Outlander discussion

Mochaspresso 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."

You're very adamant about "context" and all, as if you thought some readers/posters didn't undertand that. Who ever stated that context didn't matter? And who ever stated that Outlander was "set during our time"?

By the way, even when taking them into their context, some things can still be critized. Context doens't nullify criticism.

Mochaspresso wrote: "This is what I believe that you and Red are doing with "Outlander". "

No this is NOT what I, for one (I wouldn't want to talk for Kat, ene though I also do think that is NOT what she has been doing). NO, NO, and NO ! And yes, I used caps cause I am a bit exasperated/frustrated cause I feel like you keep NOT reading my replies to your comments.

You keep using other books to try and make a point that I, for one, am not discussing. I am not discussing about what you were "feeling" when you read P&P or Outlander. Or arguing on a "moral" ground with anyone. I am trying to have a conversation about the writing of the book and the way some people have been justifying said writing.

Mochaspresso wrote: "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."

Nobody, certainly NOT me, ever forbade you to do so. You just did it. And you could do it about Outlander too. So, so far, can I say we agree on this? You have the right to feel whatever you want about this book (and so do I) and to express it (so do I).

Mochaspresso wrote: "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."

We also agree on this. But maybe not for the same reason. You are absolutely entitled to "feel" whatever you want about P&P. Even when it comes to actual literary critic (and not just lietrary "sentiment"/feeling), you can think and state that P&P is badly writen, BUT (and it's an all caps BUT) you sure are going to accept to have a pretty strong case put forward to counter your point. A case based on tons of actual studies in modern literature that argue very convincingly that P&P is pretty much a master piece of sort, to prove you wrong. That doesn't mean that you have to like it or change how you feel, but that, based on academic studies whose whole purpose is to determine what is normatively accepted as "good" or "bad" writing (not on a moral ground but on a "scientific" ground), your literary critic better be pretty tough to beat out those thousand others.

That doesn't mean either that one cannot discuss the writing/lietrary value of the book as a whole, or even of just one scene or chapter. That is pretty much what literature studies and debates are made for. And that's what is so great about engaging in them, whether in the academia or on the internet. In the former as in the latter, it's all about how convincing your argument are going to be. By the way, there has been plenty of literary discussions about P&P and its literary values. I, for one, think it's a great book as a whole, well written even with the use of common literary tropes (that were not completely "oversused" at the time - see, I understand the "context") that were used creatively. The book has its weakness, of course. And some parts aren't always as tight as they could. And there has been a lot of discussions about those (and other). But as a whole, I am on the side of the academia in literature that considers this book to be a master piece.

Mochaspresso wrote: "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". "

And that's were you're totally wrong cause that's absolutely not what I have bee doing. Whether I am discussing established master piece such as P&P or merely popular book like Outlander, I can make the difference between what I feel about a book (whether I like it or not) and what I consider its literary/writing value is (whether its well or badly written, how consistent is the plot, etc.). I can dislike a book and still think the writing is masterful. Here, I give you an example. Ever heard of "Voyage au bout de la nuit" by Celine? The first time I read it I was blown. The wririting is pretty amazing. I won't argue against that point. Yet, I absolutely dislike/loath it cause it's a racist piece of shit. See : yeah, great literary writing, still shit. And I can also recognize that many of the stuff I read and actually LIKE, aren't great literary works, I won't try and argue against this with anyone. Some are good, a very few are really great, but the vast majority is no masterpiece. They aren't necessarily bad, but I know it's mostly fluff for smut and giggles. That doesn't mean I would tolerate complete crap. But I am not going to go about discussing the literary value of most of them.

So, as I said many times before, I am talking about the writing. I know the difference, and I explained it many time, between liking somethink and discussing it on normative literary ground. The fact that you continue to think and state and imply that I can't make such basic difference is pretty insulting to my intelligence.

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

And what is THAT supposed to mean? Seeing as anyone still posting is obviously taking this discussion seriously enough to still be posting and discussing ? Ins't it a case of "pot meets kettle"? And aren't we all now about avoiding that kind of dismissive statement and respecting how people "feel" about that book? What if some reader wnat to take it "seriously" and discuss it? And are you Sage now speaking on behalf of the author to be able to know better than others what the book was "meant to be".

Mochaspresso wrote: " I did not like "A Clockwork Orange" at all and thought it was a bizarre mess of a novel. "

If I may, I think that the "bizarre mess" is precisely part of the reason some reader enjoyed it...and some would even argue about its literary value based on that...

Mochaspresso wrote: "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? "

That kind of comment is pretty unnecessary and totally misleading.I would greatly appreciate that you don't try and make me say things I never said. Stop extrapoling my points and creating false controversery out of nothing. You are actually derailing the conversation by doing that.

I do think I made my points very clear. I repeated them enough. But since it seems it was still not enough, let make myself clear again. I don't wan't you to do or say of feel anything. I am not saying that you SHOULD do or not do ANYTHING. I am saying that if you are one of those reader that think that the writing of that scene/plote is justified because of the need for the author to stick to some sense of "historical accuracy" you're wrong because "historical accuracy" can be used with other and far better scenario. And I am also saying that judging it from a literary POV, I think this is a weak and lazy writing.

I have many other opinions and feeling of my own about the characters and such, but whatever more YOU may want to think or feel about the characters and the series is ENTIRELY on your own. Don't drag me and my name into it.

And talking about me, by name, as if I wasn't right there in this discussion too, is the epitome of dismissiveness. This has happened before, earlier, and I perhaps naively thought we were past those kind of passive aggressive attitudes that one only resorts to when one has no valid argument left. Obviously I was wrong.

Mochaspresso wrote: "There is obviously a huge difference between being spanked with a hand vs with a belt. "

Here we go with the "spanking" vs "beating thing again. I mean, why is it such a problem for you to call what happened the way the author AND the characters called it? This is also a serious question,no shade. Cause if I recall some of your many comments (but if I am wrong, I duly stand corrected), you are one of the posters who like to talk about quoting the very exact passage and such. And yet you keep refusing to call what happen the way it is factually called. And yet, even when confronted with the dictionary definition of those word, you refuse to use that very word. Why is that?

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."

I can understand your point, if you consider that the term "abuser" can only be used when the said abuse is repeated. To me, it only needs to happen once for the label to fit.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Yes, I totally get not being able to forgive him. "

i've been readng some other comments about the whole forgiveness thing. To me it's no so much about "forgiveness". It's more about not forgetting what he did and what what he did, even just once, "made" him. That doesn't eman it's its one only characteristic and that he doesn't have any other good ones.
I can deal with my faves being problematic. Even if they are my "faves" and even if they only are problematic just once, I just can't erase that fact. And putting a name on things is a way to not erase or forget them.

Sara wrote: "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. "

I don't know about ALL the abusive characters in TCP, but I totally agrees with your overall point. That's why I insisted on the "writing" and the framing of the scene. I think it was weak and done in poor taste. That has nothing to do with "whitewashing".

As for the "I love Lucy" reference, I don't know much about that show, but just because it was a 1950s or 1960s comedy doesn't mean all of their "jokes" always landed or were all well written or written in the best comic taste or that it wasn't problematic even within the 1950s-1960s context.

Sara wrote: "Ultimately it was the author's choice to create this conflict and resolution. "

Exactly ! That's why the "historical accuracy" thing doesn't hold much (any) water for me.

Mrsbooks wrote: "If it were only that one scene to go buy, I'd agree. "

To me it's not that it's the only scene where she expresses this, but it is the very first time that she does. Both of them actually express feelings of loving/liking each other. Granted they do not express "being in love" with each other. But it's still somehow significant IMHO. Especially as Jamie recalls everything they already went through...

And yes, that discussion doesn't immediatly follows the beating scene, but it's not 100 pages way either. The way I read it, it's part of the general aftermath of all that happened to them so far and not long ago, and that Jamie summarized.

Sara wrote: "The morning after the beating, not long after the "Roger" discussion."

So it only happens the morning after the beating? Even if it was a bit later than that, lighthearted or not, it was still of poor taste to write that after the beating.

Red wrote: "Sara wrote: "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 ..."

Hi Red,

I agree, not all but largely love interests.

The I Love Lucy, imagery is interesting because Lucile Ball, was influential in the Television scene at that time. Additionally, it was her real life spouse Dezi Arnaz, who played the "spanker". Desi Arnez, was involved in the production of the show. Some of those scenes are satirical and others morality plays, a bit like a Sara Silverman sketch.

The necessary disclaimer of, " not forwarding an agenda, attempting to charachersize all episodes in a particular light, or anything other than remark on a show from my childhood regarding my own impressions.

Mrsbooks wrote: "While I agree that it is both, I feel it's more clan then marital. "

But haven't we already gone around the fact that even taken as a purely clan issue, the justification of the beating as written is pretty weak?

Red wrote: "Sara wrote: "The morning after the beating, not long after the "Roger" discussion."

So it only happens the morning after the beating? Even if it was a bit later than that, lighthearted or not, it ..."

Yes, after the morning meal, and"chaffing" by the men she is walking as she is too sore to ride and Jamie walks along with her.

Kat wrote: "You mean flying monkeys and magical ruby slippers aren't real either? Darn. Guess I should dump my stock in sequins and fez's. "

I sense some sarcasm here...

Sage wrote: "He didn't want to hurt her"

Hmmm...Are you still talking about when he was beating here? Correct me if I am wrong. Because if you don't wnat to hurt someone, beating them isn't the best way to go about it.

Mochaspresso wrote: "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. "

Well, it's "hyperbole" vs undertatement. Correct me if I am wrong, but do you mean if you're able to "function" after a beating it means the beating wasn't THAT serious? Really? So unless Jamie had beaten her "within an inch of her life" or that she didn't have any internal injuries (sic!), there really is no point in labelling it a beating or even a serious one, and therefore discuss it?

By the way, IF she had had internal injuries, she would have been dead by the next morning...

I really don't get why we seems to go back to this again. Can we really not agree even on the fact that, by the author's and both characters' own words, it was LITERALLY indeed a beating that hurt and was serious enough to leave bruises and make walking and riding pretty unconformatble ?

Mochaspresso wrote: "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."

The word spanking isn't a modern creation. Nor is beating. Nor is any of the words the author uses to describe the action. And Only when it comes to the 1700s character talking can we discuss whether this or that expression was "common" at the time. The author knows the term "spanking" and since she made at least some researches when it comes to the language of the time, if she wanted to indicate that what happened was anything other than what we, as readers but also what 20th century Claire, know to be a beating. She could have used the term "spanking" to describe the action, even if 1700s Jamie ddidn't. She didn't. If you think that she used a word but didn't actually mean it, well I don't understand how you can believe any other word that are written/spoken in that book since by your logic (or what I understand your logic is, correct me if I am wrong) one shouldn't take the meaning of some word at face value.

Kat wrote: "Sage wrote: "Exactly...even though I promised myself that I wouldn't eat snacks, they looked good, I was having coffee, and gave in to temptation...just like Claire.
She saw an opportunity and even..."

This whole analogy thing is getting more and more a life of its own ! It's like we're not discussing Outlander anymore but unruly grandson and delicious cookies !

Mochaspresso wrote: "It's hard to explain the comedy of "I Love Lucy". Lucy was not the only show that featured acts of "domestic spankings" for comedic effect. It was in movies, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x..."

Does it make less problematic? There were, and there still are, many things used supposedly "comedic effect" and that doesn't make everybody laugh, not because they don't have a sense of humour, but because comedy, like any other form of cultural expression, also deals with power dynamics and domination. Like, satire, for instance, only truly works when you figuratively "punch" up, not down.

Kat wrote: "Not sure if this is what you or Sara were talking about, but I think there is definitely a difference between the "BDSM" type of spanking where it's consensual and there are safe words, etc. and what Jamie does to Claire. The BDSM type seems more like what (view spoiler) And that's fine if that's what they are into. I really don't like the dubiousness of it in regards to Jamie and Claire's relationship. If they are, then they are. If not, don't even go there. "

Exactly ! BDSM or "kinky" sexual pratices are about consent (on may argue that's even the main part of it...."safe word" anyone?). If you do no consent in anything or at any moment, if you physically or verbally resist, , it's abusive and sexual assault. Ther eis no such thing as "dubious consent". If it's "dubious" or "unclear", it is NOT consent. And that's true IRL as in fiction.

Kat wrote: "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. :)"

As a cat lover I will concur and says cat own you more than the contrary!
But about the whole "owning" or "belonging" thing, I get why you make a difference, Kat, and I am still not confortable with both terms used when referring to human beings and human relation. Because even if it is used figuratively, it still conveys part of the literal meaning. And in both cases, those word refers primarily to objects, properties, and there is always an imbalance of power, a form of dependancy, between the owner and the one who is owned, as well as the one who belond to someone else and the one to whom one belongs. I like to think that relationship between people (and to some extent between lvivng being) should rather be likened to more equal dynamics. Cause I do the way we talk is indicative of the way we see and shape the word, and vice et versa.

Mrsbooks wrote: "The result (the beating) of everything that happened makes us discuss everything leading up to it with a fine tooth-comb. But if we take the beating out of the equation and lets just pretend Claire's *punishment* was.... I don't know.... lets say she had to.... uh, I can't really think of anything.... having to shovel the horse stalls...

Sometimes I think it's the beating in itself that takes out any sympathy for the men and their perspective, about why they require this justice.

I do think the scales of justice had to be met in this situation. I do understand where the men are coming from. And if we take out the beating and say that Claire had to shovel horse shit for a week, I don't think anybody would have a problem with Jamie leaving her alone in the woods or that the men required some kind of action leveling the scales.

Let me clarify. I'm again, not saying this makes the beating *right* (although it does in their minds) I am saying that I don't think it's wrong for them to feel ... well wronged and to want justice. "

Well, the point of my OP is to discuss the beating. If you're taking it out, this would be a whole otehr discussion, or no discussion at all. To me the beating is problematic in terms of writing plot and characterization, it's not just the "end result". But rather, the beating IS the plot, it is the central, dramatic major conflict between the lead character,a nd everything that is written before is written with the intend to end up by it. That's why I argue that's poor writing. The way I read it, the author wnated this to happen to ake a point, so she tried and make the whole situation word around it.

Now, what I think is there could have been other way to make the point the author wanted to make (either it is the culture clash, the clan issue, etc.) and created conflict and drama between the two romantic lead. That still could have fit with the "times". And it would have still been discussed because it would have pit the two lead against each other.

Also, what do you mean by "justice"? And "justice" for what? Cause I still can't see how any "justice" was properly rendered in this situation.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Response to msg # 1140 Kat wrote: "

We're currently watching Grey's Anatomy (hadn't stayed caught up) if you haven't seen season 9, then don't read on lol.

But basically they all get in an airpla..."

I am not sure using Shonda "plothole masters" Rhimes' writing (especially on GA) as an example of logics and coherence really helps your point ;).

Culture changes and varies over time, but there are constant. In any society with a modicum of "justice system", (sexually) forcing yourself on someone, even if it wasn't labelled rape" or "sexual assualt", has never been taken lightly. Even in the Bible that some have quoted in here, that is frown upon.

Acts of violence, outside of those which are strictly regulated like going to war, are always frown upon. Especially since for the most part of human history, sexual activities were tightly linked to reproduction. And unregulated sexual activities could lead to disruption of the reproduction and ownership right.

As for today, victim blaming happen because we still live in a systematicaly oppresive society where this tactic is used to downplay the responsability of the culprits and to further keep the victims feeling helpless. It has nothing to do with taking responsability for one's action. So it's pretty much moot to me. Walking down a dark street in a bad section of town doesn't strip for your right to safety and for the right for other people to respect your physical integrity.

And a woman's body and physical integrity can't be compared to an "expensive car" parked onto a street.

And peole can think someone who parks its expensive car onto is an idiot and be themselves idiots. Are we going to blame them for merely existing and subjecting themselves to being called the idiots they are?

To me, there is really nothing much to understand to this kind of mindset.

Mochaspresso wrote: "a safety recommendation that is made to empower women and help them stay safe is twisted and turned into victim blaming"

It's not a mere "recommandation" anymore when it's made AFTER shit has happened and the person has been the victim of violence. And i don't think anyone who's been mugged or worse ever thought when they were attacked, they were on a mission to prove a point.

Red wrote: "It's not a mere "recommandation" anymore when it's made AFTER shit has happened and the person has been the victim of violence. And i don't think anyone who's been mugged or worse ever thought when they were attacked, they were on a mission to prove a point.
"

I wasn't referring to "after shit has happened and the person has been the victim of violence" scenarios in my post at all. I was referring to instances where women were misguidedly led to believe that they can or should be entitled to do things that are not prudent or safe.

Imo, Claire did not heed certain warnings and directives because she was bristling at the notion of being told what to do by her husband and the other men. Not heeding those warnings ended up being to her detriment. Some of the warnings and directives were not just about a husband giving a wife an order. Some of them were about safety and Claire was not always able to see the difference because she was letting things cloud her judgement. Jamie has the same problem. He doesn't understand that she's from a different place and time and isn't necessarily going to obey him just because he's her husband. Ever heard the saying "Don't shoot the messenger?" In my opinion, Claire and Jamie were not understanding each other's messages because of hangups that they each had about the messenger.

Red wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "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. Sh..."

I agree that is was a beating. In an earlier post, I also said that "beating" has varied colloquial connotations and degrees of severity depending on where one comes from.

For example, there is a difference between "I got a beating for not doing my chores." and "He got jumped on the way home from school and they beat him up pretty badly." Same word...different context, different meaning, different connotation, different degree of severity.

I am not arguing that Claire wasn't beat. She was. I've even used the word beat in my discussion of that incident repeatedly. Whoever I was replying to in that quoted post was trying to imply that Claire was severely hurt when she proclaimed that she was "beat within an inch of her life". I was responding that this is inaccurate and misleading. She had bruises (physical and ego) and she was sorem but she was not LITERALLY beaten within an inch of her life. A reader can infer this because the level of functionality she exhibited the next day. She was able to get up and go about her normal day. She was certainly sore, but she was able to do everything that she would normally do. She didn't have black eyes, broken bones or a broken nose, missing teeth, open wounds, internal injuries etc.. It wasn't that type of severe "beating" and I don't believe that the men would have been teasing her the next day had it been. She was clearly exaggerating and using some level hyperbole in the novel.

By extension, I think this feeds into the conversation of historical accuracy that started this thread. Severely beating your wife to the point where she has black eyes, broken bones and missing teeth etc was frowned upon in that society. (even though it did still happen). "Spanking/beating" her with your sword belt as discipline or punishment for a perceived misdeed was not necessarily universally frowned upon. In our modern society, we don't make those types of distinctions anymore. Spouses "disciplining/punishing" each other, whether it be physical or emotional, is not tolerated behavior. That was not necessarily always the case in the time and place that Outlander was set in. At least, I don't think so. In other words, while we see a belt and fists as being of the same nature of abuse today, I am not convinced that this was true of that time.

...I think using certain wording has the potential to mislead someone who hasn't read the book. Saying "Jamie beat Claire within an in of her life for disobeying him in Outlander" is inflammatory, pejorative, inaccurate and misleading. Even though these words were from the book, it doesn't explain that situation accurately. Without the context, a reader not familiar with the books can't tell whether this statement is supposed to be taken literally or as a hyperbolic figure of speech. A person who hasn't read the book can easily take that out of context.

Get ready....I'm about to be rude (honest, imo) again. I think a "critical reader" should have realized that Claire was using hyperbole there and was not literally beat within an inch of her life. The fact that people are trying to claim otherwise is what led to my statements to Kat...and now to you that perhaps you skimmed some parts or did not necessarily read as critically as you thought you did.

Kind of like that reporter at Rolling Stone who wrote the rape story. She clearly had an agenda and wanted her story to have a certain slant and as a result, did not do the due diligence to investigate and verify the facts. Her story was ripped apart and she actually did far more harm to her cause than helped it in the process. She was so fixated on pushing a certain agenda that it clouded her judgment.

Back to Jamie and Claire in Outlander. I think they were not understanding each other and both of them were allowing baggage and hangups to cloud their judgment.

I've been thinking about whether Claire truly forgave Jamie for beating her...and I think she did, but she also clearly has never forgotten it. It makes me wonder if forgive is even the right word. I haven't read all of the books yet. I am only on "The Fiery Cross", but it does come up again between them in the latter books that I have read.

It's one of those long standing arguments that couples sometimes have. The ones that never truly get resolved once and for all and it comes up over and over again. (In the TV show "Friends", Ross and Rachel repeatedly have the argument where Rachel says that that he cheated on her to which he always replies "WE WERE ON A BREAK!!"--they had an argument and he thought they'd broken up. In Rachel's mind, "spending time apart" didn't necessarily mean "breaking up and therefore, free to date other people". There was a lot more going on, but it's too much to get into and not the point...) The point is that they eventually forgave each other and moved on, but they've clearly never forgotten it or truly resolved it because it comes up over and over again. Even though they did eventually come to understand each other's pov, they never really came to an agreement. Well, that's not true. They came to the agreement that who was right or wrong doesn't matter. (In their minds, each of them still believes that they were right.) They just agreed to let it go and move on.

I think that is what Jamie and Claire did with the beating in Outlander. They understand each other's pov, but they never really saw eye to eye on it and have agreed to move on. In other words, I don't think "forgive" means "Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly about everything.and I think you were completely right all along." That isn't what forgiveness means. It just means to stop feeling angry or resentful about something. If you agree to let something go and move on...but still harbor some angry feelings about it in the back of your mind, are you truly forgiving the other person? Like everything else, I don't think the forgiveness between Claire and Jamie is always quite so black and white.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I've been thinking about whether Claire truly forgave Jamie for beating her...and I think she did, but she also clearly has never forgotten it. It makes me wonder if forgive is even the right word...."

I agree, Claire did forgive Jamie. The fact that she was able to put her complete trust in Jamie and feel safe with him proves that, as does the her 'choosing' to stay with him when he gave her the opportunity to return to her own time. If she hadn't truly forgiven him, she would have gone.

It's true, neither of them changed their mind about what happened, but I don't think Claire harbored angry feelings in the back of her mind either. There were times when something brought back what happened and she felt angry and hurt again, but because she had forgiven Jamie, she was able to move past it. Similar to something bringing back a good memory from the past and being able to feel joy or happiness again. Our memories, good and bad, are part of us forever.

Forgiving isn't forgetting, forgiving is letting go.

Red wrote: "Mochaspresso 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 tr..."

No, but context is exactly that - it puts things into context. It matters and makes a difference to any criticism laid upon it.

Response to 1164. Red wrote: I whish you were right. I don't have any actual numbers to back my point, but I am pretty sure that is not the case..yet. Far from it. Unfortunately, I do think that in romance (and in fiction in general) the majority of the production is still full of some type of hero/heroine abusive relationships. And abuse (whether it's verbal or physical" within a romantic relationship IS ("domestic") violence. ...... there is still major work to do...

Mrsbooks wrote: "I'm purposely excluding the kinky people looking for that genre, I have a feeling that's going to keep on growing."

What exactly do you mean by "kinky" genre? If you're referring to BDSM genre, it really has nothing to do with the "abuses" we are talking here.

Rather the very problematic rise in "dubcon" genre is a much more appropriate example of very problematic writings.

Mrsbooks wrote: "...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."

HMMM...Ever heard of "50 shades of Grey"?

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 totally agree with you on that. And that's part of why I think there has been no major progressive shift. The scenario you're describing can relate to a good chunk of what is being written one way or another. The kind of behaviors that you described are indeed extremely problematic and the worst pat is that they are being routinely romanticized/glamourize. They are form of violence : not outright physical, but verbal, emotional and behaviorial violence.

I do think there has been a dramatic shift in romance novels since the 80s/90s crazy themes. When I read those books there is barely anything without abusive themes. Nowadays there is plenty without although there is obviously still plenty with. I do agree with you that there is...."still major work to do."

My comment however was solely for physical violence. Maybe I hadn't made that clear. While so many romances have dropped physical violence they still keep other abusive behaviors. Maybe you're right that the term "domestic violence" encompasses more than physical violence (I'm not going to look it up) but my understanding of the term was it was about actual 'violence'. Either way, you know what I mean.

What exactly do you mean by "kinky" genre? If you're referring to BDSM genre, it really has nothing to do with the "abuses" we are talking here.

The kinky genre I'm talking about is not BDSM. Although the kinky people I'm referring to probably do enjoy books with BDSM, so it does encompass that but people who feel apart of the BDSM community would not support the goings on of the genre I'm referring to. But I'm not talking about non-consent consent. I'm talking about novels that have actual rape in them. Actual physical violence against another and rape and those who find this romantic and erotic. Rape-fic. This genre is continually growing. That's what I mean when referring to the kinky genre.

50 Shades is in a whole other category that I don't know if you want to get into because it will definitely derail the conversation lol. I've read them, and I personally did not find there to be physical violence although there were plenty of other problems. (Heroine consents but then fails to use safe word when she's had enough.) Although to be honest it's been YEARS since I read these so my memory may be faulty.

Sage wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I've been thinking about whether Claire truly forgave Jamie for beating her...and I think she did, but she also clearly has never forgotten it. It makes me wonder if forgive is..."

I find Forgiveness is such a hard thing to define. Because in reality, forgiveness is different dependent upon the "sin" committed. I don't think it's supposed to be. But it is the way it is.

Say my husband forgets our anniversary. I'm hurt, he's sorry and I forgive him. He's never done it before, never been so thoughtless, so I forgive and forget. And really, it's rather easy to do.

Say my husband cheats on me. He's sorry, I decide to move on and forgive him. That doesn't mean I won't be angry and upset when I think about it in the future. It doesn't mean that I'm still not hurt when I think about it.

Red Wrote: Culture changes and varies over time, but there are constant. In any society with a modicum of "justice system", (sexually) forcing yourself on someone, even if it wasn't labelled rape" or "sexual assualt", has never been taken lightly. Even in the Bible that some have quoted in here, that is frown upon.

Acts of violence, outside of those which are strictly regulated like going to war, are always frown upon. Especially since for the most part of human history, sexual activities were tightly linked to reproduction. And unregulated sexual activities could lead to disruption of the reproduction and ownership right.

I'm not arguing with any of this. In fact, I love the punishment for rapists during bible times: stoning them to death (one of the things I think the Israelite's got right lol).

But I'm saying the psychological affects of rape, molestation, sexual abuse, in general are only really being understood more widely in our modern times. As I mentioned, my friends grandfather (pre world war one) and my grandmother (pre world war two) they both have vastly different views about sexual abuse, more akin with each other than with ours.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I find Forgiveness is such a hard thing to define. Because in reality, forgiveness is different dependent upon the "sin" committed. I don't think it's supposed to be. But it is the way it is"

I think what constitutes "forgiveness" varies from person to person also. Without going back through all the posts, if I recall correctly, I agreed with your and Maddie's (? - think it was her) definition of forgiveness. Obviously others have a different definition. That doesn't make the way I think of forgiveness as wrong - or the way they think of forgiveness as wrong: just different.

Mrsbooks wrote: "But I'm saying the psychological affects of rape, molestation, sexual abuse, in general are only really being understood more widely in our modern times. As I mentioned, my friends grandfather (pre world war one) and my grandmother (pre world war two) they both have vastly different views about sexual abuse, more akin with each other than with ours. "

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think women, in general, have always 'understood' the effect of rape - way more than men - even in Biblical times. How could they not? I think the disconnect might come from the fact that men, in general, have been the authors of history - and a greater majority of books - and therefore women's issues in general and rape and it's after effects specifically were just not written about. It does not mean that women did not understand the psychological effects of rape and get and offer support to each other within their own communities. It's just that men were not necessarily privy to the support structure, and even if they were aware of such, they didn't deem such to be important enough to put down in writing. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Except in Outlander. Where Claire got NO support for her many near rapes.

But Jamie did.

And so I won't be accused of taking anything too seriously, for a good laugh, check out this Outlander spoof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8xHW...

What support did Jamie get for his rape other than that very bizarre (imo) scene with Claire exercising his demons? Does whatever that was supposed to be even constitute as support?

Kat wrote: "Except in Outlander. Where Claire got NO support for her many near rapes...."

I'm trying to remember Claire's 'many' near rapes...the first was by BJR when she first came through the stones, Murtagh may not have supported or comforted her, but he did rescue her which prevented her from being raped and perhaps worse by BJR.

There was the near rape by the deserters, after which Jamie "knelt beside me, pulling me out from under the corpse. We were both shaking with nerves and shock, and we clung together without speaking for minutes" it goes on to say how they took each other and then clung together on the grass...both of them suffering and in shock.

The near rape again by BJR, Jamie really didn't have time to stop and comfort Claire, his main concern being to get them out of the Fort alive. Jamie and Claire did however comfort each other after their heated argument on the way to the Inn. There were so many emotions involved in the rescue that it was hard to determine who needed comfort more.

If there were other near rapes, I can't recall them.

None of these are probably the needed support being referred to, but it can't be said there was 'no' support or comfort given.

Sage wrote: "I'm trying to remember Claire's 'many' near rapes.."

You also forgot the near rape in the corridor by the drunken clansmen...

The near rape again by BJR, Jamie really didn't have time to stop and comfort Claire, his main concern being to get them out of the Fort alive. Jamie and Claire did however comfort each other after their heated argument on the way to the Inn.

I call B.S. Jamie had time. He's the one who stopped on the side of the road, after all. Not the entire rescue party. No, he was more concerned about his own feelings, not Claire. Claire comforted JAMIE. Jamie did not comfort Claire at all:

"Well, what is it, then? What's the matter?" I asked impatiently. "Don't sulk, for heaven's sake!" I spoke more sharply than I intended, and I felt him stiffen still further. Suddenly he turned the horse's head aside and reined up at the side of the road. Before I knew what was happening, he had dismounted and jerked me from the saddle as well. I landed awkwardly, staggering to keep my balance as my feet hit the ground.

Dougal and the others paused, seeing us stop. Jamie made a short, sharp gesture, sending them on, and Dougal waved in acknowledgment. "Don't take too long," he called, and they set off again.

Jamie waited until they were out of earshot. Then he yanked me around to face him. He was clearly furious, on the verge of explosion. I felt my own wrath rising; what right did he have to treat me like this?

"Sulking!" he said. "Sulking, is it? I'm using all the self-control I've got, to keep from shakin' ye 'til your teeth rattle, and you tell me not to sulk!"

"What in the name of God is the matter with you?" I asked angrily. I tried to shake off his grip, but his fingers dug into my upper arms like the teeth of a trap.

"What's the matter wi' me? I'll tell ye what the matter is, since ye want to know!" he said through clenched teeth. "I'm tired of having to prove over and over that you're no an English spy. I'm tired of having to watch ye very minute, for fear of what foolishness you'll try next. And I'm verra tired of people trying to make me watch while they rape you! I dinna enjoy it a bit!"

"And you think I enjoy it?" I yelled. "Are you trying to make out it's my fault?!" At this, he did shake me slightly.

"It is your fault! Did ye stay put where I ordered ye to stay this mornin', this would never have happened! But no, ye won't listen to me, I'm no but your husband, why mind me? You take it into your mind to do as ye damn please, and next I ken, I find ye flat on your back wi' your skirts up, an' the worst scum in the land between your legs, on the point of takin' ye before my eyes!" His Scots accent, usually slight, was growing broader by the second, sure sign that he was upset, had I needed any further indication.

We were almost nose to nose by this time, shouting into each other's face. Jamie was flushed with fury, and I felt the blood rising in my own face.

"It's your own fault, for ignoring me and suspecting me all the time! I told you the truth about who I am! And I told you there was no danger in my going with you, but would you listen to me? No! I'm only a woman, why should you pay any attention to what I say? Women are only fit to do as they're told, and follow orders, and sit meekly around with their hands folded, waiting for the men to come back and tell them what to do!"

He shook me again, unable to control himself.

"And if ye'd done that, we wouldna be on the run, with a hundred Redcoats on our tail! God, woman, I dinna know whether to strangle ye or throw ye on the ground and hammer ye senseless, but by Jesus, I want to do something to you."

At this, I made a determined effort to kick him in the balls. He dodged, and jammed his own knee between my legs, effectively preventing any further attempts.

"Try that again and I'll slap you 'til your ears ring," he growled.

"You're a brute and a fool," I panted, struggling to escape his grip on my shoulders. "Do you think I went out and got captured by the English on purpose?"

"I do think ye did it on purpose, to get back at me for what happened in the glade!" My mouth fell open.

"In the glade? With the English deserters?"

"Aye! Ye think I should ha' been able to protect ye there, an' you're right. But I couldna do it; you had to do it yourself, and now you're tryin' to make me pay for it by deliberately putting yourself, my wife, in the hands of a man that's shed my blood!"

"Your wife! Your wife! You don't care a thing about me! I'm just your property; it only matters to you because you think I belong to you, and you can't stand to have someone take something that belongs to you!"

"Ye do belong to me," he roared, digging his fingers into my shoulders like spikes. "And you are my wife, whether ye like it or no!"

"I don't like it! I don't like it a bit! But that doesn't matter either, does it? As long as I'm there to warm your bed, you don't care what I think or how I feel! That's all a wife is to you—something to stick your cock into when you feel the urge!"

At this, his face went dead white and he began to shake me in earnest. My head jerked violently and my teeth clacked together, making me bite my tongue painfully.

"Let go of me!" I shouted. "Let go, you"—I deliberately used the words of Harry the deserter, trying to hurt him—"you rutting bastard!" He did let go, and fell back a pace, eyes blazing.

"Ye foul-tongued bitch! Ye'll no speak to me that way!"

"I'll speak any way I want to! You can't tell me what to do!"

"Seems I can't! Ye'll do as ye wish, no matter who ye hurt by it, won't ye? Ye selfish, willful—"

"It's your bloody pride that's hurt!" I shouted. "I saved us both from those deserters in the glade, and you can't stand it, can you? You just stood there! If I hadn't had a knife, we'd both be dead now!"

Until I spoke the words, I had had no idea that I had been angry with him for failing to protect me from the English deserters. In a more rational mood, the thought would never have entered my mind. It wasn't his fault, I would have said. It was just luck that I had the knife, I would have said. But now I realized that fair or not, rational or not, I did somehow feel that it was his responsibility to protect me, and that he had failed me. Perhaps because he so clearly felt that way.

He stood glaring at me, panting with emotion. When he spoke again, his voice was low and ragged with passion.

"You saw that post in the yard of the fort?" I nodded shortly.*

"Well, I was tied to that post, tied like an animal, and whipped 'til my blood ran! I'll carry the scars from it 'til I die. If I'd not been lucky as the devil this afternoon, that's the least as would have happened to me. Likely they'd have flogged me, then hanged me." He swallowed hard, and went on.

"I knew that, and I didna hesitate for one second to go into that place after you, even thinking that Dougal might be right! Do ye know where I got the gun I used?" I shook my head numbly, my own anger beginning to fade. "I killed a guard near the wall. He fired at me; that's why it was empty. He missed and I killed him wi' my dirk; left it sticking in his wishbone when I heard you cry out. I would have killed a dozen men to get to you, Claire." His voice cracked.

"And when ye screamed, I went to you, armed wi' nothing but an empty gun and my two hands." Jamie was speaking a little more calmly now, but his eyes were still wild with pain and rage. I was silent. Unsettled by the horror of my encounter with Randall, I had not at all appreciated the desperate courage it had taken for him to come into the fort after me.

He turned away suddenly, shoulders slumping.

"You're right," he said quietly. "Aye, you're quite right." Suddenly the rage was gone from his voice, replaced by a tone I had never heard in him before, even in the extremities of physical pain.

"My pride is hurt. And my pride is about all I've got left to me." He leaned his forearms against a rough-barked pine and let his head drop onto them, exhausted. His voice was so low I could barely hear him.

"You're tearin' my guts out, Claire."

Something very similar was happening to my own. Tentatively, I came up behind him. He didn't move, even when I slipped my arms around his waist. I rested my cheek on his bowed back. His shirt was damp, sweated through with the intensity of his passion, and he was trembling.

"I'm sorry," I said, simply. "Please forgive me." He turned then, to hold me tightly. I felt his trembling ease bit by bit.

"Forgiven, lass," he murmured at last into my hair. Releasing me, he looked down at me, sober and formal.

"I'm sorry too," he said. "I'll ask your pardon for what I said; I was sore, and I said more nor I meant. Will ye forgive me too?" After his last speech, I hardly felt that there was anything for me to forgive, but I nodded and pressed his hands.

"Forgiven."

In an easier silence, we mounted again. The road was straight for a long way here, and far ahead I could see a small cloud of dust that must be Dougal and the other men.

Note: * this is where it really turned to be all about Jamie.

Now, where is all of this does Claire get any comfort? SHE goes up to Jamie and puts her arms around HIM. Before this, he could barely touch her, remember?

Yeah, you'll say he puts his arms around her and comforts her - I call baloney. He only does it AFTER she comforts him. That doesn't even count. SHE is the one who has been nearly raped. Again, where is her support? The whole argument is about Jamie and what HE feels. Never mind about Claire at all...

Also...

Jamie was back with me again; he held me with one arm as we rode, and I felt safer. But there was still a vague sense of injury and constraint; things were not yet healed between us. We had forgiven each other, but our words still hung in memory, not to be forgotten.**

22 Reckonings

We reached Doonesbury well after dark. It was a fairsized coach-stop with an inn, fortunately. Dougal closed his eyes briefly in pain as he paid the innkeeper; it would take quite a bit of extra silver to ensure his silence as to our presence.

The silver, however, also insured a hearty supper, with plenty of ale. Despite the food, supper was a grim affair, eaten mostly in silence. Sitting there in my ruined gown, modestly covered by Jamie's extra shirt, I was plainly in disgrace. Except for Jamie, the men behaved as though I were completely invisible, and even Jamie did no more than shove bread and meat in my direction from time to time. It was a relief at last to go up to our chamber, small and cramped though it was. I sank on the bed with a sigh, disregarding the state of the bedclothes.

** words that hung in memory: "..I dinna know whether to strangle ye or throw ye on the ground and hammer ye senseless, but by Jesus, I want to do something to you."

Note that Jamie went up to the room WITH her. HE did not remain below after Claire went up to the room, so there was no time for the men to insist on Claire receiving the proper punishment.

I think Jamie had already made up his mind to beat her by the time they reached the inn.

"And when ye screamed, I went to you, armed wi' nothing but an empty gun and my two hands." Jamie was speaking a little more calmly now, but his eyes were still wild with pain and rage. I was silent. Unsettled by the horror of my encounter with Randall, I had not at all appreciated the desperate courage it had taken for him to come into the fort after me.

He turned away suddenly, shoulders slumping.

"You're right," he said quietly. "Aye, you're quite right." Suddenly the rage was gone from his voice, replaced by a tone I had never heard in him before, even in the extremities of physical pain.

"My pride is hurt. And my pride is about all I've got left to me." He leaned his forearms against a rough-barked pine and let his head drop onto them, exhausted. His voice was so low I could barely hear him.

"You're tearin' my guts out, Claire."

“Abusive men come in every personality type, arise from good childhoods and bad ones, are macho men or gentle, “liberated” men. No psychological test can distinguish an abusive man from a respectful one. Abusiveness is not a product of a man’s emotional injuries or of deficits in his skills. In reality, abuse springs from a man’s early cultural training, his key male role models, and his peer influences. In other words, abuse is a problem of values, not of psychology. When someone challenges an abuser’s attitudes and beliefs, he tends to reveal the contemptuous and insulting personality that normally stays hidden, reserved for private attacks on his partner. An abuser tries to keep everybody—his partner, his therapist, his friends and relatives—focused on how he feels, so that they won’t focus on how he thinks, perhaps because on some level he is aware that if you grasp the true nature of his problem, you will begin to escape his domination.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

Note that the argument becomes all about how JAMIE feels: "You're tearin' my guts out, Claire.".

We hear NOTHING else about how CLAIRE feels about being assaulted and nearly raped.

Kat wrote: ""And when ye screamed, I went to you, armed wi' nothing but an empty gun and my two hands." Jamie was speaking a little more calmly now, but his eyes were still wild with pain and rage. I was silen..."

The reason we don't hear about it is mainly because that isn't part of Claire's characterization in the novel. She's depicted as being more of a "Steel Magnolia". (<-- excellent movie, btw). She has her flaws but she isn't a "typical" simpering, cowering, blubbering woman that completely falls apart after a trauma. Claire and Jenny can handle it. They've demonstrated it. Jamie, despite all of his brawn, is actually the "weaker" one who cannot. (Just as the men in "Steel Magnolias are weaker in many ways than all of the women.) He can't deal with his sister's near rape, nor with Claires...nor with his own.

“Outside of my professional life, I have known many couples over the years who had passion and electricity between them and who treated each other well. But unfortunately there is wide acceptance in our society of the unhealthy notion that passion and aggression are interwoven and that cruel verbal exchanges and bomblike explosions are the price you pay for a relationship that is exciting, deep, and sexy. Popular romantic movies and soap operas sometimes reinforce this image.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

I would add 'Popular romantic novels'...

"Now, listen. Ye understand me, ye say, and I believe it. But there's a difference between understandin' something with your mind and really knowing it, deep down." I nodded, reluctantly.

"All right. Now, I will have to punish you, and for two reasons: first, so that ye will know." He smiled suddenly. "I can tell ye from my own experience that a good hiding makes ye consider things in a more serious light." I took a tighter hold on the bedpost.

"The other reason," he went on, "is because of the other men. Ye'll have noticed how they were tonight?" I had; it had been so uncomfortable at dinner that I was glad to escape to the room.

"There's such a thing as justice, Claire. You've done wrong to them all, and you'll have to suffer for it." He took a deep breath. "I'm your husband; it's my duty to attend to it, and I mean to do it."

“Never believe a man’s claim that he has to harm his partner in order to protect her; only abusers think this way.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

Again with the context though. And again with allocating this to a marital dispute and nothing else.

I understand the context not really affecting your opinion since you feel the plot is riddled with holes. I do not see these holes and disagree that they're there, but I can see where you're coming from if you ignore the context.

I also feel like we're comparing apples and potatoes. Not that I'm trying to diminish the trauma affects that an "almost rape" has. I know that someone who was almost raped can be equally if not more so traumatized than someone who was actually raped. *Can* being the word here. Everyone is different. Not everyone reacts the same way. I've actually heard a rape victim get upset with someone because they were "almost" sexually molested but not really. And talking about what they went through and all the emotional problems and how it felt like it really happened. They (rape victim) were upset because they didn't understand how someone could compare an almost to a done deal. But that's what I mean, everyone is different, everyone handles things different.

Do I think Claire deserves comfort after what she went through? Yes, I do. But I understand why she didn't get it.

If Claire had have been a blubbering mess this may have caused Jamie to soften but she wasn't. She didn't deal it the way some women may have. Maybe this is because of the other near rapes that occurred? Not that I'm saying she has to have a reason. People react differently and there shouldn't be anything to be ashamed about with those reactions.

I do disagree with much of this though:
In other words, abuse is a problem of values, not of psychology. When someone challenges an abuser’s attitudes and beliefs, he tends to reveal the contemptuous and insulting personality that normally stays hidden, reserved for private attacks on his partner. An abuser tries to keep everybody—his partner, his therapist, his friends and relatives—focused on how he feels, so that they won’t focus on how he thinks....

It's not that I don't think abuse is a problem of values, it obviously is. But this flat out says that abuse is not a problem of psychology. I disagree with that - I don't feel the need to explain why. I think it's obvious. The rest, doesn't even sound like Jamie, if it's meant to apply towards him.

Note that Jamie went up to the room WITH her. HE did not remain below after Claire went up to the room, so there was no time for the men to insist on Claire receiving the proper punishment.

I think Jamie had already made up his mind to beat her by the time they reached the inn.

This is true. And it may actually be that while the men went to rescue Claire that they *didn't* all growl and huff and express how upset they are and how she better get her hide tanned. We're not privy to what conversations may have happened then. Either way, if the conversations happened or not, I don't think it was necessary for them to occur. Jamie's not an idiot (well, sometimes I do wonder? lol) but he knows how to play the politics, he knows how the men feel about these things, and he knows the way things work.

It could be said that my knowledge of what happens in later books colors how I see Jamie, but I've thought about this, and I disagree. Because I saw him the same way I do now as I did in book 1. I've just read more affirmation on my already existing opinion. I bring this up because in book 4 Jamie does comfort a rape victim. And again in a later book.

You could say maybe Jamie wasn't as empathetic as he should have been until he went through it himself. You can say that maybe Jamie didn't see *almost raped* as the same as being raped. You can say that Jamie's culture or his existing knowledge about the emotional trauma involving sexual assault was limited. You can say he didn't comfort Claire because he was mad as hell. You can say all these things about why he didn't comfort Claire, and they may be right. We don't actually know because nowhere is it said directly - that I can recall. But all those reasons make perfect sense to me and I personally think all of them is the answer.

I don't agree with saying though, that he didn't comfort Claire and that he purposefully redirected the events onto himself because he's manipulative and abusive and/or wanting the attention on his own feelings. It's like we're taking this one scene and cutting out the rest of the book and basing opinions about how he thinks and feels solely on that one scene. If we do that, I can maybe, sort of, see where this thought comes from. - No sorry, I thought about it more and came back and edited this, I still don't see it lol.


"You saw that post in the yard of the fort?" I nodded shortly.*

"Well, I was tied to that post, tied like an animal, and whipped 'til my blood ran! I'll carry the scars from it 'til I die. If I'd not been lucky as the devil this afternoon, that's the least as would have happened to me. Likely they'd have flogged me, then hanged me." He swallowed hard, and went on.

"I knew that, and I didna hesitate for one second to go into that place after you, even thinking that Dougal might be right! Do ye know where I got the gun I used?" I shook my head numbly, my own anger beginning to fade. "I killed a guard near the wall. He fired at me; that's why it was empty. He missed and I killed him wi' my dirk; left it sticking in his wishbone when I heard you cry out. I would have killed a dozen men to get to you, Claire." His voice cracked.

"And when ye screamed, I went to you, armed wi' nothing but an empty gun and my two hands." Jamie was speaking a little more calmly now, but his eyes were still wild with pain and rage. I was silent. Unsettled by the horror of my encounter with Randall, I had not at all appreciated the desperate courage it had taken for him to come into the fort after me.

I see a man that was scared. Rightfully so. Because he already had the skin off his back peeled and bleeding, been beaten "within an inch of his life" (using Claire's words she applied to herself). And I see him trying to explain this to her. Of what her disobedience may have caused him. To have this happen to him again and probably hanged. I don't see this as redirecting the attention to himself. I see this as something Claire needed to hear and needed to understand.

And maybe Jamie didn't offer comfort because he's so in his own head thinking about what happened to him in the past or what could have happened had he not been lucky? I don't know. But I can understand being upset with her for (from his perspective) deliberately putting herself in danger and by extension himself.

Kat wrote: "I call B.S. Jamie had time. He's the one who stopped on the side of the road, after all. ..."

I suggest you reread, or perhaps read, my post #1205, where I say: Jamie and Claire did however comfort each other after their heated argument on the way to the Inn. There were so many emotions involved in the rescue that it was hard to determine who needed comfort more.

I also said "none of these are probably the needed support being referred to, but it can't be said there was 'no' support or comfort given".

And, I stand by it...I didn't say Jamie comforted Claire, what I said was they did hold and comfort each other, therefore, once again, it can't be said there was 'no' comfort given. Both Jamie and Claire had been traumatized by what happened.

Kat said..."Note that Jamie went up to the room WITH her. HE did not remain below after Claire went up to the room, so there was no time for the men to insist on Claire receiving the proper punishment.

The first paragraph of Chapter 22:
"Supper was a grim affair, eaten mostly in silence.....Except for Jamie, the men behaved as though I were completely invisible..."

After Jamie and Claire went to their room:
..."The other reason," he went on, "is because of the other men. Ye'll have noticed how they were tonight?" I had; it had been so uncomfortable at dinner that I was glad to escape to the room.
"There's such a thing as justice, Claire. You've done wrong to them all, and you'll have to suffer for it."

Jamie didn't need to be told what was expected, he knew.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I see a man that was scared. Rightfully so...."

I agree. Jamie was scared when he entered the Fort, he was alone, unarmed, and had no idea where Claire was until he heard her scream. And, he knew what would happen if he were caught.

After the attach by the deserters Jamie was in shock, as was Claire. Claire addresses this after Jamie rambled on about being sorry and it being his fault, and being so foolish..."Shock, too, I thought fuzzily. Funny how it takes some people in talk. Others just shake quietly. Like me. I pressed his mouth against my shoulder to quiet him."

Kat wrote: "“Never believe a man’s claim that he has to harm his partner in order to protect her; only abusers think this way.” ..."

Jamie didn't harm Claire in order to protect her, he made it perfectly clear he was punishing her because she didn't do as he told her.

Comforting someone doesn't necessarily include words. There are times when just holding each other, or holding someone's hand is comforting. There are times when words just aren't forthcoming, especially when something traumatic or distressing has happened.

Kat wrote: "“Never believe a man’s claim that he has to harm his partner in order to protect her; only abusers think this way.” ..."

Jamie didn't harm Claire in order to protect her, he made it perfectly clear he was punishing her because she didn't do as he told her. "

After Jamie and Claire went to their room:
..."The other reason," he went on, "is because of the other men. Ye'll have noticed how they were tonight?" I had; it had been so uncomfortable at dinner that I was glad to escape to the room.
"There's such a thing as justice, Claire. You've done wrong to them all, and you'll have to suffer for it."

The implication in the bolded section is that he is punishing her to 'protect' from the other men's anger. And I believe that argument has been offered by others on this board as well - as well as the argument that he had to do it to 'keep them in the Clan's good graces'. Which is really just another way of saying that he had to harm her in order to protect her.

Sage wrote: "Comforting someone doesn't necessarily include words. There are times when just holding each other, or holding someone's hand is comforting. There are times when words just aren't forthcoming, especially when something traumatic or distressing has happened."

I'm certain comforting someone does NOT include beating them on their bare ass with a leather belt until they are bruised and can't sit for several days.