Outlander
discussion
*SPOILER* The beating scene and why it is just plain WRONG to try and justify it
Mrsbooks wrote: "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."Actually, I think labeling it only domestic violence or a clan issue is oversimplifying. It's both. And more. And that's where it gets really murky.
"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. "
In all honesty, I think this may be an oversimplification of the issue on the part of the author. He certainly had a desire to hit Claire in this instance. And if we are to believe his own words, he's had that desire afterward also. Because we know that a man who will beat his wife once doesn't just stop cold turkey. Maybe there are a few exceptions to the rule out there, but let's face it: not usually. And that's not just my 21st century viewpoint. True, I think we understand the psychology behind a man who beats his wife better now than was understood in the 18th century because of advances in the medical field, but I don't think that means the mental/emotional issues themselves have changed.
So "Once an abuser always an abuser?"
Isn't that the conventional wisdom? The more I think about it, the more unlikely it becomes that Jamie never did hit Claire again. Of course, like you said, (view spoiler)
"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.
"Though come to that," he said, "you might give me some credit for exercising restraint."
I was getting rather angry again. I could feel my cheeks flushing hotly against the cool dawn air.
"Restraint, was it? 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 meant afterward. I slept on the floor, if ye recall."
I eyed him narrowly, breathing through my nose. "Oh, so that was restraint, was it?"
"Well, I didna think it right to roger you in that state, however fierce I wanted to. And I did want to," he added, laughing again. "Terrible strain on my natural instincts."
"Roger me?" I said, diverted by the expression.
"I would hardly call it 'love-making' under the circumstances, would you?"
"Whatever you might call it," I said evenly, "it's a good thing you didn't try it, or you'd now be missing a few valued bits of your anatomy."
"That thought occurred to me."
"And if you think you deserve applause for nobly refraining from committing rape on top of assault—" I choked on my choler.
We rode a half-mile or so in silence. Then he heaved a sigh. "I can see I should not have started this conversation. What I was tryin' to do was to work up to asking ye would you allow me to share your bed again, once we get to Bargrennan." He paused shyly. "It's a bit cold on the floor."
Yeah, I gotta agree with Sara on this one. This entire passage is so disturbing, it's one reason I can't quite forgive Jamie. He wanted to hurt her and he was turned on by it - not just by her fighting spirit but by actually beating her. Notice Jamie never corrected Claire's assertion that his 'rogering' her would not have been rape. He knew full well that she would not have been a willing participant. This is not the comedy of an I Love Lucy episode. Claire doesn't think so either.
As for the "I love you" declaration on the road to Bargrennan - at first read I thought ew..she really told him she loved him just then? It just didn't make sense to me. It took me reading it over again (and maybe again) before I figured out that it was just a figure of speech for Claire at that time, like 'I love your new shoes!' I think she was actually saying she really liked his sense of humor, since he'd just made her laugh about something.
Mrsbooks wrote: "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've thought about this some more. (It's a dangerous thing when I'm home sick and have too much time on my hands to think.)
I understand what you're saying about being able to see the wrongness of one's beliefs being necessary to change them. And to a great extent, I agree with that. But one of the wonderful things about humans is our ability for abstract thought. That's how inventions get discovered after all. 'If X works in this situation, maybe it will work in this one too.' So if Jamie was able to see that corporal punishment didn't work on Claire (made her feel humiliated and demeaned), why couldn't he expand that to think *maybe* corporal punishment on other women was also wrong? (Especially after 20-30 years) After all, this an educated man of the Enlightenment we are talking about. He was educated on the continent, exposed to other cultures during his important informative teenage years. He also speaks how many languages? At least 3 or 4 including Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, doesn't he? And so would have been able to (and probably did during his formal education) read many ideologies different from his Scottish clan background. That is not the kind of person who should cling so staunchly to an outmoded and controversial (as the Church of the time did not approve) method of 'disciplining' one's wife.
Let's not forget that it was men of the Enlightenment who wrote "all men are created equal" at a time when kingship was thought to be a divine right.
Kat wrote: ""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 w..."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."
Hi Kat, I agree this was a lighthearted exchange... The morning after the beating, not long after the "Roger" discussion. I maintain that this is a poorly fleshed out trope. His tale of "all the most humiliating things that ever happened to him" is not enough development for expiation. For Claire to be giggling with him and exclaiming I love you, to whatever extent you want to attribute to the statement.
Sara wrote: "Hi Kat, I agree this was a lighthearted exchange... The morning after the beating, not long after the "Roger" discussion. I maintain that this is a poorly fleshed out trope. His tale of "all the most humiliating things that ever happened to him" is not enough development for expiation. For Claire to be giggling with him and exclaiming I love you, to whatever extent you want to attribute to the statement. "I agree it was a very poorly worded/explained bit of dialogue and interaction.
There were other times in the book where I just couldn't figure out what the author was talking about - like she had some dialogue or exposition in her head that just didn't make it down on to paper, so it became sort of an inside joke for her, but as the reader I was left in the dark.
Kat wrote: Actually, I think labeling it only domestic violence or a clan issue is oversimplifying. It's both. And more. And that's where it gets really murky. "While I agree that it is both, I feel it's more clan then marital. Say 80% Clan and 20% marital :) I think the marital comes into play in the way that it was expected that he'd perform this duty rather than someone else, because they were married and because he was Laird of Lollybroch.
In all honesty, I think this may be an oversimplification of the issue on the part of the author. He certainly had a desire to hit Claire in this instance. And if we are to believe his own words, he's had that desire afterward also. Because we know that a man who will beat his wife once doesn't just stop cold turkey. Maybe there are a few exceptions to the rule out there, but let's face it: not usually. And that's not just my 21st century viewpoint. True, I think we understand the psychology behind a man who beats his wife better now than was understood in the 18th century because of advances in the medical field, but I don't think that means the mental/emotional issues themselves have changed.
Jamie's desire to beat Claire in this instance was for justice for the men. He says if it were just between the two of them, he'd have let it go.
You'll have to explain more what you mean about his desire to do so again afterwards before I comment. I'm not sure what you mean.
While I agree that more often than not that a man who will beat his wife once will not stop cold turkey and that there is psychological issues going on, I don't see these with Jamie. I don't feel it was an over simplification by the author. Jamie would not have laid a hand (or a belt) on Claire if it weren't for playing politics. While he was obviously not opposed to doing so there were probably very few reasons why he'd ever dream he would do so.
When Jamie does this he's cool, calm and collected. Even reasoning with her about the whole thing. He says he'd let it go if it were just between the two of them. He's not some raving lunatic or a man who feels the need to dominate or control his wife. Things get out of hand when she fights back, something he never would have predicted she'd do. He himself willingly submits to this sort of punishment. He never lays a hand on her during this fight, which he could easily have done if he felt *abusing his wife* was acceptable. He dominates her yes, but he gets pretty beaten in the process, which *didn't* have to happen. Jamie could have subdued her with little consequence to himself if he thought using anything other than a belt was alright to do.
So if Jamie was able to see that corporal punishment didn't work on Claire (made her feel humiliated and demeaned), why couldn't he expand that to think *maybe* corporal punishment on other women was also wrong?
Perhaps this is because he sees Claire as unique and different from other women he knows? His father beat his sister Jenny with a belt as well, he has that experience to look upon. If he isn't going to change his views on corporal punishment in general, why is he going to do it based upon sex?
______________________
"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.
He wanted to hurt her and he was turned on by it - not just by her fighting spirit but by actually beating her
But he just says *why* he enjoyed it. He says she looked so lovely, fought so fiercely that he hated hurting her and wanted to do it just the same. He just said the *why*. He was aroused by her reaction. That (to me) isn't the same as being aroused specifically because you caused someone pain. He can (and does) get the fierce side of Claire to come out in the bedroom numerous times in the future.
In all honesty though, this passage (to me) isn't very clear in *either direction*. I can understand why someone takes it that step further than I do and I can see why I don't take it that other step. But Jamie is not a sadist. In no other place in the entire book or series does Jamie get pleasure from causing pain. I think that is the best defense of what he means in this paragraph. If that's what he meant, his sexual preferences would be obvious.
Notice Jamie never corrected Claire's assertion that his 'rogering' her would not have been rape. He knew full well that she would not have been a willing participant.
You don't suppose that is *why* Jamie didn't try to sleep with Claire? Again with the rest of the passage, I can read it in two different lights. And I can see where you're coming from. But from the light I read it in, it sounds like he's lightly bantering with her and telling her how much she turned him on, how badly he wanted to sleep with her and how he knew she wouldn't be receptive, so slept on the floor.
As for the "I love you" declaration on the road to Bargrennan - at first read I thought ew..she really told him she loved him just then? It just didn't make sense to me. It took me reading it over again (and maybe again) before I figured out that it was just a figure of speech
I agree. The first time I read it, I thought the same thing. So I understand why people think Claire declared her feelings for Jamie just after the beating. But that's why I felt the need to clarify by showing their other discussion.
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.
I don't recall Claire ever bringing up her views on punishing children. It would have been interesting had (view spoiler)
Yes she does give her thoughts on corporeal punishment on children and in a marriage in Breath of Snow and Ashes. They have a fight about this scene after Claire sees one of the fathers on the ridge beating his daughter with a switch.
Maddie wrote: "Yes she does give her thoughts on corporeal punishment on children and in a marriage in Breath of Snow and Ashes. They have a fight about this scene after Claire sees one of the fathers on the ridg..."That's the same conversation they have when they talk about how he beat her and how in her time a man who did that would be likened to a man who used his fists on his wife.
I didn't count this because the daughter is a full grown woman. Still the guy's daughter, but an adult.
Here is that scene from A Breath of Snow and Ashes in case anyone is curious.(view spoiler)
It won't let me post anymore, I'll continue in another thre
A Breath of Snow and Ashes continuation. Warning though, major spoiler in here from book 3. If you think you even might continue reading on, don't read this spoiler. Or if you really want to read this, I can edit it without ruining a major spoiler and only taking a little out of the conversation.(view spoiler)
Mrsbooks wrote: "You'll have to explain more what you mean about his desire to do so again afterwards before I comment. I'm not sure what you mean."Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to the times he expresses his remorse for having made the vow not to raise a hand to her again. I realize you read those remarks as humorous, but I didn't.
While I agree that more often than not that a man who will beat his wife once will not stop cold turkey and that there is psychological issues going on, I don't see these with Jamie. I don't feel it was an over simplification by the author. Jamie would not have laid a hand (or a belt) on Claire if it weren't for playing politics. While he was obviously not opposed to doing so there were probably very few reasons why he'd ever dream he would do so.
That's also not saying none of those reasons would never have come up in the future. And if he hadn't made the vow, and one of those reasons had come up, then imo, he would have beaten her again.
When Jamie does this he's cool, calm and collected. Even reasoning with her about the whole thing. He says he'd let it go if it were just between the two of them. He's not some raving lunatic or a man who feels the need to dominate or control his wife. Things get out of hand when she fights back, something he never would have predicted she'd do.
I think it's a dangerous stereotype to imply that abusers are raving lunatics. They aren't all. They are often very charming. That's how they lure women into a false sense of security and ultimately into abusive relationships. Many spousal abuse perpetrators aren't motivated by a need to dominate or control their wives. It just so happens that their wives, who are likely weaker, are the convenient scapegoat for all their other problems. As for the "Things get out of hand when she fights back" - exactly. That's probably how a lot of abuse gets out of hand nowadays too. The fact that he did get out of hand because she fought back disturbs me immensely.
He himself willingly submits to this sort of punishment. He never lays a hand on her during this fight, which he could easily have done if he felt *abusing his wife* was acceptable. He dominates her yes, but he gets pretty beaten in the process, which *didn't* have to happen. Jamie could have subdued her with little consequence to himself if he thought using anything other than a belt was alright to do.
What fight was this?
If in the beating scene you mean that he gets pretty beaten in the process - well then I think you are underestimating a woman's capacity to fight back. Even though true abusers might get the best of their victims, they often don't get away completely unscathed, so that part I think was very realistic at least.
All this is not saying that I don't understand what you're saying. I do. I even agree with it somewhat. It's just like I said: I'm kind of stuck on a skipping record track and I can't quite get past it yet.
Perhaps this is because he sees Claire as unique and different from other women he knows? His father beat his sister Jenny with a belt as well, he has that experience to look upon. If he isn't going to change his views on corporal punishment in general, why is he going to do it based upon sex?
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear again. I didn't mean that he should change his views on corporal punishment based on gender, but maybe age? Like, while it might be okay to spank (not beat) your children, it's not okay to do that to an adult and specifically your wife - who according to St. Paul, "Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Your mileage may vary, but to me that reads as a directive not to hit your wife.
In all honesty though, this passage (to me) isn't very clear in *either direction*. I can understand why someone takes it that step further than I do and I can see why I don't take it that other step. But Jamie is not a sadist. In no other place in the entire book or series does Jamie get pleasure from causing pain. I think that is the best defense of what he means in this paragraph. If that's what he meant, his sexual preferences would be obvious.
I didn't mean Jamie was a true sadist (despite what Claire says, :) ) And I understand why you read it the way you do. But in my interpretation, he did enjoy hurting her this time. Maybe that's because he got frustrated that she was fighting back, I don't know. But the way I read it is that he enjoyed hurting her (he wanted to) as well as her fighting back. Maybe because it gave him a releases of tension from the things that had happened with her abduction and rescue. But imo that release of tension shouldn't have translated into the more brutal beating that Claire actually got instead of what he set out to give her.
"Notice Jamie never corrected Claire's assertion that his 'rogering' her would not have been rape. He knew full well that she would not have been a willing participant.
You don't suppose that is *why* Jamie didn't try to sleep with Claire? Again with the rest of the passage, I can read it in two different lights. And I can see where you're coming from. But from the light I read it in, it sounds like he's lightly bantering with her and telling her how much she turned him on, how badly he wanted to sleep with her and how he knew she wouldn't be receptive, so slept on the floor."
Yeah, I do think that's at least one reason what he didn't try to sleep with her. That and he worried about losing valuable bits of his anatomy, like he said. :)
Maybe he was trying to lightly banter with her - butter her up so she'd let him back into bed. Didn't work out so well for him, though did it? ;D
Maddie wrote: "Yes she does give her thoughts on corporeal punishment on children and in a marriage in Breath of Snow and Ashes. They have a fight about this scene after Claire sees one of the fathers on the ridge beating his daughter with a switch. "Ouch. I've been spanked with a switch too. Forgot about that til you posted this. By my mother. But that was also a spanking, not a beating, as I've defined the difference for me.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Here is that scene from A Breath of Snow and Ashes in case anyone is curious."Thank you for posting the spoilers!
I have one gripe - and it's not related to beating at all! (Whadyaknow?)
Why does Claire, who is a dark brunette, right? have fine blonde hairs on her arms? (does not compute).
Also, I read Claire's objection to the man beating his daughter more because (view spoiler)
Kat wrote: "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 independe..."
A little humor adds a lot to a well lived life. Don't take everything so serious. The story is make believe.
Kat wrote: "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..."That's a big assumption.
Sage wrote: "A little humor adds a lot to a well lived life. Don't take everything so serious. The story is make believe. "Says the person who didn't get several of my attempts at humor in the past. Since I was berated for that, I had no choice but to forgo all humor in our exchanges as I was trying not to offend. But if you insist...
You mean flying monkeys and magical ruby slippers aren't real either? Darn. Guess I should dump my stock in sequins and fez's.
Kat wrote: "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...."Claire was English. Ft William was English. Therefore, Dougal was taking Claire to her people, the English.
Regarding Geilis, I did say 'which' made Geilis of interest, and I also said, "which obviously she was because Claire went to her when she received the note". Claire didn't know that Geilis was also from the future, but she knew she was different from the others. If anyone was going to help Claire get back to the stones, Geilis was her best choice.
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 watching Lucy too and thought everyone was having a great time. Ricky told Lucy what not to do, Lucy did what she wanted dragging Ethel along, and everyone had a great laugh.
Kat wrote: "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...."Yet, when Claire received the note to go to Geilis, she left and nobody noticed or tried to stop her. So obviously, she could leave.
Sage wrote: "Claire was English. Ft William was English. Therefore, Dougal was taking Claire to her people, the English.Maybe that's how Dougal rationalized it. But that's not what Claire thought.
Regarding Geilis, I did say 'which' made Geilis of interest, and I also said, "which obviously she was because Claire went to her when she received the note". Claire didn't know that Geilis was also from the future, but she knew she was different from the others. If anyone was going to help Claire get back to the stones, Geilis was her best choice. "
No, that's not what you said. In your original message 1018, you wrote: "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."
Claire DID promise not to go see Gellis. (As I showed.) But you said nothing in that post, or subsequent posts until this one about "because Claire went to her when she received the note." Just clarifying here you see...I wouldn't want to be accused of deliberately misinterpreting anything to derail or subvert any discussion. Maybe you meant to say it. Or thought it in your head. But since I'm not the Amazing Kreskin, I can only go by what you actually wrote.
I don't think Claire really thought Gellis that different (at that point) from anyone else - other than that strange episode where she drugged and questioned Claire. I certainly didn't get the impression that Claire ever thought at that time that Gellis could help her get back to the stones.
Sage wrote: "Yet, when Claire received the note to go to Geilis, she left and nobody noticed or tried to stop her. So obviously, she could leave. "Recall that this was AFTER she was wed to Jamie. And she'd reflected, even before the marriage, that if she did wed him it might give her a little more freedom of movement. And this was only to go to the village (which Collum wanted to happen anyway which is probably why no one stopped her). Wonder what would have happened if she'd actually tried to go further off of MacKenzie lands?
Beforehand, she was not allowed to even leave the castle unescorted. Which is when I was referencing when I said she was a captive.
Mrsbooks wrote: "But he just says *why* he enjoyed it. He says she looked so lovely, fought so fiercely that he hated hurting her and wanted to do it just the same. He just said the *why*. He was aroused by her reaction. That (to me) isn't the same as being aroused specifically because you caused someone pain. He can (and does) get the fierce side of Claire to come out in the bedroom numerous times in the future..."Remember, Jamie was a virgin, and being sexually aroused due to different situations involving Claire is something he's still experiencing. He didn't want to hurt her, but as you said, he loved her fierceness fighing back. His emotions were array.
And, actually, Claire's emotions were confused as well, she wanted him to come to bed with her, but her discomfort reminded her she was mad at him. She could rationalize why he did it, but she knew she couldn't accept or allow it to happen again. It was why she was able to forgive him, she didn't enjoy the beating, but she enjoyed the fight, the emotion.
And please don't misinterrupt this to mean I think Claire enjoyed the beating because I clearly said she didn't.
I don't read romance novels per se, although there is degree of romance in nearly every novel, so I don't know how overdone the husband/lover beats the heroine has been, therefore, I don't perceive it that way. I consider this scene a small part of a much larger story and, right or wrong, I think it's unfair to label Jamie a brutal abuser, or to refer to the author as lazy.
Why does Claire, who is a dark brunette, right? have fine blonde hairs on her arms? (does not compute). Hair color does not determine the color of the hair on the rest of your body. Many brunettes have light hair on their arms and legs, just like some brunettes have blue eyes and some men with blond hair have reddish hair in their beards.
Sage wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "But he just says *why* he enjoyed it. He says she looked so lovely, fought so fiercely that he hated hurting her and wanted to do it just the same. He just said the *why*. He was a...""He enjoys watching the person he owns become the person God wants her to be"
http://thebea.st/YGaHM7
Sage wrote: "Hair color does not determine the color of the hair on the rest of your body. Many brunettes have light hair on their arms and legs, just like some brunettes have blue eyes and some men with blond hair have reddish hair in their beards. "I have never seen a person with dark brown hair on their heads and blonde hair on their arms. Unless it's Dark brunette by Miss Clairol.
When I say blonde, I imagine light flaxen blonde. I guess the author could have had a different notion of 'blonde'. Much like I've read her notion of 'curly' hair isn't really what I'd consider 'curly'.
Sage wrote: "Kat wrote: "Says the person who didn't get several of my attempts at humor in the past. Since I was berated for that, I had no choice but to forgo all humor in our exchanges as I was trying not to ..."Sarcasm.
Wit.
Sara wrote: ""He enjoys watching the person he owns become the person God wants her to be"http://thebea.st/YGaHM7 "
Yeesh. What a disturbing article.
Sara wrote: ""He enjoys watching the person he owns become the person God wants her to be"..."Sara, this article has nothing to do with my opinion of Jamie and Claire. For one think, I don't think Jamie owns Claire, I don't think Claire accepted the spanking, and Jamie does not spank Claire because she burnt his supper or because he was in a rage. Furthermore, I never said it was acceptable or that Jamie was right.
This article is very disturbing and it's difficult to understand how any woman today would accept this behavior let alone think that God condones it.
I am a Christian and this is definitely not part of my religion or faith.
Sage wrote: "Kat wrote: "Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.And I thought I was talking to an adult."
So did I.
Sage wrote: "Remember, Jamie was a virgin, and being sexually aroused due to different situations involving Claire is something he's still experiencing. He didn't want to hurt her, but as you said, he loved her fierceness fighing back. His emotions were array.This is not a dig against you personally, but a general comment: I am *so* tired of seeing the 'Jamie was a virgin' excuse. I understand the rest of that sentence, I really do. And that's probably a valid point, regardless of his sexual experience. I'm just so tired of the virgin excuse.
And, actually, Claire's emotions were confused as well, she wanted him to come to bed with her, but her discomfort reminded her she was mad at him. She could rationalize why he did it, but she knew she couldn't accept or allow it to happen again. It was why she was able to forgive him, she didn't enjoy the beating, but she enjoyed the fight, the emotion.
Actually, after reading that spoiler posted by Mrsbooks, I think I understand Claire a bit better. And I don't think she really ever 'forgave' him. Not like I think of forgiveness; not what I think true forgiveness should be. I struggle with true forgiveness in my own life too. And oftentimes the only way I can let go or get past something is just to stop thinking about it. But that's not really forgiveness, I don't think. I think that's what Claire did. She just put it out of her mind. If she'd really forgiven him, I don't think she would have gotten as angry as she did when it come up in conversation again. She even claimed he'd apologized, which he never did. I think she had to tell herself to rationalize her 'forgiveness'.
And please don't misinterrupt this to mean I think Claire enjoyed the beating because I clearly said she didn't.
I don't think she enjoyed the fight or emotion either. When she was recalling the incident in that spoiler, she certainly didn't seem like she'd enjoyed even that part of it.
Sage wrote: "Sara, this article has nothing to do with my opinion of Jamie and Claire. For one think, I don't think Jamie owns Claire, I don't think Claire accepted the spanking, and Jamie does not spank Claire because she burnt his supper or because he was in a rage. Furthermore, I never said it was acceptable or that Jamie was right. This article is very disturbing and it's difficult to understand how any woman today would accept this behavior let alone think that God condones it.
I am a Christian and this is definitely not part of my religion or faith."
You might not think Jamie owns Claire, but he does. He says as much. Claire even acknowledges that, in the law of the times, he does own her.
Claire didn't accept the beating. But even in the article, at least one woman stated that her husband never 'disciplined' her in a rage either.
As for thinking God condones it, I think it comes from this: Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
This is probably also where the law (legal law) of the times came from that allowed husbands to beat their wives to discipline them. While it might not be part of your faith now, it was definitely part of the Church teachings back then.
Kat wrote: "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. Jamie born and raised in those lands. I think it's safe to assume that he knows the land far better than Claire does or most of the Brittish soldiers.
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.
The copse was hidden. She was FAR more likely to be found out in the open than in a hidden location that is only known to people who were familiar with the area....which is why she was told to hide there. The might have found her....anything is possible...but it was deemed highly unlikely.
Also, Claire would not have left the copse if she had not been left alone. That is the plot hole that you are ignoring.
Really? Says who? Since we are doing these huge hypotheticals....who is to say that she couldn't have slipped away while whoever assigned to stay with her had their guard down or their back turned? She certainly could have and likely would have taken the same opportunity to return to the stones however and whenever the opportunity presented itself.
Kat wrote: "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 ..."
"My wife is going to kick my ass when she finds out how much that new flat screen tv costs."
"My parents are going to kill me when they see my report card."
"My husband is going to have a stroke when he sees the damage to new car."
"The cops pulled me over doing 40 over the speed limit. They were ready to throw me under the jail."
"The teacher read me the riot act for not turning in my paper on time."
You are being overly pedantic and taking it far too literally. Quoting a dictionary doesn't always work with things like hyperbole, expression and figures of speech.
Considering the fact that Claire was able to function the next day, I think it is safe to infer that she was using some level of hyperbole. She didn't have any broken bones. She didn't have any internal injuries. She didn't have any major open wounds. She was able to walk and talk and do chores the next day. She even rode a horse. She was not LITERALLY "beaten within an inch of her life."
Kat wrote: "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 ..."I'm sorry. "War Zone" is an expression where I'm from for a place that is dangerous. (gunshots flying etc.) Claire found herself in the middle of a skirmish between the Scotts and Brittish soldiers.
As for it not being called a spanking in the book....of course not. The book is not set in our time. (I don't know the exact etymology of "spanking". Someone can look it up if they feel so inclined. I don't get the impression that it's a commonly used highland expression.) I just know that it is not typically a word that I encounter in historical fiction. They also refer to a dagger as a dirk in Outlander.
Kat wrote: "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 no..."I was being honest. If it offends....well, all I can do is say sorry...but won't retract my statement. Imo, many of your summaries have been extremely biased at best and extremely inaccurate and misleading at worst. You leave out very important details and you take things out of context. That's how I feel and what I was thinking and I don't think that I am obligated to sugar coat it. (....ie phrase it so that it is more "palatable")
Kat wrote: "Why does Claire, who is a dark brunette, right? have fine blonde hairs on her arms? (does not compute). Sometimes the hair that grows on the arms and other parts of the body is lighter and finer than the rest of the body. This can also happen to areas of the body that are exposed to a lot of sunlight. (Back in the day, I actually used to dye my eyebrows so that they matched my hair. Now, I can't be so bothered. A brow pencil works well enough for me these days.)
Kat wrote: "Beforehand, she was not allowed to even leave the castle unescorted. Which is when I was referencing when I said she was a captive. I've been thinking about whether or not she was a captive and it's still rather muddy to me. They don't trust her and they are keeping a close eye on her, but she is not necessarily being held captive either.
I probably need to re-read Outlander start to finish instead of re-reading bits and pieces as things come up, because I don't remember her being held captive per se. Doesn't she wander around in the gardens and go about looking for medicinal herbs on the lands surrounding the Castle and visit Jamie out in the paddock unescorted? (I distinctly remember that the paddock was described as being out in the fields away from the Castle. The first time she went, someone had to escort her to show her the way, but then she started going there on her own.)
I think my disconnect also comes from the fact that I don't always necessarily take Claire quite so "literally". She does say that she is being watched and that she doesn't think that she can just walk out of the castle. She says that in Chapter 7, but then again, she does just that when she goes to visit Jamie.
There is so much going on in this story. Claire lied to the Scots about how she got there and she did so for good reason. They know she is lying about something. They just don't know exactly what and they don't fully trust her. I'm re-reading bits and pieces of the story. At dinner in the Castle, Collum is giving her rennish wine and questioning her about her family in France. She tells Collum that she wants to be on her way to France as soon as possible. Collum says that there is no haste at the moment as she would not be able to cross the channel in that season anyway, but he would be happy to send word to her family for her. (Claire hurriedly excuses herself from the conversation at that point because she has no actual family to contact.)
Then there is the night before The Gathering when she tries to slip to the stables to steal a horse and runs into Jamie. He tells her that she picked a bad night to try to run away, that she won't be able to get far.
so, was she a captive? Yes and no. She's a "guest" that they didn't fully trust yet and therefore needed to keep an eye on.
Kat wrote: "Sage wrote: "Kat wrote: "Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.And I thought I was talking to an adult."
So did I."
I deleted my comments because it was late, I was tired, and they were childish.
Kat wrote: "Sage wrote: "Sara, this article has nothing to do with my opinion of Jamie and Claire. For one think, I don't think Jamie owns Claire, I don't think Claire accepted the spanking, and Jamie does not..."I'm familiar with the Bible, not just an appropriate verse but the entire book. Submitting to your husband does not mean he has the right to beat you and the Bible does not imply that he does. And please don't give me a definition of submit, I know what it means.
Jamie may 'think' he owns Claire, but that doesn't mean he owns her. Jamie's a warrior, from a time when women became their husbands property, so it's logical that he would think he owns her. But just because someone thinks something doesn't mean it's true.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat wrote: "Also, Claire would not have left the copse if she had not been left alone. That is the plot hole that you are ignoring...."Last week my grandson had a accident on his way to school, so according to your logic, he could have argued that if hadn't gone to school that day, he wouldn't have had an accident.
The point being, you could use that form of logic for just about everything that happens in our lives.
ie.: if my co-worker didn't bake cookies last night, I wouldn't have ate one.
Sage wrote: "I'm familiar with the Bible, not just an appropriate verse but the entire book. Submitting to your husband does not mean he has the right to beat you and the Bible does not imply that he does. And please don't give me a definition of submit, I know what it means.Oh, I completely agree with you here. I was just trying to explain how someone could think God condones it. At one time, there were passages in the Bible used to condone slavery as well. It doesn't mean it was right, or that I agree with it.
Jamie may 'think' he owns Claire, but that doesn't think he owns her. Jamie's a warrior, from a time when women became their husbands property, so it's logical that he would think he owns her. But just because someone thinks something doesn't mean it's true. "
I think you meant to write that doesn't mean he owns her. :) Again, I agree with you. I think Claire does too.
But I was writing that from Jamie's pov. It's interesting - several people on this thread have 'defended' (for lack of a better word) the beating from Jamie's pov. And it seems that I'm expected to just accept that and move on, right or wrong. Yet, when I say Jamie thinks he owns Claire because that's from his pov, suddenly, just because someone thinks something doesn't mean it's true.
Sage wrote: "Last week my grandson had a accident on his way to school, so according to your logic, he could have agued that if hadn't gone to school that day, he wouldn't have had an accident.It's possible he wouldn't have had that accident. But you're oversimplifying it. What were the other circumstances? Would he have been at that place and time anyway?
"The point being, you could use that form of logic for just about everything that happens in our lives.
ie.: if my co-worker didn't bake cookies last night, I wouldn't have ate one. "
Not quite. It wasn't because your co-worker baked cookies that you ate one. It was because they brought them to the workplace and made them available for you to eat.
Oh, and you didn't have the will to resist. :) Unless they actually forced one down your throat? :/
I find the idea of "owning" someone amusing. I think it's one of those things that mean something different to everyone. If we read a romance novel of a guy saying he owns his woman or that she belongs to him, all feminism breaks loose and we call him a creep. - While the other half of women oohhs and ahhh's and gushs about how romantic he is. But in reality, I feel like I own my husband and that he belongs to me. I feel like that because it's true. I own him. He's mine.... and he knows that. We belong to each other. When Jamie speaks of owning Claire, he speaks of her owning him as well. I don't think he's speaking from a place of legal ownership, although he'd be correct if that's what he meant. He's meaning something different, he's implying that she's taken him so completely that she owns his soul. Vice versa.___________
History is filled with people purposely misapplying scriptures to suit their own goals and history is also filled with well intentioned people just misunderstanding and misapplying scriptures even though they have good intentions. I'm not surprised that people have used scripture to support owning slaves, I think that would fall into the former catagory.
Reply to comment 1079 from Kat.Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to the times he expresses his remorse for having made the vow not to raise a hand to her again. I realize you read those remarks as humorous, but I didn't.
So, I'm not going to bother with this because I still don't believe Jamie truly wanted to hurt Claire in the future. As you said, I believe he was teasing. Also exasperated but not serious.
That's also not saying none of those reasons would never have come up in the future. And if he hadn't made the vow, and one of those reasons had come up, then imo, he would have beaten her again.
I think this is entirely possible.
I think it's a dangerous stereotype to imply that abusers are raving lunatics. They aren't all. They are often very charming. That's how they lure women into a false sense of security and ultimately into abusive relationships. Many spousal abuse perpetrators aren't motivated by a need to dominate or control their wives. It just so happens that their wives, who are likely weaker, are the convenient scapegoat for all their other problems. As for the "Things get out of hand when she fights back" - exactly. That's probably how a lot of abuse gets out of hand nowadays too. The fact that he did get out of hand because she fought back disturbs me immensely.
Yes, sorry, I see how my comment sounded like I was sterotyping. I hadn't meant to. I often think of the movie "Sleeping with the Enemy" and how smooth, calm and collected her husband was while beating his wife.
If in the beating scene you mean that he gets pretty beaten in the process - well then I think you are underestimating a woman's capacity to fight back. Even though true abusers might get the best of their victims, they often don't get away completely unscathed, so that part I think was very realistic at least.
I think had Jamie truly not cared how he hurt Claire and to what capacity things would have gone quite differently. I don't doubt that women give many abusers a tough time while fighting back and some do awesome damange. But I'm saying that Claire would have been worse off. Way worse off. Jamie may not have had that amount of damage as well.
I personally don't believe Jamie lost control of the situation. A sentence like "things got out of hand." Is one of those ones that have different degrees to everyone. I think it got out of hand in that what happened wasn't what he expected. He expected her to submit. Because he would have in her shoes. He had expectations that didn't turn out, that automatically makes the situation out of hand for him. But I don't believe Jamie ever lost control. I do believe Jamie was trying (very wrongly) to balance the scales of justice here. This is what he knew to do.
I didn't mean that he should change his views on corporal punishment based on gender, but maybe age? Like, while it might be okay to spank (not beat) your children, it's not okay to do that to an adult and specifically your wife...
This is what I mean though by someone changing their cultural views. In a best case scenario, the person has to see that their view of thinking doesn't work. Jamie sees it doesn't work *with* Claire. But he still sees it working elsewhere. With other people and with other men. Like in book two when he takes a belt (or whip?) to one of the men under his command for failing to keep proper watch. Then he allows the same thing to be done to him, since he's technically in charge and he did the same thing.
I also agree with your assessment of Claire forgiving Jamie for it. I share your definition of true forgiveness. There are certainly different degrees of forgiveness. Some people say you can forgive but not forget but that in itself to me is a contradiction to me. There is no reason to remember if you're not going to keep account of the act. And if you're keeping account of the act then you haven't really forgiven it. Not that you can actually really *forget*. Sigh, I don't know if I'm confusing you... but I feel like I'm starting to confuse myself lol.
Mrsbooks wrote: "I find the idea of "owning" someone amusing. I think it's one of those things that mean something different to everyone."Lol. Glad you can find it amusing. Not sure I can - or that anyone in the past when slavery was legal and women were technically owned by their husbands would either.
I do find the idea that you find the idea amusing, amusing. If that makes sense.
Nowadays - depending on the context - I agree that it can mean different things to different people.
"If we read a romance novel of a guy saying he owns his woman or that she belongs to him, all feminism breaks loose and we call him a creep. - While the other half of women oohhs and ahhh's and gushs about how romantic he is. But in reality, I feel like I own my husband and that he belongs to me. I feel like that because it's true. I own him. He's mine.... and he knows that. We belong to each other. When Jamie speaks of owning Claire, he speaks of her owning him as well. I don't think he's speaking from a place of legal ownership, although he'd be correct if that's what he meant. He's meaning something different, he's implying that she's taken him so completely that she owns his soul. Vice versa."
I think "owning" and "belonging" have two different connotations to me. That is, I could belong to a man, and he could belong to me, but that doesn't mean we own each other. Belonging, to me, gives a sense of place. And I like that. It's comforting. Like I might belong to my country, but that doesn't mean it owns me. Or my cat belongs to me, but as every cat owner knows, you can't truly own a cat. :)
Edited to add the following: Ah! I know what I was trying to say above. To me, "belonging" is a reciprocal relationship. Like you said, you belong to your husband and he belongs to you. Or I belong to my country and it belongs to me. "Owning" is a one-sided relationship. I own my car. Or Scarlett O'Hara owned slaves. They didn't own her too.
I do agree that at the end of that passage you posted, what Jamie and Claire are inferring is what you said. But I also think earlier in the passage, Jamie is also acknowledging his legal ownership of Claire as well. And so is Claire. On first read, that's how it struck me. Or maybe it's just Claire that acknowledges it and we are left to assume that's also what Jamie was inferring. This is probably one of those passages I'd have to go back and read again (and again.) Like the 'I love you' on the road to Bargrennan scene.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Yes, sorry, I see how my comment sounded like I was sterotyping. I hadn't meant to. I often think of the movie "Sleeping with the Enemy" and how smooth, calm and collected her husband was while beating his wife."Oh yes, excellent example! I'd forgotten about that movie.
"I personally don't believe Jamie lost control of the situation. A sentence like "things got out of hand." Is one of those ones that have different degrees to everyone. I think it got out of hand in that what happened wasn't what he expected. He expected her to submit. Because he would have in her shoes. He had expectations that didn't turn out, that automatically makes the situation out of hand for him. But I don't believe Jamie ever lost control. I do believe Jamie was trying (very wrongly) to balance the scales of justice here. This is what he knew to do. "
No, it's true that her beating wasn't as bad as it could have been. But I do still think Jamie did lose control a little bit. He did give her a much worse beating than he originally set out to do: just because she didn't submit. That, to me, shows a loss of control; not a full-scale, sadistic, 21st century definition of abuser loss of control perhaps, but a loss of control none the less.
Mrsbooks wrote: "I also agree with your assessment of Claire forgiving Jamie for it. I share your definition of true forgiveness. There are certainly different degrees of forgiveness. Some people say you can forgive but not forget but that in itself to me is a contradiction to me. There is no reason to remember if you're not going to keep account of the act. And if you're keeping account of the act then you haven't really forgiven it. Not that you can actually really *forget*. Sigh, I don't know if I'm confusing you... but I feel like I'm starting to confuse myself lol. "Nah, you didn't confuse me. :) That's how I feel about it exactly. And I confuse myself if I think about it too hard.
Sage wrote: "Last week my grandson had a accident on his way to school, so according to your logic, he could have agued that if hadn't gone to school that day, he wouldn't have had an accident.The point being, you could use that form of logic for just about everything that happens in our lives.
ie.: if my co-worker didn't bake cookies last night, I wouldn't have ate one.
"
No. Not at all. Accidents are things that just happen. Sometimes it is no one's fault and other times, they happen due to negligence on someone's part. I don't know the full circumstances of your grandson's accident (I hope his is ok, btw). I don't what caused it or who's fault it is or whether it was no one's fault at all. However, I do know that his going to school IS NOT what caused the accident.
Unless he did something he wasn't supposed to do like not take the bus and instead decided to drive your car instead without permission. If that is the case, then it is partially his fault because he was someplace that he was not supposed to be at that time. Do you see where I am trying to go with this hypothetical? If you are doing what you are a supposed to be doing and an accident happens,....that is completely different from a negligent action that adversely affects others. It's kind of like the flooding in South Carolina. There is a difference between the family that had to be rescued from their roof because a nearby dam failed and the guy that had to be rescued from his pickup truck because DELIBERATELY tried to drive it through a flooded road. The family experienced an accident. That guy in the pick-up truck had a direct hand in his own demise. That wasn't an "accident". He wouldn't have had to be rescued had he had the foresight to understand that he can't drive a truck through a flooded road.
Along these same lines, last winter, my car was hit by a city snow plow. I tried to sue in small claims court for my deductible and I lost. Why? Because the city declared a state of emergency during that storm and said that my car was parked on the street illegally. I personally don't think it was fair...but it happened. I contemplated hiring a lawyer and pursuing it further, but decided against it figuring the expense and time and stress of a lawsuit wasn't worth it to me. I just ate the deductible and went on with my life.
In the case of Claire, she encountered the soldiers because she CHOSE not to remain in her designated hiding place. She chose to leave. I understand why she made the choice.....but still, it was her choice.
Kat wrote: "Sage wrote: "Sara, this article has nothing to do with my opinion of Jamie and Claire..."Hi Kat and Sage,
Sage, I replied to your comment in error. I meant to reply to the discussion I had been having with Kat, Mrsbooks and Maddie.
Thank you Kat, now that you point it out, I see the the correlation with the "God / bible verse / laws of man" there. Also, speaking to the property / ownership correlation.
Excerpt from Mrsbooks spoiler:
"The infuriating fact was that I did know that. I remembered all too well. He had used his sword belt to such effect that I hadn't been able to sit comfortably for several days--and if he should ever decide to do it again, there was absolutely nothing to stop him.
I was, for the most part, able to ignore the fact that I was legally his property. That didn't alter the fact that it was a fact--and he knew it."
I saw quite a few correlations to our discussion about beatings as a bad trope Claire was beaten to satisfy the men, to wake her up to time travel, to satisfy an erotic component for the "romance" market, et al...
Quote from article, "Women who receive beatings in the name God, she says, are no different than the women she sees every day in her shelter. Domestic abuse, which one in four U.S. women will experience at some point in their lifetime, often conjures scenes of thundering rage, broken bones, and black eyes. But the most dangerous kind, Dickson says, is the emotional kind, because it keeps people trapped. “The definition of domestic abuse is power and control over another individual,” she says.
The I Love Lucy, imagery isn't amusing in an domestic abuse context.
The beating the a good girl to show her who's boss, from article... "Some practice “maintenance spanking,” wherein good girls are slapped on a schedule to remind them who’s boss"
Excerpt Mrsbooks spoiler:
"She said it was because of Ian's leg," Jamie said, glancing at me to see whether this made sense to me. "She said that such a thing would make no difference to Jenny, but it would to him. She said," he added, his color heightening, "that men havena got any idea what women think about bed, but they always think they have, so it causes trouble."
"I knew I liked Grannie MacNab," I murmured. "What else?"
"Well, so. She said it was likely that Jenny was only makin' it clear to Ian--and maybe
to herself, as well--that she still thought he was a man, leg or no."
The domestic abuse as a sexual fetish, from article... "Some women post questions about how best to convince their husbands to begin disciplining them, or pen distressed posts when the punishments wane in number or intensity."
Excerpt from Mrsbooks spoiler, about Jamie's sister:
"Well, not precisely, no," he admitted. "But I wasna often in the house, after Culloden. Now and then, though, I'd come down for a visit, and I'd see that she was . . . brewing for something." He rubbed his nose and squinted against the sun, searching for words. "She'd devil him," he said at last, shrugging. "Pick at him over nothing, make wee sarcastic remarks. She'd--" His face cleared a bit, as he came up with a suitable description. "She'd act like a spoilt wee lassie in need of the tawse."
Enjoyable or not, a woman fighting against a painful spanking; quote from article, "And then there are posts that are just plain disturbing: “My wife cries and writhes and begs me to stop during spankings, should I?”
Mrsbooks explanation of Jamie's arousal and enjoyment, "But he just says *why* he enjoyed it. He says she looked so lovely, fought so fiercely that he hated hurting her and wanted to do it just the same. He just said the *why*. He was aroused by her reaction."
There is more, but whatever...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Breath of Snow and Ashes (other topics)The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Claire outright agrees to stay in the cope. Doesn't alter the fact the scene happened and we are quoting the words. Crappy trope. Denying it was written doesn't change it.