Outlander discussion

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

I think that once it is obvious that Jamie had already decided to beat her by the time they reached the in, (because he was mad at her and he was hurt) then it is also obvious that it is much more a marital issue than a clan issue.

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'm not even trying to be snarky, but I don’t see where I am ignoring any context here. I quoted the entire argument and even part of the next chapter. Tell me where I’m ignoring 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.

Okay, yes, I can agree with this. And (never having been subjected to either) I can understand an actual rape victim getting angry with an almost rape victim for feeling just as traumatized as they do. But then again, perhaps that’s not fair to the almost victim – as you pointed out. I don’t know – this might not come across the politically correct way – but is a date rape when the victim is drunk just as traumatizing as being nearly violently raped when the victim is sober by a stranger at knife point? I really don’t know. For me, I would say no. But your mileage may vary.

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

I don’t. Not at all. Not at least just a little bit of comfort. For example, I don’t think it’s too much to expect Jamie to ask her if she was all right at the bare minimum. He didn’t even once do that.

The rest, doesn't even sound like Jamie, if it's meant to apply towards him.

The entire fight, Jamie kept the focus on HIM. That’s the part that applies to him.

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 agree with all of this.

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.

"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.”

"Because on some level" - that doesn't mean it has to be intentionally. I don’t think Jamie is doing it intentionally or even consciously. But in this fight scene, I think that is definitely what is happening.

Edited to break into two posts. Because, you know, length..

"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 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.

I think what Jamie – and possibly some of the other posters on this board are neglecting to realize – is that IF they’d been caught, Claire would have likely suffered the same punishment as Jamie and perhaps even worse.

Would Jamie have been flogged again? Maybe. Was he flogged later on in the book when he was caught? I don’t think he was. (Before BJR got there, I mean) Would he have been hanged? Most likely. Would Claire have been flogged? I don’t know if the English did that to female prisoners – so possibly. She very likely would have been raped by her guards and then hanged herself.

So excuse me if I don’t have much sympathy for Jamie not offering Claire comfort because he was afraid and angry about what could have happened to HIM when the same and worse would have also happened to HER, IF they’d been caught.

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.

But that’s just it – Claire didn’t *deliberately* put herself in danger. And he knows that. He says as much to her later at the inn before he beats her.

"Well, I know as you're not yet familiar wi' our ways, and it's some excuse. Still, I did tell ye to stay hid, and had ye done so, it would never have happened. Now the English will be lookin' high and low for us; we shall have to lie hid during the days and travel at night now."

"I'm so sorry, Jamie," I said. Jamie dismissed this with a wave of the hand.
"Eh, if it were only me ye'd hurt by it, I wouldna say more about it. Though since we're talkin'," he shot me a sharp glance, "I'll tell ye that it near killed me to see that animal with his hands on you." He looked off into the fire, grim-faced, as though reliving the afternoon's events.

Notice how once again, he makes it all about him. Never mind once again how Claire felt about having that animal’s hands on her. And if he was reliving the afternoon's events - oh, I don't know...maybe now would have been a good time to say "hey, btw, glad you're okay."

I thought of telling him about Randall's… difficulties, but was afraid it would do more harm than good. I desperately wanted to hold Jamie and beg him to forgive me, but I didn't dare to touch him. After a long moment of silence, he sighed and stood up, slapping the belt lightly against his thigh.

Wait...what? I thought they’d already both forgiven each other on the road side? And even above he says, "it were only me ye'd hurt by it, I wouldna say more about it." So why does she need to beg his forgiveness again?

Kat wrote: "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...."

No it doesn't, and who pray tell said that it did? Ms Gabaldon? me? the other posters? or you.

Kat wrote: "I think that once it is obvious that Jamie had already decided to beat her by the time they reached the in, (because he was mad at her and he was hurt) then it is also obvious that it is much more a marital issue than a clan issue...."

Where in the story is this indicated?

Kat wrote: "Wait...what? I thought they’d already both forgiven each other on the road side? And even above he says, "it were only me ye'd hurt by it, I wouldna say more about it." So why does she need to beg his forgiveness again?..."

They did both forgive each other, that's why Jamie said if it was just between them he wouldn't say more about it. It's because it wasn't just between them that Jamie felt the punishment was necessary. And, Claire didn't need to beg forgiveness again, she did because she was trying to convince him not to punish her.

Would Jamie have been flogged again? Maybe. Was he flogged later on in the book when he was caught? I don’t think he was. (Before BJR got there, I mean) Would he have been hanged? Most likely. Would Claire have been flogged? I don’t know if the English did that to female prisoners – so possibly. She very likely would have been raped by her guards and then hanged herself.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, BJR flogged or beat Jamie every time he came in contact with him. Obviously Jamie knew Randall was at the Fort, it was the reason the soldiers took Claire in the first place. And, when Randall was finished with Jamie, he would have been hung because that was the intention when Jamie was imprisoned and raped. As for Claire, Randall would have made sure she suffered equally, and I'm sure Jamie knew this. And, if I remember correctly, Jamie would have been hung the first time Randall repeatedly flogged him (when he was 19) if Dougal hadn't rescued him.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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."

I’ve been thinking about this some more. (Yes, I can hear the collective groans through the internet!)

I’m going to try to explain one of my problems with the fight scene and what I interpret as Jamie not comforting Claire. I might not get the ideas across as well as I’d like or in a manner that you will understand, but bear with me. Here goes:

Some of you have indicated that you have children – and even grandchildren. Since Claire was pretty much treated like a child, then let’s look at it this way…

Suppose your child was in a bad car accident. And it was their fault. They weren’t driving drunk, but let’s say they were driving recklessly and they should have known better. The car is totaled. Luckily, they were the only ones involved in the crash so no one else was hurt, and somehow they walk away with barely a scratch - when really they shouldn't have.

You get a call from the police or hospital only informing you that your child was in a bad wreck but they don’t tell you anything else. You rush to the scene/hospital with all kinds of terrifying thoughts in your head, right? Are they badly injured? Are they dead?

So what is your first reaction when you get there and they are alive and okay?

Is it to order them into the car, not touching them more than strictly necessary, then yank them around, shake them, and threaten to hammer them senseless? (All things Jamie did to Claire, btw… Well, except the car thing, but I think you know what I mean there.)

I don’t know about the rest of you – but MY first reaction would be to pull them into my arms, hold them tight, never want to let go, and thank GOD that they were still alive!

And yeah, I perfectly understand that maybe Jamie couldn’t take the time to do that while they were still at the fort. But what about on the side of the road? Why not then? And don’t tell me that he’s a man and men react differently. Yes – and No. I think most of you are also married? So tell me – what would your husband’s reaction be? Or your father’s, if it were you in that accident? I know what my father’s first reaction would have been – the same as mine. And it wouldn't have mattered at all whether or not I was hysterical. That first reaction, is not about how *I* (as the child/loved one potentially hurt) was responding to the danger/scare. That first reaction is about how the person who cares about the child/loved-one-who-was-potentially-hurt feels. Yes, my father would have been mad about the car and I would have been punished for it. But later – MUCH later. As in the next day later. After his emotions had calmed down. After he’d made sure that I was really okay. Not merely a few hours later. Not before he’d at least asked me if I was all right.

But that’s what Jamie did (and didn’t do). And that’s one of my biggest problems with his attitude. I just don't interpret his words and actions (other than the rescue itself - and that I could attribute to his honor and a sense of duty more than love and affection) after the fact as a man who really loves and cares about Claire.

Kat wrote: "I’m going to try to explain one of my problems with the fight scene and what I interpret as Jamie not comforting Claire. I might not get the ideas across as well as I’d like or in a manner that you will understand, but bear with me. Here goes:..."

I understand what you're saying Kat and I agree, if someone I care about got hurt or involved in a dangerous situation, my first concern would be their welfare...however...as was pointed out to me when I tried to compare my grandson's accident to this scene, it isn't relevant unless the person driving the car (my grandson) had done something they were told not to do, like taken the car without permission and, in your comparison, the parents would have had to put themselves in danger to get to the driver.

Not everyone reacts to upsetting situations the same. Some people show their emotions, and others don't. Some people fall apart, others take charge. It doesn't mean that one person cares more, or less, it's just the way they react. In the case of Jamie and Claire, I think Claire is stronger emotionally then Jamie. Jamie can take charge and fearlessly face any situation that occurs, Claire understands the emotional impact, shock, depression, fear. There were many emotions involved here, anger, fear, repulsion, disappointment, regret. It isn't a clear cut case of Claire being kidnapped and Jamie saving her.

Jamie wasn't angry because Claire was being molested by BJR, he was angry because she didn't do as he told her and because 'her decision' to leave the copse started a sequence of events that brought danger to everyone else including herself. He was repulsed to see BJR's hands on her.


If Jamie was only concerned with his own needs, then he wouldn't have risked his life to save Claire, nor would he have faced BJR unarmed, killed a man, or told her he would have killed a dozen men for her. And, he doesn't do this just this one time, he does it again when she goes to Geilis, and if you've read DFIA then you know he continues to risk his life for her.

One thing I do know, Jamie and Claire love each other unconditionally, along with all their weaknesses and faults, as well as their strengths.

I've been thinking about this and I can see Kat's POV. This all happened in one day, Claire nearly drown in the river, was captured by the British, assaulted by BJR, rescued, endured an uncomfortable supper, finally returning to their room, still in the same filthy, torn dress, only to be faced with Jamie and his sword belt. Nobody stood up for her, or considered she may have already been punished enough.

But...Claire didn't get it. She challenged Jamie on the way to the Inn because she still, after all they had endured, didn't get what was happening or understand why he was sulking. It wasn't until Jamie finally broke down and told her about the whipping post, and facing BJR unarmed, that she started to understand. Yet, even after being ignored at supper, which Claire, herself, considered a grim affair eaten in silence, when they got to their room, she didn't comment on how upset Dougal and the others were, or what would happen next, her only comment was "Come to bed Jamie, what are you waiting for".

When I said before that I didn't think Jamie intended to hurt her, it was because Jamie truly thought Claire would comply with 10 swats with his belt. Which would have stung and hurt, but would have ended it. Jamie wasn't prepared for Claire to resist and fight back. Had Jamie meant to hurt her, he wouldn't have spent time reasoning and struggling with her, he would have taken control of the situation from the start. Jamie may have hurt her physically, but he also hurt her pride. He humiliated her.

Claire had a very unconventional upbringing that may have been interesting, but most likely she was allowed to do what she wanted without hard set rules. Even with Frank, she was pretty free-spirited, which is probably why he questioned if she had been faithful to him during the war. He knew Claire was strong willed, independent, and passionate.

I'm not defending Jamie, or Frank, and I'm certainly not saying Claire deserved to be punished, but I think the whole situation needs to be looked at from all sides, and their different ways of life and upbringing need to be considered. Neither Jamie or Claire were completely right, nor where they completely wrong.

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "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..."

I completely understand the point that you are making and I would agree with you under those same circumstances, however, I don't think the scenario in your hypothetical fits what happens in Outlander well because some key elements are missing.

First, you said "Luckily, they were the only ones involved in the crash so no one else was hurt, and somehow they walk away with barely a scratch

In your scenario, no one is hurt and no one else is affected by your child's actions. This isn't the case in Outlander. Let's change your hypothetical....let's say your child crashed the car into a neighbor's house. Let's say that the house catches fire and that fire spreads to other neighboring houses. Let's also say that several people risk their lives trying to save others and put out the flames. Let's also say that all of these affected people are now of the mindset to sue you and prosecute your child to the fullest extent of the law...but they are willing to not go this route if you are willing to demonstrate that you are going to personally handle the situation and are going to punish your child to their satisfaction. Let's say that your child says sorry and genuinely means it, but still doesn't truly understand that several families are now homeless, several people risked their lives to fight the fires and that your family is now in jeopardy of being sued and losing everything as well. Let's say that your child doesn't understand that rehab and community service is a less severe punishment than 25 years in jail and is trying to get out of doing it. Let's say your child thinks that simply saying sorry should be enough to make everything alright with EVERYBODY ....and unfortunately, in all of their minds , it just isn't.

Yes, you are going to be glad that your child is safe.....but I don't for one minute believe that in that type of scenario you are also going to completely overlook the fact that he/she is going to have to face the consequences for his/her actions one way or the other.

Right or wrong, there are times in life when sorry just doesn't cut it to some people. Claire was in one those situations. If it had been just between Claire and Jamie, sorry would have been enough. However, for the rest of the clan, sorry just wasn't going to cut it.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I completely understand the point that you are making and I would agree with you under those same circumstances, however, I don't think the scenario in your hypothetical fits what happens in Outlander well because some key elements are missing ..."

I actually can't figure out how this is anything like what happened in the book. I understood how Kat's scenario was similar and I can see how you think that some major things were left out from the book. However, the things that you added to that scenario just make no comparisons that I can see at all. It just feels like you make a bunch of horrible things happen to people that don't come close to happening in the book. I think that Sage had it right. If we are not ok with one person having a scenario to explain their point because other people do not understand it then I don't think that it is a good way to get the point across.

Sage wrote: "I understand what you're saying Kat and I agree, if someone I care about got hurt or involved in a dangerous situation, my first concern would be their welfare...however...as was pointed out to me when I tried to compare my grandson's accident to this scene, it isn't relevant unless the person driving the car (my grandson) had done something they were told not to do, like taken the car without permission and, in your comparison, the parents would have had to put themselves in danger to get to the driver...."

I really appreciate your two posts Sage and think that you did a really good job of explaining your points. I totally get what Kat is saying and agree with both of you. (I know you are saying contradictory things) but I think that it is somewhere in the middle. To really understand a situation we have to look at everyone's perspective.

I know I am not Claire and would react in very different ways to Claire in almost all of the situations that she is in, however putting myself in the scene is the only way that I can find out how I feel about a situation. Especially since the important things, like her reaction to him seeming to not care about what she has been through in the past 24 hours, are just not there because that is not her focus. (I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone or not. Sorry) If I were in Claire's shoes at that point, I would feel bad when Jamie told me about why it was so hard for him to go back. But I would expect him to have asked if I was ok or make an effort to comfort me at some point. I appreciate that he held her but like Kat said at one point he did that after She went to him to comfort him. I would not see that as him comforting me at all. It is a difficult situation when two people feel they need comfort from something.

When they were in the field and the two officers (I can't remember if it was two or one) came upon them and almost raped Claire, Jamie and Claire comforted each other. That was obvious. I think that Claire expected that sort of comfort when they went up to the room for her beating. That is why she told him to come to bed. Since she didn't get anything before I feel like this was what she was waiting for and it almost made it that much worse when she didn't get that.

Maddie wrote: "I actually can't figure out how this is anything like what happened in the book. I understood how Kat's scenario was similar and I can see how you think that some major things were left out from the book. However, the things that you added to that scenario just make no comparisons that I can see at all. It just feels like you make a bunch of horrible things happen to people that don't come close to happening in the book. I think that Sage had it right. If we are not ok with one person having a scenario to explain their point because other people do not understand it then I don't think that it is a good way to get the point across.
"

Forgive my bluntness, but I really do think that the reason why you can't see any similarities is because of how you are choosing to look at things. Kat and some others are trying to make Jamie and Claire's round problem fit into a square hole, imo. I don't think it's as black and white as she seems to be implying.

The element that was missing from Kat's original hypothetical is that what happened does not affect a large group of people. It only affects her hypothetical family and no one else. It's not the same and that is not what happened in Outlander at all. In my opinion, when you factor in the extra layer that your child's actions adversely affected an entire neighborhood, I wholeheartedly believe that changes how a parent possibly reacts and how they respond to the situation. Right or wrong, I understand the reaction. Kat is basing what she believes to be "typical" responses on an entirely different scenario and claiming that there is something lacking in Outlander's writing because the characters didn't do them. What I am saying is that what she described in her hypothetical is not what happened in Outlander. An entire layer of plot and background was left out. Things that I think were very important. It's important because the things that she left out is what is actually motivating the characters in that scene. That extra element is directly affecting the choices that they make.

Yes, Kat is quoting directly from the book...but she also seems to be taking the quotes out of their proper context.

Maddie wrote: "When they were in the field and the two officers (I can't remember if it was two or one) came upon them and almost raped Claire, Jamie and Claire comforted each other. That was obvious. I think that Claire expected that sort of comfort when they went up to the room for her beating. That is why she told him to come to bed. Since she didn't get anything before I feel like this was what she was waiting for and it almost made it that much worse when she didn't get that.
"

I agree and that is the point. Even at that point, Claire was still not understanding the situation fully. She doesn't understand that an apology was not going to be enough. She doesn't understand their ways and she doesn't understand the full picture of how her choices might affect everyone. To them, it was not a situation where one can just say "oops, my bad" and everybody just accepts it and lets it go. Rightly or wrongly, it was way more serious than that to them. I would even be inclined to think that to them, people risking their lives and jeopardizing the entire clan in the process to save her is just as traumatic experience as her almost rape. We can argue whether it is or isn't, but I am not a character in the story. The characters in the story do not have my same upbringing and my same sense of justice or of right and wrong. I don't expect them to behave like I would. Ultimately, this is their story....not mine.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Forgive my bluntness, but I really do think that the reason why you can't see any similarities is because of how you are choosing to look at things. Kat and some others are trying to make Jamie and Claire's round problem fit into a square hole, imo. I don't think it's as black and white as she seems to be implying...."

I disagree. I am not looking at the scene as you feel that Kat is. I was legitimately trying to find any similarities between what you said and the scene. Even now, after you have explained your point the only similarity I see is that it affected more than two people. The problem that I have is that you took that way too far out of proportion to the problem in the book. I agree that it would change how a parent disciplines the child but in Kat's scenario there was another car. Therefore it affected more people. I think that burning down people's houses and making them homeless took it outside of an equal scenario.

Maddie wrote: "I disagree. I am not looking at the scene as you feel that Kat is. I was legitimately trying to find any similarities between what you said and the scene. Even now, after you have explained your point the only similarity I see is that it affected more than two people. The problem that I have is that you took that way too far out of proportion to the problem in the book. I agree that it would change how a parent disciplines the child but in Kat's scenario there was another car. Therefore it affected more people. I think that burning down people's houses and making them homeless took it outside of an equal scenario.


Kat's exact words were...."Suppose your child was in a bad car accident. And it was their fault. They weren’t driving drunk, but let’s say they were driving recklessly and they should have known better. The car is totaled. Luckily, they were the only ones involved in the crash so no one else was hurt, and somehow they walk away with barely a scratch - when really they shouldn't have. "

^^^^
To me, that clearly states that there was only one car involved in the crash and no one was hurt. You are doing the same thing that I feel Kat is doing with Outlander. You are disregarding what the text actually says.

In Outlander, they believed that Claire's actions jeopardized the entire clan. Kat's scenario does not fit because it only affects the one household. Of course, people will react differently. You've taken away and entire layer of narrative, thus changing the story. You seem to be saying that I am going too far in the other extreme. Perhaps, but I don't think so. I think it's clear in Outlander that they perceived Claire's actions to be a very serious offense that affected the entire clan.
Right or wrong, that is what they perceived and felt and an explanation was given for why they feel this way. That isn't "lazy writing", imo. That story line was thoroughly fleshed out. DG's tendency to do this is one of the reasons why Outlander is over 900 pages long.

A car crash that only affects one family doesn't compare. A similar scenario would need to SERIOUSLY affect FAR MORE PEOPLE than that to be comparable in my opinion.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I disagree. I am not looking at the scene as you feel that Kat is. I was legitimately trying to find any similarities between what you said and the scene. Even now, after you have ex..."

Dude chill I just read it wrong about a day ago, a lot has happened since then. My bad no need to say I am "disregarding text" that is just condescending. I am sure you have never done that so we all must bow down to you and your knowledge. Give people the benefit of the doubt at least. All I remembered was a car crash and to me that normally means more than one car. So chill

I never said that it didn't affect everyone. In fact what I said was that I thought having it affect more than one family would change how a parent disciplined the child. That was the important part. Maybe you need to read everything the other person writes too. It is not a big deal to make a tiny mistake. We read things quickly and respond.

I don't think anyone was caused to be homeless after the incident at the prison. They were upset that they risked their lives but no one was affected that much. That is going overbored. It they were affected that much then they would not be ok with (what I am sure they thought would be) a simple beating.

Maddie wrote: "I don't think anyone was caused to be homeless after the incident at the prison. They were upset that they risked their lives but no one was affected that much."

I get what Mochapresso is trying to impart here by using homelessness as a metaphor. Putting it all in context, I believe risking one's life is a pretty big deal. At least one man was killed that we know (the English guard that shot at Jamie...he in turn killed that guard with his dirk). We don't know how many others were injured in the distraction set off by the rest of the clansmen.

Just food for thought.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I don't think anyone was caused to be homeless after the incident at the prison. They were upset that they risked their lives but no one was affected that much."

I get what Mochapre..."

The thing is they risk their lives daily. That part wasn't a bit deal they just wanted justice for it. There was no lasting effect to them for what Claire did. They din't care about if any English soldiers were killed. They did that on the first night they met Claire and no one lost sleep over it. They wanted justice for putting their lives on the line for what they saw was her stupidity. Once that was paid it was over for them. If one of the men would have been injured or killed it would have been a different story and I doubt that her being beaten would have served that justice. That is why I feel that the metaphor went too far. I'm not saying that Kat's didn't leave things out either. I am saying that both of them don't give us a clear view. This is why I agree with what Sage said about them. If we can't use one then don't use any.

First things first. :) Apologies to all since I fear this post may be getting OT from the main point of the thread a bit.

Maddie wrote: "I really appreciate your two posts Sage and think that you did a really good job of explaining your points.

Can I just say "ditto"? No, really. I mean that. I also appreciate your two posts, Sage. Especially the second one. And especially especially the first paragraph in the second one where you said "This all happened in one day, Claire nearly drown in the river, was captured by the British, assaulted by BJR, rescued, endured an uncomfortable supper, finally returning to their room, still in the same filthy, torn dress, only to be faced with Jamie and his sword belt. Nobody stood up for her, or considered she may have already been punished enough." Excellently succinctly put. Thank you.

However, Maddie said: I totally get what Kat is saying and agree with both of you. (I know you are saying contradictory things) but I think that it is somewhere in the middle. To really understand a situation we have to look at everyone's perspective.

I don't think it's that we are saying contradictory things - at least not as far as these last few posts are concerned. (1223-1225) I think it's that we are talking about different things.

Let me see if I can explain any better.

My intention of the car crash scenario was not to make a complete and total comparison to the kidnapping/rescue and what should or should not have been Claire’s punishment or reaction of the rest of the clan. I’m not talking about assigning blame or consequences of actions or punishments fitting the crime – I’m not even talking about the beating itself (Shocking! I know – which is why this is probably OT). So try to put all of that aside for a moment...

I’m only talking about Jamie and Claire here (mainly Jamie), and in this instance, about a person’s first, pure, immediate reaction to a loved one feared lost or hurt or dead being found alive and okay. (I think Sage 'got it' in the first part of 1224.) Now stop right there.

Using the very Bible that Jamie put so much stock in – think about the parable of the prodigal son. The father – who had every right to be angry with his son, and his son fully expected him to be - welcomed him home! Or the parable of the lost sheep? When found, the shepherd joyfully carried the lost one back. Now some may claim the circumstances are not the same, and yes, that’s true. But once again, I’m only talking about the first, immediate reaction to finding something/someone precious thought lost. In this case in Outlander, Claire was potentially ‘lost’ to Jamie. If he truly loved her, he had to be in awful fear on his way to Ft. William: fear for her life, fear for his, and fear for the other men’s safety even. I understand that. I really do. Same as the father of the prodigal son no doubt feared for his son’s safety all those years he was away. Same as the shepherd feared for his lost sheep when he went in search of it. Where then was the utter joy and relief when Jamie found Claire still alive?

This is not the same either – but I think if one only considers the emotions, which I what I'm talking about, the illustration might help. My mother died several years ago. She had a stroke. On the long drive to the hospital (I lived several hours away), I knew she wasn’t going to make it, so there were other emotions also, but mainly – mainly - during that long drive – I was afraid that I wasn’t going to make it in time to say good bye. I did. And when I did, even though grief came right after, there was a brief spell, where I was glad. Glad, one might ask? How could I possibly be glad under the circumstances? Well, not glad that my mother was dying, obviously. But glad that I was able say goodbye.

When Sage’s original metaphor of her grandson’s car accident was used, I think that was to compare placement of ‘blame’ so to speak. (Apologies, Sage, if I have that wrong.) That’s not what I’m talking about here. So, in this case, I think the metaphor I used does fit. But let’s take it one step further, shall we? Say your child did take the car without your permission. Let’s even say that you warned them not to take the car because you thought the brakes were bad and you wanted to have the garage look at them before anyone else drove the car extensively. (I believe someone used something similar earlier in the discussion thread). Now, once again, the police have called you. Said your child was in an accident. The car was totaled. And that’s all you know while you drive frantically to get there. Obviously your child had to take the car after you specifically told them not to and then got into an accident. But you don’t know if they are okay or not. So when you finally reach them and you find your precious child is okay – what is your first immediate reaction? Is it anger because they took the car when you told them not to and they nearly got hurt because of that? Sure – I think anger in this case for that very reason is justified. But not *immediately*. Again, I can only speak from my own experience, but I know – I KNOW – that first my father would have pulled me in his arms and told me he was glad I was okay. And then he would have told me that I was still going to get punished for taking the car without permission. But first he would have expressed some kind of relief or joy or thankfulness that I was alright.

So where was the joy, the gladness, the relief, the thankfulness no matter how brief, when Jamie found Claire?

I’m not dismissing the fact that he had the right to be angry with her for disobeying his orders. I’m not saying that Claire didn’t ‘get it’. (I don’t think she ‘got it’ either.) Right now, I’m not even talking about whether or not the punishment was justified from anyone’s pov. I just want to know where Jamie ever felt any relief or joy that Claire was still alive. Because when I read that section of book, I don’t see either of those emotions from Jamie at all. And since the book is written from Claire’s POV, I think it’s safe to say that she didn’t either because she certainly didn’t comment on it and I think she would have if she’d felt it. It’s as if he goes straight from fear to anger. (Excuse me, I’m extrapolating there. Claire never witnessed any fear from him until he said so at the end of the argument on the roadside.) It’s like he went straight to anger and just stayed there. There was not one moment, no matter how fleeting, where he seemed thankful at all that she was okay. He was angry with her before they even stopped on the side of the road and argued. (Remember, he wouldn’t put his arms around her, only touched her as strictly necessary, and spoke coldly to her.)

Maddie wrote:"I know I am not Claire and would react in very different ways to Claire in almost all of the situations that she is in,"

(snort) me too. :)

"however putting myself in the scene is the only way that I can find out how I feel about a situation. Especially since the important things, like her reaction to him seeming to not care about what she has been through in the past 24 hours, are just not there because that is not her focus. (I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone or not. Sorry)"

It makes sense to me. But I disagree. While it's not Claire's main focus, I think she does tell us how she feels about Jamie's seeming lack of concern for her welfare. I know that different people react differently to stressful situations. And Claire generally is a strong character. However, Claire WAS upset after the rescue. She was shaking, and not just from the cold. “Upset and unsettled myself, I was in no frame of mind to put up with moods.” She didn’t call Jamie out on his ‘sulking’ until after he’d shown her NO concern whatsoever.

"If I were in Claire's shoes at that point, I would feel bad when Jamie told me about why it was so hard for him to go back. But I would expect him to have asked if I was ok or make an effort to comfort me at some point. I appreciate that he held her but like Kat said at one point he did that after She went to him to comfort him. I would not see that as him comforting me at all."

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Maddie wrote: "When they were in the field and the two officers (I can't remember if it was two or one) came upon them and almost raped Claire, Jamie and Claire comforted each other. That was obvious. I think that Claire expected that sort of comfort when they went up to the room for her beating. That is why she told him to come to bed. Since she didn't get anything before I feel like this was what she was waiting for and it almost made it that much worse when she didn't get that. "

I wanted to put this in a separate post, because I wanted to keep the focus of the other one on Jamie's first immediate reaction (or seeming lack thereof).

Now then. Very good point. I think you are right about Claire telling Jamie to come to bed also. Claire was still waiting to get some comfort, some sympathy, some - *something* - that showed her that Jamie was at least a little happy that she was okay. But she didn't receive that at all. Instead she received a beating. Even if Jamie didn't intend to hurt her. Yes, Sage, I agree: Claire was humiliated. But it was also more than that. "I felt deeply betrayed that the man I depended on as friend, protector, and lover intended to do such a thing to me." Betrayed is such a strong word there. Being betrayed by your husband goes much deeper than humiliation.

So some can say 'Claire didn't get it' because she didn't seem too concerned about the men's welfare once they got to the inn. But Jamie didn't 'get it' either.

Maddie wrote: "The thing is they risk their lives daily. That part wasn't a bit deal they just wanted justice for it. There was no lasting effect to them for what Claire did. They din't care about if any English soldiers were killed. They did that on the first night they met Claire and no one lost sleep over it. They wanted justice for putting their lives on the line for what they saw was her stupidity. Once that was paid it was over for them. If one of the men would have been injured or killed it would have been a different story and I doubt that her being beaten would have served that justice."

You are so spot on with this. This is why I don't understand the big deal when others bring up the fact that Jamie killed someone, an English soldier, to get to Claire. So what? They didn't even like the English. Jamie probably killed an English soldier or two the night Claire first arrived in 1743. It's not like he hasn't killed before - he was in the French Army, remember? Now, if it had been a clansmen injured or killed, that would have been different. And I agree with you, that I don't think in that case a simple (as they saw it) beating would have sufficed for her punishment. In fact, I think it was more the fact that now BJR knew Jamie was back in Scotland - and therefore more dangerous for him - that upset Jamie about the situation rather than the fact that he had to kill an English soldier.

I wonder if he would have been quite as angry with Claire if it had been another English officer in the room and not BJR? Don't get me wrong - I think Jamie still would have been angry that she disobeyed his orders and that put the men in danger, etc... But if it hadn't been BJR there, would he have been quite so mad at her?

Hm...so if one believes that my scenario doesn't count or is not germane (even though I wasn't using it to illustrate punishment of any sort as some mistakenly assumed) because it doesn't fit the exact circumstances in Outlander - then surely one must also admit that all the tales Jamie told of his beatings growing up as some kind of 'justification' to Claire of his utilizing the same punishment on her are also irrelevant and don't count. You know - since they didn't fit the exact circumstances either.

I've missed a lot. Now for my two cents worth. I'm not going to respond to whole posts but rather little tid bits here and there that sparked my interest. Probably work my way from the bottom up.

"The thing is they risk their lives daily. That part wasn't a bit deal they just wanted justice for it. There was no lasting effect to them for what Claire did. They din't care about if any English soldiers were killed."

This isn't exactly true. Well from Jamie's pov anyways. I thought for sure it was in the first book but perhaps it isn't? .....Where Jamie talks about dealing with the emotions involved with taking a life. He doesn't enjoy it and doesn't want to do it but he will do it to protect himself and those
he loves. Basically he will do it when he has to. Now that I think about this more, it might be in book 3 and I think he may be talking to young Ian?

As far as the other men - I really don't know what they think. But I do know that nobody wants a price on their heads. I don't think they care particularly about an English life, but if they can avoid getting a price on their heads, well, then they want to avoid that lol.

I do agree with this though:
now BJR knew Jamie was back in Scotland - and therefore more dangerous for him - that upset Jamie...
But I still don't think killing someone rolled off Jamie's back as quickly as people may think. But since most haven't read that far, then no one should be expected to know that I guess.
_________________________


About Jamie's immediate reaction to finding Claire safe and not showing relief about that before he shows anger. I do see where you're coming from. There is a good chance I'd behave this way rather than the way he did If I were in his shoes. I have a bunch of different thoughts on this though.

I think in using the parent/child relationship to help us understand this situation, we've actually mucked it up and confused ourselves even more. I don't have children but I do know, from practically every parent I've met how much they worry and that the love between a parent and a child is far different than spousal. I'm not saying I'd not be immediately grateful and happy my husband was alright. But I'm saying that I can understand *more* being immediately angry, after you see that they're alright if they did something hugely stupid that put your life in danger. Even if their life was in danger at the time. I can see that. Especially so if you change the gender roles. Not thinking of the Claire and Jamie scenario but thinking of any kind of scenario if my husband were to do something that I would deem totally and completely idiotic, something life threatening to myself, I'd be soooooo pissed off. I can totally see me raising the fires of hell. And I can honestly say that I might be so angry that I don't actually want to comfort him. Does that make me a bad person? But I can see that of myself. The difference I see between my reaction and Jamie's immediate reaction however, is that I'd shut up and not say anything at all, while recognizing my husband also went through an ordeal, I think I'd wait to talk and comfort when my temper cooled. I'd also see that he needs to recoup and doesn't need my anger at the moment. So I'd just shut up and quietly seethe.

Parent/child (even older child), I see the situation quite differently though.

Another thing to add here though.... I'd have to read through everything again to be certain, but did Jamie have a reason to doubt that Claire would be alive? I mean, BJR is an officer with soldiers under him, he can really only go *so far* in being a psycho. As far as I can remember at this time, Claire is not a wanted woman. BJR thinks she didn't listen to a summons and that's about it. She didn't have to because she circumvented the law by getting married.
________________________

I think Mochospresso's example of the car accident, although not spot on, has been the best comparison so far. I've been running through my brain different scenario's and haven't been able to come up with anything that fits perfectly either, but I think this is the closest on this thread.
_______________

Maddie wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I don't think anyone was caused to be homeless after the incident at the prison. They were upset that they risked their lives but no one was affected tha..."

They risk their lives daily, but it usually is not due to someone disobeying an order. When that happens, they want and expect some type of retribution or justice.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I've missed a lot. Now for my two cents worth. I'm not going to respond to whole posts but rather little tid bits here and there that sparked my interest. Probably work my way from the bottom up.

..."

Thank you. I know some don't agree, but I really do believe that context is important when analyzing a story like we have been doing.

I'm thinking back over my childhood and I don't think my mother or father has ever comforted me BEFORE punishing me for something. They were also not the "Go to bed and we'll discuss this in the morning" types either. If an issue needed to be addressed, it was addressed right then and there.

I'm also thinking back over Outlander and I'm not convinced that Jamie comforting Claire and then beating her anyway would have mattered. I mean, how is that going to work? How does he comfort her and then beat her? I can't even fathom how that conversation would even go. It's not like Claire would have been more apt to accept the punishment had Jamie comforted her first. I find that extremely doubtful. In fact, I'm convinced that probably would have made matters even worse.

Mochaspresso wrote: They risk their lives daily, but it usually is not due to someone disobeying an order. When that happens, they want and expect some type of retribution or justice. "

You responded to another thought I had wanted to but couldn't quite gather my thoughts to do so.

I didn't want to use another inadequate example but I can't think of anything that compares perfectly. But if I were in the army, risking my life daily, I'd be really upset if someone risked my life further based upon stupid decisions. Not that I wouldn't rescue said person, I would, but I'd still be ticked about the whole thing. Just because I put my life on the line for a cause I believe in, or just because my surroundings are that dangerous doesn't mean I wouldn't care if someone else endangered my life.

As Jamie had said, if Claire had have been a man she likely would have had her ears cropped, been whipped or out right killed. By the sounds of it, in this situation, the guy wouldn't have been rescued. And Dougal didn't want to rescue Claire either, it was only by Jamie pushing that the men relented.

Another thing about using modern day examples, they just don't come with old fashioned thinking. And I think this is at the core of why they fail to illustrate a fair comparison.

For instance:
Kat says: But that’s just it – Claire didn’t *deliberately* put herself in danger. And he knows that. He says as much to her later at the inn before he beats her.

But Jamie, DID, ridiculously think Claire had put herself deliberately in danger. He says so before they get to the Inn. They hash it out on the road.

"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!".......

"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.

I actually remember the first time reading this and I remember thinking Jamie was such an idiot to ever think such a thing. But then I got to thinking about the time period and the culture. Women are not protected like they once were by the men in their lives. The idea of Jamie feeling like he failed Claire extends so much *more so* than (I think) a man would feel today. And the way he thinks Claire feels about it... that she would deliberately put herself in danger to get back at him just furthers (in my mind) the way their thoughts at the time colored their actions.

I think such a thought would be rare today because the basic fundamental foundation it's based upon is not existent, not like it was then.

I don't know if I expressed this thought very well as I just don't have the time to think it through properly before I post it.

Kat wrote: "Hm...so if one believes that my scenario doesn't count or is not germane (even though I wasn't using it to illustrate punishment of any sort as some mistakenly assumed) because it doesn't fit the exact circumstances in Outlander - then surely one must also admit that all the tales Jamie told of his beatings growing up as some kind of 'justification' to Claire of his utilizing the same punishment on her are also irrelevant and don't count. You know - since they didn't fit the exact circumstances either.
"

It's not irrelevant to the story because that discussion is part of how Claire and Jamie eventually reach a place where they can try to reconcile their differences over it. Claire, because of her upbringing, attaches a certain sentiment to beatings for disciplinary reasons that Jamie does not. In Jamie's mind, there is a difference between the beatings that he received from his father as a child. He believes the beatings he gives Claire and Fergus and the floggings he receives from BJR and the English are in fact different. He also thinks the flogging that Laoghaire would have received in the hall is different and this is why he takes her punishment for her. He thinks that what he did to Claire is completely different from a man severely beating and abusing his wife. The various contexts of beatings are different in Jamie's mind. Claire does not make those types of distinctions at all (...I suspect that posters here do not either) and Jamie is shocked that she doesn't when they talk about it. (I forget where it happens in the book. I can search and quote it, if necessary. In fact, I think it already has been quoted in this thread.) Their cultural differences come up again when Claire sees a father beating his daughter and tells Jamie about it.....Jamie hears her out, but is not as quick to judge the situation as Claire is.

This happens today, if we are thinking objectively and are being completely honest. During the rioting in Baltimore a few months ago, there was a video of a mother going into the crowd of rioters to get her son and she was beating him all the way home. The general consensus was to applaud that mother for disciplining her child.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRlmC...

Here is the mother being interviewed and explaining her pov...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd_en...

I know some people don't my like examples, but clearly, I don't care. :) I am not providing this example to say that Claire's beating was "just" from a moral standpoint. Like I've said, Outlander is Claire and Jamie's fictional story. Not mine. I am just trying to explain how a person like Jamie who has a different mindset, a different upbringing and is from a different time and place can possibly think very differently. It is also given to demonstrate that context matters. The news called that woman "Mom of the year". Had she showed up at school and done the same thing over a bad report card, I am completely convinced that police would have been called and she would have been arrested for abuse. CONTEXT MATTERS. I cannot read Outlander and disregard context. Imo, that is not a fair or accurate way to analyze the story.

Mrsbooks wrote: "But Jamie, DID, ridiculously think Claire had put herself deliberately in danger. He says so before they get to the Inn. They hash it out on the road...."

Actually, Claire did put herself in danger. Claire 'knew' the British were near and that they would take her if they found her. So when Claire made the decision to leave the copse, she put herself in danger. Had she remained were Jamie left her and the British had found her, then Jamie would have been the one who made the bad decision. Either way, Claire was in danger, her decision to leave the copse made it her fault that she was captured.

However...Jamie's thinking that Claire did it on purpose to get back at him was ridiculous. His reasoning was because of the guilt he was feeling over what happened in the glen. Jamie felt responsible because he had left down his guard and the deserters took them by surprise.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Claire, because of her upbringing, attaches a certain sentiment to beatings for disciplinary reasons that Jamie does not. In Jamie's mind, there is a difference between the beatings that he received from his father as a child. He believes the beatings he gives Claire and Fergus and the floggings he receives from BJR and the English are in fact different. He also thinks the flogging that Laoghaire would have received in the hall is different and this is why he takes her punishment for her. He thinks that what he did to Claire is completely different from a man severely beating and abusing his wife. The various contexts of beatings are different in Jamie's mind...."

This is true.

We are all a result of our upbringing, time period, and life situations. When I was a child I never questioned my parents decisions. If I asked to go to the movies with friends and was told 'no', there was rarely an explanation given and I never asked why. It's just the way it was. My parents made decisions and I respected them. Today, parents give, and children expect, reasons...it's a different time and culture. It doesn't mean one set of parents love their children more, or are better, it's just different time periods and views.

Sara wrote: "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. "

I never watched that show, so thanks for giving me more info and context.

Mochaspresso wrote: "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. "

Hmmm...I get what you meant earlier so thanks for clarifying your point. But I disagree with your point here. I think today as well as back in the 1700s people can make the difference between degrees of hurt and violence. And those degrees have always been regulated by law : a certain degree can be "tolerated" or met with a small fine/verdict, another will be forbidden and met with bigger condamnation.


Mochaspresso wrote: "...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.

Yes, but at the same time, the very passage in discussion have also been quoted. Also, the title of this very discussion is about this scene. So someone who hasn't read the book and interested in contributing into the discussion should check first about the book or at the very least this scene. I mean, you can't cry fool if you're the one who let yourself being fooled, right?

Mochaspresso wrote: "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."

I am not sure I follow you here : why do you think Claire used an hyperbole when she talked about how she uncomfortable she felt after the beating? Or is it something else you are talking about? I get that the use of "within an inch of her life" was an exaggeration, but that was part of this conversation, but that does mean the beating wasn't bad enough to hurt for several hours and leave bruises. Also, I don't get what being a "critical reader" has to do with agreeing with YOUR interpretation of the scene...I, for one, didn't skim that part, I read it through. Just like you did. I even re-read it because it bugged me to no end and I couldn't understand why there was such a scene. And why it was framed like that. It just (badly) surprised me, that's all. I don't think it needs some superior intellectual skills to understand what was written (Jamie beating Claire badly enough to leave bruises, Claire resisting, Claire still hurting hours later) and what was happening.

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

Yes, and? I got more info on that tv show, I never watched it so I can't judge by myself how supposedly "funny" that specific scene is. I am still not finding the kind of scene depicted by the poster to be funny. But I am not really interested in that show/scene so I am just going to let it there.

Now, back to the topic at hand, I read the entire book, I know about the "context" and all, and I still think my criticism of the whole thing are valid. Context doesn't nullify criticism.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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."

Yeah, I get what you mean. And I agree.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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. "

Ok. I didn't know about that. I eman, I see some stuff here and there fro time to time, but I just quickly click away so that I won't get into fits of internet rage ;). So I didn't know this "genre" was growing. And yeah, it's beyond problematic. I mean, it's one thing to have kinky or even twisted sexual fantasies and all. Fantasies are fantasies. To each their own. It's another to go and romanticize them...I just...No. Just, no. SMDH.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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. "

Ok, let's just not get into THAT one in here ;)!

Kat wrote: "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."

I think that's a very interesting conversation. I get what MrsBrooks is saying, and I am also agrees with Kat. I think in every societies, at eveery time, there has always been ways for women and men to deal with (sexual) violence, some more overt, some more subtle. And yes, it also depends on who you're talking to. Women have been organiszing support system forver. It's always been a matter of psychological and physical survival. And some of them were even "official" part of some societies, like the "initiation circles". This makes me think of this Nnedi Okorafor's fabulous book "Who fears Death" : there is this ongoing plot around one of the female secondary character who has to deal with sexual violence and it's not only very well written but also echoes the kind of support system that has always existed. [Also Nnedi is the SHIT!]
And I also think men have had different ways to deal with sexual violence too, but, most of the time, from the perspective of the perpetrators. Because everybody knew what was going on was problematic, even back then, even if people were forbidden to/pressurred not to talk about it in public.

Red wrote: "Yes, but at the same time, the very passage in discussion have also been quoted. Also, the title of this very discussion is about this scene. So someone who hasn't read the book and interested in contributing into the discussion should check first about the book or at the very least this scene. I mean, you can't cry fool if you're the one who let yourself being fooled, right?
"

I want to talk about this. Yes, the passage was quoted, but it is very easy for quoted lines to be taken out of context and when that happens, it fails to accurately convey the true intended meaning.

"Most babies take their first steps around their first birthday." "They go straight from standing to walking."

vs.

"When will my baby walk?

Most babies take their first steps around their first birthday, but the age range varies from 9 to 18 months. Don't worry if your baby takes a few detours along the way. Some kids never crawl—they go straight from standing to walking—and that's perfectly normal. What's important at this stage is that your child is using arms and legs together to become mobile."

http://www.parenting.com/article/lear...

In both instances, I quoted lines directly from the passage. However, in the first example, I quoted in such a way that the lines are being taken out of context.

While it certainly has not been to this much of an extreme, this is what I feel has been done to Outlander several times throughout this thread. Passages are being quoted, but important parts of the narrative that provide background are being left out. It can be very misleading for someone who has not read the book. That's all that I was trying to convey.

Mochaspresso wrote: "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. "

Well, don't you think such characterizations are a bit problematic? How is the "steel magnolia" stereotype "better" than the "weeping lili white" one? I mean, what is wrong with falling apart after a traumatic experience ? Showing weakness? Crying? Those are not "flaws", but legit human emotions, expressions. That's also a way of "handling" thing. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with a female character who shows those traits, as long as she isn't reduced to those ONLY traits. That what used to be (and still is) annoying and problematic in most romance novels and fiction. The female lead character reduced to one stereotype after another. No multidimensional characterization.

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

Yes, but at the same time, the very passage in discussion have also been quoted. Also, the title of this very discussion is about this scene. So someone who hasn't read the book and interested in contributing into the discussion should check first about the book or at the very least this scene. I mean, you can't cry fool if you're the one who let yourself being fooled, right?..."

Checking on a thread, such as this one, to determine whether or not someone should read a book is helpful 'provided' all the information on said thread is accurate.

Jamie did not beat Claire within an inch of her life...it was an exaggerated account of what happened which Claire made to herself the following morning. To insinuate that this is what happened in the story is taking the line out of context and, as Mocha stated, alluding that this 'is' what happened is inflammatory, pejorative, inaccurate and misleading.

We all have the right to criticize any part of a book, as long as the criticism is about something that actually occurred.

Jamie beat Claire with his swordbelt as punishment for disobeying his order which resulted in everyone traveling with them being in danger. The beating, which was not justified, resulted in Claire being uncomfortable for a day or two, but he did not beat her within an inch of her life. BJR did, however, beat Jamie within an inch of his life on more then one occasion, so if you want someone to be aware of disturbing physical abuse in the story, that would by far be a much better example.

Although this particular scene may be controversial, there are many more graphic, upsetting scenes that some readers may want to know exist before deciding whether or not to read this book, or series.

Kat wrote: "It’s like he went straight to anger and just stayed there. There was not one moment, no matter how fleeting, where he seemed thankful at all that she was okay. He was angry with her before they even stopped on the side of the road and argued. "

That's part of the bad writing, bad characterization I pointed out earlier, much earlier. Part of the reason why I couldn't get over the way the whole scene was framed, and how Claire was treated (as a person and as a character). Not only did he beat her, but he kept blaming her and making it all about. Like TF man?! And then she told him she loved her?! Like, TF woman?

Red wrote: "I am not sure I follow you here : why do you think Claire used an hyperbole when she talked about how she uncomfortable she felt after the beating? Or is it something else you are talking about? I get that the use of "within an inch of her life" was an exaggeration, but that was part of this conversation, but that does mean the beating wasn't bad enough to hurt for several hours and leave bruises.

It most certainly was bad enough to hurt for several hours and leave bruises. The book makes that very clear. I'm inclined to think that many spankings and beatings typically are, as I am familiar with that feeling from my own childhood experiences with being spanked and beaten. However, Claire was not beaten within an inch of her life. Jamie actually was by BJR, though. Jamie is still has the scars on his back to prove it. Claire does not have any such marks. She didn't have to lay on her stomach and have someone rub salves and/or brine into her back. She didn't have open wounds to be bandaged. She was able to walk and stand and do all of the normal things that she normally does. She has some bruises and some soreness...but she is still able to function normally. That is why I say that it is clear that she was exaggerating or using hyperbole.


Also, I don't get what being a "critical reader" has to do with agreeing with YOUR interpretation of the scene...

To me....this isn't "my" interpretation. Personally, I don't think that is even something that is open to interpretation. The book is very straightforward and clear about that, imo. Claire clearly was not beaten within an inch of her life and was exaggerating when she said that she was. You even said this yourself.

....Perhaps, I don't know how to explain it, but I had the same discussion with someone about "Fried Green Tomatoes...". They didn't want to acknowledge that Ruth and Idgy were lovers. The book doesn't come straight out and say it, but it doesn't actually have to. The inferences provided were very clear. I think there is a difference between "interpretation" and "obstinately refusing to make an inference" that is right in your face, plain as day.


I, for one, didn't skim that part, I read it through. Just like you did. I even re-read it because it bugged me to no end and I couldn't understand why there was such a scene. And why it was framed like that. It just (badly) surprised me, that's all. I don't think it needs some superior intellectual skills to understand what was written (Jamie beating Claire badly enough to leave bruises, Claire resisting, Claire still hurting hours later) and what was happening.
"

Was that the original wording and/or intended meaning when I responded? I can't remember. If so, then my apologies. There is nothing to discuss because we are in complete agreement on at least that aspect of what happened.

Mochaspresso wrote: "This happens today, if we are thinking objectively and are being completely honest. During the rioting in Baltimore a few months ago, there was a video of a mother going into the crowd of rioters to get her son and she was beating him all the way home. The general consensus was to applaud that mother for disciplining her child.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRlmC...

Here is the mother being interviewed and explaining her pov...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd_en...

I know some people don't my like examples, but clearly, I don't care. :) I am not providing this example to say that Claire's beating was "just" from a moral standpoint. Like I've said, Outlander is Claire and Jamie's fictional story. Not mine. I am just trying to explain how a person like Jamie who has a different mindset, a different upbringing and is from a different time and place can possibly think very differently. It is also given to demonstrate that context matters. The news called that woman "Mom of the year". Had she showed up at school and done the same thing over a bad report card, I am completely convinced that police would have been called and she would have been arrested for abuse. CONTEXT MATTERS. I cannot read Outlander and disregard context. Imo, that is not a fair or accurate way to analyze the story. "

Hmmmm...As you said, "context matters", even if I don't understand why you keep saying seeing this as everybody and their momma have aknowledged multiple times the very context of that scene/plot/story. But here you are, comparing the fictional Outlander domestic abuse scene with 2015 Baltimore Black lives matter riots and totally ignoring the very context of how and why those riots happened, and how and why so many black boy (and girls) took part in the movement, and what it means to be a black boy in America and what it means to be the mother of a Black boy in America, and how the media have portrayed what happened and what you called the supposed "general consensus" means in that very context???

I mean, this discussion is very interesting and all, and the whole grandson in the car having and accient while eating delicious cookies are mostly fun and all, but can we stop with the totally out of control present day comparisons? Because it really makes no damn sense to me at this point.

Of course Jamie was angry. And, had Jamie returned to their room at the Inn, gone to bed with Claire, told her how thankful he was that she was not hurt, made love to her, and then punished her the following day, it would have been much worse. Jamie felt Claire needed to be punished to satisfy Dougal and the others, so he did what he felt needed to be done as soon as possible so that it would be over and done with. Jamie didn't expect Claire to resist, he expected her to comply.

The beating was justified to Jamie, but not to Claire...or any of us here in the 21st Century.

Red wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "This happens today, if we are thinking objectively and are being completely honest. During the rioting in Baltimore a few months ago, there was a video of a mother going into t..."

The example is relevant (imo) because that mom believed that she was "justified" in beating her son for what he'd done. Jamie felt that he was "justified" in beating Claire for what she'd done. (I am not discussing yours or my personal opinions on the matter.) I am talking about Jamie's character and what he thinks and believes. He believes he is justified just as much as that mom felt that she was justified.

Red wrote: "I mean, this discussion is very interesting and all, and the whole grandson in the car having and accient while eating delicious cookies are mostly fun and all, but can we stop with the totally out of control present day comparisons? Because it really makes no damn sense to me at this point...."

In other words everything needs to make sense to you in order for it to be valid???

Personally, I didn't consider my grandson having a accident as 'fun', and he certainly isn't unruly (as you claimed previously), nor do I recall anyone saying the cookies were delicious. So it's quite obvious you read a lot into whatever is being said.

Comparing an incident from the past to an incident of the present is relevant and makes perfect sense.

I agree with Mocha's comparison, both Jamie and the mother of the boy during the riots felt they were doing what needed to be done at the time, that their action was justified. Nobody was discussing or referring to the problems in America that caused the riot.

Today's standards and actions are based on the past

Mochaspresso wrote: ""Most babies take their first steps around their first birthday." "They go straight from standing to walking."

vs.

"When will my baby walk?

Most babies take their first steps around their first birthday, but the age range varies from 9 to 18 months. Don't worry if your baby takes a few detours along the way. Some kids never crawl—they go straight from standing to walking—and that's perfectly normal. What's important at this stage is that your child is using arms and legs together to become mobile."
http://www.parenting.com/article/lear...

In both instances, I quoted lines directly from the passage. However, in the first example, I quoted in such a way that the lines are being taken out of context.

While it certainly has not been to this much of an extreme, this is what I feel has been done to Outlander several times throughout this thread. Passages are being quoted, but important parts of the narrative that provide background are being left out. It can be very misleading for someone who has not read the book. That's all that I was trying to convey."

Hmmm...The example you used, extracting only two phrase without showing that it's an excerpt by adding [...], is purposely misleading. I don't really remember every quotations in details, so may be I am wrong but I don't recall anybody doing what you just did, that is cutting through a 6 lines text and excerpting only one line and presenting it as if it were the wole paragraph. I mean, you can't quote the entire book, so fo course you are going to leave out some parts. But if I recall righ, each time the book has been quoted here, it was always in reference of a very specific scene, and always presented as such.

Sage wrote: "Jamie did not beat Claire within an inch of her life...it was an exaggerated account of what happened which Claire made to herself the following morning. To insinuate that this is what happened in the story is taking the line out of context and, as Mocha stated, alluding that this 'is' what happened is inflammatory, pejorative, inaccurate and misleading."

As I stated earlier, I am not sure which passage that statement refers to. I am a bit lost : is it written as such in the book or is it something someone said? If it is written as such in the book I don't see how it is "taken out of context". It may be taken out face value, but "out of context"? When this is actually written in the book? I really don't understand where this whole argument is coming.

Again, if this is what IS written, one can at the very least that IS what the character said it happened. And if it wasnt contradicted by the narrator, or even other characters, I don't understand why you said it is "inflammatory, pejorative, inaccurate and misleading". THIs is a bit of an exxagerate statement. Just because YOU interpreted what was written as an exaggeration doesn't mean that's the law, and anybody who says otherwise is being all the things you said above.

Mochaspresso wrote: "....Perhaps, I don't know how to explain it, but I had the same discussion with someone about "Fried Green Tomatoes...". They didn't want to acknowledge that Ruth and Idgy were lovers. The book doesn't come straight out and say it, but it doesn't actually have to. The inferences provided were very clear. I think there is a difference between "interpretation" and "obstinately refusing to make an inference" that is right in your face, plain as day."

See, this is where I disagree : if something is infered and not explicititly stated, then it is bound to being interpreted differently. If the author wanted something to be clear, plain and simple they would have written it the same way. So I think it is fair for everyone to interpret it the way they want. I think that's also part of what discussing books interesting : that something that seemed crystal clear to you isn't so clear for some one else. and That's ok. Because the author wanted it this way. Because the writing is good (or bad enough) to allow each reader to make up their own implicit scenario in order to connect the dot. Until the author says other wise and one version is considered "canon", everybody should be free to interpret it as they pleased, even if a majority is leaning towards one explanation rather another. And I would even had : even if the author clarifies it "afterwards". Because within the context of the story, of the book, the implicit is still there.

Mochaspresso wrote: "The example is relevant (imo) because that mom believed that she was "justified" in beating her son for what he'd done. Jamie felt that he was "justified" in beating Claire for what she'd done. (I am not discussing yours or my personal opinions on the matter.) I am talking about Jamie's character and what he thinks and believes. He believes he is justified just as much as that mom felt that she was justified."

I don't see how this very example relates to Outlander in particular, especially as you like to stress how contex matters so much. Like you can refer to pretty much anything that happens today and the people involved in it feel "justified" about their action. Like this father who yell at his children for being unruly, and who feels justified to do it because whatever. How relevant is it the discussion we are having here? Like, seriously? How comparing two totally unrelated events, that happens in two totally different context (and remember "CONTEXT MATTERS", doesn't it?) is any relevant to the very discussion we are having here? It's just totally random IMO.

I mean, I get that sometimes we use personal examples to illustrate a point, but I think some of them are just getting totally out of hand.

But maybe others found your example very on point and clarifying, so I guess, good for you...

Sage wrote: "In other words everything needs to make sense to you in order for it to be valid???"

Hmmm...No. I just expressed my disbelief that this very example help better illustrate the point. I doesn't makes sense for me, if it does for you, then good for you.

Sage wrote: "Personally, I didn't consider my grandson having a accident as 'fun', and he certainly isn't unruly (as you claimed previously), nor do I recall anyone saying the cookies were delicious. So it's quite obvious you read a lot into whatever is being said."

Quite the contrary. I was actually taking all those examples rather lightly, as expressed by the humourous tone of my post when I referred to this and connected all of those example together, even though I knew they weren't. I thought it was pretty obvious. My bad.

Sage wrote: "Comparing an incident from the past to an incident of the present is relevant and makes perfect sense. I agree with Mocha's comparison, both Jamie and the mother of the boy during the riots felt they were doing what needed to be done at the time, that their action was justified. Nobody was discussing or referring to the problems in America that caused the riot, except you. "

Well, when the person doing the comparison keeps insisting on how context matter but proceed to disregard the very context she is extracting that example from, I can't help but point out this little contradiction.

Like, we all agree that when discussing this Outlander scene,one should take into context where, and how and why this scene happened (from Claire being left into the copse to Jamie's upbringinng and 1700s use of words like "beating"), right? But when someone use a real life incident totally out of its context, it's fine and totally relevant and totally not questionable, right?

Yep, that's totally NOT contradictory.

Red wrote: "As I stated earlier, I am not sure which passage that statement refers to. I am a bit lost : is it written as such in the book or is it something someone said? ..."

as I mentioned in my previous post...It was an exaggerated account of what happened which Claire made to herself the following morning.

Claire didn't say it, she thought it, when she was recounting what had happened the night before. Claire was bitter because Jamie was in a good mood, thus when she recounted, to herself, what had happened, she ended the thought with 'being beaten within an inch of my life'.

Since Claire was able to get up and move around unaided and didn't need medical attention, it can easily be assumed she may have been sore and humiliated but not near death.

It was taken out of context because it didn't happen.

Mrsbooks wrote: "About Jamie's immediate reaction to finding Claire safe and not showing relief about that before he shows anger...

I cut a bunch of stuff out of your post to save room, so I hope I'm not accused of taking things out of context...

Anyway, I get what you are saying too. But I think (from reading other posts since you made this one) others are taking what I was trying to convey way over the top. Maybe we all have different interpretations of 'comfort'. And yeah, maybe I'd like to have seen more,but the bottom line for me, is that I don't think it's too much to ask or expect for Jamie to at least say something along the lines of "glad you're okay." That's it. It's not much really.

And even in your Army scenario, I have a really hard time believing that, even if a teammate did something really stupid that put another in jeopardy and then the squad had to mount a rescue operation, after they ALL came back alive, even though they would rightfully be mad at their idiotic teammate and idiotic teammate would rightfully be due some punishment - I think they would at least at some point say, "Yo, Dude. Glad you're okay." And then "but if you ever do something like that again, I'll F'ing kill you myself." See what I did there? It's not much. Just a teeny tiny acknowledgement that you're glad the other person survived. Unless you really didn't like them, and then that's different. Now see the difference between that and what Jamie didn't say?

Another thing to add here though.... I'd have to read through everything again to be certain, but did Jamie have a reason to doubt that Claire would be alive? I mean, BJR is an officer with soldiers under him, he can really only go *so far* in being a psycho.

You mean as far as he went with Jamie at the end of the book?

Even before that, Jamie knew of what BJR was capable. Dougal knew that BJR had at least already physically harmed Claire before the wedding (which is why he removed her so fast from Brockton) And if Jamie didn't believe Claire was at least in grave danger, why mount the break-in rescue in the first place? I mean, in that case, why didn't Dougal walk up, knock on the door, and say, 'Excuse me, but I believe you have my niece and I'd like her back now.'? Even BJR says as much in Chapter 21:

"If they knew," the Captain said, arching one elegantly shaped brow, "they would presumably be calling on me already. Considering the sorts of names Dougal MacKenzie applied to me on the occasion of our last meeting, I scarcely think he feels me a suitable chaperon for a kinswoman. And the clan MacKenzie seems to think you're of such value that they'd rather adopt you as one of their own than see you fall into my hands. I can hardly imagine they would allow you to languish in durance vile here."

So like I said, if they knew she was in Ft. William - which they obviously did - why didn't Dougal just go ask for her back?

Oh, that's right: plot. That's why.

"As far as I can remember at this time, Claire is not a wanted woman. BJR thinks she didn't listen to a summons and that's about it. She didn't have to because she circumvented the law by getting married."

If Claire is not a wanted woman, what right did the soldiers have to take her in the first place? For that matter, if Claire is not a wanted woman, why did Jamie leave her alone in the copse because she couldn't be seen in the open near Lag Cruime where Ned and the rest of the rent party were headed because he was afraid BJR would take her by force when he had not reason to take her by force? Interesting point you bring up though about her being married and circumventing the law. As Dougal said in Chapter 13:

"...And an English officer canna compel the person of a Scot, unless he's firm evidence of a crime committed, or grounds for serious suspicions. Even with suspicion, he could no remove a Scottish subject from clan lands without the permission of the laird concerned."

So was Claire on clan lands or not when the English soldiers took her? If she was, then they broke the law - and Dougal had every right to just go get her back. No break in. No explosions. No one risking their lives.

And before anyone jumps in and says she was definitely NOT on clan lands, go back and read that section. It's not clear. Furthermore, why on earth would they leave her alone in a copse that wasn't on MacKenzie Clan land if she only had protection by being married on clan land? So I'm going to have to believe that she was left safely on clan land. Now, I don't know what Clan map the author was using when she wrote the book, but her description of Fraser land relative to MacKenzie land relative to Ft. William doesn't match any historical map I can find. Closest I can find is this: http://macdougallmasonry.tripod.com/i...

I know it's fiction. But the clans she used were real. Also keep in mind this description from Claire before she headed out on her ill-fated adventure:

Looking across the burn, my eyes were dazzled by the morning sun blazing through the red ash trees on the far bank. So that was east. My heart began to beat faster. East was over there, Lag Cruime was directly behind me. Lag Cruime was four miles to the north of Fort William. And Fort William was no more than three miles due west of the hill of Craigh na Dun.

So, for the first time since my meeting with Murtagh, I knew approximately where I was—no more than seven miles from that bloody hill and its accursed stone circle. Seven miles—perhaps—from home. From Frank.

(OT, I don't know what her definition of 'directly' is when referring to Lag Cruime being directly behind her. I interpreted it as less than a mile. If that's true, then my buddy Pythagoras and I have an issue with her math. She's no more than 5 miles from the rocks. But I digress...)

I think I've stated before that I can walk an easy mile in 20 minutes. The text doesn't state how long she was walking before the English soldiers fished her out of the water. But given that she was walking along a stream/river bed on slippery rocks, I'd say she was going pretty slow. I don't think she even made it a mile away from the copse. Probably only a few yards (don't forget the man Jamie sent back easily found her to see her being dragged off by the English so she really couldn't have gotten too far.) So they have to travel approximately 4 miles south to Ft. William.

4 miles from their own clan lands. And yet, when they leave Ft. William after the rescue, Dougal says they should head to Mackintosh land as being the safest clan lands. If that's true, then the English army had to take Claire not only from her own clan lands but across another clan's land in order to get to Ft. William. If that's true, once again, they violated the law, as related via Dougal from Ned again. And if it's true that they violated the law - once again, why didn't Dougal just go knock on the door and ask for the chief of the MacKenzie's niece back, unless the English wanted to start a clan war?

Oh that's right. Plot. That's why.

I'm sure some people out there won't see this as a plot hole either, even though it really it. But you gotta admit, it's might thin...