. I believe this is after he beats another man under his command for also not guarding properly.

Even the quotes already mentioned from Jamie on the previous page show that he doesn't really believe what he had said when he was young and trying to get out of being punished.

Or to be fair, we could say that Jamie may have truly believed what he said when he was that age. I felt my parents weren't fair about A LOT of my punishments but as I grew up I understood them better.

Whichever way it is, whether he believed what he said when he was younger or whether he was just trying to get out of being punished, he clearly does not believe that way as a man. - Wish he did though! :)

Kat wrote: "Well Frank, I disagree. I don't think it's out of context at all. In fact, when I first quoted the passage, I gave the setting. It demonstrates what Jamie thought process and beliefs he was beginning to form when he was younger. He believed it enough then to make the argument. I don't think Jamie was a 'child' at the time. I think they were both at least adolescents - certainly old enough to form an opinion and make a well spoken argument. Using words like "ramifications" and "corporal punishment" is far beyond a 'precocious' child's capabilities. I also don't think if he'd only been a 'precocious child' that his father would have listened to him and taken him seriously enough to even consider doling out the alternative punishment that he did.

And at least his father listened to him and took his argument seriously. Something Jamie never gave Claire the chance to do.

Or do you often argue in favor of things that you don't really believe?



In Favor? I'm not arguing in favor of his father beating him. I'm arguing that you took the quoted lines out of context to demonstrate that Jamie was being hypocritical.

This is Ian telling a story after they get to Lollybrach (after the beating, after Jamie's vow):
"One of Jamie's better arguments, that was," he said, rolling his eyes upward. "He told Brian it was uncivilized to use physical force in order to make your point of view prevail. Corporal punishment was barbarous, he said, and old-fashioned, to boot. Thrashing someone just because they had committed an act with whose ram-ramifications, that was it—with whose ramifications ye didn't agree was not at a' a constructive form of punishment…"

Really Jamie? Uncivilized to use physical force, huh? And read that last line again, please. What was your name again? James Alexander Malcolm MacKenzie 'Hypocrite' Fraser?

It isn't fair to use this line as evidence of him being a hypocrite because you gave only part of the setting and did not reference the conversation in it's proper context. You didn't mention that Jamie was an "adolescent" that was only trying to get out of a punishment from his father at the time.

btw, Jamie did actually listen to Claire. However, as I've said several times, it wasn't merely a domestic issue between a husband and wife/father and son and it isn't fair to compare the two incidents in that manner. Had it been a mere domestic issue that only affected their household and none other, I honestly don't believe that Jamie would have beat Claire. I keep reiterating this, but Claire's punishment was a clan issue, not a domestic/marital one. Someone in that clan was going to punish Claire regardless. Married or not. Sassenach or not. Male or female. It misrepresents the story to keep trying to frame that incident differently.

Mochaspresso wrote: "It was a clan issue."
I understand that you think this is Jamie's pov in the novel. And it may very well be based on the little that Claire reports that he says, but we don't get to read his pov, so it may not truly be either. It could be he says that (about how if she'd been a man) because he's just trying to deflect the anger toward him that he knows she going to feel - hoping that if she actually buys that swill then she won't blame *him* for beating her and hold a grudge. (After all, it's not *his* fault - he HAD to do it!)

The problem for me with this rationalization is, as I've stated before, Claire was not a 'soldier' like Jamie. It doesn't matter that she was married to him *in this context*. Historically, women in Scotland kept their own last names. Because they never really joined their husbands Clans. (See any book about Scottish Clans)

But even if we play along with the Outlander universe of clan laws/politics, once Claire married Jamie, she was his wife and part of HIS clan. Fraser, not MacKenzie. SHE made no oath, but Jamie did. Since she was basically Jamie's property and HE was responsible for her actions under the rules of patriarchy, HE would have been the one beaten *by the clan*, not her. But He beat her because that was a wife disobeying her husband's order, not a 'soldier' disobeying her superior officer as women were not subject to the same clan laws as men. If THAT is true, then once again, it's a marital issue, not a military issue.

The problem with the argument "had Claire been in the military" is IT DOESN'T MATTER. It's not applicable. Claire Was Not In The Military. Jamie was in the 'military' if you will - the book talks about how he only got a 'soldier's salary'. At best, Claire was a military wife. So if you want to make a true comparison, it would be like if a military wife today did disobeyed her husband overseas, wandered into enemy territory, was taken hostage, and he led a squad of soldiers to rescue her. Would a military wife today be faced with any governmental punitive action? Would she be put in the brig or sent to Leavenworth? No. At worst she'd be sent home and not allowed to visit him again on base.

Unless it was treason, and that's different. In that case, the governing body would effect the punishment, not the husband. So if this were really a Clan Issue, then the Laird, or his second in charge (in this case Dougal as war chief) would have enacted the punishment.

"Claire would have been disciplined by the clan for her actions regardless of whether she was married to Jamie or not."
Oh No, she would not! First, they might not have even bothered to rescue her if she hadn't been married to Jamie. But even if they had rescued her, and if she had not been married to Jamie, the Clan absolutely *could NOT* have punished her! They had NO authority over her. Remember, they called her a "guest" - well a guest is able to leave whenever they want. Since Claire left of her own free will that was not disobeying orders. And the onus for endangering men would have been on the officer in charge of the raid - or in this case, Jamie.

" The beating was not about a husband and wife and some type of marital dispute."
Because it was her husband that beat her, that made it a marital issue.

Remember Laoghaire - in the castle? Let's pretend for a moment that her 'indiscretion' would have actually been handled by the Chief in his barony court, instead of church session. THAT would have been a clan issue. Remember what her father wanted? Her father wanted Collum to discipline her. Her father would not have beaten her in the hall. (Then that would have been a family issue.) Someone else would have done it.

If this were truly a clan issue, her husband would not have beaten her. Someone else would have done it.

And don't tell me Jamie did it to spare her humiliation, etc, etc, etc. If he were a 'soldier' and this was a military punishment as you've said, the punishment would be handled by the commanding officer: Dougal or a neutral third party. But it wasn't . Her husband beat her. That makes it a marital issue.

You can't have it both ways.

Mochaspresso wrote: In Favor? I'm not arguing in favor of his father beating him."

I was talking about how Jamie argued in favor on non-corporal punishment. And argued quite convincingly. I don't argue that convincingly for something unless I believe in it. (I think) you said that you didn't feel like Jamie actually believed in what he was arguing for. I disagree. See my above statement.

"I'm arguing that you took the quoted lines out of context to demonstrate that Jamie was being hypocritical."

I said: "This is Ian telling a story after they get to Lollybrach (after the beating, after Jamie's vow)"

I gave the setting. I said it was Ian telling the story AFTER they got to Lollybroch (A "story" implies that it was something that happened in the past. One doesn't often tell stories about future events that haven't happened. I thought that anyone familiar with the book would know when that took place.) I also assumed that from the dialogue - Brian is mentioned - that anyone would be able to tell that it was when Jamie was younger.

And Jamie *was* being hypocritical. Either way. Definition from the Oxford Dictionary: "Behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."

If he believed in his argument that corporal punishment was barbarous, and then he used it on Claire: that was hypocritical. If he didn't actually believe in his argument to Brian, but used it anyway, that was hypocritical.

Mochaspresso wrote: "btw, Jamie did actually listen to Claire."

Btw...no he didn't really. lol. He'd made up his mind he was going to beat her arse before he went up to the room. And nothing she did, no matter what she said, he would not relent.

Contrast that to Brian's response when Jamie gave his argument. Brian considered it. And then thought up an alternative! He could have said "Well son, I see what you're saying, but I'm still going to beat you so that you'll KNOW that you did wrong deep down."

Which is pretty much what Jamie said to Claire.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Everyone has their lines drawn and most peoples are different. Especially when you weigh other things in the balance. Most people don't just take under consideration just this one thing that was done to them. They weight it with other things, other good things and other bad things."

This is so true. Things I thought when I was younger that I would never be able to forgive, I find now that it might not be so hard to do so. Conversely, things I never considered as being an issue when I was younger are now much harder to get over.

"I will always be irritated with how quickly Claire forgave Jamie. I think out of everything that seemed the most unrealistic to me. And perhaps this is because of the type of person I am. If someone does something that hurts me I tend to stew in it for a while. I can't think of anything else and in order to actually move on and forgive I NEED to stew for a while. It is a part of the healing process for me. I need to wallow in those feelings of betrayal before I can let it all go."

That did irritate me also. But then, Claire does a lot of things that absolutely confound and irritate me (esp. in the second book) and she does seem more detached and clinical about a lot of things than I would be. I think that's just part of her personality. So I was able to 'forgive' her for that. Lol.

For me, it's about the apology. I don't actually hold a grudge - as long as the person who wronged me apologizes. As soon as that happens, it's over and done with and forgotten as far as I'm concerned. It's when the person who wronged me never apologizes that I can't let it go. And I know that shouldn't matter. I've read all that stuff etc. on Forgiveness. But that's what I need and that's the way it is.

I also completely lose respect for a person who cannot admit that they are wrong. No one *likes* to admit when they are wrong. I get that. I don't like it either. But when I'm wrong or when I've offended someone, I apologize for it. I expect the same in return.

And that's probably why I'm having such a hard time forgiving Jamie. He never apologized. EVEN if he wasn't sorry and felt justified for *why* he beat her, I think he owed Claire an apology for *how hard* he beat her; for physically wounding her the way he did.

Kat wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Btw...no he didn't really. lol. He'd made up his mind he was going to beat her arse before he went up to the room. And nothing she did, no matter what she said, he would not relent.

Contrast that to Brian's response when Jamie gave his argument. Brian considered it. And then thought up an alternative! He could have said "Well son, I see what you're saying, but I'm still going to beat you so that you'll KNOW that you did wrong deep down."

Which is pretty much what Jamie said to Claire."


Forgive me, I'm addressing several points made across several posts in one response for the sake of time.....

You are willfully choosing to disregard entire blocks of text and dialogue from Outlander in some of your arguments. Jamie and Claire talked about that beating extensively. Before and even more so after. I just re-read ch. 22. Jamie exact words after Claire apologizes for endangering the entire clan is "Eh, if it were only me ye'd hurt by it, I wouldna say nor more about it."

We have more than just Claire's pov. We also have Jamie's dialogue from that scene. His exact words were...

"Do ye know that if a man among us had done such a thing, to put the rest in danger, he would ha' likely had his ears cropped, or been flogged, if not killed outright?"

I think the book is very clear. According to the story, as DG wrote it, what happened to Claire was a clan issue and a clash of cultures. It was not a domestic issue between a husband and wife.

Imo, the two scenarios are also not comparable in the manner that you are attempted to compare them. They are not of the same gravity, for lack of a better word. It's like comparing how one disciplines their child for forgetting to take out the trash and how the school might discipline the same child for bringing a loaded gun to school. One is a domestic issue that affects only household of the parent and child. The school's punishment for bringing a gun to school is going to be very different and likely far more severe because it affects the entire school. There are some who might say that the school is overreacting. "He/she is only a kid and in this particular case, genuinely meant no real harm. They don't necessarily have to call the police. The police didn't have to arrest him/her. They don't have to press charges for this huge misunderstanding." They plead and beg and the school doesn't budge from it's stance because it can't. In my opinion, this is similar to what happened between Claire and the clan. Within the context of the story, (AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY DG) they perceived what she did to be so serious, that it could not be ignored and left unaddressed. Regardless of how readers feel about it from a personal standpoint, this was how the story went. You not liking an aspect of a story doesn't give you license to change it willy-nilly or disregard something that is clearly written in the story because it conflicts with, contradicts or does not substantiate a stance that you want have about it.

You and I appear to disagree that Claire's beating was a clan issue, but in my opinion you are deliberately choosing to ignore certain aspects of the story to hold on to your opinion.

You also claim that Outlander is not historically accurate in regard to clan politics and that is why you are choosing not to acknowledge those aspects of the story. Perhaps, this is true. I've yet to be convinced of this, though. However, even if DG did take liberties, imo those are minor details that we are knitpicking over. You should not be using this to rewrite her story to suit your needs. Within the context of the story, as it was written, Claire was punished by the clan because she disobeyed a directive and it put other's lives in danger.

...I should not have to keep adding this caveat to my posts, but I will do so for clarity. This is not me saying that I condone Claire's beating or personally thought it was justified. I am saying that within the context of the story as DG wrote it, it was perceived as being justified from the pov of Jamie and clan and that is the reason why. Even if I don't personally agree, I do understand it within the context of the story being told. I don't feel that DG has an obligation to frame her story in such a way that it has to appeal to my personal and modern notions of justice.

Kat wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: In Favor? I'm not arguing in favor of his father beating him."

I was talking about how Jamie argued in favor on non-corporal punishment. And argued quite convincingly. I don..."

When I was 7, I cried when I saw a mouse's head in a trap, separated from its body. I wanted to try to catch the mouse and keep it as a pet because our class had a pet mouse. I thought it was cruel at seven years old. As an adult with my own home, my views on the matter have evolved quite a bit. Sometimes, people grow up and their views on certain things evolve depending on their upbringing and their environment and their experiences in between. I suspect something similar has happened with Jamie. You are taking an incident from his childhood or adolescence (...and initially neglected to mention that this incident was from his youth) and use it to call Jamie a hypocrite. I guess you are free to do so, but I don't think this is a fair assessment of the story or of Jamie's character.

Mochaspresso wrote: "You and I appear to disagree that Claire's beating was a clan issue, but in my opinion you are deliberately choosing to ignore certain aspects of the story to hold on to your opinion. "

Personally I don't think your examples of a child bringing a gun to school and neglecting to take out the trash are relevant. They are not what happened here.

But fine - you say this is a clan issue "AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY DG" - then let's remember how clan issues AS WRITTEN BY DG were handled:
1. In the "Hall"
2. In front of the Entire Clan.
3. By the Laird.

THAT is the example that we are given early in the book about how the Clan handles it's internal issues.

NOT in a separate bedroom one on one by a family member.

Therefore, if it were TRULY a Clan Issue, and going by the rules AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY DG, Claire should have been
1. Taken to the "Hall"
2. In front of the Entire Clan
3. Judged by Collum.

If you still claim otherwise, that's not me ignoring certain aspects of the story to support my view. That's you.

Mochaspresso wrote: "When I was 7..."

When I was 7, we had and Earth Day at school and I went home and encouraged my family to start recycling. This was before it was commonplace and popular in the community. My parents still do even though all their kids are grown and out of the house.

So yeah, some people change sometimes with regards to some things. Others don't change with regards to other things.

I guess Jamie did change his views on corporal punishment since he doesn't seem to mind using it as an adult. That doesn't mean he didn't actually believe it when he was younger.

"(...and initially neglected to mention that this incident was from his youth)"
And once again, I already stated that since Brian - his father - was mentioned in the story I assumed anyone familiar with the story would be able to tell it was from Jamie's youth. I guess I'm giving other readers here credit for more intelligence than you are.

Kat wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "You and I appear to disagree that Claire's beating was a clan issue, but in my opinion you are deliberately choosing to ignore certain aspects of the story to hold on to your ..."



Laoghaire was a Scot by birth and the only reason she wasn't flogged was because Jamie stepped in. In essence, she caught a break. The same is true of Claire. She caught a break, too....because of Jamie. They could have and likely would have flogged her in the same public manner. However, to give her a break, they decided that since Jamie was her husband, he was the one that should do it.


And once again, I already stated that since Brian - his father - was mentioned in the story I assumed anyone familiar with the story would be able to tell it was from Jamie's youth. I guess I'm giving other readers here credit for more intelligence than you are.

This isn't a fair comment as I said no such thing about readers nor said anything to even remotely insinuate this. It's downright ugly and a low/cheap shot and it is making me lose respect for you and your position. In fact, I specifically said that it potentially misleads those who haven't read the book.

"It misrepresents the book, misleads people who haven't read it for themselves and this isn't fair."

This is more of that subversive bait and switch game where you disregard what was actually said in favor of your own opinions. The gossip rags use the same tactics with sensationalist and misleading taglines. If you are going to quote me, quote me in my entirety and please refrain from adding sensationalist spins or twists to what I've said.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Laoghaire was a Scot by birth and the only reason she wasn't flogged was because Jamie stepped in. "

Who is playing the bait and switch game now? (and Wow. "subversive" - well if that isn't a downright ugly low/cheap shot, I don't know what is. Pot meet Kettle. I may disagree with them, but at least I never insulted your opinions!) You keep bringing up things after I have explained them and making me repeat myself (like when I had to restate several times that I was not using court records to prove that domestic violence didn't happen). And then you completely ignore the relevant ideas.

Case in point: In my last post about how clan issues were handled AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY DG I only addressed how clan issues were handled. I never even mentioned Laoghaire. In fact, there were more cases heard in that "Hall" session than just Laoghaire's.

Claire was also presented at that "Hall" session. She was 5th on the docket. And Claire was not a Scot by birth. This was also before she married Jamie.

These are all verifiable facts as presented AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY DG. (See Chapter 6: "Colum's Hall") This is not my sensationalist opinion. Nor am I attempting to mislead anyone.

You'll probably accuse me of taking things out of context again, but really, it is relevant. This is from Chapter 6, "Colum's Hall", after Claire has already talked to Colum privately in his office the day before. "Hall" is beginning and Claire is watching the proceedings - the ceremony of it all before any actual cases have been heard and makes this observation:
It quickly became apparent that this was the regular occasion on which the laird of Castle Leoch dispensed justice to his tacksmen and tenants, hearing cases and settling disputes. There was an agenda; the balding scribe read out the names and the various parties came forward in their turn.

"There was an agenda": Kind of like a court docket, huh? Like Legal proceedings? That's what I thought.

Laoghaire might have caught a break because Jamie took the beating for her, but she was still presented at "Hall" for punishment. And it was the LAIRD'S (that would be "the Judge") decision to allow Jamie to take the beating for Laoghiare. Not her father's decision.

Therefore, in Outlander World AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY DG, if it were a CLAN ISSUE and the men had a dispute with Claire or a case against her for disobeying an order, it seems pretty clear to me that the proper procedure would have been for Claire to have been presented at "Hall" for judgement by Colum (the Laird) and her punishment decided by him, NOT by a few men on the road or by her husband.

Kat wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Laoghaire was a Scot by birth and the only reason she wasn't flogged was because Jamie stepped in. "

Who is playing the bait and switch game now? (and Wow. "subversive" - w..."

I will have to reread to be certain of this detail, but according to my recollection, they were not at the castle and Collum was not with them when all of this transpires. They were in the process of travelling from place to place to collect rents and raise money for the cause, were they not? I don't see how they could just abandon this mission. Would proper protocol have been to abandon their unfinished mission to take her back to Collum? Maybe. I don't know. However, even if it were, that doesn't seem likely or even feasible to me. That is probably why Dougal (who is the leader in Collum's stead) and the men handled they way that they did. The mission that they were on needed to continue. I'm thinking of instances in my own professional life where I make a call on what I am authorized and empowered to handle on my own and what I need to escalate to my superiors. Regardless, I'm fairly certain that abandoning the mission and taking Claire to Collum would not have ended well for Claire. Not well at all. Those men actually saved her ass is more ways than one. bad pun intended.

To be fair, I don't think Kat was deliberately trying to mislead anyone with leaving out that Jamie was young in that quote. It really should have been obvious since it was Brian talking to Jamie and Brian died when Jamie was.... 18?

But even I forgot that when I read the quote which was why I wanted to read everything in context. It did come off, written here, differently than how it was in the book.

I agree with Mochoespesso that this is a clan issue. But as Kat brought up numerous times, this isn't Claire's Clan. This isn't even Jamie's clan. But Claire HAS married into a clan.

So, do you think this might make things a little different? Jamie is Laird. His wife has made a VERY serious offence to another clan. How do you think everyone would handle this?

To me it sounds (if I think from their perspectives and not my own - clarifying here lol) that it would be more reasonable to expect Jamie to carry out and deal with any discipline of Claire as her husband, as her head, and as the head of the clan she's married into.

Jamie probably would have had a fair bit to weigh in on. For one thing, he himself felt that the men needed to see some sort of justice. He also would have had to weigh in the precarious peace and existence he has with the Mackenzie Clan. He really in standing on thin ice. And although we do not know the extent he is at this time in the novel, it becomes more apparent later on. Spoiler from a later book (view spoiler)[ When Jamie reveals to Claire that it was Douglas who had hit him in the head trying to kill him and gave him that wound he had at the very beginning of Outlander. Jamie didn't even know this until Douglas says it to him while they're fighting at the end of book 2. (hide spoiler)]

But Jamie already knows how dangerous the politics are and even at some point in the book he tells Claire about his suspicions that his head injury (he has at the very beginning of the book) was from someone from the clan Mackenzie trying to kill him to get him out of the way so there is no debate that Hamish would be next in line.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I will have to reread to be certain of this detail, but according to my recollection, they were not at the castle and Collum was not with them when all of this transpires."

You are correct there. Colum was not with them and they were not at the castle.

And I would agree with the rest of your argument as to why it was handled (haha no pun intended) on the road, were it not for the fact that I'm sure most of the cases that the Laird heard during "Hall" were not things that had arisen (aside from Claire) in the last few days.

Again, just like a court docket. It has to be put on the agenda. That takes time. Usually.

In the book it does not specify what the other cases previous to Claire being presented were about. Could have been land or other property disputes - in which case the participants would have had to travel from their lands to the Castle which could have been a fair distance. That rather negates your argument about them not being at the castle.

And if I'm not mistaken - and I'd have to go back and read this part myself - didn't the rent party get back to Leoch two nights after Claire was beaten? She was beaten at Bargrennan (I think). The next night they traveled all night to the next inn. Stayed the night there and rode all the next day, maybe two? to get back to Leoch because they were summoned by Colum.

So it's not like her judgement would have been put off indefinitely.

If it were a Clan Issue, as LAIRD Colum and ONLY Colum had the right to make a judgement against Claire . Dougal did not. (He was only in charge in Colum's stead in collecting the rent and leading the clan in battle. Not in conducting court sessions.) And the rest of the men DEFINITELY did not. They would have had to take the complaint to Colum for proper procedure.

"I'm thinking of instances in my own professional life where I make a call on what I am authorized and empowered to handle on my own and what I need to escalate to my superiors."
These are not legal matters, I hope? Because taking matters into your own hands is called vigilantism. :) If you're claiming Claire's disobedience was a Clan Issue, that becomes a legal issue and only Colum had the right to decide her guilt/innocence.

"Regardless, I'm fairly certain that abandoning the mission and taking Claire to Collum would not have ended well for Claire. Not well at all."
Still didn't end very well for Claire, did it?

"Those men actually saved her ass is more ways than one. bad pun intended."
Actually, by not turning them over to the English for raising money for the Jacobite cause (which was Treason) Claire saved all of THEIR asses.

Kat wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I will have to reread to be certain of this detail, but according to my recollection, they were not at the castle and Collum was not with them when all of this transpires."

Y..."
Hi Kat! I really appreciate your intelligent, eloquent and humorous comments. I admire your ability to cover the same ground over and over responding to insults and opinions with polite reasoned remarks. I had thought to quit this thread just prior to your contributions. You keep me coming back for more!

I brought up the idea of the author choosing to make Claire suffer her punishment as a matter of clan rule too. I didn't propose or defend my idea nearly as well.

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion.

Mrsbooks wrote: "So, do you think this might make things a little different? Jamie is Laird. His wife has made a VERY serious offence to another clan. How do you think everyone would handle this?

Ah Mrsbooks - always a voice of reason. :D

This is a very good question. And one previously that I don't think I've considered. To be honest, I'm not sure anyone has considered the 'clan issue' from this perspective - or if they have, it has not been made clear to me that's what they were doing.

I had to think about this for awhile.

In the old, old days, of course (WAY before the 18th century)the clans would have gone to war against each other. Then, when there was a King (King of Scotland, that is, not England) they would have taken their grievances before the king for mediation. And I think I read that mediation would have been tried before war, even in the old old days - but not sure who the mediator would have been back then.

War is obviously not an option here.

And actually, Jamie is not Laird of Clan Fraser, that's his grandfather, I think.

But even as Laird of Lollybroch...right now he's pledged his obedience to Clan MacKenzie as long as his feet are on MacKenzie soil. And they are still on MacKenzie soil. PLUS...he's still an outlaw, so he can't really claim the title of Laird of Lollybroch. Or at least I think that's the way it was told in the book, because that's why he can't go home. Of course, that does not explain why (view spoiler)[he was able to raise men to fight in the second book and wasn't he still technically an outlaw then? Or had he been pardoned? (hide spoiler)]

So that leaves:
"it would be more reasonable to expect Jamie to carry out and deal with any discipline of Claire as her husband, as her head, and as the head of the clan she's married into."

Yeah, I already addressed the fact that Jamie is not head of the clan Claire married into. But he is Laird of Lollybroch, so...

THAT is THE BEST argument I have ever seen/read for Claire's beating being a "clan issue".

I'm still not comfortable with the fact that "the men" are the ones who instigated the discipline against Claire. And Jamie kind of circumnavigated the proper legal channels. I still think the proper course of action (even in the Outlander Universe) would have been for them to bring their grievances to Colum. Then Colum to confront Jamie and then for Jamie to administer punishment as Laird of Lollybroch. But not as her husband.