Outlander discussion

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

I don't recall anyone on this thread ever saying they took pleasure from this scene. The one thing nearly everyone has agreed about is that the spanking/beating was wrong and not acceptable. Understanding why the action was taken does not mean you enjoyed or got pleasure from it.

Sage wrote: "Sara wrote: "That is my personal criticism of the scene. I take no pleasure from reading about romantisised wife beating."

I don't recall anyone on this thread ever saying they took pleasure from..."

Hi Sage, I believe I mentioned my love of The Color Purple. Brutal rape and beatings are depicted. I love The Color Purple and all the non-romantisised rape and beatings which the charachters cope with and overcome.

I understand perfectly that the action was taken because it was the author's choice. I didn't enjoy it.

I liked The Color Purple too. It's one of the few times where I enjoyed both the book and the movie. And you're right, the victims in The Color Purple took and coped with their abuse much more seriously then Claire, which made the reader also take what happened more seriously. Claire's ability to quickly overcome some of the things that happened to her is often hard to understand, but I guess because Claire and Jamie don't dwell on their abuse or hardships, I don't either.

Rape, beating and torture always disturb me, which has made me question why I enjoy this series so much...I guess the good in the story out-weights the bad and many times I find humor in Claire's narration and Jamie's behavior which lightens the story. And, there are other characters, such as Lord John, young Ian, and Aunt Jocasta, that I find entertaining. And I enjoy history. Even though it's been pointed out that the series is not historically accurate, I still find it interesting. And I promise to never write or offer information for a thesis, essay or research paper on the history of Scotland or Clan life and/or law based on what I've read in this series.

Perhaps I should have said that I would not question the value of a debate of the relative merits of a piece of literature, a work of art, or even a cup of coffee just because I didn't find the debate productive or meaningful. The participants obliviously do.

I referenced King Lear earlier. The other day I read a long debate online about one particular section of dialogue. Some of the commentators got rather irate a time or two. Most were irreverent and very funny. Was it productive and meaningful? No. Not at all - at least I didn't think so. But I didn't bother telling them that. If they wanted to have the conversation, I figured that was their prerogative. And at least I got a few good laughs out of it.

I think that if one wanted to write a thesis, essay, or research paper on the history of Scotland or Clan law and/or life, there have been some good references given to use as a starting point at least.

Kat wrote: "think that if one wanted to write a thesis, essay, or research paper on the history of Scotland or Clan law an..."

Thanks to you Kat;-)!

References given on this thread perhaps, but not necessarily from the story itself.

Sage wrote: "References given on this thread perhaps, but not necessarily from the story itself."

A thousand pardons. That's what I meant. I must have misunderstood you.

Kat wrote: "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!
"

I enjoy discussing the book. I think it's best if I continue to do that. I'm not going to entertain this or even bother to continue this particular line of discussion because it's no longer about the book. I'm not interested in devolving into trading snarky barbs. I'll respond to your other post....because it is about the book.

Kat wrote: "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?
"

I found the story entertaining and engaging. Much like Game of Thrones, I found myself becoming invested in the characters and wanting to know what was going to happen next. I suppose that I like the drama and excitement of it most of all.

I think it was a good plot device because it was thoroughly fleshed out and well developed within the story. It added another layer of conflict and it was a turning point in the story and in the relationship between Jamie and Claire. The other scenarios offered don't necessarily work for me because making that change also changes other parts of the story as well. Let's say that Dougal and the men take Claire back to Collum and she is ostracized. It sends the story in a totally different direction. What then? Jamie and Claire have a discussion about the clan and their ways and Claire eventually reaches the same understanding? How? Why would an ostracized Claire eventually come to develop a vested interest in what happens to a clan that she hasn't lived among and bonded with? I don't see how an ostracized Claire comes to care about the clan in the manner that she does. Where do Claire and Jamie go after this? What happens to them? How does the story continue along the same storyline after this change is made? Imo, it doesn't. I supposed you can write that way if you want to, but it won't be as good, imo. It won't be plausible and it won't be as interesting and entertaining. I don't think it necessarily would be a story that people are still talking about 20+ years later. I don't think there is anything wrong with controversy. It makes things interesting and it gets people talking.

Let's say that Collum flogs her publically like he was willing to do with Laoghaire. What then? Jamie and Claire have their discussion about why he was willing to step in and take Laoghaire's beating but didn't step in for his own wife? Or perhaps he does step in and perhaps Collum allows it. What then? Do the men and the clan eventually come to accept Claire if Jamie takes her beating for her? Is that realistic? You can write it that way if you want, but it seems rather cliched and improbable to me. How does Claire eventually reach the same level of understanding about the clan and their ways? I supposed you can have Jamie and Claire discuss it, but it's not the same discussions, in the same contexts and I don't think such a conversation (realistically) lead to the same level of mutual understanding between Jamie and Claire as DG's version.

Kat wrote: "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.

In all fairness, you are the one saying that this is some sort of the Outlander universe rule. I'm not convinced that the book is actually doing this. Outlander was not depicted as a perfect utopian society where everyone is perfect and never breaks the law and always follows proper protocol in each and every single thing that they do. I don't think Outlander demonstrates that strict adherence to the law is canon and always happens in that society. Flaws in basic human nature are just as much canon in the Outlander universe as law and clan procedures and customs are. But even it were canon, that was the "established rule" for a domestic dispute between a father and daughter where the father wants his daughter publically shamed for what he perceives as her loose behavior. It was not necessarily the "established rule" for a group of soldiers on a mission who perceive their lives to be in jeopardy because of the actions of someone among them. The book has established that characters can and often do things that they are not necessarily supposed to do, legally or otherwise. Gellie was not supposed to be engaging in what could be construed as witchcraft but did so anyway. She even killed her own husband. Claire willfully disobeyed directives quite often. Sometimes even to her own detriment. Randall, a Brittish officer, was raping and torturing people and was not held accountable for his actions, legally or otherwise. Dougal was having an affair with Gellie. Dougal was also engaging in treasonous activities and Ned, the lawyer was helping him to do it. Strict adherence to the law is not canon in Outlander and if you expected it to be, I'm inclined to think that you may be taking the meaning of "historical fiction" as a genre far too literally.

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 think this has already been discussed earlier in this thread by others and I'm inclined to agree with the poster(s) who said that there is a lot more to the story than that. He didn't just leave her in a random area of the woods. She was left in a location that Jamie was very familiar with. It was presumed to be well hidden and safe. That is why he chose that location. Jamie also gave a reason for why he felt he needed to leave her there. She didn't stay there like she was told to do. Imo, the problem wasn't that she was left alone in the woods. The problem was that she left that location.

I also wanted to comment on one of the posts about literary criticism vs reading for pleasure. Personally, they can be two very different things or they can exist simultaneously and harmoniously depending upon the book and the reader. There is nothing wrong with analyzing a text critically. As long as one is being objective. One of the problems that I had with his thread from the very beginning is inaccuracies and misleading statements made about the text. The original post that started this thread references an article that was filled with inaccurate details about the book. It's very hard for me to take a poster's claim of "literary criticism" as such when it becomes apparent that the person may not have read the book very critically at all. Imo, a "critical reader" would not assert that Claire forgives Jamie "almost instantly" or that he rapes her the next day when that did not happen in the story This isn't even a matter of interpretation. It did not happen. They don't even have sex the next day.

btw, I'm not being completely obtuse and obstinate on purpose. I know what sex scene the article was referring to as being rape. It wasn't "the next day" and a great deal actually happens between Claire and Jamie between the beating and when this happens. They are on the road traveling together for at least 2-3 days and they talk extensively during that time. Claire's foregiveness of Jamie comes about partly due to these lengthy conversations that take place over a 2-3 day period. It's not "instant".

In regards to the supposed rape, I would have entertained a pragmatic and objective discussion of that scene had the details been given accurately and in the proper context. That didn't happen. Plus, imo, a pragmatic and objective discussion by critical readers does not completely disregard Claire's agency. It does not disregard text from the book that clearly does not support the claim or point you are trying to make. What happened between Jamie and Claire, when read in it's entirety was not rape and I can't see how a critical reader would claim otherwise. The only way this could happen is if one read only a snippet of text and stopped, not bothering to read anymore.....or if one only read an article or review that misrepresents that scene and believed it.

In general, please spare me any feminist rants on how "no means no". In modern real life, this is true and we now raise our young men to understand this. Or at least, we should be doing so. Outlander is not set during our time.

1) Jamie is a virgin in his very early 20's when he meets and marries Claire. Most of his advice on women is coming from Murtaugh of all people. He does not understand Claire or her ways any more than Claire understand him or his ways. That is part of what is fueling their conflicts in the beginning. They are from different times and are of different cultural backgrounds and different perspectives.

2) I will not dismiss or disregard Claire's agency in regards to sex. I understand that she says "No, stop. You're hurting me" during their sexual encounter, however I kept reading and I will not disregard the rest of the text where she makes it quite clear (verbally and through inner monologue) that she is also enjoying the sex that she is having. I will not disregard her also saying "Yes, yes, yes" and calling his name. They have rough sex and they discover that they like it. Did DG have to muddy the waters by throwing that "No" line in there? Probably not. But why include it? I think it was included to show how different the sex is between Jamie and Frank. (She thinks of Frank just before falling asleep, if I remember correctly and says something to the effect of that there are things about her that he never found out or quite understood.) That's my take on it. Today, we teach our girls how not to send mixed messages like this and we teach our boys to back off immediately if you have any doubts that the girl is not sure about what she is doing....however, Jamie or Claire are not from our time. And even if they were, people in our time totally muck things up from time to time too.

3) My thoughts on the scene are not about right or wrong. I don't have the mindset or requirement that the characters have to be perfect people who always do the right things. In fact, I prefer it when characters are realistic and have normal human emotions and conflicts and flaws. I like that Jamie doesn't understand Claire and makes mistakes in how he deals with her. I like that Claire is spirited but has some flaws, too. I don't want or expect a sanitized fairy tale.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat wrote: "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. How..."

Response to # 977.

Yes to ALL of this!

I LOVE debating about Outlander, anything in it really. Which is why I keep coming back to this thread. And I've read some really interesting points that I'd never thought of before, from both sides of the coin.

I feel like we've already debated and fleshed out the inaccuracies of the first post in this thread and moved on but it does still irk me. Mostly because of new posters.
And it bothers me that the first post is full of topics that the poster does not want to discuss. It contradicts. If they're not meant to be discussed here, they should't be in the opening comment which is meant to explain and describe in more detail what the poster wants to discuss.

I also find it difficult that we are not "supposed" to use other books or movies to use as comparisons or illustrations when debating about this particular scene. Unless of course, it's in support of the other side.

And then of dealing with the "applause" those on the same side give each other in relation to keeping patience and humor while covering the same ground over and over responding to insults and opinions with polite commentary. Somehow over looking the times when said posters have not responded quite so politely and while ignoring the times that WE have covered the same ground over and over and some how managed to respond to the same things being civil.

While I don't think there is anything wrong with commending each other for well thought out comments and keeping good humor there is certainly and not very subtle insults woven into those *particular* praises, in my opinion, with the intention to goad. (The ones that paint posters with their same opinions as paragons and ignoring the times they weren't).

Because there are some REALLY good comments in these 20 pages. From both sides. And there are some comments where people were overly sensitive and other times when people were much too impatient and short. Both the good and bad comments aren't exclusively limited to one viewpoint.

And once again, I'm wondering what I'm still doing here after hashing out the things I don't like in my head lol. I guess I'm a sucker for punishment :)

Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat wrote: "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 i..."

Response to # 976

I agree with this whole thing. It's not that the author *couldn't* have gone a different direction but in doing so the story itself would be different. And I love this story!

Breaking this into multiple posts, because it got so long.
Re: #977

In all fairness, I never said Outlander was a perfect utopian society, never expected it to be, and never even implied that I expected it to be. While Outlander demonstrates that flaws in basic human nature result in non-adherence to the law as cannon, I think it also demonstrates that adherence to proper legal procedure in dealing with law breakers is cannon in that society. Judgement in Colum’s “Hall” was not the “established rule” for only dealing with domestic disputes, as you imply. Laoghaire was not the only case heard and judged by Colum in his “Hall”. There were many other cases, which seem to be getting disregarded here, probably because they were not enumerated and expounded upon in the novel or as sensational as a father wanting his daughter beaten. That does not mean they can be excluded in a discussion of how the Clan legally handled its own affairs. Claire herself was presented fifth on the docket as a woman seeking refuge with the Clan – or something to that effect. I don’t recall the exact words. Nevertheless, this was after Claire had already spoken to Colum privately in his office and he had already offered her the hospitality of the castle. But as a matter of legal procedure, she had to be properly, formally introduced in “Hall” in front of the Clan. Claire’s presentation, Laoghaire’s discipline, and all the other cases established the precedent for setting Clan disputes – not just a father who wanted his daughter publicly shamed. To suggest otherwise is ignoring the text itself.

Colum’s “Hall” was also not the only example of legal proceedings given in the book. The boy in the village who stole the bannock was taken to Gellie’s husband (can’t remember his title) for judgement and sentencing. Indeed, the shop owner who caught him stealing did not take matters into his own hands and nail his ear to the pillory or cut off his hand himself. No, he had to go before the proper legal authority for judgement and punishment. Even when Claire was accused of witchcraft, there was somewhat of a proper trial held – and she and Gellie were in the thieves hole for several days waiting on the ‘judges’ or inquisitors or whatever they were called to get to town. The townspeople did not drag them off and burn them at the stake without the proper legal proceedings.

Time and again, the text demonstrates that the way the law was upheld was through the proper legal channels depending on the infraction and setting. In fact, the only times vigilante justice was portrayed was when The Watch burned down the suspected traitor’s house and the English soldiers had crucified the Scots, and BJR, of course. But The Watch were not members of Clan MacKenzie. The English in general in the book are portrayed as interlopers and evil overlords. And well, BJR is a sociopath. In fact, one could contend that – based on objective reasoning and dispassionate critical analysis alone - up until the beating anyway, that the good guys – the Scots – are the ones portrayed as following the law and proper legal procedure. (As opposed to how the English of the time often portrayed the Scots to be the barbarians.) The bad guys are the ones who break the law: The Watch - or the 18th century Scottish equivalent of the mafia, the English soldiers who pillage farms and assault women like Jenny, and BJR. This also includes Dougal, as later we learn was a skunk he really was. And therefore – based on objective reasoning and dispassionate critical analysis alone – by taking the law into their own hands after Claire’s rescue, if this was solely a clan issue, Jamie and the men who encouraged him became the bad guys. If this was solely a clan issue. This is not about personal failings and choices made – adultery and treason. (And when Colum found out about both of those, he dealt with them also.) I still maintain that if one claims Claire’s disobedience was solely a clan matter and not just a marital matter, the proper way to handle it, as demonstrated in the novel, would have been in front of Colum.

As an aside to a comment earlier about how the clan wouldn’t flog a woman in Scotland, but they would burn her at the stake – even the author has admitted the witch trial was not historically accurate, but she just wanted to include it, so she did. See the link to her interview provided earlier. Also, being burned at the stake was not a Clan punishment, it was a church punishment.

Historical Fiction as a genre has a very broad definition. It includes novels which are very historically accurate, like Escape from Auschwitz (excellent book, btw), down to Harlequin romances that probably don’t get much of anything right. Given that there are novels which are extremely accurate in the genre, I fail to see how that can be misconstrued to be taking the meaning too literally. I think perhaps it would depend on one’s expectations of the novel one is reading. I think I have stated previously, I had high expectations for historical accuracy in Outlander, because that’s how it was touted to be in the press I had seen and read. I was wrong. Had I known ahead of time before I read the novel that it was not supposed to be very authentic or accurate, I would not have had such a bad reaction to many of the scenes portrayed in the novel.

Part deux coming up...

Still Re: #977

There was nothing in the text to suggest that Jamie was very familiar with the area where he left Claire in the woods. I’m not disregarding text here, but I think you may be reading something into it that isn’t there. He checked it over well before he left her, but that only meant it was safe at that moment. There was nothing to prevent someone from finding her there over the course of the day that he planned to be gone. And he had no way of knowing that someone would not find her. I am not disagreeing with why he left her there – only that he left her alone, which makes no sense even within the context of the story.

I do agree that one big problem was that Claire left the woods. And I have stated previously that I have a big problem with the fact that she broke her promise to stay put. But she would not have had the opportunity to break her promise and leave the woods if she had not been left alone in the first place. There’s a cause and effect loop here – kind of chicken and egg dispute. Which came first? One person says one the egg, another says the chicken. But neither side can actually prove the other wrong.

Although I have never stated that Claire forgives Jamie “almost instantly” and I’m not even one who really has a bone to pick about that at all, I have stated, and I’m not the only one, that I thought Claire did forgive Jamie rather quickly. Some of that can of course be contributed to personality. Some people forgive much more quickly than others. However, you are mistaken about the timeline after the beating as to how fast Claire forgives Jamie. Jamie beat her when they got to the inn that first night after the rescue –after the argument by the river. He slept on the floor that night. The next afternoon, she shut the door in his face. They left that inn after dinner which was after dark and rode to Bargrennan (the Red Boar). They reached Bargrennan before dawn. Dougal made a comment about the journey being ten miles. They walked and rode part of the way, however long that took. Probably not more than 8-10 hours though, probably much less. I can walk a mile in 20 minutes and that's a pretty leisurely pace. It was during this time that they talked extensively. It was during this time that Claire pulled the knife on Jamie. It was during this time that Jamie made the pledge of fealty to Claire. This was all within an 8-10 hour (probably much less) time period. No it wasn’t ‘the next day’, but neither was it the 2-3 days as you suggest. From the time of the beating to the time they got to the Red Boar was probably around 18 hours total. Once again, it depends on personality as to what one would consider forgiveness to be too fast, or not fast enough. But considering how Claire didn’t even talk to Jamie at all the very next day, and the only conversation they had was during the ride to Bargrennan, from after dark until before dawn, I still think that was pretty darn quick.

I have also stated before that I do not necessarily read the sex scene to which you are referring as rape. I can however understand why someone else might. And no, they do not have sex the next day, as Claire shuts the door in his face. However, I don’t think the sex scene back at Leoch is the first time they do have sex after the beating either. After they got to the Red Boar after talking all night, Claire went straight to bed and said she didn’t stir when Jamie crawled in beside her. They woke that afternoon –
Jamie eyed me appreciatively.
"Fretful porpentine, was it?" he asked. He tilted his head, examining me inquisitively. "Mmm," he said, running a hand over his head to smooth down his own hair. "Fretful, at least. You're a fuzzy wee thing when ye wake, to be sure." He rolled over toward me, reaching out a hand.
"Come here, my wee milkweed. We'll not leave before sunset. If we're not going to sleep…"
In the end, we did sleep a bit more, peacefully entangled on the floor, atop a hard but bugless bed composed of my cloak and Jamie's kilt.

While not explicitly stated that they had sex, it’s not explicitly stated that they didn’t either. I think one can safely infer from the text that they did engage in marital congress at Bargrennan.

The Jamie is a virgin when he meets Claire – yes, he is a virgin, as in he has not had actual sexual intercourse. That does not mean he has had no experience whatsoever with women. He even says he was not a monk, and we learn later that he had quite a few lassies chasing after him over the years. He probably chased a few as well. Most of us have a relationship or two before we actually engage in the sexual act. It does not mean we do not know how to treat people of the opposite gender while in relationship with them until we become physically intimate. It’s true he’s never been married before and Claire has – but does that really give her an advantage in the relationship? Frank was quite different from Jamie. So, in effect, with regards to being married to each other, Claire is as much of a virgin as Jamie.

Re: to #978
In regards to discussing other books or movies – most of the references that I have seen, do not actually use them to support a certain side. Most of the references seemed to be just to be a way to changing the focus of the debate and confusing the issue. It’s almost as if its being suggested that if it was alright in this other book, then it should be alright in Outlander. I just don’t see what bearing one has on the other.

As far as “applause” of those on the same side – that has happened on both sides of any of the issues that have been discussed. I'll give you credit: Yes, you did say this also. And both sides have overlooked times when they have been guilty of responding not so politely and insulting the other side, even "ganging up" on the other side. Those with an opposing viewpoint to my own have often times responded civilly – and I have expressed appreciation on more than one occasion for those civil responses - especially to you Mrsbooks. I have also apologized on more than one occasion when I have been not so polite or inadvertently offended someone else. I have only seen one such apology directed back at me. And to be honest, I’m getting kind of tired of that. If anyone thinks that there have been no insults, subtle or otherwise, or goading remarks directed toward me, then I think they should go back and read some of the responses as objectively and dispassionately as possible. Even your own remarks seem to point to particular recent posts that Sara and I made as inappropriate while disregarding the rude comments made in response. If this is not true or was not your intent, then let me apologize in advance for misunderstanding. At one time or another, I have seen posts on both sides of the issues which painted commentators on either side as paragons.

Words matter. Some words connote positive meanings and values while some words connote negative meanings and values. Using adjectives such as angry, subversive, and sensationalist when describing another person or their opinion automatically have negative connotations – could even be misconstrued as having the intention to goad - and therefore probably have a tendency to automatically put the person on the receiving end on the defensive. And that's not a good thing in any civil discourse.

We should all keep in mind these words from Sage. And this goes for me too. I admit it, so thank you for the timely reminder, Sage:
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.

So let me issue a blanket apology here and now: I do apologize for making intentionally rude posts. That was inappropriate, and yes, juvenile of me. I'll try to do better in the future.

There were many times however, that I was attempting to be humorous and it obviously did not go over so well. I cannot and will not apologize for trying to make a joke. I like jokes. While I cannot really apologize for something unintentional, I am sorry if certain jokes did not come across so well, and I would ask therefore, before anyone automatically take offense at anything I post, perhaps they could just ask me about it?

Kat wrote: "Breaking this into multiple posts, because it got so long.
Re: #977

In all fairness, I never said Outlander was a perfect utopian society, never expected it to be, and never even implied that I ex..."

Again, I understand what the men should have done with Claire if they were following proper protocols....however, I can also understand how a group of men/soldiers on a mission might be inclined to take matters into their own hands out in the field under certain circumstances. In "A Farewell To Arms" the main character, Henry, shoots one of his own men for refusing to follow a direct order out in the field. There is another scene where the Italian soldiers begin executing commanding officers on sight. Imo, historical accuracy does not mean that characters stop being human and never make questionable choices. In "The Red Badge of Courage", the main character survives a battle only because he abandons his unit and hides in the woods.

You seem to be of the mindset that clansmen would not do what they did if the novel is historically accurate. I'm of the mindset that clansmen who are also soldiers away from their leader just might because certain aspects of human nature are actually timeless. Using your pov, it would seem that a novel like "The Scarlet Letter" should not exist at all. Poor Atticus Finch should not have been defending Tom Robinson in "Too Kill a Mockingbird". The Color Purple was mentioned. I guess Sophia should not have hit the white man....and which method of justice is the more accurate one? The one depicted where she goes to jail or an alternate one where good ole boys take her to the nearest tree and hang her, because both scenarios have happened in history. I'm speaking with a great deal hyperbole there to push my point, but I honestly cannot accept that a historically accurate novel doesn't or can't have characters who dare to break the rules of their universe. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on it.

Mochaspresso wrote: "You seem to be of the mindset that clansmen would not do what they did if the novel is historically accurate."

In that post, I was not speaking to what should have happened if the novel was historically accurate at all. I was only speaking to how the novel itself portrayed clan politics.

Your examples of A Fairwell to Arms and The Red Badge of Courage do help to illustrate your point. (However, since the character was a deserter in the Red Badge of Courage, I sincerely doubt the Highlanders would have had any respect for him - so maybe it's not such a good example.)

Referencing The Scarlet Letter et. al. as you did however does not help to make your point at all. This just seems to serve to confuse the issue. And I never said, and never implied such a thing that those novels should not exist because they are not strictly historically accurate. Use of hyperbole is one thing. Completely disregarding a statement is another. I said:
"I think I have stated previously, I had high expectations for historical accuracy in Outlander, because that’s how it was touted to be in the press I had seen and read. I was wrong. Had I known ahead of time before I read the novel that it was not supposed to be very authentic or accurate, I would not have had such a bad reaction to many of the scenes portrayed in the novel."

When I read all those novels that you mentioned, I knew them as 'historical novels' but to my recollection they were not touted as being 'historically accurate' like I had heard Outlander was. Given what I have already stated, I think your comparison and supposition is unfair.

There are, or have been I'm sure, discussions about the historical inaccuracies of those novels. Are you suggesting that because a historical novel does not have to be 100% historically accurate, it's not okay to disagree with the inaccuracies?

Kat wrote: "Still Re: #977

There was nothing in the text to suggest that Jamie was very familiar with the area where he left Claire in the woods. I’m not disregarding text here, but I think you may be readin..."

???

This simply is not true at all. I re-read Ch. 20 (the part about leaving her alone). He knew the land well enough to be able to describe the copse to her beforehand and he knew how to get there. He also thoroughly checked it out before leaving her there and clearly states that it's safe. He was so certain that it was safe that he was even willing to tie her to a tree there until he came back for her. Yes, I suppose someone could have found her there, but Jamie seemed to think that it was highly unlikely.....and we'll never actually know because she didn't remain there as she was instructed.

Mochaspresso wrote: "This simply is not true at all. I re-read Ch. 20 (the part about leaving her alone). He knew the land well enough to be able to describe the copse to her beforehand and he knew how to get there. He also thoroughly checked it out before leaving her there and clearly states that it's safe. He was so certain that it was safe that he was even willing to tie her to a tree there until he came back for her. Yes, I supposed someone could have found her there, but Jamie seemed to think that it was highly unlikely....."

I'll grant that maybe he did know the area after all. I don't remember thinking that the first time I read through the chapter.

However, it still holds true that he had no way of knowing she would not be found all day long.

Let me add, I also don't think Jamie was thinking as clearly and objectively as he would have been under different circumstances. After all, he also thought the glade where they were attacked by the deserters was safe and he wasn't thinking quite clearly and objectively then either.

and we'll never actually know because she didn't remain there as she was instructed to do.
Chicken and egg, like I said.

Kat wrote: "There are, or have been I'm sure, discussions about the historical inaccuracies of those novels. Are you suggesting that because a historical novel does not have to be 100% historically accurate, it's not okay to disagree with the inaccuracies?
"

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that historical accuracy does not necessarily have to be applied in quite so strict a manner toward human behaviors. Humans have been breaking rules in literature for a very very very long time. (Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat from the tree.) Just because it isn't customary for a minister to have an affair, it doesn't mean that he can't do so. It's not completely unheard of either. If he does so, it doesn't make the story "historically inaccurate". The proper protocol was for the men to take Claire to Dougal, but it isn't exactly unheard of for soldiers to take matters into their own hands under certain circumstances. What I am saying that this is not an example of a historical inaccuracy in Outlander.

Mochaspresso wrote: "No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that historical accuracy does not necessarily have to be applied in quite so strict a manner toward human behaviors. Humans have been breaking rules in literature for a very very very long time. (Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat from the tree.) Just because it isn't customary for a minister to have an affair, it doesn't mean that he can't do so. It's not completely unheard of either. If he does so, it doesn't make the story "historically inaccurate". The proper protocol was for the men to take Claire to Dougal, but it isn't exactly unheard of for soldiers to take matters into their own hands under certain circumstances. What I am saying that this is not an example of a historical inaccuracy in Outlander. "

Historical accuracy does not have to be applied in strict manner toward human behaviors, but it can be. While literary characters have been breaking the rules for a long time, there have also been those who upheld the rules. Both arguments apply.

In my original post 980, I was not discussing the historical inaccuracy of the way certain members of the clan took it upon themselves to dispense justice as they saw it. Rather, I was discussing the apparent inconsistency of the novel itself.

Kat wrote: "Re: to #978
In regards to discussing other books or movies – most of the references that I have seen, do not actually use them to support a certain side. Most of the references seemed to be just t..."

Response to 982
Most of the references seemed to be just to be a way to changing the focus of the debate and confusing the issue.

I'll admit that some of the comparisons just haven't been good ones.

It’s almost as if its being suggested that if it was alright in this other book, then it should be alright in Outlander. I just don’t see what bearing one has on the other.

That is a part of what is being said. But it's more so "I can understand it here, as I can understand it in Outlander." Just a comparison to show how a person feels about it.

As far as “applause” of those on the same side – that has happened on both sides of any of the issues that have been discussed.

Maybe it just hasn't happened in a while so I've forgotten but I haven't noticed "our side" (I really don't know how else to call this one? lol) applauding each other for keeping our cools, our humor and how we patiently deal with having to argue the same things over and over, patting each other on the back for it. For certain there has been a lot of complaining about having to say the same things over and over but that's on both sides. You don't have to look for examples though, if you say it's there from us, I will believe you.

And both sides have overlooked times when they have been guilty of responding not so politely and insulting the other side, even "ganging up" on the other side. Those with an opposing viewpoint to my own have often times responded civilly – and I have expressed appreciation on more than one occasion for those civil responses - especially to you Mrsbooks. I have also apologized on more than one occasion when I have been not so polite or inadvertently offended someone else. I have only seen one such apology directed back at me. And to be honest, I’m getting kind of tired of that. If anyone thinks that there have been no insults, subtle or otherwise, or goading remarks directed toward me, then I think they should go back and read some of the responses as objectively and dispassionately as possible.

Oh, there has definitely been insults from everywhere...
And yes, I did notice that you apologized a while back and that those who were also short and rude with you did not. I was a bit surprised by that. - Not that you apologized, but that they didn't. I know that in these twenty pages there have been times my temper got a way from me as well. I can't recall if I apologized or not. Hopefully I did and hopefully I've been curving the impulse to let loose in recent posts.

If not, I definitely apologize too!

But I for one do appreciate your humor. I can also understand how some might think you're deliberately being snarky rather than just trying to be light and funny. Sage's comment comes well into play here.

Even your own remarks seem to point to particular recent posts that Sara and I made as inappropriate while disregarding the rude comments made in response. If this is not true or was not your intent, then let me apologize in advance for misunderstanding. At one time or another, I have seen posts on both sides of the issues which painted commentators on either side as paragons.

My post was most definitely about Sara's post but not exclusively. It was really just the most easiest for me to find in order to paraphrase. Again, I couldn't recall any times that "we" have patted each other's backs about our patience in dealing with the insults and opinions from the "other side."

I wasn't deliberately ignoring the more obvious insulting posts from our side, or from your side. I just thought they were so obvious as to be insulting that they didn't need to be "flushed" out. Know what I mean? This particular kind of praise mentioned above is more like a veiled insult in disguise as commendation. I much prefer to deal with the other kind if I have to deal with any at all.

I think it's also just easier to become rude online than it is in person. It's harder to reign ourselves in.

Now I need to go do some dishes and hopefully I'll have time to respond to some of the more Outlander specific comments.

But I do enjoy debating with you Kat. I can't say I've enjoyed it nearly as much with Red but I think you just explain things in a better way for me personally. So while I still haven't budged, you've helped me understand Red a bit better.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Kat wrote: "As far as “applause” of those on the same side – that has happened on both sides of any of the issues that have been discussed ..."

I just wanted to weight in on this. While I understand what you are saying Mrsbooks, I for one (one who has been 'guilty' of the applause thing) did not mean it as an insult to the other people. It is more of a comment that the person that is facing nothing but, in some cases anger and hostility, is not returning in kind. It is a nice change. For me it has nothing to to do with 'sides' it is more of I'm impressed. And being on a receiving end of one of these before it gives that person the extra boost to keep going and not turn to insulting. It can sometimes take some time to be able to not turn to that in the face of it. It has definitely been done on 'both sides' as well. You might not see it as much because it is don't in a more subtle way but for example in a reply to, in my opinion, a very snarky and rude comment another person with reply "This! This is perfect" This has happened on 'both sides.' another example is when someone says "Ah the voice of reason as always" It is the same type of thing just not in so many words. I don't think there is anything wrong with encouraging nice and civil behavior. :) At least for me it is not a snide comment to those that are doing the attacking but more a comment that the person is doing something that I would not be able to do. I am fairly certain that I aimed one at you Mrsbooks because I am always in awe of your ability to step back and explain things in an precise and understanding manner. If I have offended anyone by doing these 'applauses' then I greatly apologize. That was not my intention, in fact the opposite.

The lack of civil discourse on this thread was a part of what drew me to it. My very first post I remarked on how posters do not seem to enjoy discussion with Red. Go back and count how many times you have all clapped each other on the back after a rude exchange with Red. Honestly, I am mystified as to how you can be so sanctimonious! Clearly people have been chased off this thread as they are ganged up on.

If you feel offended by a compliment I have paid another, look to yourself and ask why.

Kat wrote: "And I have stated previously that I have a big problem with the fact that she broke her promise to stay put. But she would not have had the opportunity to break her promise and leave the woods if she had not been left alone in the first place. There’s a cause and effect loop here – kind of chicken and egg dispute. ..."

This is the same as saying it was Jamie's fault Claire broke her promise.

I don't see a cause and effect because Claire promised to stay alone in the woods. She broke her promise, not because she was left alone, but because she had no intention of keeping it.

Sage wrote: "This is the same as saying it was Jamie's fault Claire broke her promise.
No, it is not.

Yes it is. You're saying Claire broke her promise because Jamie left her in the woods alone. If he had left someone with her she wouldn't have been able to leave and would have kept her promise...therefore, it was Jamie's fault for leaving her alone.

Claire did not make the promise with the intention of breaking it. She did not want to be left alone. She wanted to go with Jamie. Alternately, she wanted to go with the rest of the men on to collect rents. She was not thinking that she'd tell Jamie to leave her alone and immediately run for the hills.

It was not until after she was left alone to stew that she realized:
1. That she was alone with no one watching her for the first time since she fell through the stones.
2. She knew where she was and which direction to go to get back to the stones.

The thought never would have occurred to her if she had not been left alone.

That does not excuse her for breaking her promise. I never said it did. But the fact remains that she would not have had the opportunity to run or even thought of running if she had not been left alone.

Mochaspresso wrote: "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."

I am ok with people disagreeing with what I am saying/writing. But it is annoying to read my point being caricatured to such extent.

Where have I ever written about expecting this book/characters or any other for the matter, to be "perfect", or to "follow the rules", or "do the right thing"? What does any of this has to do with criticizing a poor lazy problematic writing choice from an author who thought the quickest and most "dramatic" way to make a point about "time/cultural clash" was to get the lead female heroine beaten by her husband, the lead male character, wrote it in a way sufficiently ambiguous to have readers justifying the beating (with some even putting the blame on Claire), on the claim of "historical accuracy".

What I (and I think Kat), have been trying to discuss (with Kat putting forward many very interesting and educating sources and reference), was that :
a) that was a poorly written plot, beginning, at least, from the moment Claire was "left" in the wood;
b) that was a lazy poor problematic writing choice to use violence against women as a plot device;
c) there were many more "historical accurate" and dramatic scenarii that could have been written and could have actually taught the readers way more interesting things about how clan/marital matters were dealt with in 1700s Scotland than that lazy "1700s Scot beats his wife 'cause that's most certainly how marital/clan issues were dealt back then, at least that's what everyone will go along with based on some vague general idea on History from their High school history class".

But hey, let's just summarize this conversation to Kat and I being angry readers with perfect world fantasy like expectations while reading romance novels.

SMDH.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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?"

Maybe "wrong" or "bad" aren't the best terms to use, cause it implies some moral thing.

So let's say I think what is "wrong" (in the most factual, neutral meaning) is to try and justify this scene based on "historical accuracy".

Now, about the writing choice the author made, I would say I think it's weak, lazy and problematic because it relies on an over-used un-imaginative trope AND uses violence against women as a plot device (in the most factual sense) to make a point about cultural clash or about the male character's cultural values, etc. at the time. It's problematic because it feeds into a long lasting "tradition" in this genre in particular (and in literature and fiction in general), linked with a culture at large that tends, among other things, to romanticize or downplay abusive male behaviours. And this is so ingrained in our collective cultural frames that many will only shrug at it, or think that it's, somehow, justified.

Now I am not trying and telling to authors NOT to write things, or such. I am merely reacting to something I read and to the many reactions to that scene/plot that bugged me. And, as a reader, I am also reacting to a un-imaginative and weak writing. Some many not see it as weak, but I do, and I think many good points have been made pointing out how poorly the whole thing was written, before, during, and after the scene.

Sage wrote: "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. "

I understand what you're saying, but it makes me think that this way of thinking kind of makes any discussion on books/movies/characters/stories pointless. Like, why discuss or criticize this or that, since it's the way the author chose to write it? It makes me feel like there is only place for praises, or talks about things you like. Which is a bit startling to me cause I really think that "modern" cultural pieces (whether they are books, movies, paintings), are meant to be discussed, are meant to make the audience react, one way or another. And the conversations that are started around those pieces are what makes for a vibrant and interesting cultural landscape. If not, they wouldn't be offered/given to the world.
NB: I use "modern" as opposed to cultural pieces created in times when they were only supposed to be lauded, revered and feared but never questionned.

Sage wrote: "Being a critical thinking reader is important, but so is reading simply for pleasure. "

Sure, but reading for pleasure doesn't necessarily means you completely shut your critical mind either. Also, what we're all doing here is far more than reading. We all took a significant step by coming into this forum to discuss this particular book. T

he fact that one enjoyed the book and only read it as a entertaining piece of fiction doesn't mean one can't also be critical of it afterward.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I feel like we've already debated and fleshed out the inaccuracies of the first post in this thread and moved on but it does still irk me. Mostly because of new posters.
And it bothers me that the first post is full of topics that the poster does not want to discuss. It contradicts. If they're not meant to be discussed here, they should't be in the opening comment which is meant to explain and describe in more detail what the poster wants to discuss."

As I am the one who wrote the OP, I am going to answer to that one : I already explained why I used Medival Musepost and included it in mine. My point is on one specific scene, which involves a lot of problematic tropes, but that is not what I wanted to discuss. I still think the post I included is relevant, and I even edited my OP in order with some of Kat's references that complemented it. I understand why people would want to engage in all those things that Medieval Muse was talking about, but as I am the one who started this whole discussion, I'd like it not to be derailed into those other topics, and rather to stay on the topic I wanted to discuss.

Now poster can (and have and will) always write whatever they want, whether it's relevant to the topic at hand or not. Some are genuinely interested in discussing those other matters (and I would be too, in other threads!). Some, I think, are just trying to derail the conversation or are totally missing the point. I mostly have replied by explaining how and why I started the conversation and tried and pointed out to them what this discussion is intended to be about.

Mrsbooks wrote: "And then of dealing with the "applause" those on the same side give each other in relation to keeping patience and humor while covering the same ground over and over responding to insults and opinions with polite commentary. Somehow over looking the times when said posters have not responded quite so politely and while ignoring the times that WE have covered the same ground over and over and some how managed to respond to the same things being civil.

While I don't think there is anything wrong with commending each other for well thought out comments and keeping good humor there is certainly and not very subtle insults woven into those *particular* praises, in my opinion, with the intention to goad. (The ones that paint posters with their same opinions as paragons and ignoring the times they weren't).

Because there are some REALLY good comments in these 20 pages. From both sides. And there are some comments where people were overly sensitive and other times when people were much too impatient and short. Both the good and bad comments aren't exclusively limited to one viewpoint."

I, for one, make no apologies for agreeing enthusiastically with some posters. Cause it felt good to have people, like Kat but also others, understanding perfectly what I and very few other) had been trying to express/explain for many pages, to have those posters doing the research work, and being sometimes more articulate and clear than me and bringing so much to the conversation, when there had been a LOT of other posters trying and silencing me, or missing my points completely, or making assulmption about "me" rather than discussing the points. So I cheered when I enjoyed some posts and wrote accordingly. I think it's also what make conversations in here enjoyable, to share some fun and lightness.

And yes, I reacted sometimes strongly when I felt that I was being talked down or when (disparraging) comments were made at my expense. Cause that's how I am : if you try and come at me, I am going to clap back. Plain and simple. I used humour and sarcasm, yes, and maybe snark some times. But I never, subtly or unsubtly, laughed at or talked down posters who disagred with just cause I could. I may have pointed how strongly I disagreed with their points, even using caps sometimes. And I may have had a sharp biting tongue here and there when I was being annoyed/pissed at some post twisting and caricaturing my point. And I can understand that sometimes my replies didn't came out the way I inteded them and some people felt they were attacked. That has never been my intention. Rather, every times I thought people misunderstood my points, I tried and explaied them again and again, not because I am some masochist but because I enjoy passionately discussing books and pop culture.

So thanks to all who constructively contributed to the discussion and keep posting in good humour and smart wit.

Should we stop writing murder mysteries because murder is wrong? I loved this book. I don't beat anyone and no one beats me. If my husband or any man were to lay a finger on me there would be hell to pay.

You are making the assumption that we the 2015 readers are too stupid to know that a beating is unacceptable. But 1700's Jamie would not comprehend its problem and 1940's Claire knows its wrong but hasn't reached our time period where she realizes that forgiving someone isn't the answer.

This is fiction, but it's fiction based on historical fact. Should we also ban Huckleberry Finn for it's portrayal of African Americans? Should we chastise Jane Austen for writing her female characters abiding by domineering patriarchal male figures in her books?

The beating scene made me feel uncomfortable. IT"S SUPPOSED TO. We are supposed to feel uncomfortable about it. But leaving it out would be untrue to historical fact. DIana Gabaldon makes a point of showing just how forward thinking Jamie is by making him feel regret for what he'd done and promising never to harm her again. In a 1740 setting, he's a bloody beautiful feminist!!

This is a great fictional novel, with intricate character interaction and a lovely feel to it. It is not an instruction textbook on how to treat women. If it were, you would be absolutely justified in your criticism, but as it stands you are just plain wrong.

Red wrote: Now, about the writing choice the author made, I would say I think it's weak, lazy and problematic because it relies on an over-used un-imaginative trope AND uses violence against women as a plot device (in the most factual sense) to make a point about cultural clash or about the male character's cultural values, etc. at the time. It's problematic because it feeds into a long lasting "tradition" in this genre in particular (and in literature and fiction in general), linked with a culture at large that tends, among other things, to romanticize or downplay abusive male behaviours. And this is so ingrained in our collective cultural frames that many will only shrug at it, or think that it's, somehow, justified.

Now I am not trying and telling to authors NOT to write things, or such. I am merely reacting to something I read and to the many reactions to that scene/plot that bugged me. And, as a reader, I am also reacting to a un-imaginative and weak writing. Some many not see it as weak, but I do, and I think many good points have been made pointing out how poorly the whole thing was written, before, during, and after the scene. "
___________

I agree that it is wrong to justify this scene with the use of historical accuracy IF the scene has no relation to historical accuracy. But IF, what happened was quite possible based upon historical accuracy whether because of clan law or because of how one typically treated their spouse - it makes sense to me as a good argument. Even if such a thing wasn't, how do I say it.... set in stone?

As you brought up a few times (in different words) just because something may have been popular doesn't mean everybody followed the crowd. If this was likely to happen given history, then I do not see why that argument doesn't work.

But since the historical accuracy is in question, I also get why it shouldn't be used, until proof can be shown.

I will ask you, if it weren't for this sort of thing being overused would you still have a problem with it? If it weren't cliche because it was barely written about and if other romance novels didn't use it, would you still find it problematic?

I think there is a very large line between feeling people are influenced by what they take into their minds and how that affects how they feel about important topics (like domestic abuse) and saying that people are too stupid to recognize fiction isn't real and that they're going to let their man take advantage of them simply from reading a book about someone who did. (I'm not saying you've said the later.)

I find it really difficult to explain the difference between those two things, which is weird, because it should be easy because the line between them is IMO quite large. At one point I even thought you were implying the later (I no longer think that). I think I thought that because when trying to explain the former it sounds like the later.

I don't think I'm a good one to explain the difference. And I don't think anyone has really done so successfully.


Is Outlander perpetrating this influence or is it only because this influence is already out there in abundance? I ask this because I've read my fair share of terrible romance novels that (Many would feel 50 Shades fits this description) show women forgiving and sweeping obsessive, jealous, controlling and abusive behaviors from the men in their lives under the rug. And I DO see it as problematic. BUT If I were to take each individual novel and think about ONLY that novel, I see nothing really beyond something stupid or silly. It's when you combine all these artists works together that I see an issue.

And then that doesn't necessarily seem fair to me. To judge someone's work based upon other people's work?

Maddie wrote:I just wanted to weight in on this. While I understand what you are saying Mrsbooks, I for one (one who has been 'guilty' of the applause thing) did not mean it as an insult to the other people. It is more of a comment that the person that is facing nothing but, in some cases anger and hostility, is not returning in kind. It is a nice change. For me it has nothing to to do with 'sides' it is more of I'm impressed. And being on a receiving end of one of these before it gives that person the extra boost to keep going and not turn to insulting. It can sometimes take some time to be able to not turn to that in the face of it. It has definitely been done on 'both sides' as well. You might not see it as much because it is don't in a more subtle way but for example in a reply to, in my opinion, a very snarky and rude comment another person with reply "This! This is perfect" This has happened on 'both sides.' another example is when someone says "Ah the voice of reason as always" It is the same type of thing just not in so many words. I don't think there is anything wrong with encouraging nice and civil behavior. :) At least for me it is not a snide comment to those that are doing the attacking but more a comment that the person is doing something that I would not be able to do. I am fairly certain that I aimed one at you Mrsbooks because I am always in awe of your ability to step back and explain things in an precise and understanding manner. If I have offended anyone by doing these 'applauses' then I greatly apologize. That was not my intention, in fact the opposite.
"

Haha, well thanks for the compliment.... but if you look through these pages I'm sure you'll find quite a few instances where my temper got the best of me. I don't think there is anything wrong either with commending each other and praising well thought out posts. And I honestly can't recall you doing any of these applause posts (the kind I was referring to).

I know for certain numerous times I've commented and said something like ^^^THIS IS PERFECT ^^^. Upon reflection, you're right, if there was anything written that was condescending, when showing my like for the post, it sounds like I'm not only agreeing with the points made but also with how the points were made. I've not paid close enough attention and watched out for that but I will start!! Excellent point!! I can see how that would make someone feel like they were being ganged up on, when it sounds like we're all agreeing with someone when they're being rude.

I was trying to say though (perhaps in a long drawn out way lol) that we've ALL been snarky, rude, condescending, ect, whatever you want to add in there. I don't think anyone here is exempt. So when complimenting or praising someone for NOT doing or saying those things when they have, sounds like a compliment meant to goad others.

Sara wrote: The lack of civil discourse on this thread was a part of what drew me to it. My very first post I remarked on how posters do not seem to enjoy discussion with Red. Go back and count how many times you have all clapped each other on the back after a rude exchange with Red. Honestly, I am mystified as to how you can be so sanctimonious! Clearly people have been chased off this thread as they are ganged up on.

If you feel offended by a compliment I have paid another, look to yourself and ask why. "

My very first post I remarked on how posters do not seem to enjoy discussion with Red.

I'm not going to deny this. There have been many times I've clearly been exasperated talking with Red. We can say it's because she was missing the point or you can say it's because I was missing the point. Either way works and the answer is probably includes both anyways.

If you read back, you will notice that Red does not appear to enjoy talking to us either.

From the get go, there were comments from both viewpoints that were anything but polite.

We can say nobody can be perfect when responding to such negative and rude comments. And maybe you're right. But again this goes BOTH ways.

Anyways, my post to Maddie explains what I was trying to say with my original comment.

I think the main issue is some of us want to have a discussion and others want to debate.

Red wrote: "I am ok with people disagreeing with what I am saying/writing. But it is annoying to read my point being caricatured to such extent.

Where have I ever written about expecting this book/characters or any other for the matter, to be "perfect", or to "follow the rules", or "do the right thing"? What does any of this has to do with criticizing a poor lazy problematic writing choice from an author who thought the quickest and most "dramatic" way to make a point about "time/cultural clash" was to get the lead female heroine beaten by her husband, the lead male character, wrote it in a way sufficiently ambiguous to have readers justifying the beating (with some even putting the blame on Claire), on the claim of "historical accuracy".

What I (and I think Kat), have been trying to discuss (with Kat putting forward many very interesting and educating sources and reference), was that :
a) that was a poorly written plot, beginning, at least, from the moment Claire was "left" in the wood;
b) that was a lazy poor problematic writing choice to use violence against women as a plot device;
c) there were many more "historical accurate" and dramatic scenarii that could have been written and could have actually taught the readers way more interesting things about how clan/marital matters were dealt with in 1700s Scotland than that lazy "1700s Scot beats his wife 'cause that's most certainly how marital/clan issues were dealt back then, at least that's what everyone will go along with based on some vague general idea on History from their High school history class".

But hey, let's just summarize this conversation to Kat and I being angry readers with perfect world fantasy like expectations while reading romance novels.

SMDH.
"

"I am ok with people disagreeing with what I am saying/writing. But it is annoying to read my point being caricatured to such extent."

Those were your words, yet you also went on to type in the same post...""1700s Scot beats his wife 'cause that's most certainly how marital/clan issues were dealt back then, at least that's what everyone will go along with based on some vague general idea on History from their High school history class"."

I think you are far more guilty of what you are accusing me of with these comments. That's all that I will say on that particular subject and I will move on.

"a) that was a poorly written plot, beginning, at least, from the moment Claire was "left" in the wood;"

This is actually highly subjective to each individual reader. I disagreed with criticisms put forth in this thread regarding Claire being left in the woods. I disagreed because the criticisms did not accurately (imo) represent what actually happened in the story and the reasons why it happened. I think it was well written in the sense that the reasoning behind why the characters in the story made that particular choice at that particular moment was fleshed out, explained and plausible for the story as it was progressing.

"b) that was a lazy poor problematic writing choice to use violence against women as a plot device;"

Imo, "violence against women" is a reactionary/inflammatory buzz word that is rather misleading. It was not the plot device being used in the manner that this phrase seems to imply. That is far too simplistic and reductionist, imo. It doesn't tell the entire story. The conflicts of that situation were more than just "violence against women". There was also a cultural clash going on and the characters themselves were experiencing inner conflicts.

"c) there were many more "historical accurate" and dramatic scenarii that could have been written and could have actually taught the readers way more interesting things about how clan/marital matters were dealt with in 1700s Scotland than that lazy "1700s Scot beats his wife 'cause that's most certainly how marital/clan issues were dealt back then, at least that's what everyone will go along with based on some vague general idea on History from their High school history class"

Ignoring the hyperbolic snark at the end.....Of course, there were other scenarios. The possibilities are actually endless in the world of fiction writing. However, those other scenarios would be re-writing the Outlander story. Romeo and Juliet did not necessarily have to center around feuding households. Tybalt didn't have to kill Mercutio. Romeo didn't have to kill Tybalt. Neither Romeo or Juliet needed to kill themselves. Yes, the story could have been written differently, but making certain changes actually also changes the entire story. I don't think this type of criticism is fair. Imo, a critique shouldn't involve rewriting the plot to make the story to go in a direction that you would prefer to see it go in. I know that you don't think that is what you are doing, but it comes across that way to me....

"there were many more "historical accurate" and dramatic scenarii that could have been written and could have actually taught the readers way more interesting things about how clan/marital matters were dealt with in 1700s Scotland"

Interesting to who? Just you or me, too? "Interesting" is rather subjective, isn't it? I thought the book was fascinating the way it was and I've yet to see an alternative scenario presented that is more "interesting". Some are more "politically correct", "more palatable", "less gritty and messy"....but to me that is not necessarily "more interesting".

there were many more "historical accurate" and dramatic scenarii that could have been written and could have actually taught the readers way more interesting things about how clan/marital matters were dealt with in 1700s Scotland than that lazy "1700s Scot beats his wife 'cause that's most certainly how marital/clan issues were dealt back then, at least that's what everyone will go along with based on some vague general idea on History from their High school history class"

I don't think the author was necessarily trying to teach anyone anything when she wrote this particular scene. It was a small part of a much larger story.

It's perfectly acceptable for someone to say they didn't care for this part of the story, or would have liked to see take a different direction, and to offer suggestions, but to call Diane Gabaldon, lazy, a poor writer, and problematic, is disrespectful and in poor taste.

Gortrixie wrote: "You are making the assumption that we the 2015 readers are too stupid to know that a beating is unacceptable."

Could you precisely quote the passage that refers to siad "assumption"? Cause I am pretty sure I never ever wrote anything like what you suggest. And if you (re)read careful my many post, you'll understand that my point isn't about the beating being "acceptable" or not, but about the writing choice and the way many readers and posters have tried andjustified it using the "historical accuracy" line of arguments. Regarding the latter, I and some other posters here (for instance Kat, have tried and argued, with many sourced references, that the historical accuracy claim is pretty weak when you analyze the whole situation a bit more closely.

Mrsbooks wrote: "if it weren't for this sort of thing being overused would you still have a problem with it? If it weren't cliche because it was barely written about and if other romance novels didn't use it, would you still find it problematic? [...] Is Outlander perpetrating this influence or is it only because this influence is already out there in abundance? I ask this because I've read my fair share of terrible romance novels that (Many would feel 50 Shades fits this description) show women forgiving and sweeping obsessive, jealous, controlling and abusive behaviors from the men in their lives under the rug. And I DO see it as problematic. BUT If I were to take each individual novel and think about ONLY that novel, I see nothing really beyond something stupid or silly. It's when you combine all these artists works together that I see an issue.

And then that doesn't necessarily seem fair to me. To judge someone's work based upon other people's work? "

Those are some good questions...

I don't think that people will just reproduce what they read in books because they won't make the difference between what is fiction and what is reality. Fiction (and cultural product) work in much more nuanced and indirect ways.

It's more about the cultural landscape that reles what is "normal"/"acceptable", and in which people rationalise their behaviour. Znd it starts from very early, from the book we learn to read from in kindergarten, the tv cartoons we watch, etc. Our cultural landscape is populated with tropes that are very strongly based on oppressive relationships, whether it's gender, race, etc.
Now, sure, Outlander (the book), is a very tiny piece in the massive cultural fields. None of the tropes in it (progressive or more problematic) were invented/created by the author. They were merely 'borrowed' from the existing pool. Some of the thing she borrowed were 'pogressive', other more problematic. The whole husband beating wife is part of the problematic ones, IMHO.

So it isn't the author's responsability that those tropes exist. But they do exist. And they are part of pretty much everybody from the moment one opens any book. So no, I don't think one can just read this book (any book in fact), with a blank mind, as if we lived in a bubble. And even when you read only one book at the time, even if individually they only appear to be some silly writing in it with no outer cultural interference, each book added to the other is indeed part of the broader cultural landscape. That is what makes cultural a systemic feature.

Finally, I am not judging the author's entire writing/career on that sole book. I have repeatedly stated that I was only discussing Outlander the book, not the series.

Mrsbooks wrote: "If you read back, you will notice that Red does not appear to enjoy talking to us either."

Oh, I do enjoy it; If not, I wouldn't still be here, replying to you and others posts. I can be a bit sarcastic (even snarky) at times, and as I said realier, I am not to mince my words when I feel like I am being talked down or made fun of. But if I didn't like and want to speak with you and others I disagreed with, I wouldn't have replied to many of your posts. I am no masochist. I enjoy the debate/discussion, even when it gets a bit heated. It's entertaining and educating. But I have no time to lose in toxic internet exchanges. Fortunately, I think even when we weren't being very polite towards each other, we all maitained the necessary minimum of decency to keep discussing.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Those were your words, yet you also went on to type in the same post...""1700s Scot beats his wife 'cause that's most certainly how marital/clan issues were dealt back then, at least that's what everyone will go along with based on some vague general idea on History from their High school history class"."

I think you are far more guilty of what you are accusing me of with these comments. That's all that I will say on that particular subject and I will move on. "

Well, to be fair, I wasn't caricaturing your post or your POV, but the author's, so...

Mochaspresso wrote: "Romeo and Juliet did not necessarily have to center around feuding households. Tybalt didn't have to kill Mercutio. Romeo didn't have to kill Tybalt. Neither Romeo or Juliet needed to kill themselves. Yes, the story could have been written differently, but making certain changes actually also changes the entire story. I don't think this type of criticism is fair. Imo, a critique shouldn't involve rewriting the plot to make the story to go in a direction that you would prefer to see it go in. I know that you don't think that is what you are doing, but it comes across that way to me.... "

Of course it's subjective. That's my POV on the whole thing.

Now, I don't think it's about rewriting the whole plot, but the beating. The way I read it, the beating was meant to create some sort of "cultural shock". I think the tension and the antagonism between the two character could have been achieved just the same (or even better) withouth having Jamie beating Claire. It's the beating I am focusing on here.

Now I get that you (and probably most readers) liked the whole plot ok. I didn't. And I've tried and explained why. That's all.

I just read this line in one of the books that I am reading and I immediately thought of this tread. It's from by Roxanne gay. “...literary merit shouldn’t be dictated by whether we want to be friends or lovers with those about whom we read.”

Excerpt From: Gay, Roxane. “Bad Feminist.” HarperCollins. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

I think I can extend this to the character's actions.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I just read this line in one of the books that I am reading and I immediately thought of this tread. It's from by Roxanne gay. “...literary merit shouldn’t..."

Care to elaborate?

I mean, I don't want to be friends or lovers with Jamie (because I think he's kind of a jerk and I've stated as much) or Claire for that matter (because she does annoy me) so I'm fairly certain this does not apply to me. I'm not basing my critique of this character's actions on whether or not I want to be friends or lovers with him since I don't want to be either. However, I'm not sure at all that does not apply to those who defend or justify his actions in regards this beating.

Kat wrote: "Care to elaborate?

I mean, I don't want to be friends or lovers with Jamie (because I think he's kind of a jerk and I've stated as much) or Claire for that matter (because she does annoy me) so I'm fairly certain this does not apply to me. I'm not basing my critique of this character's actions on whether or not I want to be friends or lovers with him since I don't want to be either. However, I'm not sure at all that does not apply to those who defend or justify his actions in regards this beating.
"

Again, I do not think that anyone in this thread actually justified Claire's beating. I certainly do not. Speaking for only me, what I am justifying is Diana Gabaldon's authorial right to include it if she chooses. Those are two separate things to me. You and Red said that the beating was a poor writing choice and an example of lazy writing. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I do not have to agree. I disagreed with this because literary merit (imo) should not be based on whether or not I like the characters or approve of their actions within the context of the story. In fact, I think Diana Gabaldon did an excellent job regarding plot development in the sense that the characters are dynamic and have their merits and their flaws. Their choices/actions are also thoroughly fleshed out. Regardless of whether or not one personally agrees with Jamie's actions....the how's and why's of his actions were given to the reader from multiple perspectives via dialogue and exposition. The reader sees it from Jamie's, from Claire's and from the clan's pov and not only that, the characters develop, evolve and grow from those actions/choices going forward. I don't think that is indicative of poor or lazy writing. Quite the opposite, actually. I think the way that the beating was handled in this story is exemplary writing of very gritty and difficult subject matter. White washing the novel just for the sake of making it more palatable is what I consider to be extremely poor and lazy writing.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Again, I do not think that anyone in this thread actually justified Claire's beating. I certainly do not. Speaking for only me, what I am justifying is Diana Gabaldon's authorial right to include it if she chooses. Those are two separate things to me. You and Red said that the beating was a poor writing choice and an example of lazy writing. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I do not have to agree. I disagreed with this because literary merit (imo) should not be based on whether or not I like the characters or approve of their actions within the context of the story. In fact, I think Diana Gabaldon did an excellent job regarding plot development in the sense that the characters are dynamic and have their merits and their flaws. Their choices/actions are also thoroughly fleshed out. Regardless of whether or not one personally agrees with Jamie's actions....the how's and why's of his actions were given to the reader from multiple perspectives via dialogue and exposition. The reader sees it from Jamie's, from Claire's and from the clan's pov and not only that, the characters develop, evolve and grow from those actions/choices going forward. I don't think that is indicative of poor or lazy writing. Quite the opposite, actually. I think the way that the beating was handled in this story is exemplary writing of very gritty and difficult subject matter. White washing the novel just for the sake of making it more palatable is what I consider to be extremely poor and lazy writing. "

I think if you go back and read through the thread, you will find several examples of people actually justifying Claire's beating by one means or another: whether it was due to "historical accuracy" (i.e. "that's just the way it was back then") or even the "Claire deserved it" argument - because she disobeyed Jamie's order to stay put.

The wife/girlfriend/lover being beaten by her husband/boyfriend/lover and then forgiving him and falling madly in love with him afterward is a well worn and well known trope in romantic fiction. While it's not used nearly as much (I don't think) nowadays, it was ubiquitous in the 90's when this book was originally published. So for the author to use such a well known and well worn plot contrivance, is indeed the epitome of lazy writing.

I think the plot development, and even character development of Jamie, is shamefully lacking to explain anything about why he would suddenly turn from a charming defender of women to a brutal abuser. The plot development was entirely insufficient to place the blame squarely on Claire's shoulders so that she alone would bear the brunt of the punishment. She was left alone in a small copse of woods with no one to defend her when it was known there were dangerous English deserters about and even the English army was nearby and had orders to be looking for her. That's a plot hole one could drive a Mack truck through! It's ludicrous. The author seems to demonstrate by the number of rapes and attempted rapes in the book how dangerous it was for women at that time. (I really don't think it was as dangerous as the book would lead one to believe. There are several 18th century accounts by travelers that Scotland was in fact much safer than England in general. Another strike against historical accuracy.) But if, as established in the book, it was so dangerous for a woman alone, why on earth would Jamie and the others leave her thus?

While I give Jamie credit for being concerned enough for Claire's safety that he didn't want to risk taking her with him to meet Horrocks, I cannot fathom that he would leave her alone completely undefended, after she'd already been nearly raped in front of him, when there were other men who went ahead to continue collecting the rents. Surely, one of those other men could have been left behind to guard her. I find it inconceivable that an honorable man like Jamie, who knew the countryside and who allegedly loved his wife as much he was supposed to love Claire, and had just watched her be assaulted and nearly raped not long before, could leave her alone in a glade, much like the one where they were attacked, without any protection whatsoever. It boggles the mind. I don't buy it. If anything, after a traumatic experience like that, I would think that a loving and concerned husband would have been more inclined to make sure that his wife was overprotected and not under-protected. At that point, the fact that Claire was left alone was the worst kind of plot contrivance; not only ridiculous but absolutely preposterous.

The hows and whys Jamie's actions also fall into common plot devices territory. The "It's For Your Own Good" rationale that Jamie uses beforehand is in itself an common and overused trope in fiction. (It's so she'll really understand the consequences of her actions, after all.) As is the "Cruel To Be kind" excuse after the fact. (He had to beat her to make it right with the rest of the men, don't you know. It wasn't really his fault.) Moreover, as the author has Claire rationalize the beating, it becomes the "Love Slap of Epiphany". (Oh! She isn't in Kansas anymore, Toto! Things are different here! She's been behaving badly and not considering how her actions affected poor Jamie and the other men.) Never mind that they have all held her hostage since she got there and her actions were an attempt to get back to her own time and her first husband. No, that's not important at all because the author conveniently ignores all of that in the dialogue and exposition.

I also disagree with your assessment that there is any character development or growth as a result of the beating. Exactly how did Jamie evolve and grow? Because he promised not to beat Claire again? That was a matter of expediency to get back into the marriage bed as he said himself, not growth. We are shown later in the book how he laughs at her when she flinches when he takes off his belt. And even in later books, (view spoiler)[he laughs at her and derides her again for the same. (hide spoiler)] In fact, he remarks more than once that he wishes he'd never made the vow. Obviously, there has been no development or growth on his part regarding his belief that husbands should beat their wives for disobedience. He only recognized it wouldn't work on Claire. That's not true character growth. (view spoiler)[He also has no problem beating Fergus in the second book, even though he didn't want to and knew that the so called infraction for which Fergus thought he should be beaten wasn't even his fault! If Jamie had truly developed and grown, why would he not refuse to beat an innocent boy? (hide spoiler)]

Claire also showed no growth or development. Tell me what she learned as a result of being beaten? That she should obey her husband because he obviously knows the times and territory better than her? Yet, she goes running off to see Gellis after Jamie specifically told (commanded?) her not too. Oh, and didn't she promise him she would stay away from Gellis? Another promise to Jamie broken, so she didn't even learn not to make promises she wasn't going to keep. No development or growth to see there either, folks. Move along.

I don't think anyone on this thread has advocated white washing the novel. Certainly neither Red nor I have. Neither of us have even disputed DG's authorial right to include the beating. Just because something can be included doesn't mean that it should be included. I've read other novels far more gritty and difficult than this one. I read A Clockwork Orange three times - and that included graphic depictions of violence. But those depictions of violence actually did serve to develop the plot and move it along, whereas most of the violence in Outlander does not.