Outlander discussion

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 am willing to concede that the omission may not necessarily have been deliberate and that my response to it stemmed more from my perception that certain things I said and certain things from the story were twisted unfairly. My apologies to Kat and others.

Yes, Jamie's father did die while he was still a teen. Although, when he is talking to Claire about his youth on the way to the inn, he does refer to even his sixteen-year-old past self as "a man grown". At another earlier point during the same conversation, he also says that he eventually reached a point where he was too big for his father to make him bend over the rails for a beating around 13.

"I've had my backside leathered more times than I could count, between the ages of eight and thirteen. That's when I got taller than my father, and it got unhandy for him to bend me over a fence rail."

I think that is why I originally believed him to be a child during the incident that Ian was referring to...as I personally think of 8-13 yr olds as still being "children", even though they are technically of "adolescent age". I don't know if I am making sense, but I am chalking this up to yet another colloquial language conflict paired with the fact that in those times children were generally considered to be "adults" much sooner than they are today.


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)

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.
"

I totally agree with all of this. Especially about the underlying conspirator factors that were alluded to and foreshadowed but not yet revealed at that point.

Kat wrote: "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.

I agree that there is probably some sort of docket and formal procedure for certain disputes and that it takes time for a matter to get put on the docket. However, I don't think a party with a mission to carry out is going to just abort their mission to get something like that put on a docket. I think it's very plausible that even though what Claire did was a very serious matter to them that needed to be dealt with, their mission would take precedence over the formalities with associated with bringing formal charges against an insubordinate Sassenach.

Also, they were not aware of Collum's summons to return to the castle at the time of Claire's beating (they don't even get the message until they reach the inn) and not all of them were summoned back. Just Dougal and Jamie accompanied him. The rest of the party continued about their mission. In fact, Colum was not aware that Jamie and Claire had married at that point or of anything that happened. Dougal was summoned back because the Duke of Sardingham was coming to visit.

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.

Perhaps that is what they should have done and would have done under normal circumstances, but they were on a mission at the time and neither Jamie, Dougal or even Claire truly wanted Collum to handle Claire's judgement as it would likely have been far worse for Claire. That was also part of the point of them handling it the way that they did.

"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.

In some workplaces, independent problem solving is actually valued by some employers. Plus, I was raised in household where my father used to order my siblings and I to settle certain disputes among ourselves without involving him. He would say, "You all better work it out among yourselves because if I have to settle it, I'm bringing my belt and no one is going to like the outcome." Sometimes, it's actually quite comical, looking back on it. If we were fighting over who gets the remote, he'd just flip the main switch and tell everyone to go to bed and no one gets to watch TV. Fighting over who gets the last pork chop, he'd take it from all of us and feed it to the dog. That's how we learned to share. :)

I'm digressing. I think it's pretty clear in the book that deep down Dougal had bit of a soft spot for Claire and in his mind, truly believed he was helping her by letting Jamie handle it in the manner that he did. I think many of the men did and that's why they were chaffing her the next day. They wanted her punished but no one wanted to see her hanged, banished, publically flogged or whatever Colum would likely have done with her. In my mind, it's almost akin to "hazing".




"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?

It ended better than some of the other alternatives.

Perhaps this is just me and my perceptions....growing up, I actually preferred spankings to groundings. Of course, it's not like I actually got to choose my punishments, but that was actually my preference.

"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.
"

Very true. She wasn't a rat and didn't snitch. Would turning them over have really helped her, though? Did she really have anything to gain from doing so? It seems that in most instances in Outlander, she was actually much better off with the clan than with the Brittish soldiers that she was encountering.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I agree that there is probably some sort of docket and formal procedure for certain disputes and that it takes time for a matter to get put on the docket. However, I don't think a party with a mission to carry out is going to just abort their mission to get something like that put on a docket. I think it's very plausible that even though what Claire did was a very serious matter to them that needed to be dealt with, their mission would take precedence over the formalities with associated with bringing formal charges against an insubordinate Sassenach."

At that point she wasn't just a Sassenach. She was the wife of a Fraser Clan member as Mrsbooks has pointed out.

And as I have pointed out, I'm sure not all of the business on the court docket were immediate. Claire's 'insubordination' could have very well been dealt with formally in "Hall". There's no reason why it couldn't have been, even without disrupting the rent collection. They didn't need to abort the mission for that. Just delay judgement. There's a difference. It happens even today. Justice is not always immediate. It is often - and most likely - delayed. But it is still Justice.

"Also, they were not aware of Collum's summons to return to the castle at the time of Claire's beating (they don't even get the message until they reach the inn) and not all of them were summoned back."
Which is absolutely no reason to bypass the legal channels and take justice into their own hands. Which is what they did. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You try that in court sometime and see how far it gets you.

"Just Dougal and Jamie accompanied him."
And Claire. You forgot Claire. :) (Poor Claire - always left behind in the woods and forgotten.)

"Perhaps that is what they should have done and would have done under normal circumstances, but they were on a mission at the time and neither Jamie, Dougal or even Claire truly wanted Collum to handle Claire's judgement as it would likely have been far worse for Claire. That was also part of the point of them handling it the way that they did."
I don't think the fact that they were on a mission at the time (collecting rents) should have made any difference. Collecting rents was a regular occurrence. Disputes would have come up in the natural course of things that would have needed the Laird's judgement. And I don't think those other disputes would have been handled on the spot. I think rather, they would have been handled in "Hall" like was demonstrated in the text as the way the Clan handled disputes. So to say this was an exception may be out of bounds of what really would have been an exception. We will never know at this point. Because that's not how the book was written, eh?

"In some workplaces, independent problem solving is actually valued by some employers."
Yes, I get that. I'm a scientist, as I've said. Independent problem solving (using LOGIC which is why I try to stick to FACTS) is paramount. And my father was much the same way. But then, we are not talking LEGAL matter here are we? The Clan Issue with Claire would have been a LEGAL matter. Not just a squabble among siblings.

"I'm digressing. I think it's pretty clear in the book that deep down Dougal had bit of a soft spot for Claire"
Ugh. Don't make me say what I think Dougal really thought about Claire. Soft spot? He was a lecherous old %@. And I'm not quite sure what else, but it wouldn't be good. The only thing he felt for Claire was lust and any other selfish emotion you can think of. If he was helping her, it was because he thought it would benefit him in the long run.

"I think many of the men did and that's why they were chaffing her the next day. They wanted her punished but no one wanted to see her hanged, banished, publically flogged or whatever Colum would likely have done with her. In my mind, it's almost akin to "hazing".
They wanted her put in her place like a woman should have been. I don't think most of them didn't have any soft spot for Claire either.

"It ended better than some of the other alternatives."
Really? What were the other alternatives? And maybe to Claire it wouldn't have been.

"Perhaps this is just me and my perceptions....growing up, I actually preferred spankings to groundings."
Yep. Just you. I preferred groundings. To each his/her own.

We don't know what Claire would have preferred. But we do know she didn't like the beating.

"Of course, it's not like I actually got to choose my punishments"
Neither did Claire. And she was an adult.

"Very true. She wasn't a rat and didn't snitch. Would turning them over have really helped her, though? Did she really have anything to gain from doing so? It seems that in most instances in Outlander, she was actually much better off with the clan than with the Brittish soldiers that she was encountering. "
Turning them over probably wouldn't have hurt her, would it? Anything to gain? Possibly her freedom? She probably could have bargained for that. We don't know since the story wasn't written that way. I'm sure if it had been, they story could have been written so that the Sassenach who turned in the Scottish traitors was well treated.

Even if she wasn't well treated for being a snitch, she still certainly saved the MacKenzie men a lot of pain and suffering. Don't you think she should have been rewarded for her loyalty to the clan under pressure?

Mochaspresso wrote: "In my mind, it's almost akin to "hazing"."

Btw, "hazing" can get pretty rough. Have you read the news in the last several years about fraternities/sororities suspended and more for "hazing"? "Hazing" can and has lead to death. It's not a joke. It's not fun. It's nothing of which to be made light.

So if the men were "hazing" Claire? - that's childish, immature, cruel and unusual punishment, imo.

Sara wrote: "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. "

Hi Sara! Thanks for your comments. Where were your arguments about clan rule? I'd like to go back and read them.

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

My mistake, I thought all opinions were relevant in a discussion whethe..."
It's not about the relevancy of their opinion, it's about the its dismissive nature. That's not quite the same. I never stated that Corky's opinion was "irrelevant" but that I found it dismissive towards those she was referred to which included me. And I actually took the time to reply to Corky's post, which I wouldn't have done if I found it "irrelevant".

Mochaspresso wrote: "@Red: "Angry Readers" was not intended to be a dig or a slight and I am sorry if you saw it as such. It was just a descriptor and nothing more. Albeit, it was a rather straight-forward one, as I as I am not necessarily one to mince words, sugar coat or white wash anything."

Ok, you didn't meant it as a dig. I still don't get how whatever we discussed here has anything to do with being "angry". And I really don't see how calling people discussing a book "angry" is being "straightforward" or not "sugarcoating/whitewashing" things...

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

Of course there are many discussions to have about many different "historical" aspects or historical accuracy of Jane Eyre and Oliver Twist and any other (period) book. And those discussions have been taking place all other the academia for decades. But we're not discussing any of those books, but this one in particular. And we're not discussing any writing choice but this particular one. So I really don't see the point of this objection.

And I don't understand either why you're insisting that the way this whole plot/scene played out was the way the author wanted it to happen. When did I ever said the contrary? OF COURSE it's the story the author wanted to tell...And she told it ! and now I am discussing it and criticizing one particular scene. I mean, that's precisely one of my main point I have been arguing all along : the way this plot/scene played out has NOTHING to do with historical accuracy, as many have been arguing/justifying it, but everything to do with the author's writing choice. And my main second point is precisely that this author's WRTING CHOICE is a poor lazy problematic one. So this discussion isn't about being "angry" because the author didn't "pander" to my modern feminist world view. It's about discussing the writing of a plot/scene, its problematic nature (on many levels), and the way people try and justify it.

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

Yeah... And that means one can NEVER discuss a book/story/plot/scene/character, because that's the author's choice? So ther eis no such thing as ...I don't know, critical thoughts on a piece of fiction, cause at thet end of the day the author wrote what they wanted to write? I really don't get that line of argument.

Mochaspresso wrote:" You are trying to use this document to argue that domestic violence is not as prevalent as we have come to believe"

I, for one, did't take all the very interesting sources that Kat referred as a way to say that. I think it gave us a much more nuanced picture of the customs of the time. It can also debunked the assumptions that there were only ONE way the whole situation could have played out because of "historical accuracy".

Mrsbooks wrote: "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. "

As I stated before, I don't mind if the historical romance I am reading is historically accurate to a fault, as long as it maintains at least a semblance of reality/authenticity. My main refutation of the argument around historical accuracy doesn't deal with the whole book, and not even with that scene but with the justification of the scene on the grounds of its supposed "historical accuracy". It's been brought up everytime someone criticized the author's writing choice like "duh, that's how people were doing at the time" as a way to downplay or be somehow ok with it (even if one doesn't think it's ok to beat one's wife). Well, as have been eloquently demonstrated by Kat and the many references she/they provided, even in 1700s Scotland, there were many other ways to resolve domestic/clan dispute than beating one's wife. And those many differents ways could have provided as many dramatic confrontation and tension to a crative and imaginative writer (and may be more) than the over used problematic trope this particular author used. And I bet, had you read such well written scene/plot, you wouldn't have missed yet another scene/plot involving the heroine being yet again physically or emotionally abused at the hand of her lover. Especially since, as pointed out by Kat, when one looks a bit closer at the whole plot (the how and why she had Jamie beating Claire), the writer did such a poor job at tying it together. And you may even have thought that was a refreshing change from the usual. Cause it's not about being or not being/avoiding to be controversial. It's about creative, innovative writing. And one doesn't have to rely on overused problematic tropes to be controversial AND innovative.

Now if we were to takl about the book as a whole, since it is often being lauded for its semblance of accuracy, I think it's fair to take a closer look at it.

Kat wrote: "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.) "

You totally nailed it, Kat.

Mochaspresso wrote: "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". "

Yes, indeed, it was portrayed as some sort of clan disciplinary action by the author, but it was a poorly executed portrayal seeing as it didn't actually involved the clan (or its chief, Collum) but a handful of men putting pressure on Jamie who felt compeeled to do it 'cause that's what he was said (by those men and by the author) that he should do. The uathor made this scene happen because she wanted to prove the point you refers : that those two were from different times and that Claire had to "realize" that Jamie's times and culture and behaviour were far more violent and dangerous, especially when it comes to being a woman, than hers. I think the author chose a very poor and cheap whay to do it. had she made some more researches, and had she been more creative, she could have make this point in many different way. Using violence against woman in this case was the easiest, lazyest, cheapest way.

Mochaspresso wrote: "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. "

But the point of law procedure is precisely to handle different cases, even those which aren't similar. And there have always been different ways/procedure to handle a certain case, depending on who is proseuting. What Jamie did would have been perceived as many different things, depending on the court the case would have been presented (the clan, the church, etc.). The fact remains that I think Kat provided enough evidences that the whole situation could have been handled differently by Jamie and that Claire would have grounds to prosecute him one way or another.

Kat wrote: "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?"

AH !

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

Nobody, at leats not me, "jumped" on the domestic violence angle. Jamie (and the author) himself (explaied) that him beating her was him doing his duty as her husband. But even if you chose to look at the scene/plot as a military action, if it were to be discussed in a court, Jamie would also be at fault (as pointed out by Kat), or even more at fault than Claire, so he could/should have been the one to be beaten and not her.

Mochaspresso 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 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. "

Hmmm... No. Courts reports are not "akin" to police reports. Those are two different types of sources, two different type of proceure, and they have two different types of consequences. The police can arrest you on some charges that will be brought up in a report, yet the court can release you based on a judgement taht will be explained on the court report. As a reseearcher, you learn to look at the different kind of sources and use it differently.
As for your example about slavery, it's not about some narrative being "better" than court reports to understand slavery as a whole. It depends what part of slavery one is researching. Some court reports wan be very detailed and can gives you a very precise nature of the cruel punishment used at the times, while individual narratives can downplay or overplay some aspects, depending on who is talking and with who they are talking, in which settings, etc. For instance, some of the slave narratives that were collected in the early 1900s/1920s by white southern government officials were have been found to be very influenced by the fact that the former slaves were pressured to give not so terrible accounts of their situation because they needed to get the interviewers on their side.
So you always have to cross different sources.

Mochaspresso wrote: " 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. "

I don't remember anybody in the recent exchange about that making that point. That's certainly not how I understood what Kat said, nor that what I ever said.

Mochaspresso wrote: "The fact that she was his wife is not truly the issue."

Well, I think that's a big part of the issue actually. If she wasn't his wife, he wouldn't have had the "legal" authority/legitimacy to beat her the way he did. I mean, if I recall correctly, he actually said that he HAD to do it BECAUSE he was her husband! The whole military thing is moot to me 'cause they were not military. When he said if she had been one of the "men" he reffered to the "men" as part of the clan not as part of some kind of army. I mean the main part of the plot is to portary the brave scottish clansmen vs the awfull english army men. The author made some (hasty) research in order to portray with sith some semblance of realism clan life, etc. But now, when it comes to the beating, it's not a domestic/clan issue naymore, but a military one? Really?

And even IF we were to go this oroute, there would still be arguments against the justification of the beating cause even in the army one doesn't discipline people like that. there needs to be proper procedures and rulings. Even more than in any other field. And the way Jamie handled the whole thing (without the agreement of the ones woho would have been his military superior) would give grounds for Claire to contest the punishment.
But really, I think using the "military" argument now isn't credible.

Kat wrote: "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..."

THIS !

Mochaspresso wrote: "She caught a break, too....because of Jamie."

I am not sure I undertand what you meant here. She "caught a break" by being beaten so had it left bruises on her body and made it uncomfortable for her to ride a hore too long?

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. 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. "

They could have delayed the hearing and punishment after the mission. There were no actual urgency to exert this "punishment" rigth then and there, as they where on mission.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 ..."

I am a bit lost right now : so do everyone agrees now that this isn't a military issue but a clan/marital one?
Also, the thing is a clan/marital issue isn't necessarily handled with violence. I would go as far as to say that in many cases violence is always used as a last resort when every other ways have been exhausted.

Mochaspresso wrote: " neither Jamie, Dougal or even Claire truly wanted Collum to handle Claire's judgement as it would likely have been far worse for Claire"
If I remember correctly, Dougal had no say in it (Had he). Also, how can you know it would have "likely" been worse had Collun handled it?

Kat wrote: "At that point she wasn't just a Sassenach. She was the wife of a Fraser Clan member as Mrsbooks has pointed out.

And as I have pointed out, I'm sure not all of the business on the court docket were immediate. Claire's 'insubordination' could have very well been dealt with formally in "Hall". There's no reason why it couldn't have been, even without disrupting the rent collection. They didn't need to abort the mission for that. Just delay judgement. There's a difference. It happens even today. Justice is not always immediate. It is often - and most likely - delayed. But it is still Justice.

I suppose we are just going to have to agree to disagree because I don't think it's plausible within the context of the story that they are going to stop what they were doing out on the road to adhere to the "proper legal proceedings". These were soldiers carrying out a mission who were having run-ins with the Brittish. They were not going to stop what they were doing to take Claire to Collum.

I also don't think Claire and Jamie nor anyone else was inclined to have Collum handle it anyway. As I've already stated, I don't think turning her over to Collum would have been the best thing for Claire. I think Collum's justice and punishment would have been far worse for her. As much as the beating bothered me, I still think it's preferable to what Collum might have done with her.

"Just Dougal and Jamie accompanied him."
And Claire. You forgot Claire. :) (Poor Claire - always left behind in the woods and forgotten.)

I didn't "forget Claire" as I was specifically referring to the summons. (another rather low blow, imo as you snipped my sentence enough to change the context to fit whatever point you wanted to make. Sometimes to understand things in context, the sentences before and after do matter. But I suppose I wasn't very clear. "touche".)

What I said was..."Also, they were not aware of Collum's summons to return to the castle at the time of Claire's beating (they don't even get the message until they reach the inn) and not all of them were summoned back. Just Dougal and Jamie accompanied him...."

I slipped into some colloquial language there, I guess. "Just Dougal..." meant that just Dougal was summoned back.

To make it more clear....the summons back to the castle had nothing to do with Claire or Jamie. Only Dougal was summoned back. Jamie was not and neither was Claire. Jamie accompanied Dougal anyway and Claire came back because Jamie was coming back. But yes, you are correct. All three did return to the Castle.

I don't think the fact that they were on a mission at the time (collecting rents) should have made any difference. Collecting rents was a regular occurrence. Disputes would have come up in the natural course of things that would have needed the Laird's judgement. And I don't think those other disputes would have been handled on the spot. I think rather, they would have been handled in "Hall" like was demonstrated in the text as the way the Clan handled disputes. So to say this was an exception may be out of bounds of what really would have been an exception. We will never know at this point. Because that's not how the book was written, eh?

Of course not, but Claire's issue was not a simple "dispute". At least, not in my opinion. A simple dispute between tenants can actually wait for it to be handled by Collum. To the men, they perceived that Claire's issue was something that needed to be addressed right then and there. To them, they perceived it as a matter of life and death. I don't have to agree with them, but I do understand the pov within the context of the story.

But then, we are not talking LEGAL matter here are we? The Clan Issue with Claire would have been a LEGAL matter. Not just a squabble among siblings.

I think it's understandable that legal gets put to the side from time to time among soldiers on the road having run-ins with other Brittish soldiers. Right or wrong, I can see how it could happen.

"I'm digressing. I think it's pretty clear in the book that deep down Dougal had bit of a soft spot for Claire"
Ugh. Don't make me say what I think Dougal really thought about Claire. Soft spot? He was a lecherous old %@. And I'm not quite sure what else, but it wouldn't be good. The only thing he felt for Claire was lust and any other selfish emotion you can think of. If he was helping her, it was because he thought it would benefit him in the long run.

Totally agree with all of this. Dougal was a very interesting and dynamic character. Those portions of Outlander would have been rather boring with him, I think.


They wanted her put in her place like a woman should have been. I don't think most of them didn't have any soft spot for Claire either.

I agree that they definitely wanted to put her in her place but disagree with the latter part of your comment. The book makes it clear that they came to accept her.

"It ended better than some of the other alternatives."
Really? What were the other alternatives? And maybe to Claire it wouldn't have been.

In the book, Jamie makes a comment that he prefers a flogging to hanging. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. I think I'd rather be flogged than hanged, too.

Turning them over probably wouldn't have hurt her, would it? Anything to gain? Possibly her freedom? She probably could have bargained for that. We don't know since the story wasn't written that way. I'm sure if it had been, they story could have been written so that the Sassenach who turned in the Scottish traitors was well treated.

Even if she wasn't well treated for being a snitch, she still certainly saved the MacKenzie men a lot of pain and suffering. Don't you think she should have been rewarded for her loyalty to the clan under pressure? "

That's another cultural relativism question, imo. In some cultures, loyalty is something that is expected and not necessarily "rewarded" per se. In some cultures, someone risking their life to rescue you is considered a "reward". In some cultures, you would "owe them your life" if someone has saved you.

It seems that the Scots of that time were a very loyal to their clans. That's clearly evidenced in Outlander.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat wrote: ""Just Dougal and Jamie accompanied him."
And Claire. You forgot Claire. :) (Poor Claire - always left behind in the woods and forgotten.)

I didn't "forget Claire" as I was specifically referring to the summons. (another rather low blow, imo as you snipped my sentence enough to change the context to fit whatever point you wanted to make. Sometimes to understand things in context, the sentences before and after do matter. But I suppose I wasn't very clear. "touche".) "

Gee Whiz, do you not have any sense of humor? It was a JOKE. That's why the smiley face was there. Lighten up a little. And *I've* been accused of taking things too seriously....

Btw - I didn't snip anything out of your sentence so nothing could be taken out of context this time. Aren't you proud of me? (/sarcasm font. Is there an emoji or text short hand for "snort"? SMH).

Mochaspresso wrote: "I suppose we are just going to have to agree to disagree because I don't think it's plausible within the context of the story that they are going to stop what they were doing out on the road to adhere to the "proper legal proceedings". These were soldiers carrying out a mission who were having run-ins with the Brittish. They were not going to stop what they were doing to take Claire to Collum."

And once again (I'm pretty sure this is at least the second time I've said this if not the third) there was no need to stop what they were doing out on the road in order to adhere to proper legal procedure.

Case in point: when Jamie was captured by the English later in the book, proper legal procedure was still followed. He wasn't hanged there on the road.

"I also don't think Claire and Jamie nor anyone else was inclined to have Collum handle it anyway. As I've already stated, I don't think turning her over to Collum would have been the best thing for Claire. I think Collum's justice and punishment would have been far worse for her. As much as the beating bothered me, I still think it's preferable to what Collum might have done with her."

Claire wasn't asked, was she? She wasn't given the choice. I seriously doubt that anything Colum did would have been worse than the beating at Jamie's hands was. She *might* have been beaten publicly like Laoghaire was to have been, but I don't think it would have been severely enough to leave her bruised for days afterward like what actually happened.

I do not think she would have been beaten at all by Colum. I think at worst she would have been banished.

And anyway, as I've stated, It was not up to Claire or Jamie or even Dougal to make that decision. As we saw in the book AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY DG, the proper way to handle Clan disputes was in "Hall" by Colum.

"To make it more clear....the summons back to the castle had nothing to do with Claire or Jamie. Only Dougal was summoned back. Jamie was not and neither was Claire. Jamie accompanied Dougal anyway and Claire came back because Jamie was coming back. But yes, you are correct. All three did return to the Castle."

And what a perfect opportunity that should have been to have Claire judged by Colum as she should have been.

"Of course not, but Claire's issue was not a simple "dispute". At least, not in my opinion. A simple dispute between tenants can actually wait for it to be handled by Collum. To the men, they perceived that Claire's issue was something that needed to be addressed right then and there. To them, they perceived it as a matter of life and death. I don't have to agree with them, but I do understand the pov within the context of the story."

To the men, yes, they wanted Claire punished right then. But once again, it was not up to the men, was it? They were not the Laird. They had no authority to make that decision.

Also, you are assuming that all disputes heard and judged by Colum in "Hall" were "simple". I'm sure that was not the case. And I'm sure the different tenants involved would have preferred a more immediate end to their disagreement. However, that's not proper legal Clan procedure (AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY DG), is it?

"I think it's understandable that legal gets put to the side from time to time among soldiers on the road having run-ins with other Brittish soldiers. Right or wrong, I can see how it could happen."

Um, No. No it does not. That leads to courts-martial.

"I agree that they definitely wanted to put her in her place but disagree with the latter part of your comment. The book makes it clear that they came to accept her."

They may have come to accept her as a woman among them (just a woman, in fact) - even as Jamie's wife - but not as "one of the guys" like you seem to be implying. If that's not what you meant, then forgive me for assuming. I don't remember reading enough of her interactions with the rest of the men afterward that would lead me to believe otherwise.

"It ended better than some of the other alternatives."
Really? What were the other alternatives? And maybe to Claire it wouldn't have been.

In the book, Jamie makes a comment that he prefers a flogging to hanging. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. I think I'd rather be flogged than hanged, too.

In the book, when they are at St. Ninian's spring and talking about Jamie's flogging, Dougal says:
"I'd not know how it goes in Oxfordshire," he said, with a sarcastic emphasis that made me squirm slightly, "but hereabouts, ladies are generally not exposed to such sights as floggings. Have ye ever seen one?"

So if Ladies thereabouts are not generally exposed to *sights* such as floggings, I think it's safe to assume that they are generally not flogged either.

Are you saying those were the only two alternatives to Jamie beating her? Hanging or Flogging? Really? No other punitive actions existed back then?

"That's another cultural relativism question, imo. In some cultures, loyalty is something that is expected and not necessarily "rewarded" per se. In some cultures, someone risking their life to rescue you is considered a "reward". In some cultures, you would "owe them your life" if someone has saved you.
It seems that the Scots of that time were a very loyal to their clans. That's clearly evidenced in Outlander."

Let us not forget that the first time Dougal took Claire to Brockton to see Randall was before Claire was married to Jamie and therefore NOT a Scot. She also had NOT been allowed to continue on her own journey - was essentially being held prisoner by the MacKenzies and therefore owed them no loyalty.

And I think that holds true in any culture.

Red wrote: "Yeah... And that means one can NEVER discuss a book/story/plot/scene/character, because that's the author's choice? So there is no such thing as ...I don't know, critical thoughts on a piece of fiction, cause at the end of the day the author wrote what they wanted to write? I really don't get that line of argument."

Good point. We might want to make sure we shut down all College and University literature classes (and some High School I suspect) as well. I'm quite sure they violate the prohibition on critique.

Oh, but don't you know by now, Red? DG is perfect and never does anything wrong. At least to her..er.. "enthusiastic" fans.

btw if anyone (ahem) couldn't tell, that was SARCASM.

Kat wrote: "Red wrote: "Yeah... And that means one can NEVER discuss a book/story/plot/scene/character, because that's the author's choice? So there is no such thing as ...I don't know, critical thoughts on a ..."

Kudos again Red and Kat! Patiently and clearly presented and re-re- re-presented points cogently and logically defended!

Kat, it was a nice exchange with Mary, about "author's writting choice". I didn't attempt to research, or detail how the author could have created the tension, conflict and punishment caused by Claire's attempt to time travel home, by leveraging Clan leagal precedent to avoid the crappy Trope of "wife gets the bare bottom beating she richly deserves at the hands of the aroused romantic protagonist, for the pleasure of the men listening on.... "

Red wrote: "I am a bit lost right now : so do everyone agrees now that this isn't a military issue but a clan/marital one?"

Um. Nope. I think some are still trying to make the argument that the beating was a clan/military issue and not just a marital one. From what I understand, the 'clan issue' is being likened to a military issue. As if the clan was a military unit and therefore military rules apply instead of the clan being a familial unit (and therefore familial rules would apply) that they were.

"Also, the thing is a clan/marital issue isn't necessarily handled with violence. I would go as far as to say that in many cases violence is always used as a last resort when every other ways have been exhausted. "

Yes, yes yes! Thank you, Red! As I read (and quoted out of one) book about Highland Clans, violence was the last resort. Especially violence against women.

I'm not usually one to bother with a bunch of "me too"s! Because I think that gets redundant. However, I think in this case it's warranted. You made so many good points in all of your posts this morning Red. Thank you.

Sara wrote: "Kat, it was a nice exchange with Mary, about "author's writing choice". I didn't attempt to research, or detail how the author could have created the tension, conflict and punishment caused by Claire's attempt to time travel home, by leveraging Clan legal precedent to avoid the crappy Trope of "wife gets the bare bottom beating she richly deserves at the hands of the aroused romantic protagonist, for the pleasure of the men listening on.... "

Okay, I'll have to go back and look that up. (at risk of being browbeaten by some for doing so) but I just wanted to say that your last line CRACKED ME UP! LOL!!

Kat wrote: at thrisk of being browbeaten by some for doing so) but I just wanted to say that your last line CRACKED ME UP! LOL!! c..."

Aha! I owed you a chuckle, because many of yours have cracked me up too!

There have been a lot of posts. For the sake of time, I will just do one generic response.

Kat and Red seem to keep reiterating what they think should have happened in a perfect Outlander world with perfect characters who always follow the rules and do the right things. Outlander is not that type of world and honestly, I think it would be extremely boring and unrealistic if it were sanitized as depicted as such. In Jane Eyre, the right thing for Rochester to do was to tell Jane that he was already married to Bertha. He didn't do that and tried to marry Jane anyway. It wasn't right for him to deceive her, but I understand what motivated him to do it within the context of the story. I understand why Heathcliff became such an embittered man in Wuthering Heights. I understand why Romeo and Juliet committed suicide. I understand why Gollum was so obsessed with his precious in the Lord of the Rings stories. In a perfect world, Patrick Bateman would have gotten the proper help that he clearly needed in American Psycho. In a perfect world, Holden Caulfield would have been a model student with excellent grades, a good circle of friends, a supportive family and would not have been expelled and would never have gone to NYC. My point is that historical accuracy in historical fiction doesn't necessarily mean that every character must do what is right and just and fair. People were not perfect in the 18th century and they certainly are not perfect now and it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect them to be.

When it comes to historical fiction, historical accuracy is important, however, the story also has to be plausible and make sense. If a character does something that isn't right, as long as it is fleshed out in the story as to why it is happening, I am okay. Others may not be and that is fine. However, I don't think this takes away from Outlander's legitimacy as historical fiction.

I understand that it was wrong for Jamie to beat Claire. However, I understand why a person like him in the times and situation that he was in would feel that he was justified in doing so. His pov makes sense within the context of the story. It's not right, but I still understand it.

I understand that it wasn't proper legal procedure to discipline Claire on the road. However, I also understand how a group of soldiers on the road might decide to take matters into their own hands because they perceive that they are in danger and have a mission that needs to be completed. It's not right, but it makes sense within the context of the story. It's plausible. It wasn't right for a Brittish soldier to rape an inmate or to attempt to rape a woman either. That aspect of the story isn't "proper legal procedure" either. In a perfect world, Black Jack Randall should have been brought up on charges...however in the real world, I'm sure there were some rogue Captains who got away with doing things that they should not have done.

(...and I still think it's very interesting with all this talk of historical accuracy, the only focus is on Jamie's beating of Claire. Why is no one questioning the "historical accuracy" of Black Jack Randall's actions? He disregarded well established laws and rules and procedures, too. If a group of Scottish Highlanders are not allowed to do something wrong, why does Black Jack Randall, a Brittish officer get a pass?)

As I was saying, I understand why a group of people who are extremely superstitious might be inclined to burn someone who is suspected of witchcraft, leave a baby in the woods for fairies to take or perform an exorcism on a sick child who is suffering from a fever. None of those things are right, but I understand how it could happen within the context of the story.

Kat and others seem to be of the mindset that if Outlander is to be historically accurate, everyone in Outlander should be following the law of that time to the letter. Imo, that basic aspect of humanity has not changed and I think it is unrealistic to expect that in literature. People do bad things. Sometimes even good people do bad things. Sometimes people make mistakes. A perfect novel with perfect people would be extremely boring and I'm glad that Outlander was not one of those boring, sanitized, whitewashed novels.

I understand that many will disagree. That's fine. We don't have to all agree. That's the way of the imperfect world that we live in....and that little imperfection suits me just fine.

Kat wrote: "Good point. We might want to make sure we shut down all College and University literature classes (and some High School I suspect) as well. I'm quite sure they violate the prohibition on critique.

Oh, but don't you know by now, Red? DG is perfect and never does anything wrong. At least to her..er.. "enthusiastic" fans.

btw if anyone (ahem) couldn't tell, that was SARCASM.



It was juvenile as well, imo. Some other not so nice colloquial words and phrases come to mind also, but I will be a lady and keep them to myself. :)

Mochaspresso wrote: "There have been a lot of posts. For the sake of time, I will just do one generic response.

Kat and Red seem to keep reiterating what they think should have happened in a perfect Outlander world..."

ALL of THIS in post #948!

Kat wrote: "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?

..."

Response to # 917

There have just been too many posts. There are too many I want to respond to and I know I won't get the chance. I did actually manage to read them all during my lunch breaks at work though :)

I have personally gone back and forth on the whole "If Jamie didn't do it, others would have." Either that be Colum after a clan meeting or Dougals. I have made the argument that IF the other option was to be beat in front of the Clan, if I were Claire, I would have preferred what happened in the book.

BUT I've also argued the possibility that nobody else would have done it. Actually Kat - it was you that made me think my doubts about that were misplaced. When you said that in the Comic book DG wrote, in there someone states that if Jamie hadn't done it, Dougals would have. That's what really threw me for a loop and made me think, well, that Dougals probably would have done it.

I still go back and forth though.

I do think this was a clan issue. But I think it was so much more than a clan issue. I also believe it was a marital issue. I think it was less of the later and more clan but I still think it was both. And I think it was more than even those two things.

If Jamie had have ignored the mens reaction to Claire and didn't beat her, my idea (purely speculation, obviously) about what would happen is basically that they would have been ostracized. I think the men would have taken it as a huge insult if Jamie hadn't done what he did. Which is part of why Jamie did it. He tells Claire at some point that if it were just between the two of them he'd let it go.

The implications of offending the war chieftain of Clan Mackenzie and in turn Colum could possibly have some far reaching and negative results. I do think Jamie was thinking quite politically when he did this. This action did redeem him and Claire in their eyes. But it also kept them safe from being ostracized. - If that's what really would have happened. They have allies with Clan Mackenzie that Jamie can't really afford to loose. Even if those allies aren't entirely trustworthy they are better than nothing.

Basically my point is though that I don't find this part of the story weak. That's what Red and you and maybe Sara are saying right? That what's lead up to this beating, the plot, was weak. And other readers are saying, "No, it makes sense to me."

We all have things we can relate to and things we can't right?
____________

As to Jamie not claming the title of Laird of Lollybroch. I thought he was. But where he was an Outlaw I thought he stayed at Colums for 1.protection. And 2.Because he didn't want to confront Jenny after thinking he failed her and she was raped.

Red and Kat say historical accuracy is not a good argument because it's not historically accurate. Even if it was accurate, there are still other plot devices that could have worked so as to not include this scene.

I do understand the historical accuracy argument now I think. I never understood it before but once I pretended the novel wasn't accurate (because it really might not be and I hadn't considered that previously) and I realized then, that the historical accuracy just doesn't matter because I "get it" even without it.

The part I don't understand about this whole thing is the "why not?" Why not include this scene? I personally did not find the writing weak. I thought everything made quite good sense in this little world DG wrote. Red said the issue isn't a moral one. Don't write it because it's over used? I know Red you've talked about this multiple times and each time I've failed to understand and I actually think this is the heart of the debate.

What is so wrong or bad about using this scene to further the plot?

Mrsbooks wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "There have been a lot of posts. For the sake of time, I will just do one generic response.

Kat and Red seem to keep reiterating what they think should have happened in a p..."

Thanks. :)

Btw, this is actually meant for EVERYONE in the discussion....not just for Mrs. Brooks. Even if I don't agree with everyone's views, I do enjoy discussion and did actually get something new out of it. Particularly some of the links that Kat provided. You don't necessarily have to agree with someone to learn something from them.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Because he didn't want to confront Jennie after thinking he had failed her and she was raped..."

I don't think Jamie thought he failed Jennie, he had been led to believe Jennie had an affair and a child with BJR.

I do agree...why not include this scene? Nearly every book has scenes, thoughts, events, or characters, that the reader may not like or agree with, even children's books and fairy tales...when I was a child, Hansel and Gretel terrified me.

As for the historical accuracy, I don't recall DG ever saying the books were historically accurate. She does research and writes the story accordingly, which should be obvious since, first of all it's time travel, and, she has included fictional scenes about not only Bonny Prince Charles, but Benjamin Franklin, and others. Fiction is not fact or reality, it is written to entertain, and Ms Gabaldon is a great story teller who has successfully entertained millions in many different countries.

I also agree with Mochaspesso...although I don't always agree, I do enjoy reading what other people think and sometimes my feelings do change. However, I refuse to argue once I feel the discussion is becoming angry. Debates are not always productive or meaningful, they are often times pointless, as Wednesday's Republican Debate has shown us (and I'm not for or against Republicans, I just found the debate a waste of time, or as one candidate pointed out, on a Junior High level, as opposed to that of a World Leader).

When I first entered this thread I admit I completely disagreed with Red's opinion, but as the thread evolved I began to understand what she disagreed with regarding this scene and her reasons why. Although I don't agree that the book would necessarily be better without this particular scene, mostly because I feel it's the author's choice to write the story on their terms, I do understand why Red feels it could have been handled differently. So although Red and I don't agree, I do respect her opinion.

I think a huge problem with written comments opposed to oral discussions is we are commenting to someone we don't know and there is no tone of voice or facial expression involved, so often times the opinion or comment is taken wrong. Capital letters, explanation points, LOL, IMO, etc. does not necessarily get the point across correctly and can often times misconstrue the comment. This is a something we often need to be reminded about where I work and IM messages are frequent due to many locations and people. Comments are often written in haste, or by/to someone having a bad day and taken the wrong way. Sometimes what seems perfectly clear to oneself will have a completely different meaning to someone else. That's why it's often good to take a deep breathe or a break, and think before replying, or when possible (work) pick up the phone before it gets out of hand. By the way, I'm guilty of this myself, so I'm not blaming anyone in particular, it's just a general comment.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Kat wrote: "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 ha..."

You bring up some very interesting points about Jamie's other motivations for beating Claire. Points that I'm inclined to agree with. Especially your point about the political alliances that he felt that he had to maintain for their own safety, at least for the time being. I agree that he could not afford for there to be a clash with the men or with Dougal, Collum and the clan over Claire at that time.

The plot for Outlander is intricate and multi-layered. There is a literary term for this that escapes me at the moment, but things are not necessarily depicted as being either black and white in the story. There are a lot of factors that influence actions and those actions often have a direct impact on other actions. Sometimes characters have multiple reasons for doing the things that they do and one change can make an entire story line fall apart or become irrelevant.

I believe that someone asked what I thought Colum's punishment for Claire would be had she been taken to him for judgement instead. If I thought she would be hanged or flogged and if I thought those were the only two possible options for her. Obviously not. I don't know....but I do know that they were actually willing to burn her when she was accused of witchcraft. (The Scotts don't flog women, but they will burn one? :) I think this question misses the bigger point (imo) that they didn't know what he might do and were not inclined to take the risk. Whatever it was, it was certainly going to be far worse for Claire than what Jamie did and it would have affected their relationship with the clan. It misses the point you illustrated that they were in a precarious position where they couldn't afford to be at odds with them under any circumstances.

I also agree with Mochaspesso...although I don't always agree, I do enjoy reading what other people think and sometimes my feelings do change. However, I refuse to argue. Debates are not always productive or meaningful, they are often times pointless, as Thursday's Republican Debate has shown us (and I'm not anti-Republican, I just found the debate a waste of time, or as one candidate pointed out, on a Junior High level, as opposed to the level of a World Leader).

This is veering off topic, but my name was mentioned, so it caught my attention. :) I watched the debate and I find the political debate process fascinating. Always have. I don't agree that it was a waste of time. It helps to flesh out where candidates stand on certain issues. For example, I respect Ben Carson for who he is and what he's accomplished in his life, but I was not happy with his suggested immigration plan that involves undocumented immigrants agreeing to pick our fruit because it's a job that "regular Americans" don't want to take anyway. I know from other news sources that his idea is actually part of a grander "guest worker" plan or system...that I've been researching more and still not 100% happy with. The point is that I would not have been on this particular path of research had it not been for his debate comments. That is why I think the debate process in American politics is important. I don't think it's a waste of time at all.

btw...the following is a post that I made on someone else's facebook page is relevant to what I am talking about in this post...and that is taking this thread off topic (sorry), so I am just going to copy and paste it here...

Trump and his "anchor baby" comments. I'm taking it personally. I was born in the United States. I am an American citizen. My father eventually became one and served in the military. I've worked and paid taxes since the age of 15. I've never been on welfare. I've never qualified for financial aid. I didn't even qualify for free lunch in school. I paid for college with student loans that I am still paying off. The US has not and will not be "taking care of me until I turn 85". The US does not take care of the so called anchor babies. They are American citizens with valid birth certificates and social security numbers. They grow up and get jobs and pay taxes in America just like every other American does.

So, you see, Trump in that debate was not a waste of time to me. I need to know exactly where he stands and the debate helps me see that.

And remember, Jamie felt the tension at dinner, so he may have wanted to handle the situation as soon as possible so that there weren't any further problems, either with Claire or the men. And, (I know I've said this before) Jamie truly felt that Claire would comply with the spanking. Claire's repulsion turned a few swats on her 'arse into a beating. I'm not saying either action was right, but the punishment intended was different then the result. Even Dougal implied this the following morning.

What Column would have done, or whether it was even up to him, I'm not sure. Since, Dougal was in charge of the mission, he may very well have been in charge of any discipline needed, esp. since he and Column had an unusual relationship due to Column's disability.

Mochaspresso wrote: " That is why I think the debate process in American politics is important. I don't think it's a waste of time at all...."

Oh I agree, Political Debates are very important, I just didn't like Wednesday's because too much emphasis was put on irrelevant comments made by candidates instead of issues.

Not to mention, some candidates, whether I like them or not, did not receive fair or equal time.

Since this isn't the time or place, I apologize for bringing it up and will say no more.

Mochaspresso wrote: "There have been a lot of posts. For the sake of time, I will just do one generic response.

Kat and Red seem to keep reiterating what they think should have happened in a perfect Outlander world..."

Ditto on the generic response thing. And...

No. That's not what I was attempting to do at all. Once again, you have missed the relevant points.

For Red's opinions, see posts 924, 925, 927, and 929. I think she stated them well enough there.

We are not talking about Jane Eyre, Lord of the Rings, Romeo and Juliet, Winnie the Pooh, or Thom Thumb. (What? You didn't mention Winnie the Pooh? 'Cause I can't help from wondering why that silly old bear hasn't learned by now that his nose is going to get stuck in the honey jar. But I digress...)THIS board is a discussion about Outlander. (The first book, not even the entire series) and the beating scene - the JUSTIFICATION of the beating scene in particular. It is not about BJR or Laoghaire, or Bonnie Prince Charlie for that matter. There may be discussion threads about those topics. But that is not this one. I believe Red also already pointed that out.

As to no 'historically accurate' arguments or outrage about BJR as I believe Red said, why does it have to be one thing or the other? Why can't it be both?

But once again, what Red was (and has been arguing) is about the justification of the beating scene by certain readers/commentators. As have I. If this does not apply to you (that's a general you, not a specific you) then there is no need to reply. It's not even been about Jamie's pov. I don't really care about Jamie's pov, to be honest with you. (Regardless of what some seem to think, I do "get" Jamie's pov.) That's not what brought me here.

I think I have already commented on this, but I will repeat myself - if a 'historical fiction' book is not entirely historically accurate, that doesn't necessarily bother me per se. However, I do like my books, historical fiction and otherwise, to at least conform to the world which they have created. (I think someone else posted a similar opinion.) My point in arguing how I think Claire should have been judged in front of Colum is because that's the clan world the book created beforehand. And then it disregarded it's own rules. That irritates me. If it doesn't bother others, that's okay with me. But I'm still entitled to my opinion also.

IMO, the weakest part of the plot leading up to the beating was NOT who did it or when it was done - it was that Claire was left alone in the woods in the first place! Historically accurate-wise speaking, I don't think it would have happened at all. Outlander-world wise, I think it was a pretty stupid move, given all the other variables (deserters and redcoats) in the area. Not to mention, there was still some suspicion that Claire was a spy at that point.

I could have sworn there was another comment on the thread about why we need to keep discussing the book at all when it seems that opinions just keep going round and round. I can't find it now. But let me restate (this time without the snark - and yes, I was snarky. :D I freely admit that.) that, if one feels no value comes from discussing literature, even if opinions are not necessarily changed, then why have entire college classes (and majors) devoted to the study and discussion of such? And honestly - if one does not want to keep discussing then one need not keep posting. No, we may not all agree. We will probably never agree. If it's boring in fiction, it would be boring in real life. That does not mean that there is no value in the discussion itself or that there is not room for both sides of an argument. I personally believe that we need both (Political Debate tie-in here) Liberals and Conservatives, Peace-makers and War Generals, yin and yang.

For one of DG's comments on Claire's beating, see: http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/non...
While she does not use the term 'historically accurate' herself, by saying "This was basically what the Highland justice was like." she is implying a certain amount of authenticity, imo. Others may interpret her comments differently of course. I didn't like the way it was expressed or what was said and that's one thing that got me into looking for other opinions on the web.

As to Jamie not claming the title of Laird of Lollybroch. I thought he was. But where he was an Outlaw I thought he stayed at Colums for 1.protection. And 2.Because he didn't want to confront Jenny after thinking he failed her and she was raped.
Yes, you are correct on both of those accounts - and I think Dougal had told Jamie that Jenny had a baby by Randall. But I also thought (and I haven't gone back to read it myself so I could be wrong) that Jamie mentioned to Claire at one point before they married that he didn't have much in the way of land. I thought he meant this because he knew he couldn't go back to Lollybroch because of the price on his head.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat wrote: "Good point. We might want to make sure we shut down all College and University literature classes (and some High School I suspect) as well. I'm quite sure they violate the prohibition on critique.

Oh, but don't you know by now, Red? DG is perfect and never does anything wrong. At least to her..er.. "enthusiastic" fans.

btw if anyone (ahem) couldn't tell, that was SARCASM.

It was juvenile as well, imo. Some other not so nice colloquial words and phrases come to mind also, but I will be a lady and keep them to myself. :) "

Hello again, Pot! Kettle here.

Juvenile? Really? Darn. I was going for subversive myself.

Of course, in some circles it would be considered juvenile to respond with an insult to a comment one considers juvenile....but I digress. Back to my regularly scheduled subversion tactics:

To anyone interested, I'm thinking of starting the Underground Outlander Resistance Movement. I figure we can get together and sit around smoking cigarettes, drinking whiskey, and sayings things like "n’est pas?" and "mais non". (In honor of Jamie and Claire going off to France.) Oh, and making posters like:
https://www.goodreads.com/photo/user/...

Free Claire!

Sara wrote: "Aha! I owed you a chuckle, because many of yours have cracked me up too!"

Well, I certainly needed it, so thanks! :)

FYI, I went back and read many of your posts. I thought your points were polite, clear, concise, and very well defended! And I agreed with all the ones I read.

I have also noticed both in Sara's exchange and in some of my own, that it is often demanded of the dissenter to 'prove' in some way or another their objection. But oftentimes the only argument proponents offer is "that's the way it was written." Yes, I know that.

So the question has been posed why some think it was a bad plot device. (I actually think Red has already answered this question) I ask, why do those who defend it so vigorously think it was a 'good' plot device? What makes it work for you? And why would any of the other scenarios offered - had the book been written that way - not have worked just as well?

It's not that the scene 'works for me' or that I feel it was a necessary or 'good plot device', it's just simply the way the author wrote the story. Had Ms Gabaldon chosen to write it differently, I'm sure it would have worked just as well, but she didn't. It doesn't mean I think the scene was right, acceptable, or historically correct, it's just the way it was written and it's not going to change. We can say we would have preferred something different, but it can't be justified as wrong anymore then it can be justified as right. It was simply the author's choice, as is every scene in the series, of which, many, if not all, could have taken a different route.

A theoretical question requires a theoretical response.

As to justifying scenes: I think we (as critically thinking readers) certainly can and should justify different literary scenes/plots/dialogue/etc as either right or wrong.

For two excellent articles on Literary Criticism, see:
Definition in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/topic/liter...

Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism at Purdue (excellent writing resource btw)
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/re...

So there it is...critically thinking readers. If I were reading school, college, or work related material, or to research something important to my life or well being, I would be critical and verify the source and accuracy, however, when I read a fictional novel such as Outlander, I do so for pleasure and entertainment. I can take the story as it goes, because I'm really not taking it seriously and it won't affect my job, life or family. I may be disappointed in the direction the story takes, or decide not to read other books by the author, but I certainly wouldn't be upset or angry.

Being a critical thinking reader is important, but so is reading simply for pleasure.

There's nothing wrong with reading for pleasure. I often do it myself.

There's also nothing wrong with the reasoned consideration of literary works and issues. Or those who want to engage in it. In fact, according to one of the sources above, the practice goes back to Plato.

I guess I just don't understand why, if one only read the book for pleasure and nothing about the plot bothered them, would someone bother to keep posting here? And please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not trying to be snide, believe it or not. I honestly just don't understand. For example, if it were me, and I read Shakespeare (and I do like Shakespeare) I can appreciate it for a good bit of entertainment. There are those however who can engage in a debate for hours (or more) about the finer points of one or more plot points of King Lear. I won't join in because I just don't really care that much. I read it for enjoyment and the rest doesn't bother me. Now I might listen in on the conversation to maybe get a bit of insight or learn something new or just for a good laugh. But I certainly would never imply that it was wrong of them to have the debate in the first place.

Kat wrote: "There's nothing wrong with reading for pleasure. I often do it myself.

That is my personal criticism of the scene. I take no pleasure from reading about romantisised wife beating.

Kat wrote: "There's nothing wrong with reading for pleasure. I often do it myself.

There's also nothing wrong with the reasoned consideration of literary works and issues. Or those who want to engage in i..."

That's exactly what I said...you just used fancier words.

I never said it was wrong to debate this scene, I said not all debates are productive or meaningful.

Why do I bother to access this thread....why not? I found many comments and discussions interesting, and like I said before sometimes they changed my opinion. But perhaps you're right and I should leave because I don't take it as serious as some others. I'll take it under consideration. I didn't take offense, it's a valid question that I've asked myself before.