Outlander
discussion
*SPOILER* The beating scene and why it is just plain WRONG to try and justify it
Regina wrote: "But I hope it is not in the TV show. I have concerns as to how the TV will deal with this scene. I would prefer they skip over it."See, I was wondering whether what they would do. To me, it is very telling if they don't put it 'cause they know it's difficult to "make sense" of it. I don't think they will try and depict it. Because one thing is the power of seeing the beating. It's one thing to read it, it's another to see it happening...So I am pretty sure they are going to skip it.
Red wrote: "I am not really sure which reply you're talking about, so you may be right. What was she referring to? The thing is my main point and the one made by MedievalMuse that I agree with isn't even abou..."
Whoa! Somebody is awfully defensive. YOU started the thread and I am assuming you realized your comments would be commented on. You said there was no way to justify Jamie's actions. We proved you wrong. It is not nitpicking to want you to use the actual TEXT OF THE BOOK when discussing said book. It is obvious to those of us who actually read and comprehended the book that you did not.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Regina wrote: "Red, I am a feminist and I have many problems with popular romance and new adult novels in terms of romanticizing violence. I see your points and where you are coming from, however ..."The thing is, ot is not "moder day ideal" : women wlaked out of abusive relationship for centuries. Just like they stay in abusive relationships today. SO it's not about applying so called "moder day" way of thinking because even back in the time the same outcome were possible.
deleted user wrote: "Just so you know, it seems like that tumblr post has some added material than what you've quoted in your text post. Maybe that will help people with their discussion?"I haven't read Medieval Muse recent post about Outlander. I know that she likes the show very much and we had a very nice discussion about it. I explained to her why Part of the reason I was mad about the book is that I couldn't root for that hot actor playing Jamie anymore and it sucked. Anyway, I respect MediavalMuse's choice to enjoy the show despite the books's failings. As I said before, my pojnt is not to shame anybody in enjoying the book. I want to discuss the problematic part in it. Now when one doesn't even think there is anything problematic with the scene in the 1st place, I guess there is no need to bother, right?
gertt wrote: "When it comes to forgiving, the easy choice is to not forgive. It's hard to forgive someone who has hurt you, whether it is physical or emotional. Claire didn't accept that Jamie's punishment wa..."
Welle, it's not obvious for me, and just because Claire "forgave" Jaimie doesn't mean I should and can't criticize that wtring choice in the first place.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Red, if you aren't willing to research your points, then you're wasting my time and simply blowing off steam. It shows a blatant disregard for anyone sincerely interested in trying to understand h..."I am wasting YOUR time? Like for real? Girl, YOU came on the thread that I started. No one invited you! You're as free to leave as you were to come in. The main point of the article I poste wasn't about which one of Claire's anatomycal part hurt more but the fat that she had been beaten by her husband and that I thought this writing choice was wrong for many reasons and that people who tried to justified it with "historical cultural accuracy" arguments were wrong too as explained by MedievalMuse. THAT was the main point. Now you come in here and start nipticking here and there and derailing the main argument. As I stated before, I disliked the book, so no I am not going to try and search and quote it verbatim to prove my point. Cause my main point is not about some accurate quote or such, but about a line of arguments by people who try to justify the beating scene. Obviously, you are not interested in this very specific discussion here : GOOD RIDDANCE !
Red wrote: "I haven't read Medieval Muse recent post about Outlander. I know that she likes the show very much and we had a very nice discussion about it. I explained to her why Part of the reason I was mad about the book is that I couldn't root for that hot actor playing Jamie anymore and it sucked. Anyway, I respect MediavalMuse's choice to enjoy the show despite the books's failings. As I said before, my pojnt is not to shame anybody in enjoying the book. I want to discuss the problematic part in it. Now when one doesn't even think there is anything problematic with the scene in the 1st place, I guess there is no need to bother, right? .."I 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.
Sunda wrote: "Red wrote: "And I never wrote that the context is irrelevant. On the very contrary "Righto. Context is important. Just not important *enough* to bother with getting it right.
Red wrote: "I rea..."
It's not the "context" that is not important enough. It's this line of argument. Like the all spanking vs beating. Also what in the "accuracy" of Claire being hard beaten change the original point about A) that beating scene being a bad writing choice and B) the historical "accuracy" about the culture of the time being wrong? Because those were the main point of may post and as much as you pretend to be interested in the conversation, you are not replying to those ones.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Red wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: ""you can't just say your interpretation of the scene is fact and others are inaccuracies."Back at ya'. I did not say that. For the record, I'm not talk..."
I am not really sure which reply you're talking about, so you may be right. What was she referring to?
The thing is my main point and the one made by MedievalMuse that I agree with isn't even about that (turning the blame on Claire), or how much Claire hurt : it was about justifying Jamie's actions by talking about "historical accuracy". Trying to turn the discussion either on Claire's supposed faults or on my lazy ass who won't bother try and quote that boring book verbatim IS in fact derailing the conversation.
Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "I am not really sure which reply you're talking about, so you may be right. What was she referring to? The thing is my main point and the one made by MedievalMuse that I agree with isn..."
Am not defensive for the least. You didn't "prove me wrong" 'cause, guess what, am still not convinced (and seriously, are you going to call on the head teacher so to judge on this?, like we're 12?). Most of the argument put forward missed the point. So I stand by my original argument.
Red wrote: "It's not the "context" that is not important enough. It's this line of argument. Like the all spanking vs beating. Also what in the "accuracy" of Claire being hard beaten change the original point about A) thas t beating scene being a bad writing choice and B) the historical "accuracy" about the culture of the time being wrong? Because those were the main point of may post and as much as you pretend to be interested in the conversation, you are not replying to those ones. .."It is context Red. When I was a child my mother disciplined me with a switch. It HURT. Sometimes my bottom hurt for a good while. No one back in the 1950s would have thought what she did was child abuse. My father used a belt on my brother a few times. It was the NORM for parents to discipline children this way until recently. My mother and father were good parents. They were just doing what they were taught by their parents, church and community to do. I changed that with my kids and did not use corporal punishment. So, is every parent who ever used corporal punishment now a monster because modern sensibilities find it abhorrent?
Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "I haven't read Medieval Muse recent post about Outlander. I know that she likes the show very much and we had a very nice discussion about it. I explained to her why Part of the reason ..."AND I object that writing choice and the justification of that writing choice by stating "this is how hard it was to leave in this place at the times".
Red wrote: "It's not the "context" that is not important enough. It's this line of argument. Like the all spanking vs beating. Also what in the "accuracy" of Claire being hard beaten change the original point about A) that beating scene being a bad writing choice and B) the historical "accuracy" about the culture of the time being wrong? Because those were the main point of may post and as much as you pretend to be interested in the conversation, you are not replying to those ones. .."You are extremely defensive Red. Again...are all parents who have ever spanked their kids worthy of contempt?
Red wrote: "AND I object that writing choice and the justification of that writing choice by stating "this is how hard it was to leave in this place at the times". ..."Why? It was authentic. It would have been hard to live back then especially if you were a fugitive from justice who could be shot on sight or hung. Some of the things I typically object to in historical romance is what is termed as "wallpaper history." My undergraduate degree was in history and I hate reading a book set in the past that is based on modern sensibilities. Why not just write a contemporary if you do not want to read accurate history?
gertt wrote: "When it comes to forgiving, the easy choice is to not forgive. It's hard to forgive someone who has hurt you, whether it is physical or emotional. Claire didn't accept that Jamie's punishment wa..."
Also why not forgiving is the easy choice"? Says who? No seriously? How whether you forgive someone or notbecomes a matter of judging people and shaming them if they don't forgive? Again, my argument is not to "blame"/judge Claire as a character. And certainly to "blame"/judge her as a vitcim for whatever choice she made. I disagree with the writing choice and the justification if the scene and Jaimie's behaviour. Talking about how "forgiving" IS the "right" thing to say is an entirely differnet thing. Which I also disagree, but that's another conversation in itself
Red wrote: "Also why not forgiving is the easy choice"? Says who? No seriously? How whether you forgive someone or notbecomes a matter of judging people and shaming them if they don't forgive? Again, my argument is not to "blame"/judge Claire as a character. And certainly to "blame"/judge her as a vitcim for whatever choice she made. I disagree with the writing choice and the justification if the scene and Jaimie's behaviour. Talking about how "forgiving" IS the "right" thing to say is an entirely differnet thing. Which I also disagree, but that's another conversation in itself .."So you do not blame Claire for lying to Jamie and leaving the spot she promised where him she would remain? For putting Jamie's life at risk, causing him to kill a man and putting all of the MacKenzie men at risk as well? Jamie forgave her.
Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "It's not the "context" that is not important enough. It's this line of argument. Like the all spanking vs beating. Also what in the "accuracy" of Claire being hard beaten change the ori..."See, you're talking about somethin else, yet again.
1st :we're not talking about a parent/child relationship. I do not compare Claire ot a child who needs to be disciplined or punish. Here. I don't think of Claire as such. Which is also why, even nowadays, such things are not treated as the same.
2nd : I don't get how talking about your personal childhood experience has anything to do with the origina point I made. I don't know you nor your parents, nor your family dynamics, nor how this expereience impacted or not on your life and your present mental health/state and such. How am i supposed to make any assessement of that specific actions? Am I now expected to share some of my childnow traumatic and non traumatic physical experience at the hands of my family to "counterbalance" or further "prove" the point you are trying to make with your rhetorical question?
3) Yeah, people used to beat their children back in the 1960s. And in the 1970s, and in the 1980s and up until today. They still do. And back in the day, whether it was "legal" or not, it still was discussed and questionned and opposed by some.
But AGAIN: am an not talking about parents beating children. If I wanted to have a conversation about THAT particular subject, I would have talked about one of Jaimie's many memories about being beaten as a child. But that is not what my original post was about. Which doesn't mean that I condone parents beating children or I that I am totally opposed ot it. THIS IS JUST NOT MY POINT.
Red wrote: "But AGAIN: am an not talking about parents beating children. If I wanted to have a conversation about THAT particular subject, I would have talked about one of Jaimie's many memories about being beaten as a child. But that is not what my original post was about. Which doesn't mean that I condone parents beating children or I that I am totally opposed ot it. THIS IS JUST NOT MY POINT. .."Why would you not equate the two? Children are even MORE vulnerable than a grown woman. The chance for permanent damage and/or death is even greater. I cannot believe you would dismiss violence against children, while at the same time hating a fictional character for violence against another adult. My point was to make an analogy. Beating/spanking children has been socially and legally acceptable for some time without any stain on the character of the parents. Why is it worse to spank a grown woman vs. a child?
Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "Also why not forgiving is the easy choice"? Says who? No seriously? How whether you forgive someone or notbecomes a matter of judging people and shaming them if they don't forgive? Agai..."NO. Icertainly DO NOT "blame" Claire for trying to go back to her home and escape a place where she didn't come willingly, by her own accord. Jamie chose to go after her and "save her". If I remember well he even told her that he could have let her at the hand of evil Randall, etc.
I certainly DO NOT blame a woman for being beaten by her husband who wants to "teach" her to obey to his orders.
But I will criticize the author for turning her female lead characte rinto yet another damsell in distress stereotype, for making her look like a fool who needs to be rescued by the heroic husband nad the to have her being beaten by said heroic husban and have her being blamed for her own beating after being made fun of the physical discomfort she felt and then have said female character tell her husband she loves them and have this all mess being written as some major turning point and expect me to keep rooting for such a relationship.
Red wrote: "But I will criticize the author for turning her female lead characte rinto yet another damsell in distress stereotype, for making her look like a fool who needs to be rescued by the heroic husband nad the to have her being beaten by said heroic husban and have her being blamed for her own beating after being made fun of the physical discomfort she felt and then have said female character tell her husband she loves them and have this all mess being written as some major turning point and expect me to keep rooting for such a relationship. ..."Did you even read the entire book? Do you not remember when Claire rescued Jamie? The turning point was NOT that Claire realized she loved Jamie when he beat her. The turning point was Jamie realized he could NOT handle Claire that way - that being married to Claire actually made him a better man in the end because he LEARNED that in her opinion the beating was WRONG. If there is one thing Claire is NOT is a damsel in distress. Perhaps because many of us here have the advantage over you in that we have read ALL of the books and therefore know how things go forward. We see Claire save Jamie's life multiple times. Once she gets her bearings in the 18th century, she kicks ass and takes names.
Red wrote: "Trying to turn the discussion either on Claire's supposed faults or on my lazy ass who won't bother try and quote that boring book verbatim IS in fact derailing the conversation."Because it's easier to accuse everyone else of nitpicking than lift a finger to discuss your position. Who cares what has been written in the book, right? How dare we look at the scene in question, or the events immediately before or after for context, or...*gasp*...email the author for her thoughts while writing this scene! People might gain clarity and then...OMG! They might reach common ground on some issues! Holy cow! We might agree, or agree to disagree, but my mind is open to change during the process! WOW! What an incredibly mature concept!
I also find it pretty ironic that such a stout feminist repeatedly calls herself a "lazy ass." If we want others to respect us, it starts within ourselves.
Red wrote: "I am wasting YOUR time? Like for real? Girl, YOU came on the thread that I started. No one invited you! "
And we've reached official Troll status! Red, you invited us ALL here to comment on your post when you wrote it. That's how the DISCUSSION board works. If you aren't going to look at the materials and participate in respectful debate of the issues, it is a WASTE OF MY TIME! Not to mention everyone else's. Maybe in a few years you'll learn how to interact with adults.
LMAO @ "very specific discussion."
Mary wrote: "I 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..."YES! Very nicely said! There are scenes in the book that make me uncomfortable, but I'm supposed to be upset when an injustice has occurred, or my favorite character is acting stupid and could've done things differently.
Before the spanking scene, both characters had painted themselves in a corner by their actions and their words. Tempers and emotions were sky high and having the full picture from beginning to end, I can understand WHY it happened. It's a correct portrayal of flawed human nature.
Love her or hate her, DG had her psychological and historical ducks in a row for this particular scene.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "YES! Very nicely said! There are scenes in the book that make me uncomfortable, but I'm supposed to be upset when an injustice has occurred, or my favorite character is acting stupid and could've done things differently. I..."Thanks Becky. We are supposed to think that Jamie beating Claire is a clash of cultures, not a romantic moment. I do not even get how someone could interpret that scene that way. We are also not supposed to hate homosexuals because Black Jack was one and raped Jamie. Lord John Grey proved that point. There are a lot of uncomfortable moments in these books. But, there are a lot of uncomfortable moments in life. I like that Gabaldon gets down to the nitty gritty aspect of what life was like in the 18th century. I also like that Claire helps him to become a more "modern" man.
Exactly! I see some of those jumps in logic and wonder if I got some weird misprinted copy. I heard the issue against homosexuality being cast in a negative light because of Randall, which blew my mind. I just can't remotely make that connection. The world is very complex and these aren't simple issues. DG pulls out every shade of grey she can when she writes. When her characters deal with conflict, we will probably get a lot to talk about, too!
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "And we've reached official Troll status! "Yup!
Is there anyone ELSE here who would like to problematize the scene and support with a coherent argument? Cuz I'd be interested in a reasonably supported point....
FWIW, IMHO, starting with a factually correct presentation of the reading is a bare minimum for proceeding with an analysis thereof.
Ultimately, I agree that, as a general postulate, violence against women is 1.) overused as a trope; 2.) grossly and inappropriately sexualized in weird ways and entirely too frequently in our culture; 3.) appropriately contested as such when it is used as described in items 1. and 2. However, any given piece of art must be taken on its own individual merits, and I think this one has some that render the scene reasonable and effective. However, because my general sympathies lie with problematizing portrayals of this type, I'd love to hear somebody support such a problematizing in a reasonably intelligent fashion, and with a modicum of diligence and care.
Ah, well.... I suppose it's good to want.
FWIW, I did read through the updates to the OP's blog, and she does make some reasonable arguments. In point of fact, I disagree with her on many of them, but she at least acknowledges the reality of the text and claims her opinions for what they are.She makes four basic points in problematizing the beating scene itself: 1.) Jaime liked it; 2.) Claire forgives him; 3.) Jaime rapes her the next day (she then edits with a vague and unsatisfactory disclaimer of 'or sometime, not sure'); and, 4.) Claire tells Jaime she loves him after this.
Throwing away #3 as obviously unsupported, even by the author, IMO, #'s 1, 2 and 4 are both true, and an important part of the nuance of the scene. It is the very nuance of the scene that I think is important. The nuance is used to highlight the subtleties and contradictions of being human, and also to highlight the complexities of these particular characters and their relationship. It is the subtleties that make this not just another scene of mindless violence using a woman as a trope to sell books. Her agency here is important; it is pivotal to the scene and to both characters' development.
As to the 'historical accuracy' argument, the author again makes a few main points:
1.) portrayals of abuse and rape must inherently belittle the protagonist/victims in such portrayals. This is, of course, absurd. Too many actual women -- actual amazing, heroic women -- have survived such things and acknowledge these as moments they have lived through to dream that talking openly about it is necessarily demeaning.
2.) Jaime's loving Claire and/or feeling bad about the interaction sends a "negative message." Again, absurd. Of course people are entitled to alter course, to own their mistakes, to feel complicated feelings. Doing so adds nuance; failure to add layers of complexity or nuance would belittle the readers' intelligence. I'm not sure how adding it belittles the characters'. She does add some helpful clarifying bits of dialogue from the book, which are helpful in framing the thinking about the "rape." She also then engages in some petty, unhelpful, and unnecessary character assassination.
3.) The behaviors blur the line between Jaime and BJR. Once more, absurd. Again, part of the important nuance over the long term of the plot twists is this very point. Since the author acknowledges that she didn't even finish reading the first book, this point is likely lost on her. As a general point, I begrudge the intellectual dishonesty of posting long 'take down' posts of books you *didn't even finish reading.* Intellectual honesty demands at least that.
4.) The beating scene is not consistent with Jaime's character. I just disagree. I think it's entirely consistent, and the more you see of Jaime's character, the more consistent it seems. Again, the author posts a long edit after having received feedback on this point, but essentially says, 'meh, I didn't like the way it was written.'
5.) Saying that this was characteristic of the time period does the time period a disservice. Ok, if you think so. She makes the rather ridiculous point that not EVERY man did it, which seems so absurd as to not bear comment. Of course not. And? She supports this with a backhanded analogy to the acceptability of drinking alcohol in our culture -- which is, of course, commonplace and socially acceptable, so much so that we accept a great many varieties of death-by-alcohol as a reasonable price to pay for the freedom to drink at leisure.
6. The book portrays time travel. Her point being, apparently, that, given this, pains taken to incorporate history/reality in other ways are unnecessary and unwelcome. Again, I just disagree. An absurd red herring.
While her post at least reflects a commitment to an accurate rendering of the (amount of) text (she actually read), it's not really supported that well in many ways, and in others, I simply disagree with her.
So again I say -- if somebody can provide some reasonable, supported insight into what I missed or misconstrued, I'd love to hear it!
Bravo, Sundra! Very nicely articulated (and I couldn't agree more).
Wow did I miss a lot.I'll have to discuss things in part.
There seems to be some confusion as to when Claire fell in love with Jamie, or at least realized she had. Claire does tell Jamie she loves him after the beating but it's in jest.
I will post that scene here for review:
(view spoiler)
Claire doesn't tell Jamie she loves him until later in the book, quite considerably later. Although she does realize she loves him when she chooses to stay with him instead of going back through the stones, she still doesn't acknowledge it out loud. Claire's feelings seem to occur gradually in the book and are not recognized because Jamie beats her.
When her and Jamie are visiting Jenny, Claire finally tells Jamie which you can read here:
(view spoiler)
So if people have added distaste for the beating scene because they *thought* it was just afterwards that Claire realized she was in love with Jamie, they need not worry. That's not how the story plays out.
Red, there are a few comments you posted that I'd like to discuss."- Jamie would have done it to any of his man : maybe (we will never knwo right?), but Claire is NOT one of his men. There is no similar power relationship and power discrepancy between Jaimie/Claire and Jamie/his men."
We do actually know the answer to this. It didn't have to happen to know. The writer supplied the answer in order for us to understand this situation better.
"Do ye realize, Claire," he said quietly, "that all of us came close to bein' killed this afternoon?"
I looked down at the quilt, shamefaced. "Yes, I know. My fault. I'm sorry."
"Aye, so ye realize," he said. "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 blanched at this.
Then you say Claire is not one of Jamie's men. You're right. But the other men were not Jamie's men either. They were Dougal's men. Dougal is the war chiefton they're traveling with and Jamie and Claire are technically guests. Jamie being an outlaw at that.
There is a chain of command and Claire should not be exempt from that because she is a woman. Claire would have been considered under Jamie's command because she was his wife. And Jamie would have been considered under Dougals command so by extension, Claire as well.
Claire was given a direct command and she disobeyed. You can take the fact that she's a woman out of the picture. The only baring at this point her being a woman gives us is 1. She's the lowest on the totem pole. And 2. It would be her husbands responsibility (or her Father's had she had one there) to deal with her.
I believe in justice. Taking in the context and the time period, how would justice be served? I've asked this question numerous times and people choose to ignore it. No one can give a reasonable sentence. And YES, Claire deserves a sentence. ANYONE who commits a crime deserves a sentence.
We can keep looking at this situation like it's a husband and wife thing. And it is that. But by viewing it ONLY through that lenses we are dismissing the context completely. This isn't about Jamie punishing his wife. This is about justice being served. Lets take the beating out of the scene for a minute. Women were considered mens property. You can not get around that. Women were *owned* by their Father's and then their husbands. Did you know that a woman's children didn't even belong to her? They actually belonged to the husband. A woman had NO legal rights when it came to parenting or owning her own children. A husband or Father was viewed as the "head" of the family, much more so than today. He held all the power.
Even by men who would have considered this kind of beating distasteful we can not deny that the same man would have felt his wife or child was his responsibility. Including for him to discipline. We don't like to hear that a woman should have to be "disciplined" by her husband because she's a woman not a child. But those feelings were not common back then even WITHOUT the beating.
I'm not sure if I explained that as well as it was in my head lol.
Sigh, the point I'm trying to make is that the feelings of the time were women were to be instructed, taught, disciplined, etc by their male owner's. If we can acknowledge that even if a man found beating his wife or child like that distasteful we still have to acknowledge that it would have been VERY RARE for a man to have viewed his wife as his equal and not someone he had to instruct, discipline, teach, etc. The same man would have STILL viewed his wife as under his command.
Why should we be surprised that in THIS instance Claire would be given a corporal punishment by her husband (who's responsibility it belonged to) during a time period where corporal punishments were in fact, the norm?
Do we think that Claire would have been exempt from punishment had Jamie not done it? Do we think Claire would have been exempt from punishment had she not married Jamie and this story still played out? Likely had Claire not married Jamie and things still played out this way, she would have been taken to Colum to be dealt with in a room full of people and given a public beating like Laoghaire was going to receive - If they even bothered to rescue her in the first place.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Angie wrote: "Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "I, for one, can stomach violence, I just don't like gratuitous use of violence. And I never wrote that the context is irrelevant. On the very contrary : to me..."It does. Especially when they don't back it up with text from the book.
Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "But AGAIN: am an not talking about parents beating children. If I wanted to have a conversation about THAT particular subject, I would have talked about one of Jaimie's many memories ab..."Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "It's not the "context" that is not important enough. It's this line of argument. Like the all spanking vs beating. Also what in the "accuracy" of Claire being hard beaten change the ori..."
Mary, really, I don't think you read what I wrote. I am not dismissing violence against children, I am saying that I don't think the comparaison you made is valid 'cause Claire is NOT a child and Jamie is NOT her parent, and my point is NOT about prent beating children. And if I wanted to argue about that I would have talked about the many instances in the book where child abuse is referred.
Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "But I will criticize the author for turning her female lead characte rinto yet another damsell in distress stereotype, for making her look like a fool who needs to be rescued by the her..."I have read the book and I know things move forward, after this scene, whether in the book or the series that follows. And yet, I still object the writing choice made by the author. Why is it so difficult to understand that one can actually read the book, understand the dynamics described there and still dislike it and criticize the writing choices and the justification of some plot moment? I get most of the people who enjoyed the book moved past this scene and it didn't affect the way they viewed the characters. Some didn't and I am one of those.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Red wrote: "Trying to turn the discussion either on Claire's supposed faults or on my lazy ass who won't bother try and quote that boring book verbatim IS in fact derailing the conversation."Beca..."
I am not "accusing everyone else". I am replying to you and some other who are hell bent nitpicking rather than actually discussing my actual point. When people actually try and discuss some of the issues I pointed, we may disagree but at least they don't harp on
Also, you can keep your lesson in "How you should name and respect yourself as a true "feminist" should" for yourself as you seems to have missed a few courses of Feminism 101 series.
Finally : I didn't "invite you", I started this discussion, I posted a article, which you were free to ignore. But YOU chose to "waste" your time not only reading this article but responding multiple times on this thread which should makes YOU the "troll" by jumping on a thread, making dismissive comments and assumption about someone you don't even know, derailing the conversation, and posing as if you were talking for "everyone else". So tell me again who elected you the Outlander Goodread discussion boards' spokesperson?
Ashleigh wrote: "The thing with historical fiction, is, unless writing alternate history, as I am attempting, you need to stick to the facts as much as possible or necessary. Even in my alt. history, I have heaps o..."As is the beating scene any more a fact than not beating her? Also, we are talking about a "historical novel" which deals with "time travelling". So, is this supposed to be taken also as an historical fact?
Sunda wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "And we've reached official Troll status! "Yup!
Is there anyone ELSE here who would like to problematize the scene and support with a coherent argument? Cuz I'd be i..."
Well, Sunda, rather lamenting about this one discussion, why don't you start your own discussion about that rather than derailing this one? Just go and post a "wanted" post. It's that simple.
gertt wrote: "Red wrote: "Also why not forgiving is the easy choice"? Says who? No seriously? How whether you forgive someone or notbecomes a matter of judging people and shaming them if they don't forgive? ..."..."Well, you asked and I answered, didn't I? The way I understoof your post, it sounded like a moral judgement beacouse you talked about the all thing being "easy" and stuff. Which I disagree.
Also I don't hate the book, I dislike it and dislike some of the justifications about that scene. And I am passionate about the issues that were pointed out by the blogger I posted about.
Red wrote: "Well, Sunda, rather lamenting about this one discussion, why don't you start your own discussion about that rather than derailing this one? Just go and post a "wanted" post. It's that simple."You're behaving like a troll, Red. A troll also stirs the pot to get attention. A troll gets so angry that her spelling, grammer and logical sentence structure suffers. This conversation was "derailed" on the first post due to skewed facts. Read back through you're responses to others in this thread. You should be embarrassed. Only a child acts out with such insecurity whenever another voices a different opinion.
Sundra (and many others) took the time to give you well thought out, respectful responses, asking questions in kind, based on what's been written on the blog, in your post, and in the book. In turn, you refuse to back up your points with quotes from the book. Context is critical to understanding this scene. I think you understand it, but you don't like it. So you stomp your feet like a three year old and say the author made a "bad writing choice." She has the right to write whatever she wants.
You're not here to discuss. You're hear to bitch and moan.
You've derailed your own discussion because you cannot communicate effectively. If you don't like the book, don't read it. Hate it, despise the writing choice, whatever! You're opinion doesn't change mine and vice-versa. Although I was open to hearing why you believe Jamie raped Claire, but here again you can't be bothered to explain and probably couldn't compose it within context anyway.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Red, there are a few comments you posted that I'd like to discuss."- Jamie would have done it to any of his man : maybe (we will never knwo right?), but Claire is NOT one of his men. There is no..."
I believe in "justice" too, and in many hings like the idea that for justice to be given, one has the right to be judged by one's peer. Or that one should always be given a fair trial. And that one has the right to be defended. And that even justice decision can be appealed. And also a lot of things that means that "justice" isn't just one sided thing and it comes in a lot of different ways and it has always been : it's not just a "modern" thing, the way "justice" works has always been a matter of heated debate.
How should has justice been served, you asked? I say : in a million different way, not just because there was a lot of different ways to do it back then, but also because this book is not a treaty about justice in the medieval times : the author could have chosen a different route. Jamie could have decided to let Dougal be judge as those were, as you pointed out, his men, right? Also they found some loophole at least twice in the book, to avoid abiding by the so called "custom law" : when Jamie asked to be beaten to save that blond girl he kissed (Loghaire?), and when Dougal "saved" Claire fomr Randall by having her marrying Jamie. Each time, they found ways to avoid applying that "custom" law. I am no medieval Scottish customs law scholar but I can't believe one couldn't circumvent the wife beating thing one way or another. Or Claire could have told Jamie her "secret" and explained to Jamie at this very moment that she wasn't from this time period so she didn't have to "obey his command". That could have change the dynamic of the story, for sure, but that's precisely my point. again, the author chose to go that route on purpose. I think it was unnecessary. I mean, it's not as if the all situation wasn't a bit far fetched : to have Claire being made prisoner by Randall, once again, who happen to be her husband greatgreat something, and to have a history of violence with Jamie...I mean, how "historical" is that thing? This is fiction. Pure fiction. Not a documentary. Not a treaty about life in the medieval time. So, yeah, there were alternatives to that scene.
Mrsbooks wrote: "We can keep looking at this situation like it's a husband and wife thing. And it is that. But by viewing it ONLY through that lenses we are dismissing the context completely. This isn't about Jam..."I get what you mean MrsBooks. I really do. I am just not convinced by this line of arguments. The reason why I posted Medieval Muse article is because she explained how, even during medieval times, there were other way of thinking and there were people opposing corporal punishment against women (and even children). There wasn't only ONE way to deal with situations but many. There were options. It's not just about "statistics", or Jamie being an "exception". I didn't expect him to be this perfect guy that doesn't even exist in "modern day" fictions. And I am not "surprised" to read that one husband could beat his wife, whether it's in medieval time or today. I disliked the scene and its framing and the way the all situation played out. And I object that writing choice and object the justification that this is "more historically accurate". Of all medieval time characteristics Jamie could have had, the author chose to make him a wife beater. Whether it was a "common behavior" at the time doesn't make it a more "justified" or "accurate" choice for me. I mean, statistically speaking, how many time traveling do you think happened in medieval time? ended up with Jamie making fun of Claire and dis
Also the author choose to wrote a story where the ma
The book was not set in medieval times. It was set during the Enlightenment Era, 250 years after the last of the "medieval times" and a substantially different historical period.Sorry -- I really am going to stop feeding the trolls now! Not sure why the factual inaccuracies of this particular post are getting under my skin. :(
And thus how the message board on Brenda Joyce's sight got pulled and cancelled. People who don't agree to disagree and start a family a feud cause the mediators to pull and cancel
Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Red, there are a few comments you posted that I'd like to discuss."- Jamie would have done it to any of his man : maybe (we will never knwo right?), but Claire is NOT one of his..."
Because this is fiction and involves time travel you seem to feel that should be a licence to step out of the realm of reality. And for good reason, cause it's fiction and time travel lol.
But there are SO many of us that LIKE the realism in this story. I love the idea that we have a person who has fallen through time but that everything else in the story is historically accurate. But whether or not it's what any of us like, it's what the author chose to do.
So yes, you are right, there are a million different things the author could have written, a million different ways for a different outcome. But I'm happy this book doesn't have unicorns and angels. No one dies and gets resurrected as a flower.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic there, although it may sound it. Because technically speaking, you are right, this story is fictional. Anything could have been written.
But part of what is so appealing about this book to the masses is that it sticks with realism despite the time travel.
I do thank you for coming up with some "ways" to having avoided the beating while sticking with the realism plot. It's really the first time someone has bothered to come up with anything.
But, those idea's still don't work. I can go through a run down if you'd like as to why.
And I do get what you're saying as to "not everyone felt that way." But you do have to acknowledge that it WAS the majority who did right? Because if it wasn't the majority who felt that way it wouldn't have taken so long for culture change. Why is it so terrible that the author chose to write about people who didn't fit in the minority? It's certainly more realistic that way.
gertt wrote: My book group doesn't always agree, and sometimes we need to correct each other on the facts, but fortunately we always come away having had an enjoyable discussion. "That should be the whole point of these discussion boards. I'm curious about other's viewpoints. I have my own viewpoint and I want to know how others came to their conclusions. Sometimes it will change my perspective, sometimes not, but without accurate facts the basic platform for healthy communication is missing.
I understand people not liking this scene or that scene, but they should own it, take responsibility for their own feelings, not blame the author or anyone else.
A good example is the scene in DIA where Jamie first meets John Grey. I still bugs me and I can't quite wrap my head around it, but it's my personal hangup. I'm not mad at DG, or think she should've written the scene differently (other than maybe having Claire smack Jamie into next Tuesday for not giving her a heads up). Someday I would like to discuss in more detail, just NOT ON THIS THREAD. It would be neat to hammer out how that scene came to be and why Jamie made that choice. It would be a great discussion point.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Red, there are a few comments you posted that I'd like to discuss."- Jamie would have done it to any of his man : maybe (we will never knwo right?), but Claire is NO..."
Mrsbook, I think you misinterpreted my point. I am going to try and clarify it.
- I don't think that just because it's a fiction that deals with time travel, that gives licence to step out of the realm of reality. I get that it's not a "fantasy" novel. I used the reference to time travel regarding the "historical accuracy" line of arguments. There are parts, within the any story, even "realistic" ones, where you are bound to suspend your beliefs when it comes to actual "reality".
- I think there are a lot of very realistic details in the book. The author DID do some researches about the era, clothing styles, language, etc., and it shows. And the fact that there is some time travelling doesn't distract from the detailed "realism" of some of the writing. But "realism" in the story doesn't automatically means that the book is "historically accurate" per se or that the inclusion of that specific scene is more "historically accurate" than any other writing choice the author could (should, IMHO) have done.
- And yes, that's what the author chose, but the fact that the author chose to do that doesn't mean one can't criticize that choice. Or what would be the point of book critics at all ? Any criticism would be met with the line "well, the author chose to do this that way". Well, that doesn't put the author and their writing choices above any criticism either.
- Also, the choices weren't between a supposedly unique "realistic" and "historically accurate" outcome that works (Jamie beating Claire) or a completely unrealistic non historically accurate fantasy that doesn't works with the story (angels, unicorns and confetti). Jamie not beating Claire is less "realistic" or "historically accurate" than the opposite.
- The reason why I posted Medieval Muse's article is precisely because, IMHO, it made good points questioning the author's writing choice and debunking "historically accuracy" line of justifications. I am not a specialist in Scottish history and clan customs during the 1600s/1700s/or whichever era the book takes place (yeah, I know, I'm a lazy ass inaccurate troll that can't bother going and doing researches to quote the book verbatim and such ;). But I can acknowledge that during those times a majority of the people probably felt that beating your wife for punishment was a legitimate way to do some things. That still doesn't mean that a) it was the only way to deal with the kind of situation that happened between Claire and Jaimie, and b) that the majority of the men would have done that in this particular instance. But ok, let's say, there was a majority who behaved that way and a minority who didn't. The "majority" of young lads like Jaimie would have also been married (or widowed) with a couple of kids. Yet, Jaimie isn't. The author found a way to try and explain how and why. So, he is in the minority, and it's explained and justified by some fictional personal family drama. That doesn't make it historically inaccurate or totally unrealistic. Even though some parts are a bit stretched, like how many time is a young guy going to be tortured and such without missing teeth, limbs and not be totally disfigured? If we were to be a bit "realistic" regarding some parts of Jaimie's fictional personal story, the guy should have been at least seriously crippled after all that happened to him. Because when you think about the historical conditions, the majority of the people were generally in pretty bad physical shape, without necessary going through to all of what Jaimie went through. Jamie has some serious scars on his back, yes, but overall retained pretty minors physical injuries for all his hardship. So, yet again, Jaimie is a bit of an exception. That exceptionality of the hero is part of the suspension of beliefs that you need when reading fiction in general and romance in particular. So, yet again, let's roll with the fact that there are important parts in the character's history, life and behaviour that put him in a minority in comparison to what was certainly the majority of the population at this time. That what makes him different and attractive in many ways. So, why is that, it's about the situation of Jaimie beating Claire that the "historical accuracy" and "realism" arguments are suddenly and so often used to justify this writing choice? Why the double standard?
- I don't fault fiction authors for choosing to portray one side, either the majority or the minority side, of history. I don't think that either of those portrayals is more "realistic" or "historically accurate" than the other, as long as you don't twist or rewrite history, pretending that one is the other, pretending that what was, in fact, the minority was the majority. For instance writing a "hsitorical romance" about the 1800s and stating that the majority of the US population was against slavery. Or it's a totally different genre : it's science-fiction, dystopian past fiction or the likes.
In Outlander, Jaimie is never presented as being THE representative of the majority of the population. He is different, in the minority, even though he shares many (most) of the same habits, behaviors, etc., as the majority of the population. That's part of what makes him stand out for Claire who is the a true Outlander. They share this distinctiveness, this "singularity". That doesn't make them "unrealistic", or "historically inaccurate". But that makes for some good drama, up until that beating.
I get that Jaimie's way of thinking and behaving in that particular instance was presented by the author as an instance where he behaved like the majority of men may have behaved. I just think that that writing choice a) wasn't the only "realistic", "historically accurate" and/or good for drama one; and b) it changed the dynamics of the relationships and the way I viewed Jaimie in a negative way because I couldn't relate to him anymore.
One last thing : I don't expect the author to cater to the desire of its audience, please or flatter it. But an author do know ho she is talking to. This book isn't a book by a 1600s/1700s author talking to a 1600s/1700s audience. In this case, I understand that one has to read this while keeping in mind the context of the time, etc. And even then, I still can legitimately criticizes a book for its contents. Outlander is a book by a 1990s author talking to a 1990s/2000s onward audience. Both author and audience are shaped and influence by that context and set of believes and values. The author's writing choices as well as the audience's reception/interpretation of the book will be shaped by them and are also to be understood within them.
Ok, I went on way too long, but I hope my points were a bit clearer.
Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Red, there are a few comments you posted that I'd like to discuss."- Jamie would have done it to any of his man : maybe (we will never knwo right?),..."
Your entire point is you do not like the scene under discussion. That is fine. You do not have to like it. You do not have to like the book. The problem most of us have with your "theme" on this thread is that the scene cannot be justified! By anyone! It is a combative stance. If I were to state that no one could justify liking Dickens' Great Expectations because Pip is a whining weakling, people would FLOCK to the thread to tell me I was wrong. I did not like GE precisely because I could not like Pip. However, many people think it is one of Dickens greatest works. More power to them. People are different and have different tastes. That does not mean I do not like Dickens' writing and can even appreciate that GE was well written. Just not my cup of tea. Outlander is clearly not your cup of tea. It does not have to be.
gertt wrote: " But if you are going to declare your dislike and give reasons at least you should make sure you have accurate information, for instance the year was 1749. .."Not to quibble, but the year was 1743. ;0)
Ashleigh wrote: "Wow..what a good idea....let's impose OUR values on historical time periods and books written set during a different time or written in a different time...most readers are clever enough to figure o..."Tell me this, Ashleigh : why is that, out of my quite long and detailed reply to Mrsbook you chose to pick on my very last and short point about the context of reception of a book or fiction, and decided to make a caricature of it? Like seriously? Where in my post did I wrote anything about imposing? Did you miss the part where I talked about "criticizing" books according to a specific time and context where both author and audience live in? Where in my post did I "wash" anything "out"? Like have you actually read my response? Have you really mised the all part where I actually argued about NOT twisting history just so your character would appear as being representative of the majority when what historically happened is the opposite? Or is that you're part of the New Criticism school of literary theory and blindly and dogmatically oppose any POV based on reader-response criticism school? Thet would explain your contemptuous tone and the passive-aggressive name calling about "most reader" being "clever enough" to grasp basic concept such as book universe vs real universe which you imply I am totally not able to do which means I am NOT clever enough. So, basically, since YOU disagree with my point, you decide to speak on behalf of "most" clever readers and call me stupid. Yeah, right, very convincing. SMDH...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Breath of Snow and Ashes (other topics)The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Regina, I appreciate your comment if only because it is respectful, even while disagreeing without being dismissive. OS I am going to take some time and try to discuss the points you made;
- About Claire not submitting : yes, she fought back against the beating. And then made peace with Jamie, expressing how she understood what he did and said something alike she loved him. Let's say it's "her" choice to do so. My problem is not with Claire the character. My original post is NOT about Claire. So I will leave it to that. But my choice, as reader, is not to let this beating slide under the carpet just because DG wrote it that way.
- Jamie would have done it to any of his man : maybe (we will never knwo right?), but Claire is NOT one of his men. There is no similar power relationship and power discrepancy between Jaimie/Claire and Jamie/his men.
- Beating Claire change Jamie, you said? Why should I care? Like seriously? Why should I care that beating his wife changed this guy? Like : good for him if it makes him a better man or whatever. But just keep Claire way for him. Why shoudl I root for them to get together? Why should I cheer when after being beaten by this guy, she ends up saying to him that she loves him? Sure, she didn't say it right after the beating, or beause he beat her, but what difference does it make, really? The whole situation is messed up to me. That is why I said i dislike the framing : the way the beating is somehow downplayed in the writing and also by people justifiying it with cultural arguments.
- I don't get your point about Jamie beating Claire on her ass and not on her face : either way it is bad and it is sexualized. He did admitted to have found her sexy of something like that while doing it. And that's gross!
- About the Jamie not forcing on Claire "ever again" : it only takes one time.
- About Jamie character's growth : as I stated before, good for him. And "Boy bye" ! Why did his character's growth had to be done at the expanse of Claire's dignity? That is why I so strongly oppose that scene : to me there were no need to make that moment the catalyst for Jamie's character to growth or Jamie and Claire's relationship to take that next step. It could have happened any other way. That is why I talked about gratuitous violence. Its violence for shock value. And having the woman to be beaten so the male character can grow is part of the same tropes that have female character be sacrificed on the alter of male's growth. It happens way too often for it to be incidental in this story. Again, I can't root for that.
Now as I said before, that is my interpretation. You have a different one. I don't pretend mine is right and yours wrong. Again, what I dislike and oppose is the way the beating was written and framed and was later on justified.