Outlander discussion

Kat wrote: "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...."

This may be true that Scotland was safer then England, esp. since most of the rapes, attempted rapes, and brutality was at the hands of the 'English' who happened to be in Scotland.

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.

Was Claire being held hostage...didn't Murtage rescue her from BJR? Wouldn't she have been in more danger if they had left her behind at the cabin, instead of taking her with them and providing her with clothing, food, shelter and their protection. Didn't they try to return her to the British and her own people? Isn't that the reason she was traveling with them in the first place?

As the reader, I thought it was perfectly clear that Claire left the copse to try and return to Frank, and that Claire was not comfortable enough with her situation, even when threatened with punishment, to tell Jamie the truth. When Claire does finally tell Jamie the truth, he gives her the opportunity to return to Frank, even though it's painful for him...another important part of the story and turning point in their relationship.

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

The fact that Jamie has the ability to punish Claire whenever he choses, with no threat of outside interference, but doesn't, shows he has grown. When a person believes their action is justified, but finds out others aren't going to accept or tolerate it, and they change, that is 'growth'. It's similar to learning that one can't always speak their mind, even when they feel like lashing out at someone...a person may feel they are and have the right, but resist because they realize it isn't acceptable behavior...that's growth. Not acting on a desire, when one has in the past, is growth.

I cannot fathom that he would leave her alone completely undefended

Jamie did think about and changed his mind regarding his decision and sent someone back to be with Claire, unfortunately it was too late.

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?.

Claire didn't learn to 'obey' her husband, she realized how dangerous her situation really was and that she needed to respect Jamie's decisions and the customs of the people she was depending on for survival. I don't think Claire ever felt, throughout the entire series, that she needed to 'obey' Jamie, or Frank, or Dougal, or anyone else for that matter, nor do I think Jamie ever expects her to always do as he tells her. Actually, I think Claire's ability to assess a situation and reason things out for herself, in spite of what he thinks, is one of the things Jamie admires or finds attractive about her..even though her actions often frustrate him.

As for Claire breaking her promise not to see Geillis, Jamie told her to stay away, but I'm not sure Claire promised she would.
And, returning to Frank and her own time was still Clair's priority, which made Geillis of interest to her.

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

Since you only read the first of eight books, you really aren't in a position to determine whether or not the plot or story moves along. Outlander, the book, is simply the introduction to an epic story.

So you see, it's all in the interpretation of the reader. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', no 'justified' or 'unacceptable'. And in the case of this story and author, there is no lazy, poor writing, or weak plot device, at least not IMO, which by the way is just as important as yours and Reds.

You claim you love to discuss and debate, yet you tell someone to 'Move along', simply because they don't agree with your interpretation. That doesn't seem like discussion.

As for historical accuracy, there is a difference between Historical Fiction (based on historical events and customs written to entertain) and Historical Non-Fiction (actual events and customs written to inform and teach). So, if the author wasn't always historically accurate that's allowed because she wasn't writing to inform, she was writing to entertain. Which she does well.

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..."

HMmm...I am not sure what you mean by that. 1st of all, the literary critic I have been trying to discuss in here isn't about the characters but the writing choice. Also, good writing isn't about liking or disliking a character. I can loathe a character and still think the story/book in which this character is the main protagonist is a master piece.

Response to # 1017 Kat wrote: "

While I think this is one of the best informative comments that discuss most, if not all, the points in which you object to the story. I still disagree with most of them.

I agree with Sage's post below yours.

But about Claire's growth as a character. I do actually agree with this. Not that the beating was supposed to "make" her grow or anything. But Claire as a character, I personally find her not fully fleshed out. We know so much about Jamie in book 1 and he continues to be a fully rounded character but I find we virtually know nothing about Claire. It's kind of weird to me.

Red wrote: "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.
"

I may be wrong here but when it comes to physical violence (Hero towards Heroine) in romance novels, I do not find this common any longer. I find our culture has already shifted dramatically away from this. Not that it still doesn't use and keep a lot of the other abusive behaviors, but when it comes to domestic violence, it' a no no.

The more time goes on and these existing writers keep writing and new authors come out, the ratio between the abusive hero stories vs non abusive hero stories will continue to widen and to grow. (I'm purposely excluding the kinky people looking for that genre, I have a feeling that's going to keep on growing.)

I think if a romance author were to write a romance with a modern day male lead who was physically abusive but who changed and the Heroine forgave him, I don't know, I can't see it being very popular. It's soooo not politically correct.

In fact, I almost feel like the shift is MORE problematic than before. And that's because authors are still keeping the really tough bad ass guy who throws his fists into walls when he's angry, who beats up other guys just for looking at his girl, and who obsesses over and practically stalks her. But of course, said hero would NEVER actually lay a finger on his girl. --------------------> Rolls eyes!!

This is SSOOOO misleading. A guy who exhibits those traits is more than likely going to be physically abusive with a woman. It's not set in stone obviously, but to take these bad characteristics and try to pawn them off as good, loving and heroic is just insane!
________________

I get that when talking about a particular scene you only want to talk about Outlander. And I understand that, when that particular scene does not have any correlation to future events. But if a scene is not fully explained, or a characters actions not fully expressed because it does so in a later book, then we're taking something "out of context" when only relying on one book to discuss it.

It would be like only talking about why we like or dislike BJR when only reading 35% of the book. When dealing with a series *some things*, not all, require looking at the bigger picture.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Again, I do not think that anyone in this thread actually justified Claire's beating. I certainly do not. "

Some have. At the beginning of the thread there have been posts arguing/implying about how it was Claire's fault she was beaten and such. I remember replying to that. And also, the whole "historical accuracy" thing is in fact a way to justify the beating, not necessarily because one agrees with it but because one thinks it supposedly "was the way people did at the time".


Mochaspresso wrote: " Speaking for only me, what I am justifying is Diana Gabaldon's authorial right to include it if she chooses. "

There really isno need to try and justify it as noboday, and certainly not me, has tried and denied that right. Critizing a story/plot/characterization is something entirely different than trying and censoring a book/story. You, and some other posters, have been pushing this argument over and over again, and I still don't understand what's the point when that was never my point or my focus (and I don't think it ever was Kat's either).

Mochaspresso wrote: "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. "

Of course you don't have to agree with me (us). Whoever said the contrary? But at least would you try and NOT my (our point) at every corner? Like where did I (we) argued that that beating scene was a poor writing choice beacuse we didn't like the character or approved of their actions withing the context of the story? We've been trying and explaining the weakness of the writing, the plot and of the characterization, and Kat even took the time to look for academic sources and references. Discussing characterization (that is the way a character is written), is not the same as discussing the character. In the former you are talking about character as being written, in the other you are talking about the character as beings.

Mochaspresso wrote: "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. "

Ok, you see no fault in the way the beating scene is written and justified. You think it's an exemplary" writing. I strongly disagree with this. But you're entitled to your opinion so I respect that. What really annoys me is when you imply that my (and Kat's) criticism are about "whitewashing" (sic) the novel to supposedly make it more "palatable" to my (our) tastes. I think that's pretty insulting after all the many posts where we've explained how and why we thought the writing was problematic. It's not about disagreeing with my (our) point. Resuming this very long and many times educating conversation I (we) 've been trying to have by implying that we just want the story to conform some sort of "whitewashed" liberal POV is pretty much telling us that we just don't understand what literature is. It's like you haven't read all the posts we made and we're back square one where if you dare point out one signle problem it's just that you're not smart enough to understand the greatness that is Outlander'w writting. And yes, some posters HAVE stated things like that here.

Oh, but I guess out of the blue quoting Roxane Gay's Bad Feminist makes it all so subversively non "politically correct". So yeah, let's just all embrace every other problematic writing without an hint of critical thought because..."not whitewashing" an all white historical romance novel that is praised with "historical accuracy" but can't stand a 5 min fact check is so post PC feminism...

SMDH.

Sage wrote: "As for historical accuracy, there is a difference between Historical Fiction (based on historical events and customs written to entertain) and Historical Non-Fiction (actual events and customs written to inform and teach). "

That's precisely the point I made a few post earlier : that I didn't expect much from this novel in term of "historical accuracy" because it was more romance and fiction than historical. So, thanks, but I do get the difference. I pointed it earlier. And my very OP is actually about refuting the whole "historical accuracy" line of arguments used to justify this scene. Cause n many, many instances, "historical accurate" Outlander is NOT. And that's ok, as long as one doesn't try and justify a problematic scene by using "historical accuracy".

Sage wrote: "So, if the author wasn't always historically accurate that's allowed because she wasn't writing to inform, she was writing to entertain. Which she does well.
"

Nobody tried and forbid the author to be as innacurate as she wants. I (we) merely pointed out that she was. Also, writing to entertain can aslo inform and doesn't have to equate being innacurate. Entertaining can be smart and educating too. One doesn't have to settle by innacurate supposedly entertaining fiction just because. I, for one, don't.

Red wrote: "Some have. At the beginning of the thread there have been posts arguing/implying about how it was Claire's fault she was beaten and such. I remember replying to that. And also, the whole "historical accuracy" thing is in fact a way to justify the beating, not necessarily because one agrees with it but because one thinks it supposedly "was the way people did at the time".
..."

I don't think people felt Claire 'deserved' the beating, so much as they felt had she listened to Jamie, stayed in the copse, and taken his threat seriously, the beating wouldn't have occurred. However, like Claire I didn't take the threat seriously either, at the time, in hindsight, however, when I reread the scene, I do, and Claire probably would now as well.

As for those who justifying the beating as being 'historical accurate', I think most people felt it was accurate, not in that everyone in Jamie's era accepted and approved of spousal abuse, but that had a woman, who had been punished by her husband, gone to her father or brother about it, they most likely would have told her to go home and do as she was told. It wouldn't mean the father/brother approved or accepted what happened, but that they weren't going to confront the husband, or assume responsibility for the woman and her children, therefore, the most simple solution would be for her to obey her husband. Women had few, if any rights or choices, many of them married off by their fathers and brothers for financial gain, and so it was unlikely those same fathers and brothers would interfere. Likewise, most women hid the fact that they were being mistreated, physically or emotionally. Perhaps instead of accepted, a better word would be tolerated, with the responsibility of future punishment viewed as the woman's responsibility as opposed to the husbands.

Can I ask Red...why are you speaking for Kat? I usually agree with Mrsbooks, Mochaspresso, and several other posters who have left the thread, but I let them speak for themselves.

Red wrote: "Nobody tried and forbid the author to be as innacurate as she wants. I (we) merely pointed out that she was. Also, writing to entertain can aslo inform and doesn't have to equate being innacurate. Entertaining can be smart and educating too. One doesn't have to settle by innacurate supposedly entertaining fiction just because. I, for one, don't.
..."

I didn't say historical fiction couldn't be educational as well as entertaining, obviously it can...my point was...if a book is Historical Fiction, based on history but written to entertain, then it is unfair to critize the author when the history isn't always accurate....esp. when the author hasn't implied that it would be.

For me, a huge part of the disconnect here is that Kat and Red seem to write very long posts referencing things in the book(s) that didn't actually happen the way that they are implying and the discussion gets further derailed.

Then there is also this colloquial language bait and switch going on. Red says "Ok, you see no fault in the way the beating scene is written and justified." I didn't say that the beating was justified. The beating was not justified in the novel. That is what makes the way it was written so remarkable. It's a matter of cultural relativism. Jamie and Claire do not understand each other, their times and their respective cultures. I have never said that the beating was justified. What I do justify is Diana Gabaldon's right to include it. Those are two entirely different concepts to me.

Kat and Red, I suppose that I will address your points...but I have to re-read some parts of books 1 and books 2 because I don't remember many of these things happening the way that you are claiming. Sometimes, it seems like we may have actually read two completely different series. :)

...more later....

Red wrote: "That's precisely the point I made a few post earlier : that I didn't expect much from this novel in term of "historical accuracy" because it was more romance and fiction than historical. So, thanks, but I do get the difference..."

This was a general comment, not necessarily directed solely to you. The historical accuracy argument has come up often in more comments then I care to reread. It was simply my opinion.

Although, I don't agree that this series is more romance then fiction. There is a lot of romance in the first book because Jamie and Claire are young and falling in love, however, if you read the entire series you would know that although their romance is always an undercurrent, it is not the main part of the story.

Mochaspresso wrote: "For me, a huge part of the disconnect here is that Kat and Red seem to write very long posts referencing things in the book(s) that didn't actually happen the way that they are implying and the dis..."

I agree.

When a sentence or a few words are taken out of context, the point gets easily changed. Such as Jamie's tale about convincing his father he was too old to be spanked...the point of the tale wasn't to prove that Jamie was a hypocrite, it was that Jamie wasn't quite as clever as he thought. His father actually gave him and Ian a worse punishment by making them clean the silo. Even Ian was angry with Jamie and would have preferred the spanking. It was a tale, told in humor, about their childhood, which had nothing to do with Jamie's belief that spankings were or were not acceptable punishment, but that, as a young boy, he simply was trying not to get one.

The same with Claire's spanking, it's a small part of a much larger story. The scene wasn't about 'culture shock' or whether spanking as punishment was justified or not, it was about an action or incident, right or wrong, that became a turning point in Jamie and Claire's relationship. Because of Jamie's decision and Claire's refusal to accept the punishment, they were forced to come to terms with who they were. This was the first of many hurdles they crossed in learning to understand each other and building a life together.

Red wrote: "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...."

It's comments like this that weaken your opinion. You may not realize it, but it seems to imply that if someone doesn't agree with you then their opinion is flawed.

Just because someone sees the spanking as a small part of a larger story doesn't necessarily mean they liked the whole plot. I accepted Jamie's torture and rape by BJR as part of the story, but that doesn't mean I liked or enjoyed reading about it.

I can't think of one book where I liked every plot and scene, yet I continue to read, for both entertainment and education. Imagine that.

Kat wrote: "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 authori..."

Agreed. You make many excellent points Kat.

Sage wrote: "Can I ask Red...why are you speaking for Kat? I usually agree with Mrsbooks, Mochaspresso, and several other posters who have left the thread, but I let them speak for themselves. "

There's lots more to which I want to reply, but this first: I saw nothing in Red's post that would infer she was speaking for me. She simply replied to a post Mocha made in response to a post of mine. Much like you replied to a post that Red made in response to Mocha. I don't see a problem with either.

Kat wrote: " She simply replied to a post Mocha made in response to a post of mine. Much like you replied to a post that Red made in response to Mocha...."

"Red wrote: "Nobody tried and forbid the author to be as innacurate as she wants. I (we) merely pointed out that she was. "...."

This response from Red was to me, not Mocha.

I didn't say there was a problem, I just asked why because I don't remember seeing anyone using I(we) when commenting. It implies Red is speaking for both of you and I thought that was unusual.

And, yes I have replied to posts made to other people (I thought that was allowed but perhaps I'm wrong) but I always post it as my opinion only.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I may be wrong here but when it comes to physical violence (Hero towards Heroine) in romance novels, I do not find this common any longer." (cut a lot out to make the post shorter, but I don't think it takes away from Mrsbooks message...)

Cause I agree with your assessment. Except for the subgenre that you mentioned. (edited to clarify that I also agree with your exception about the subgenre.) Oh, and I just absolutely agree about the tough guy alpha male who shows violent/creepy tendencies in other areas, but 'would never hit the girl'. I think that's pretty unrealistic, as you said.

"I get that when talking about a particular scene you only want to talk about Outlander. And I understand that, when that particular scene does not have any correlation to future events. But if a scene is not fully explained, or a characters actions not fully expressed because it does so in a later book, then we're taking something "out of context" when only relying on one book to discuss it.

It would be like only talking about why we like or dislike BJR when only reading 35% of the book. When dealing with a series *some things*, not all, require looking at the bigger picture. "

Hm...yes, and now, I could be wrong about this, but wasn't Outlander originally written as a stand alone book? I thought I read somewhere that the author did not have any intention at first of continuing the story into a series. If that is the case, then really I think that anything that happens in Outlander should be able to stand or fall on its own merit or lack thereof. And really, as the series stands now, with no end in sight, a reader should not be expected to pore through 8 (or is it 9 now?) + novels for the payoff.

But all that aside, even if the author always meant to write more than just the first book (and FYI to whomever it was claimed I didn't know what I was talking about since I'd only read the first book - I've actually read the second as well.) how exactly does the beating scene have any correlation to future events except as I've already noted? If this scene is not fully explained in the pages after the beating, where Jamie talks ad nauseum about being beaten himself as a child, then tell me where else it is. According to Mocha, (and I think you agreed with her) the characters actions were already fully expressed within this book, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Sage wrote: "Kat wrote: " She simply replied to a post Mocha made in response to a post of mine. Much like you replied to a post that Red made in response to Mocha...."

"Red wrote: "Nobody tried and forbid the author to be as innacurate as she wants. I (we) merely pointed out that she was. "...."

This response from Red was to me, not Mocha.

Uh, No. Red's response in message 1022 was to a post made by Mocha. Your post was #1024 in which you replied to Red and asked why she was speaking for me.

I didn't say there was a problem, I just asked why because I don't remember seeing anyone using I(we) when commenting. It implies Red is speaking for both of you and I thought that was unusual.

I didn't say that you said there was a problem. For the record, she was not speaking for me. But...great minds think alike.

Sage wrote: "This may be true that Scotland was safer then England, esp. since most of the rapes, attempted rapes, and brutality was at the hands of the 'English' who happened to be in Scotland."

Some of my recollections of the novel are getting blurred with the tv show, but wasn't Claire accosted and nearly raped in the hallway of Leoch during the Gathering by drunken clansmen? And didn't Dougal even grope her afterward? And wasn't it one of the MacKenzies who suggested they rape her to test whether or not she was a whore when Murtagh first brought Claire to the cabin? Seems to me to be about half and half.

Was Claire being held hostage...didn't Murtage rescue her from BJR? Wouldn't she have been in more danger if they had left her behind at the cabin, instead of taking her with them and providing her with clothing, food, shelter and their protection. Didn't they try to return her to the British and her own people? Isn't that the reason she was traveling with them in the first place?

While she was not technically being held for ransom as one would normally think of a hostage, she was certainly not able to leave whenever she wanted was she? They might have called her a guest, but she was a captive. (Def from Meriam webster: held under control of another but having the appearance of independence) Didn't she ask to either be taken or allowed to go to Inverness? The reason she was traveling with the rent party was so Dougal could take her to Fort William (not where she wanted to go, mind you) to determine if she was an English spy; not to return her to her people. And what happened afterward? She was forced to marry Jamie, if you recall. She did not want to do that either, but she was given no choice.

As the reader, I thought it was perfectly clear that Claire left the copse to try and return to Frank, and that Claire was not comfortable enough with her situation, even when threatened with punishment, to tell Jamie the truth. When Claire does finally tell Jamie the truth, he gives her the opportunity to return to Frank, even though it's painful for him...another important part of the story and turning point in their relationship.

I don't think I've ever disputed this. And yes, I agree that THIS was a turning point in their relationship. This was when Claire finally had a choice.

The fact that Jamie has the ability to punish Claire whenever he choses, with no threat of outside interference, but doesn't, shows he has grown. When a person believes their action is justified, but finds out others aren't going to accept or tolerate it, and they change, that is 'growth'. It's similar to learning that one can't always speak their mind, even when they feel like lashing out at someone...a person may feel they are and have the right, but resist because they realize it isn't acceptable behavior...that's growth. Not acting on a desire, when one has in the past, is growth.

I've established that historically, an 18th century man would not have had the ability to punish his wife whenever he chose without outside interference. However, in this case, it is only because of Claire's lack of family or clan of her own on which she could rely that Jamie could get away with this if he chose.

A decision made out of practicality does not necessarily show personal growth. It merely shows a modicum of intelligence.

I cannot fathom that he would leave her alone completely undefended

Jamie did think about and changed his mind regarding his decision and sent someone back to be with Claire, unfortunately it was too late.

It still boggles my mind that he could leave her alone in the first place under the circumstances. It really doesn't make much difference to me that he thought about it later and changed his mind. Like you said, by that time it was too late.

Claire didn't learn to 'obey' her husband, she realized how dangerous her situation really was and that she needed to respect Jamie's decisions and the customs of the people she was depending on for survival. I don't think Claire ever felt, throughout the entire series, that she needed to 'obey' Jamie, or Frank, or Dougal, or anyone else for that matter, nor do I think Jamie ever expects her to always do as he tells her. Actually, I think Claire's ability to assess a situation and reason things out for herself, in spite of what he thinks, is one of the things Jamie admires or finds attractive about her..even though her actions often frustrate him.

Maybe 'obey' was an unfortunate choice of word. Still, she didn't respect his decisions and heed his advice about Gellis.

As for Claire breaking her promise not to see Geillis, Jamie told her to stay away, but I'm not sure Claire promised she would. And, returning to Frank and her own time was still Clair's priority, which made Geillis of interest to her.

She did promise:
"Perhaps. I dinna think you're in any danger, or I wouldna leave ye. But still… oh, and stay away from Geillis Duncan."

"What? Why?" I drew back a little to look up at him. It was a dark night and his face was invisible, but his tone was altogether serious.

"The woman's known as a witch, and the stories about her—well, they've got a deal worse since her husband died. I dinna want ye anywhere near her, Sassenach."

"Do you honestly think she's a witch?" I demanded. His strong hands cupped my bottom and scooped me in close to him. I put my arms around him, enjoying the feel of his smooth, solid torso.

"No," he said finally. "But it isna what I think that could be a danger to ye. Will ye promise?"

"All right." In truth, I had little reluctance to give the promise; since the incidents of the changeling and the summoning, I had not felt much desire to visit Geilie.

And even if getting back to Frank was still a priority to her, at that point she had no idea that Gellis was from 1968. This was after Gellis had drugged her and questioned her. Claire even states herself above that she had no desire to visit her. Oh, and she knew Gellis had poisoned her husband because she recognized the smell on Arthur's breath. All of which makes it quite absurd that she went running to her house when she received the note (and broke another promise to Jamie in the mean time.)

Since you only read the first of eight books, you really aren't in a position to determine whether or not the plot or story moves along. Outlander, the book, is simply the introduction to an epic story.

That's a rather patronizing sentence. And false to boot. Actually, I have read the second book as well. And even if I hadn't, that does not mean that I am not in a position to determine whether or not the violent acts in this book move the plot along in this book.

So you see, it's all in the interpretation of the reader. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', no 'justified' or 'unacceptable'. And in the case of this story and author, there is no lazy, poor writing, or weak plot device, at least not IMO, which by the way is just a important as yours and Reds.

I never said you opinion was not as important as mine. However, you seem to be implying that my opinion is not as important as yours. And if it's all in the interpretation as you say, (a sentiment with which I do agree) then you have no grounds on which to tell me I'm wrong about my interpretation or that I'm not in a position to determine whether or not the plot or story moves along, do you?

You claim you love to discuss and debate, yet you tell someone to 'Move along', simply because they don't agree with your interpretation. That doesn't seem like discussion.

That 'Move along' was in reference to how the author treated Claire's reasons for running to the stones and her feelings and humiliation after being beaten. It was all pretty well breezed over. As if the author had said, "Move along folks, nothing to see here. It's all resolved nice and neatly." That was not a directive to anyone posting on this thread.

"So, if the author wasn't always historically accurate that's allowed because she wasn't writing to inform, she was writing to entertain. Which she does well. "

Well, that is certainly all in the interpretation of the reader.

Apologies for the long post. Although I'm pretty sure what I referenced from the book was not taken out of context, so I trust it will not derail the conversation.

"Since you only read the first of eight books, you really aren't in a position to determine whether or not the plot or story moves along. Outlander, the book, is simply the introduction to an epic story."

I didn't say the rapes and violence moved the plot along, I said unless you have read more then the first book you can't determine whether the plot moves along or if whether or not there is character development.
I have no idea why you felt this was a patronizing statement, or would say it was false. The first book covers less then a year of Jamie and Claire's 30 year relationship...therefore, it was only an introduction to the 'story'.

As for Geillis, I believe I said 'I'm not sure" Claire promised. Also, I never said Claire knew Geillis was from the future, what I said was 'Geillis was of interest to Claire'. Which obviously she was because Claire went to her when she received the note, regardless of what she felt earlier.

And I didn't say Claire did as she was told or kept her promises, in fact, I said "I don't think Claire ever felt, throughout the entire series, that she needed to 'obey' Jamie, or Frank, or Dougal, or anyone else for that matter.

You may have meant for 'move along' to have an extended meaning, but the way you wrote it...Move along, period....it implied there was nothing more to discuss.

Furthermore, I don't feel the author 'breezed over' Claire's wanting to return to Frank or her distress with Jamie after the beating. The point was clearly made many times that Claire intended to find a way back to her own time and Frank, and we had a full account of Claire's feelings regarding the punishment and Jamie, before, during, and after the spanking. I see no reason to dwell on her anger or become repetitive about what happened. As you say, it was time to move on with the story.

If Dougal was taking Claire (English Lady) to Fort William (British prison) to determine if she was an English Spy, wouldn't that be taking her to her own people. If she was an English Spy, it's not likely they would admit it to Dougal, so I'm not sure how he intended to prove it...perhaps they would offer to take her off his hands. Unfortunately for Claire, the British treated her worse then the Scots.

but wasn't Claire accosted and nearly raped in the hallway of Leoch during the Gathering by drunken clansmen?

Claire was accosted in the hallway by Dougal, I believe he may have kissed her and certainly had other ideas, but thought better of it and sent her back to her room. The Clan members did suggest finding out whether she was a whore, but they didn't act on their thoughts. They many have thought or joked about accosting her, but none of the Clansmen, that I recall, attempted to rape or maim Claire, only the British did. As for whether Scotland was safer then England in the 1700's, I believe there was a reason it was customary for women not to travel alone in either country.

Once again... So you see, it's all in the interpretation of the reader. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', no 'justified' or 'unacceptable'. And in the case of this story and author, there is no lazy, poor writing, or weak plot device, at least not IMO, which by the way is just as important as yours and Reds.

...I never said your interpretation was wrong, I said there was no right or wrong; nor did I say my interpretation was right either, I said opinions, everyone's, varied according to each individual's interpretation.

Well, that is certainly all in the interpretation of the reader

Yes it certainly is, Ms Gabaldon, IMO, is an excellent storyteller.

Regarding Claire breaking her promises to Jamie...

I just came across this line in another book I'm reading and perhaps this is what Claire thinks as well...it was made by a independent thinking, spirited lady regarding a man she was attracted to and cared about, but wasn't planning on spending the rest of her life with...much like Claire...

"He insisted upon extracting a promise from me that I would go straight to bed and not tax my strength further. I gave it to him because, in my experience, it is far better to tell a man what he wants to hear and then do as you please than attempt to reason with him." (A Curious Beginning by Deanna Raybourn)

I think sometimes Outlander is taken much more seriously then it was meant to be.

Kat wrote: "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.

Justifying its right to be included in a fictional novel if the author chooses to do so is not the same as justifying the action from a moral standpoint. Those two things are completely separate to me. I went back and re-read the thread. I didn't see anyone actually saying any of what you are claiming. I didn't see anyone claiming that Claire actually deserved the beating. Context is very important in Outlander and in these forum discussions and I feel that a great deal is frequently being taken out of context.

I did see people trying to explain events from other character's perspectives. That is entirely different and I suspect that you are conflating ideas here. Just because someone explains something in the novel from Jamie's perspective...which was only done because someone wrote something extremely misleading and/or inaccurate regarding his character's motivations in the first place.....that doesn't necessarily mean that they actually agree with Jamie's actions or perspective. In other words, just because I understand Jamie's rationale and point of view within the context of the novel, it doesn't necessarily mean that I actually think Claire deserved her beating or that I thought it was justified.


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.

That's not quite what happened in Outlander, though. That isn't what the story is about or how I would even go about summarizing it to someone if asked.

For all this talk about tropes in romance novels, I consider myself to be an avid romance reader. I have been since my tween years and Outlander is the first novel that I have come across in all of that time that handled it differently....as something more than a marital issue between husband and wife.

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.

This is an exaggerated and misleading statement about Jamie's characterization in the novel. He did not turn into a "brutal abuser".

Perhaps this is more to do with language. Some people call it a spanking. Some people call it a beating. Whatever you call it, the truth of that incident is that he told her to bend over the bed and lift her dress so that he could spank/beat her (10 lashes with his belt.) She refused (obviously) and fought back. She fought back pretty hard and well, too. Jamie did not walk away from this incident unscathed. However, he overpowered her, held her down and beat/spanked her with his belt. We've already discussed the circumstances as to how and why this incident happened and we don't see eye to eye about it. I understand that and I think it's fine to agree to disagree. However, I'm not one to use overly inflammatory buzz words and language to push a point or an agenda. I don't think that is fair. The novel makes it quite clear that Jamie's intent was not to "brutally abuse" Claire. His intent was to punish her for a perceived wrong-doing. (Again, not saying he's actually right. I'm just saying that this is his pov.) Jamie saw it as being a mere formality while Claire, being from another time and place, saw it as far more than that and resisted and the incident escalated. Characterizing Jamie as a "brutal abuser" is not fair. Imo, Jamie reminds me of Ricky Ricardo in some ways....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qup9...

...context actually does matter. Just as it isn't advisable to watch old episodes of "I Love Lucy" and judge them against a modern backdrop and modern standards, the same is true of Outlander. Outlander is not set during our time.

I don't know how else to explain this.....I'm not the biggest fan of "Pride and Prejudice". There is a little bit too much gold-diggery and snobbery in the novel for my liking. However, I understand why the people of that time and setting had those types of concerns. Still, I don't think my feelings about the novel are wrong. This is what I felt and thought as I was reading. That is fine and I should be able to express those thoughts and feelings freely. However, if I were to also say that "Pride and Prejudice" was poorly written and contains lazy writing because it relies on an overused plot device (...a series of big misunderstandings based on pride and prejudices...), I think I would be wrong. Just because I didn't like that aspect doesn't necessarily make it true that "Pride and Prejudice" is poorly written. The novel does not have an obligation to cater to my personal notions of what characters should and should not do. Literary merit and quality of writing have nothing to do with whether or not I like the characters or whether the plot moves in a manner that I find morally acceptable. This is what I believe that you and Red are doing with "Outlander".


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.

You are ignoring huge chunks of text to make this "plot hole" work for you. The book clearly says that Jamie knew the land and even checked the copse beforehand and deemed it a safe hiding place. Being left in the copse was not the problem because Claire was not found there. She left her safe hiding place. Claire didn't encounter the soldiers because she was left alone. She encountered them because she left.

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?

I don't think Claire's safety had anything to do with Scotland vs England. It had to do with the fact that she was a woman wandering alone in unfamiliar lands in the middle of a war zone. The book clearly states the reasons why Jamie told her to hide and even though he thought she was in a safe place, he did change his mind and sent someone back for her anyway. Again, Claire encountering the soldiers did not happen because she was left alone. It happened because she left her hiding place.

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.

Again, you are ignoring huge chunks of text to unfairly vilify Jamie's character. He was certain that Claire was safe yet he sent someone back for her anyway. Claire was in a safe hiding place. She was not found in the copse. She was found AFTER SHE LEFT the copse.

An excellent point Mocha...Claire was captured because she left the safety of the copse, not because Jamie left her alone.

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.

Claire was not held hostage by the Scots. It's true that they didn't immediately trust her. Within the context of the story, that is not out of the ordinary and is likely to be expected. They didn't allow her to go wandering off in unfamiliar territory willy nilly for her own safety, but that isn't exactly the same as being held hostage. If my memory of the novel serves, the town of Inverness that she is familiar with is not even actually there anymore once she travels back in time through the stones. (Wasn't there something in the beginning of the novel where she talks about taking Jamie into town to see a doctor and someone replies "What town?" and then she realizes that she can't see the lights from the town in the distance?) When she tells Jamie the truth about Inverness and the stones, that is where he takes her.

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) 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)

Jamie's character growth is demonstrated by the fact that he was raised a certain and has certain beliefs. Beliefs that begin to shift and change and evolve after he meets and marries Claire.

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?

Again, you left out huge chunks of text. (I don't mean to sound rude, but I also have to be honest about what I am thinking. I am starting to get the impression that you may not have actually read the book and have been getting your info on the story from inaccurate reviews and blog posts.) This is not an accurate summary of that incident at all. He did have a problem with beating Fergus. The book clearly states that he didn't want to do it. He did it because while Jamie's is starting to think differently, Fergus and the rest of the household are still very much products of their environment and upbringing. Why did you leave out the fact that Fergus is the one who demanded that Jamie beat him? Fergus demanded the beating because in his mind, he did something wrong and that was the only way that he could maintain his dignity among the others and honorably remain in the group. Right or wrong, that is what he believed and to him, accepting his punishment "like a man" was honorable. Fergus does does not think of beatings in the same manner that Claire does because they are from different times and have had different upbringings. Some may scoff at the notion, but this makes me think of military and athletic team group dynamics. If you make a mistake, you do your penalty laps or what have you and the group is satisfied that you've made the proper amends. Fergus believed that taking a beating "like a man" was the only way that he could make the proper amends. Jamie thinks differently at this point in the story....but he also still understands what is driving Fergus' sense of "manhood", "honor" and "dignity". If Fergus and the others around him still believe that the only way that he can maintain his dignity is to take a beating like a man, he allowed Fergus to have his dignity.



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.

You've completely missed the point. The point was not that Claire learns to obey her husband. The point was that there are times in one's life where people have very valid reasons for the directives that they are giving you and there are times where you need to put your personal ideologies (baggage/hangups) regarding "authority" aside and just listen.

I once saw a movie where a husband tells his wife not to drive the car. She gets mad...."who does he think he is telling me not to drive the car?" and drives it anyway and the engine seizes. It turns out that the only reason that the husband didn't want her to drive the car was because he was in the process of changing the oil and hadn't finished. His directive had nothing to do with a husband giving a wife an order. It was about protecting the car. The directive that Jamie gave Claire was about safety. It wasn't about a husband telling a wife what to do. Claire, because of her upbringing made it about that, though. Like I've been saying, that was a clash of cultures moreso than a marital dispute. The book makes that very clear, imo.

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.


We clearly have different tastes and viewpoints because I did not like "A Clockwork Orange" at all and thought it was a bizarre mess of a novel.

Sage wrote: "I think sometimes Outlander is taken much more seriously then it was meant to be."

I totally agree.

Sage wrote: "Regarding Claire breaking her promises to Jamie...

I just came across this line in another book I'm reading and perhaps this is what Claire thinks as well...it was made by a independent thinking, spirited lady regarding a man she was attracted to and cared about, but wasn't planning on spending the rest of her life with...much like Claire...

"He insisted upon extracting a promise from me that I would go straight to bed and not tax my strength further. I gave it to him because, in my experience, it is far better to tell a man what he wants to hear and then do as you please than attempt to reason with him." (A Curious Beginning by Deanna Raybourn)

I think sometimes Outlander is taken much more seriously then it was meant to be. "

Actually, I have more a problem with this type reasoning if this is what Claire is actually thinking. To me, this shows deliberate intent to mislead: ie. lie. And Claire agreed with Jamie that respect had room for secrets but not lies. I prefer to think that Claire did not actually intend to break her promises to Jamie at the time she made them. But rather, other circumstances intervened which led to her breaking said promises. In the copse scene, she realized how close she was to the stones rationalized away her promise. Like wise, with the promise to stay away from Gellis, I'd rather she thought Gellis was sick and needed her medical attention, so that it was necessary to go see her. If she actually made the promises just because it was expedient to do so with full intention of doing whatever she wanted anyway...that is she lied to Jamie just to tell him what he wanted to hear, then I'd have very little respect for Claire. And to me, she doesn't come across as the type of person that would do that.

Sage wrote: "I didn't say the rapes and violence moved the plot along, I said unless you have read more then the first book you can't determine whether the plot moves along or if whether or not there is character development.
I have no idea why you felt this was a patronizing statement, or would say it was false. The first book covers less then a year of Jamie and Claire's 30 year relationship...therefore, it was only an introduction to the 'story'.

I said it was a false statement because you stated I'd only read the first book. That is not true. I have also read the second book.

It was patronizing because it very condescending. That's one of the definitions of patronizing. In one sentence you say I'm not in a position to judge. (and the way "to determine" was used would mean "to conclude" which is also another way saying "to judge".) And a few sentences later, you say it's all the interpretation of the reader. And even later, you state that you never said my interpretation was wrong - and yet, that's what you just did by saying that I am not in a position to make any determinations. So if it's all the interpretation of the reader, and yet, as a reader, you claim that I'm not in a position to make any conclusions, that is very patronizing.

I am also not talking about the entire series. I don't need to discuss the entire series to discuss one incident in this particular book.

As for Geillis, I believe I said 'I'm not sure" Claire promised.

Well, then I believe I just helped jog your memory. You're welcome.

Also, I never said Claire knew Geillis was from the future, what I said was 'Geillis was of interest to Claire'. Which obviously she was because Claire went to her when she received the note, regardless of what she felt earlier.

What you said was "And, returning to Frank and her own time was still Clair's priority, which made Geillis of interest to her." Mathmematically, A+B=B+A. In words, this means, if we swap the clauses in the sentence, it should still be true. Therefore, if returning to Frank and her own time was still Claire's priority, which made Gellis of interest to her, then Gellis was of interest to Claire because returning to Frank and her own time was still Claire's priority. This implies that Claire either thought or knew that Gellis had some knowledge which would help her in returning to her own time. I don't remember that being the case at this point in the story.

Furthermore, I don't feel the author 'breezed over' Claire's wanting to return to Frank or her distress with Jamie after the beating. The point was clearly made many times that Claire intended to find a way back to her own time and Frank, and we had a full account of Claire's feelings regarding the punishment and Jamie, before, during, and after the spanking. I see no reason to dwell on her anger or become repetitive about what happened. As you say, it was time to move on with the story.

I disagree. What we got in the book was a full account of Jamie's feeling regarding the punishment and his reasoning for doing so. I think we got very little of Claire's actual feelings on the subject. If it was time to move on with the story, that because the author didn't dwell on it. She didn't allow Claire to dwell on it, and therefore she did not allow the readers to dwell on it. This doesn't mean I think it was the best way to handle the aftermath.

If Dougal was taking Claire (English Lady) to Fort William (British prison) to determine if she was an English Spy, wouldn't that be taking her to her own people. If she was an English Spy, it's not likely they would admit it to Dougal, so I'm not sure how he intended to prove it...perhaps they would offer to take her off his hands. Unfortunately for Claire, the British treated her worse then the Scots.

But Claire was not an English spy. And she didn't want to go to Fort William, so no, I don't consider that taking her back to her own people. She wanted to go to Inverness. They refused to either take her where she wanted to go or allow her to go on her own.

but wasn't Claire accosted and nearly raped in the hallway of Leoch during the Gathering by drunken clansmen?

Claire was accosted in the hallway by Dougal, I believe he may have kissed her and certainly had other ideas, but thought better of it and sent her back to her room. The Clan members did suggest finding out whether she was a whore, but they didn't act on their thoughts. They many have thought or joked about accosting her, but none of the Clansmen, that I recall, attempted to rape or maim Claire, only the British did.

Allow me to jog your memory again then:

I came around a corner, and smack into a group of clansmen. These were men I didn't know, come from the outlying clan lands, and unused to the genteel manners of a castle. Or so I deduced from the fact that one man, apparently in search of the latrines, gave it up and chose to relieve himself in a corner of the hallway as I came upon them.

I whirled at once, intending to go back the way I had come stairs or no stairs. Several hands reached to stop me, though and I found myself pressed against the wall of the corridor surrounded by bearded Highlanders with whisky on their breath and rape on their minds.

Seeing no point in preliminaries, the man in front of me grabbed me by the waist and plunged his other hand into my bodice. He leaned close, rubbing his bearded cheek against my ear. "And how about a sweet kiss, now, for the brave lads of the clan MacKenzie? Tulach Ard!"

"Erin go bragh," I said rudely, and pushed with all my strength. Unsteady with drink, he staggered backward into one of his companions. I dodged to the side and fled, kicking off my clumsy shoes as I ran.

Another shape loomed in front of me, and I hesitated. There seemed to be only one in front of me, though, and at least ten behind me, catching up fast despite their cargo of drink. I raced forward, intending to dodge around him. He stepped sharply in front of me, though, and I came to a halt, so fast that I had to put my hands on his chest to avoid crashing into him. It was Dougal MacKenzie.

"What in hell—" he began, then saw the men after me. He pulled me behind him and barked something at my pursuers in Gaelic. They protested in the same language, but after a short exchange like the snarling of wolves, they gave it up and went off in search of better entertainment.

"Rape on their minds" and plunging a hand into her bodice, seems pretty straightforward to me. So no, it wasn't just the English of whom Claire had to beware.

Furthermore, the only reason they didn't test their theory to find out if she was a whore in the cabin was because Dougal stopped them. If he hadn't been there, they might have well done it. I don't think Claire or Dougal took their suggestion as a joke.

As for whether Scotland was safer then England in the 1700's, I believe there was a reason it was customary for women not to travel alone in either country.

For that matter, it wasn't customary for men to travel alone either.

Mochaspresso wrote: Response to # 1038"

I loved watching I Love Lucy as a kid and I don't remember those moments at all! Ricky sure seemed to be enjoying it! :O

Mrsbooks wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: Response to # 1038"

I loved watching I Love Lucy as a kid and I don't remember those moments at all! Ricky sure seemed to be enjoying it! :O"

I loved all those old shows. I remember Ralph Kramden's "bang zoom, to the moon, Alice!!" threats on "The Honeymooners" too. Times sure have changed. I was watching some old movie where a woman left her baby carriage outside the store on the sidewalk while she went into the store to shop. Something like that is completely unheard of today...but in the 40's it was quite common. Those women were not "abusive" mothers. It was just a different time. It's also a different culture too, because this is actually still done to this very day in some parts of Europe.

I thought of something in regards to the comments about Jamie bringing up his vow never to beat her again and how he regretted it.

I can't for sure, say this for ALL the times he may have said it because I can't remember them all at the top of my head. But it's already been mentioned that most of us took him to be joking, teasing, etc.

I do agree with that. I remember reading a couple of the scenes over to see how someone could interpret it differently and couldn't see how.

But I think I get it now. I don't think it has much to do with the scenes themselves as it does with how we already think of Jamie. If you think of Jamie as an abuser, as a man who abuses his wife, then those things do not come off as teasing. But if you don't think of Jamie in that light, those sentences appear quite differently.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I thought of something in regards to the comments about Jamie bringing up his vow never to beat her again and how he regretted it.

I can't for sure, say this for ALL the times he may have said it ..."

I agree. For the most part, I think it was mostly half-hearted teasing banter....something someone might say in moments of exasperation. I don't think it was intended to be taken quite so literally.

I guess Kat and Red are trying to say that I possibly SHOULD BE seeing Jamie as an "abuser". By extension, does that mean that if I do not, is there possibly something wrong with me and my perspective?

Is Jamie and "abuser" and should I be seeing him as such?

....I've given it a great deal of thought and have even re-read portions of the novel and I don't think so. I still genuinely believe that parts of the book are being misinterpreted and/or taken out of context. I can't make myself ignore or overlook huge chunks of text to support that. While I understand where they are coming from and I do want to try to see it from Kat and Red's perspective, I still come away feeling like I have to twist the story to do it and I just can't.

Reply to comment 1033 Kat wrote: Hm...yes, and now, I could be wrong about this, but wasn't Outlander originally written as a stand alone book? I thought I read somewhere that the author did not have any intention at first of continuing the story into a series. If that is the case, then really I think that anything that happens in Outlander should be able to stand or fall on its own merit or lack thereof. And really, as the series stands now, with no end in sight, a reader should not be expected to pore through 8 (or is it 9 now?) + novels for the payoff.

I didn't say a person should have to read the full series for the pay off. "But if a scene is not fully explained, or a characters actions not fully expressed because it does so in a later book, then we're taking something 'out of context' when only relying on one book to discuss it."

I'm not sure when Diana planned on writing more. For all I know that could have been in the middle of the first book or after she sold a ton of copies. When it comes to the beating scene there are actually things in later books help us to see how Jamie thinks more clearly. As you brought up, when he beat Fergus. I've brought up a few times how Jamie beat the guy under his command (in the second book) and then had his men beat him for both making the same mistake.

I've mentioned before how in one of the books Jamie and Claire talk about the beating and he can't seem to understand when she tells him that in the future a man who beats his wife's bottom with a belt would be likened to a man who beat his wife with his fists.

These things technically are not *needed* when discussing the first book. Because Jamie's intentions and feelings about the whole thing seem quite transparent to me. But these later scenes help cement what was already written.
_________________

Here's what I'm thinking.....

I understand how some people don't like that Jamie didn't change his opinion or his feelings about corporal punishment and by extension beating ones wife, or children, etc. That Jamie making a commitment to never do it, just wasn't good enough. Because he technically didn't "change" on the inside. I get that.

But it doesn't bother some of us. And I'm going to try to explain from my point of view, why it doesn't bother me personally.

Jamie, whether because of actual historical accuracy or because of Diana Galbadon's imagination, has beating as a form of punishment and justice deeply ingrained in him. Not to the point that he *has* to do it (otherwise he'd not have promised to never do so again with Claire) but to the point that he even allows this to happen to himself as an adult man as corporal punishment.

We say the words "culture" quite a lot in this thread. But has anyone ever really thought about what happens when someone tries to change deeply rooted culture views? I've seen it happen and it's not quick. It takes years and it takes continued, consistant reasoning. Unless someone sees that what they think about something is already wrong to begin with, to show someone, to reason with someone, and to help someone change those views is an immense undertaking.

So for me, once I learned how rooted beatings were in Jamie's culture (make believe or historically accurate) I didn't anticipate Jamie changing his views. From the start I was surprised that he even promised to never beat Claire again. I'm happy he did that though because I'd not have liked him if he continued that treatment.

I'm not doubtful that Diana could have written Jamie as though he did change his feelings. But from my perspective, had she done so, I would have thought it even more far fetched. For it to have been realistic (to me) there would have had to been sooooo many really deep conversations about so many different aspects of corporal punishment, domestic abuse, etc, the book would have become something more kin to a psychological book than a fictional romance.

Maybe Diana could have pulled it off though. If she had, great. But I'm saying I didn't need her to. I can forgive Jamie and move on without him changing his culture views, knowing that he'll never do anything like that again.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: Response to # 1038"

I loved watching I Love Lucy as a kid and I don't remember those moments at all! Ricky sure seemed to be enjoying it! :O"

One big problem I have with this analogy is that the I Love Lucy scenarios were obviously played for laughs. The audience was not supposed to take it seriously. Nor was Lucy shown as having been severely hurt and bruised for days after. That's not the case in Outlander, as I read it. Maybe you both can, but I can't reconcile the two into any meaningful correlation.

Mocha wrote...context actually does matter. Just as it isn't advisable to watch old episodes of "I Love Lucy" and judge them against a modern backdrop and modern standards, the same is true of Outlander. Outlander is not set during our time.

If context actually does matter, then imo it also isn't advisable to compare a television comedy made in the 1950's to the serious situation which led to a husband beating his wife in a novel set partly in 1740-something but written in 1991.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I understand how some people don't like that Jamie didn't change his opinion or his feelings about corporal punishment and by extension beating ones wife, or children, etc. That Jamie making a commitment to never do it, just wasn't good enough. Because he technically didn't "change" on the inside. I get that.

Thank you. That's all I've really been trying to get across when I've stated that I didn't see any change or growth in his character.

But it doesn't bother some of us. And I'm going to try to explain from my point of view, why it doesn't bother me personally. "

Thank you for this too. I remember reading another one of your posts where you delivered a very well thought out exposition on how you'd forgiven Jamie for the beating. I believe I replied that I respected that you could forgive him. So while I respect that you can forgive him and have moved on from the beating and the fact that he didn't really change his views - even after so many years of being married to Claire according to you, since I haven't read that far in the series (which just makes me shake my head that even after all that time he hasn't budged an inch in his beliefs? but never mind. Since I haven't read it for myself I won't comment further on that.) - I am still waffling on the forgiveness angle. So yes, maybe that influences my perception of everything he says and does afterward that I've read. Just as the fact that you have forgiven him influences your perception of everything he says and does afterward.

Mochaspresso wrote: "This is an exaggerated and misleading statement about Jamie's characterization in the novel. He did not turn into a "brutal abuser".

brutal: befitting a brute: as
a : grossly ruthless or unfeeling (a brutal slander)
b : cruel, cold-blooded (a brutal attack)
c : harsh, severe (brutal weather)
d : unpleasantly accurate and incisive (the brutal truth)
e : very bad or unpleasant (a brutal mistake)

If it was revenge he'd wanted the night before, he'd had it.

It had been a most unpleasant night. My reluctant acquiescence had lasted precisely as far as the first searing crack of leather on flesh. This was followed by a short, violent struggle, which left Jamie with a bloody nose, three lovely gouges down one cheek, and a deeply bitten wrist. Not surprisingly, it left me half smothered in the greasy quilts with a knee in my back, being beaten within an inch of my life.

That read as pretty brutal to me. I think it was meant to read that way to everyone else as well, but that's just mo.

abuse
: to treat (a person or animal) in a harsh or harmful way
: to use or treat (something) in a way that causes damage
: to use (something) wrongly

An 'abuser' being one who commits abuse - then Jamie did treat Claire in a harsh and harmful way. So technically, yes, the beating did make him a brutal abuser at least this once. I didn't say he continued to be a brutal abuser. I don't think I've ever made that claim. But this one instance was enough for me.

"Perhaps this is more to do with language. Some people call it a spanking. Some people call it a beating. "

I've discussed my objection to calling it a spanking. One: it was never called a spanking in the book by either party. Two: definition of SPANK: to strike on the buttocks with the open hand vs. beat: to hit (something) repeatedly, : to hit (someone) repeatedly in order to cause pain or injury.

Jamie used a leather belt, not his open hand. He hit Claire repeatedly with the intention of causing her pain and injury.

I'm pretty certain that makes it a beating. Not a spanking.

Whatever you call it, the truth of that incident is that he told her to bend over the bed and lift her dress so that he could spank/beat her (10 lashes with his belt.) She refused (obviously) and fought back. She fought back pretty hard and well, too. Jamie did not walk away from this incident unscathed. However, he overpowered her, held her down and beat/spanked her with his belt. We've already discussed the circumstances as to how and why this incident happened and we don't see eye to eye about it. I understand that and I think it's fine to agree to disagree. However, I'm not one to use overly inflammatory buzz words and language to push a point or an agenda. I don't think that is fair. The novel makes it quite clear that Jamie's intent was not to "brutally abuse" Claire. His intent was to punish her for a perceived wrong-doing. (Again, not saying he's actually right. I'm just saying that this is his pov.) Jamie saw it as being a mere formality while Claire, being from another time and place, saw it as far more than that and resisted and the incident escalated.

Nope, not ignoring huge chunks of text whatsoever. But you seem to be. It was only supposed to be a dozen strokes, not 10. After the first one yes, she fought back. At that point, at her resistance, it became way more than a dozen strokes. As you said, "he overpowered her, held her down and beat/spanked her with his belt" - I don't understand how that doesn't read as brutal or abusive to you.

Whatever Jamie's intent - that wasn't the actual outcome, was it? He may have had the intent to deliver justice. But that is not what actually happened. As Mrsbooks quoted in a post some time ago (though, I think it was in relation to Claire's intent to get back to the stones; it's true here as well) "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Kat wrote: "One big problem I have with this analogy is that the I Love Lucy scenarios were obviously played for laughs. The audience was not supposed to take it seriously. Nor was Lucy shown as having been severely hurt and bruised for days after. That's not the case in Outlander, as I read it. Maybe you both can, but I can't reconcile the two into any meaningful correlation.

There is obviously a huge difference between being spanked with a hand vs with a belt. Out of curiosity, have you ever been spanked? With a belt and/or with a hand? This is a serious question.

Lucy was spanked with a hand and not that hard. You are correct that it was done for comedic effect. However, a spanking with a belt will create a very sore bottom. Maybe even some welts and/or bruising that may last for a few days. You will also have some discomfort sitting for a few days also. However, you are not "severely hurt" to the point of disability or incapacitation. Claire was still able walk around and still able to do chores the next day. She was still able to go about her normal day as any other person normally would. She was even able to ride a horse even though she was sore and it caused some discomfort. She wasn't "severely hurt". Claire is attaching certain sentiments to being spanked because of her upbringing. Sentiments that Jamie and the others do not have. I think point of view and context matter in that SHE perceived it as such because SHE wasn't raised that way. I could be wrong, but I got the impression from the novel that she wasn't typically spanked as a child. As such, "severely hurt" is an exaggeration. I'm even willing to concede that it is also a matter of perception that is heavily influenced by culture and upbringing. I also infer from the novel that her pride was far more hurt than her bottom actually was.

Mocha wrote...context actually does matter. Just as it isn't advisable to watch old episodes of "I Love Lucy" and judge them against a modern backdrop and modern standards, the same is true of Outlander. Outlander is not set during our time.

If context actually does matter, then imo it also isn't advisable to compare a television comedy made in the 1950's to the serious situation which led to a husband beating his wife in a novel set partly in 1740-something but written in 1991.

Imo, the context is similar in that Ricky was from Cuba and had certain mindsets about the dynamics that should exist between husbands and wives. He would tell Lucy to do something (or not to do something) and she would often disobey. Regardless of whether one feels that a wife has an obligation to obey her husband....it does not change the fact that in most of the shows instances, Lucy's antics usually got her into hot water in some way. Some of Ricky's directives were not about a husband ordering his wife about, it was about the fact that what she was doing was going to lead to some kind of trouble. The overreaching conflict in the episodes was always walking that fine line between is Ricky being an overbearing husband (Lucy's pov) vs whether Lucy is doing someing reckless that can lead to trouble. (Ricky's pov.)

Again, there are times in one's life where they need to put aside the baggage and just listen. If your husband is telling you not to drive the car because the brakes are bad....it isn't wise to go into "I am woman, hear me roar" mode and drive it anyway. There are instances when a directive is not about an overbearing husband telling the little woman what to do. Claire's beating (imo) arose in part, from one of these types of conflicts.


Mrsbooks wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: Response to # 1038"

I loved watching I Love Lucy as a kid and I don't remember those moments at all! Ricky sure seemed to be enjoying it! :O"

One big problem ..."

Mochaspresso wrote: "You are ignoring huge chunks of text to make this "plot hole" work for you. The book clearly says that Jamie knew the land and even checked the copse beforehand and deemed it a safe hiding place. Being left in the copse was not the problem because Claire was not found there. She left her safe hiding place. Claire didn't encounter the soldiers because she was left alone. She encountered them because she left. "

The book says that Jamie knew about the copse and that he checked it before he left her there. I think it might be a bit of jump to say he "knew the land" as in knew it like the back of his hand. But if that's your interpretation, that's fine. It's not mine.

Claire encountered the soldiers not only because she left the copse, but because they were in the area looking for her because BJR wanted her back for questioning. Imo, they would have found her regardless if she'd stayed in the copse.

Also, Claire would not have left the copse if she had not been left alone. That is the plot hole that you are ignoring.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I don't think Claire's safety had anything to do with Scotland vs England. It had to do with the fact that she was a woman wandering alone in unfamiliar lands in the middle of a war zone. The book clearly states the reasons why Jamie told her to hide and even though he thought she was in a safe place, he did change his mind and sent someone back for her anyway. Again, Claire encountering the soldiers did not happen because she was left alone. It happened because she left her hiding place."

Scotland and England were not actually at war in 1743. Historically speaking, at that time, right before the second Jacobite uprising, they were very peaceful relations. In the book, it's shown that it's BJR causing most of the problems within a small part of Scotland - at least imo. Not the entire English army in the whole of Scotland.

Also, Jamie did not leave Claire alone in that copse of woods because of any so called "war" with England. It was specifically because he didn't want BJR's soldiers to find her. It wasn't all English soldiers about whom he was worried.

"Stay here?" I said in disbelief. "No! I'm going with you."

"You can't," said Jamie patiently, once more. "The bulk of the men will go on to Lag Cruime wi' Ned, to collect the rents as expected. Dougal and a few of the others are coming wi' me to the meeting, in case of any treachery by Horrocks. You can't be seen in the open near Lag Cruime, though; Randall's men may be about, and I wouldna put it past him to take ye by force. And as for the meeting wi' Horrocks, I've no idea what may happen.

Once again, if he was able to change his mind and spare a man to send back to be with her, it makes no sense to me that a man wasn't left with her from the start.

Sage wrote: "An excellent point Mocha...Claire was captured because she left the safety of the copse, not because Jamie left her alone."

Claire would not have left the copse if she had not been left alone.

Mochaspresso wrote: " Claire was not held hostage by the Scots. It's true that they didn't immediately trust her. Within the context of the story, that is not out of the ordinary and is likely to be expected. They didn't allow her to go wandering off in unfamiliar territory willy nilly for her own safety, but that isn't exactly the same as being held hostage.

I addressed this in #1035. She was a captive. It wasn't only for her protection that the MacKenzies wouldn't let her leave. That's just how they explained it to make it seem like they were in the right. But Claire wanted to leave and was not able to.

If my memory of the novel serves, the town of Inverness that she is familiar with is not even actually there anymore once she travels back in time through the stones. (Wasn't there something in the beginning of the novel where she talks about taking Jamie into town to see a doctor and someone replies "What town?" and then she realizes that she can't see the lights from the town in the distance?) When she tells Jamie the truth about Inverness and the stones, that is where he takes her. "

In all honesty, nothing Claire was familiar with was there once she traveled back in time. That's kind of one of the points of the book, isn't it? Inverness was there. It's just that it was night - and in the days before electricity - and probably much smaller, so there were no lights to be seen. At least that's how I read the passage. Considering the settlement actually dates back to the sixth century, and the original castle to the eleventh century, if the author was saying there was no town whatsoever, she made a big error.

Mochaspresso wrote: There is obviously a huge difference between being spanked with a hand vs with a belt. Out of curiosity, have you ever been spanked? With a belt and/or with a hand? This is a serious question. "

Yes I have. To both. By my father (who was a welterweight boxing champion when he was in the army, so he knew how to hit). Even when he used a belt, (which I had to go pick out - not that it made a difference because they were all pretty much the same size) it never left bruises that lasted for days. Welts, yes, but they were gone within a few hours. And I could definitely sit the next day, which Claire states that she could not. Even Jamie remarks that she will not be able to sit easily for another day or two. He knew how much damage he inflicted.

So I am basing my assessment of Claire's condition not only on her description, but on my own experience.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Again, you left out huge chunks of text. (I don't mean to sound rude, but I also have to be honest about what I am thinking. I am starting to get the impression that you may not have actually read the book and have been getting your info on the story from inaccurate reviews and blog posts.) "

I didn’t leave out huge chunks of text. I summarized. It’s not the same thing. Summarize: give a brief statement of the main points of (something). And while I could allow for difference of interpretation/viewpoints, (Like you jokingly asked in a previous post ‘Are we even reading the same book?’) but for you to imply that I lied and didn’t actually read the book was rude. It was intentionally rude, despite your “I don’t mean to sound rude.” Yes you did. Because if you didn’t mean to sound rude, you wouldn’t have written it in the first place. And you succeeded magnificently.

Shame on you.

This remark seemed thrown in for no other reason than to accomplish that which you so often accuse me: bait and switch to derail the conversation. Once again, you succeeded magnificently. Because to be honest, I didn’t read the rest of your post after this. Nor am I so inclined to go back and do so. After that remark, I am no longer interested in anything else you have to say on the subject. As you obviously do not respect my opinions one iota, I have lost all respect for and interest in yours.

Good day to you Madam.

Response to # 1050 Kat wrote: So while I respect that you can forgive him and have moved on from the beating and the fact that he didn't really change his views - even after so many years of being married to Claire according to you, since I haven't read that far in the series (which just makes me shake my head that even after all that time he hasn't budged an inch in his beliefs? but never mind. Since I haven't read it for myself I won't comment further on that.) - I am still waffling on the forgiveness angle. So yes, maybe that influences my perception of everything he says and does afterward that I've read. Just as the fact that you have forgiven him influences your perception of everything he says and does afterward. "

For Jamie to change his beliefs, I think it would be even more difficult because he sees them working. Not on Claire. But on others. Part of what helps a person to change deeply rooted beliefs is seeing the wrongness of them. Jamie doesn't really get to see that. Only where Claire is concerned does he see corporal punishment not working. And he changes his actions accordingly.

I see how the plot played out....
The beating. The forgiveness. Claire doesn't really try altogether too much to show Jamie how wrong the whole thing is. And perhaps that's because she has no intention of staying with him? I can understand that. If I were her, why would I bother to attempt to change someone's deeply rooted culture beliefs if I wasn't going to be sticking around for very long? Especially since those said culture beliefs were not going to affect me any longer (because of his promise).

Then by the time she has decided to stay enough time has past that her feelings about the whole thing have mellowed out. And again, Jamie's belief's about corporal punishment do not really affect her any longer. Why rehash it? - (Spoiler from book two) (view spoiler)[ Although had their daughter Faith survived, I think that would have reopened the WHOLE can of worms and probably given us the conversations most people wished we could have witnessed.
Then their trying to stop a war from happening and then they are living a war and then they spend 20 years apart. (hide spoiler)]

It really doesn't leave much time to try and change his deeply rooted beliefs especially when one may be contemplating the "why bother" aspect.

The only other time I'm a bit surprised this does not come up again is in book 6 or onward. But I won't talk about that because I don't want to spoil anything in case you're going to read more.
_________________

I don't think of Jamie as an abuser. For someone to hold that label in my mind, they would, well, have to be an abuser lol. Let me try to explain. Jamie WAS an abuser. During this scene, he was. There was no question. He fits the definition. But he does not remain an abuser. Never again does he abuse Claire. So I can't label him an abuser. But I can for certain say he *was* an abuser.

My uncle got into a bar fight when he was younger. A really stupid bar fight. He was immature and hot headed. But I can no longer claim he's immature and hot headed based upon that action. He's so many other things. But at one time, (and maybe even more than once, he was immature and hot headed).
_______________________

There is (imo) definite exaggeration on Claire's part about "being beat within an inch of my life."

"....I was under the impression that what you were exercising was your good left arm. You almost crippled me, you arrogant Scottish bastard!"
"Did I want to cripple ye, Sassenach, you'd know it," he answered dryly.

I don't know why I put the quote there. It's really not needed. Someone who can walk around, do chores, ride a horse, clearly hasn't been beaten within an inch of their life.
___________________________

I still don't see how Jamie leaving Claire in the woods alone was a plot hole. I guess I can sort of see why one would think, "well why couldn't one of the men just stayed behind with Claire?"

And maybe the answer to that is just simply because if Claire had have listened none of this would have been an issue? Maybe one of the men could have stayed with Claire, maybe that could have been the original plan. But Jamie supposed Claire would listen, so was it necessary when the men were useful elsewhere? Once she continued to object, Jamie obviously had doubts since he sent someone back. But those men had *already* gone a head when Claire was giving her objections.

So yes, none of this would have happened had Jamie not left her alone in the woods. But I don't see that being a plot hole or Jamie's fault. None of this would have happened if Claire hadn't been honeymooning in Scotland to begin with but I don't blame everything on Frank for picking their destination. Claire was the one who made a choice to not listen.

"....there's a small copse near the bend of the road--it's thick and grassy, and there's water nearby. You'll be comfortable there, until I come back for ye."

"It's safe," he said. "Ride up well into the thicket, Claire, and hide yourself and the horse. I'll be back for ye, as soon as our business is done. I canna tell how long, but surely by sunset."

Maybe we don't see this fault lying with Jamie because we believe him when he says this area was safe?? I believe him. I see no reason why Claire would have been found had she listened. While no one can really say for certain, because, you know, it's all made up, and it wasn't made up in that direction lol. I believe that DG is telling us, this was a safe hiding spot.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I see how the plot played out....
The beating. The forgiveness. Claire doesn't really try altogether too much to show Jamie how wrong the whole thing is. And perhaps that's because she has no intention of staying with him? I can understand that. If I were her, why would I bother to attempt to change someone's deeply rooted culture beliefs if I wasn't going to be sticking around for very long? Especially since those said culture beliefs were not going to affect me any longer (because of his promise).

This is a very good point I don't think I'd considered before. You're right - even after they got back to Leoch, she was still considering how she was going to get back to the stones and leave him. So why should she care beyond how it affects her directly.

I also do think (view spoiler)[the 20 year separation (hide spoiler)] has a big impact on how little Jamie seems to change his views. Had they spent that time together - and especially had he somehow spent some time with her in the 20th century, I think his internal views would have changed much more.

Not so sure that his views on corporal punishment for children would have ever changed though. Does Claire ever give her views on that in later books? Don't worry about spoiling me. For one I doubt I'll ever read past the third book, if I even read that. Two: I read all kinds of synopses of books before I read them. I like to know what I'm getting into.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I don't think of Jamie as an abuser. For someone to hold that label in my mind, they would, well, have to be an abuser lol. Let me try to explain. Jamie WAS an abuser. During this scene, he was. There was no question. He fits the definition. But he does not remain an abuser. Never again does he abuse Claire. So I can't label him an abuser. But I can for certain say he *was* an abuser."

And since I haven't been able to forgive him yet for that incident, I'm still "stuck" on it. Know what I mean? It's like a skipping record track. So for me, he is still an abuser in a way, even though he hasn't raised a hand to Claire again.

It's a bit like an alcoholic, I think - for me. Just because they spend so many days sober, does not make them any less an alcoholic. Do you understand?

Mrsbooks wrote: "So yes, none of this would have happened had Jamie not left her alone in the woods. But I don't see that being a plot hole or Jamie's fault. "

I still just don't understand why Jamie would have left her alone at all - even if he thought that copse was safe at that time - when he knew BJR's soldiers were in the area and he wouldn't put it past BJR to take Claire by force. It seems contradictory to me.

Especially after she nearly got raped a few days before in a similar copse that he thought was safe - and that was when he was with her.

The only way I can possibly rationalize this is to maybe conclude that Jamie wasn't thinking quite clearly. But I'm not quite ready to do that yet.

Kat wrote: "

Yes, I totally get not being able to forgive him. But I can't compare this action to an alcohol. Once an alcoholic, always alcoholic. You may not be getting drunk but you forever fight the fight.

Once an abuser always an abuser? I think this is why the plot of domestic violence isn't written so much about any longer. More often than not a person does not change and to write about a hero who does, people feel is misleading.

But my grandfather used was an alcoholic AND abused my grandmother - more than once. They eventually got divorced, he eventually got clean, took up religion and remarried and he is "no longer an abuser". I (thankfully) didn't get to meet that man my Mother says used to exist. He made the change before I came around. My Grandparents, although no longer married to each other, are currently good friends.

So while I haven't *seen* someone change with my own eyes, I've certainly heard the tale. Maybe this makes it more easy for me to forgive Jamie?

Although I agree that Jamie abused Claire during this scene, I still don't view the whole thing as domestic violence. To me, it is more clan than anything.

While there are usually deep seated emotional issues in a man who will hit his wife the situation with Jamie and Claire here, is vastly different. Jamie certainly has a cultural view that allows him to do so if he chooses to, but he has no desire and no expectations to abuse Claire. Nor does he fight a deeply rooted tendency of violence towards her. It is only during this one situation that is quite complex does this come up.

Kat wrote: : "Mrsbooks wrote: "I don't think of Jamie as an abuser. For someone to hold that label in my mind, they would, well, have to be an abuser lol. Let me try to explain. Jamie WAS an abuser. During this ..."

There is a full cast of abusers in The Color Purple, readers generally empathize with them. Their history, motivation and growth are critical strokes of life and texture written by an author to portray a slice of life, illuminating the human condition. As others have already stated, Outlander shouldn't be taken too seriously, but the elements required to humanize a husband or lover beating a woman do not exist as the text was written. The addition of his erotic enjoyment of the beating and her vigorous resistance to it remove the comedy of and I Love Lucy episode.

Ultimately it was the author's choice to create this conflict and resolution. Mary explained that she felt it was the only way to "wake" Claire up to the fact she had travelled through time. I am of the opinion that the depiction of a forced beating that the romantic male lead is aroused by followed with the first declaration of love is a lousy over used stereotype. I will double down and say it is lazy was done and done in the romances of the 90's to death.

Sara wrote: Ultimately it was the author's choice to create this conflict and resolution. Mary explained that she felt it was the only way to "wake" Claire up to the fact she had travelled through time. I am of the opinion that the depiction of a forced beating that the romantic male lead is aroused by followed with the first declaration of love is a lousy over used stereotype. I will double down and say it is lazy was done and done in the romances of the 90's to death."

While I think it was interesting that this scene was used to *wake* Claire up, and I certainly see why it did, I don't think it was necessary for that. I don't think it was necessary for anything. Just like any other plot in the story, I just thought it was... interesting.

Claire would have had her wake up call at the Witch Trial if she still hadn't snapped out of her blase attitude.
___________________

"Enjoyed it! Sassenach," he said, gasping, "you don't know just how much I enjoyed it. You were so...God, you looked lovely. I was so angry, and you fought me so fierce. I hated to hurt you, but I wanted to do it at the same time...Jesus," he said, breaking off and wiping his nose, "yes. Yes, I did enjoy it.

I get the impression Jamie is not aroused *from* beating Claire, but he's aroused her *show* of spirit. So technically, still from beating her, because her spirit is a result of that. But still not directly from beating her... know what I mean? lol
______________________________

Also the deceleration of love did not really happen following the beating.

"Well, I did see you together that day in the alcove," I defended myself, "and somebody certainly taught you how to kiss."
Jamie shuffled his feet in the dust, embarrassed. He ducked his head shyly. "Well now, Sassenach, I'm no better than most men. Sometimes I try, but I dinna always manage. Ye know that bit in St. Paul, where he says 'tis better to marry than burn? Well, I was burnin' quite badly there."
I laughed again, feeling light-hearted as a sixteen-year-old myself. "So you married me," I teased, "to avoid the occasion of sin?"
"Aye. That's what marriage is good for; it makes a sacrament out of things ye'd otherwise have to confess."
I collapsed again.
"Oh, Jamie, I do love you!"
This time it was his turn to laugh. He doubled over, then sat down at the roadside, fizzing with mirth. He slowly fell over backward and lay in the long grass, wheezing and choking. "What on earth is the matter with you?" I demanded, staring at him. At long last, he sat up, wiping his streaming eyes. He shook his head, gasping.
"Murtagh was right about women. Sassenach, I risked my life for ye, committing theft, arson, assault, and murder into the bargain. In return for which ye call me names, insult my manhood, kick me in the ballocks and claw my face. Then I beat you half to death and tell ye all the most humiliating things have ever happened to me, and you say ye love me." He laid his head on his knees and laughed some more. Finally he rose and held out a hand to me, wiping his eyes with the other.
"You're no verra sensible, Sassenach, but I like ye fine. Let's go."

I forget the word for what's used here. But it's kind of like when readers claim they're in love with Jamie. No one is *really* in love with him. It's just a saying. Jamie doesn't even take her as deceleration as genuine. We know this because when Claire does finally tell Jamie she loves him, before so, he brings up that she never has. This is after she finally decides to stay with him and they're living at Lollybroch.

I laid my head on Jamie's shoulder and sighed. He squeezed me gently in response.
"This is what you were born to do, isn't it, Jamie?"
"Perhaps, Sassenach." He looked out over the fields and buildings, the crofts and the roads, then looked down, a smile suddenly curving the wide mouth.
"And you, my Sassenach? What were you born for? To be lady of a manor, or to sleep in the fields like a gypsy? To be a healer, or a don's wife, or an outlaw's lady?"
"I was born for you," I said simply, and held out my arms to him.
"Ye know," he observed, letting go at last, "you've never said it."
"Neither have you."
"I have. The day after we came. I said I wanted you more than anything."
"And I said that loving and wanting weren't necessarily the same thing," I countered.
He laughed. "Perhaps you're right, Sassenach." He smoothed the hair from my face and kissed my brow. "I wanted ye from the first I saw ye--but I loved ye when you wept in my arms and let me comfort you, that first time at Leoch."
The sun sank below the line of black pines, and the first stars of the evening came out. It was mid-November, and the evening air was cold, though the days still kept fine. Standing on the opposite side of the fence, Jamie bent his head, putting his forehead against mine.
"You first."
"No, you."
"Why?"
"I'm afraid."
"Of what, my Sassenach?" The darkness was rolling in over the fields, filling the land and rising up to meet the night. The light of the new crescent moon marked the ridges of brow and nose, crossing his face with light.
"I'm afraid if I start I shall never stop."
He cast a glance at the horizon, where the sickle moon hung low and rising. "It's nearly winter, and the nights are long, mo duinne." He leaned across the fence, reaching, and I stepped into his arms, feeling the heat of his body and the beat of his heart.
"I love you."

Mrsbooks wrote: "I hated to hurt you, but I wanted to do it at the same time...Jesus," he said, breaking off and wiping his nose, "yes. Yes, I did enjoy it. ..."
He also said he wanted to "rodger" her which he explains is not like making love to her. And she should be great full he didn't.

I see how an individual reader can read into more or less of an emotion given the context of the stated emotion. The stated emotion was love. To whatever degree you wish to interrupt it, I stand by my original statement.

Sara wrote: I see how an individual reader can read into more or less of an emotion given the context of the stated emotion. The stated emotion was love. To whatever degree you wish to interrupt it, I stand by my original statement. ..."

I agree that the paragraph where they talk about his arousal when she gets beaten isn't *as* clear, and how a person could think either way.

I disagree on the deceleration of love. If it were only that one scene to go buy, I'd agree. However to believe that was a real deceleration of Claire's feelings is ignoring the other scene that happens later. Claire out right agrees with Jamie that she's never said it before.