Outlander discussion

Sage wrote: "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.

It was taken out of context because it didn't happen. Claire was not beaten within an inch of her life. "

Ok, so Claire thought she was beaten "within an inch of her life", and nor the narrator neither any other character contradicted her sentiment/feeling. But YOU think she exaggerated the situation. Which is totally your right. Yet you can't seem to understand how or accept that others could think that what the very victim of the abuse felt about the traumatic event she went through is valuable enough, indicative of the trauma she experience enough to get mentionned. Even though the writer/narrator thought it was valuable enough to mention it. Sorry - not sorry - but I'll go with Claire and the wroter on that one.

I mean, Claire is the character who got beaten. She lived through that traumatic experience and felt like she had been beaten "within an inch of her life". That was traumatic enough for her to feel like that. Even if YOU think it wasn't THAT bad, the fact is that SHE thought it was THAT bad. Because sometimes what hurts most isn't just the physical violence but the emotional violence. So the physical evidences of violence can only be "a few" bruises and discomfort that last hours (which isn't nothing), but the emotional scars have more lasting effects.

So no, I don't think that pointing out how Claire felt she was being beaten "within an inch of her life" is "factually" an exaggeration when that is what was actually written; nor is it misleading since it is part of the very discussion we are having about the beating scene and how both Jamie and Claire felt and talked about it.

However one may interpret Claire's emitional state and credibility as the victim of the abuse, there WAS indeed a beating , that was brutal enough to leave long lasting physical bruises, discomfort and the traumatic memory of being beaten within an inch of one's life.

Red wrote: "However one may interpret Claire's emitional state and credibility as the victim of the abuse, there WAS indeed a beating , that was brutal enough to leave long lasting physical bruises, discomfort and the traumatic memory of being beaten within an inch of one's life..."

According to the Oxford Dictionary....to be beaten within an inch of one's life means to be 'near death'. Claire was not near death. Yes, she was beaten but she was not, nor near, dying. She was bitter (angry, hurt, resentful, because of her bad experience or unjust treatment) when she summed up the experience in her own mind.

The author didn't need to clarify that Claire wasn't really beaten within an inch of her life, because since Claire was up functioning on her own and did not need medical treatment, she obviously wasn't near death, but just feeling sorry for herself...and rightfully so.

Furthermore, I did not say Claire shouldn't or couldn't feel that she was beaten within an inch of her life, I said it was misleading and out of context to use that 'partial sentence' when referring to the beating.

Red wrote: " 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...."

I didn't say all the things said above, Mocha did, I simply agreed with her. And, since in her mind, Claire made things worse then they actually were, then she did exaggerate.

Red wrote: "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...."

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.

Sorry, but the last sentence turned any implied humor into sarcasm.

'My bad' what? Isn't that simply a way of saying 'sorry, but I don't really mean it'.

Red wrote: "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?..."

I believe Mocha used the complete incident when making the comparison...the boy was at the riots, his mother didn't want him there, she found him and took him home, beating him as they went.

The comparison wasn't the 'reason' for the beating, it was the 'justification'...Jamie justified beating Claire, the boy's mother justified beating him.

Red wrote: Ok, so Claire thought she was beaten "within an inch of her life", and nor the narrator neither any other character contradicted her sentiment/feeling. But YOU think she exaggerated the situation. Which is totally your right. Yet you can't seem to understand how or accept that others could think that what the very victim of the abuse felt about the traumatic event she went through is valuable enough, indicative of the trauma she experience enough to get mentionned. Even though the writer/narrator thought it was valuable enough to mention it. Sorry - not sorry - but I'll go with Claire and the wroter on that one.

I mean, Claire is the character who got beaten. She lived through that traumatic experience and felt like she had been beaten "within an inch of her life". That was traumatic enough for her to feel like that. Even if YOU think it wasn't THAT bad, the fact is that SHE thought it was THAT bad. Because sometimes what hurts most isn't just the physical violence but the emotional violence. So the physical evidences of violence can only be "a few" bruises and discomfort that last hours (which isn't nothing), but the emotional scars have more lasting effects.

So no, I don't think that pointing out how Claire felt she was being beaten "within an inch of her life" is "factually" an exaggeration when that is what was actually written; nor is it misleading since it is part of the very discussion we are having about the beating scene and how both Jamie and Claire felt and talked about it.

However one may interpret Claire's emitional state and credibility as the victim of the abuse, there WAS indeed a beating , that was brutal enough to leave long lasting physical bruises, discomfort and the traumatic memory of being beaten within an inch of one's life. "
__________________

I'm sort of confused here. Because I thought that we all agreed (even Red) that Claire was exaggerating about being beaten "within an inch of her life." From comment # 1247 Red says: 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.

The way I'm reading things, it came off as though we all agreed on this point. And although Claire obviously exaggerated using that phrase, it doesn't mean the beating wasn't bad. She was obviously sore for a couple of days and didn't want to sit down either. Someone said she had bruises that lasted a few days, I can't remember if that's been confirmed or not but either way, we've all acknowledged these things to be true. So what are we talking about? lol
___________________________

Did you change your mind? Because in this new post it sounds like you did. Through out our discourse this is the first time (that I can remember) that I can't see where you're coming from *at all*. Generally I disagree but *can* see, sort of, where your opinion comes from. But comment # 1268, in my opinion, actually weakens your stance.

I'm not meaning to be rude. It's just that I find this comment so absurd that it.... I'm trying to think of a way to explain this properly. Alright, all along when everyone has been debating back and forth about each person taking something out of context, it's *always* in my mind seemed like, yes they *could* have, *but* I can see where they may have just forgot this other piece, or I can see how they thought it wasn't needed.

*This* stance, does, to me come off as though you are deliberately ignoring the plot. Unless of course I've completely misunderstood your whole post which would not be the first time. So if I did, my apologizes, and perhaps you can explain it so I can understand it better?
________________

If what you're trying to say is that Claire's interpretation of being beat "within an inch of her life" was meant to be applied within an emotional state. I do not see this either. Although Claire goes through plenty of justified emotions through out this process, I would never be able to apply that statement to her emotions either. It's not that I'm ignoring what she said. But she doesn't say she applies that on an emotional level. And we have Claire's inner dialog here and there about the beating. She does not come across as someone so emotionally disturbed to be brought so low to be "within an inch of her life."
________________

I really should proof read these before I post. If you see that mine are constantly edited it's because I tend to forget and post it and then come back and proof read and fix everything. GAH!

Kat wrote: "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 ..."

Response to # 1267 (Who agrees that Goodreads should just automatically supply the # to the comment you're responding to?)

I'm going to comment on this in bits and pieces as these thoughts come into my mind and the order may or may not make much sense.

First off you MAY have uncovered the first plot hole that I agree with. I have to think this through more. I've only read it once and in a hurry.

"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."

I agree with this. Especially in this army situation. Which is why I said it was inadequate. When you put a spouse in the role instead, it creates a higher level of feeling betrayed. It ups the emotional consequences. It ups the *love* and therefore the betrayal. One could say that would balance it out. But I don't think everyone would react the same way. I'm just saying that I understand it from both sides.
_______________________

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:

My point about BJR having limits with going all psycho was based upon him being able to get away with something. He's obviously gotten away with treating his prisoners anyway he wants. But I was thinking perhaps this might have limits if someone is not really a prisoner. Although he probably could just make something up to make them a prisoner? I don't know.
____________________

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.

I do not find this a contradiction. BJR does not know that Claire has circumvented the law. She is a person of interest to him and if he finds her, if he can manage, he will surely take her with him. I thought from the beginning that Claire's marriage to Jamie as protection came with a catch 22. While Jamie would protect Claire with his life, he also has to try to make his life hidden. As already mentioned so far BJR doesn't know that Jamie is back. If you produce Claire, if you produce her marriage, you also in the mix reveal Jamie's current presence in the area. It certainly has it's pros and cons.

I remember wondering at the time if there were no other unmarried men in the renting party and that was why Dougals suggested Jamie. Or perhaps just none of the other men were interested?

Blonde moment! It just occurred to me why now why Dougal pushed Jamie to do this. It was because once Jamie was married to an English woman there would be no one willing to back Jamie politically to take over Clan Mackenzie as Laird. They wouldn't want a Laird who was married to an English Woman. I can't remember where it is Jamie talks about that to Claire but it isn't revealed until later.

So while Dougal was no longer legally required to produce Claire, the real reason Dougal pushed this was to get Jamie out of the running. Jamie knew this. Jamie also knew that Dougal would have to bring Claire in, if Claire didn't marry him, and Jamie was willing to protect Claire with his life if need be.

Lots of intrigue!
____________________________

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.

I can't recall if Dougal sent word to BJR that Claire had married a kinsmen? I didn't think he had but he could have. Does anyone else remember?

Anyways, I had thought he just wasn't going to bring Claire for her summons and ignore it and if called out on it, would produce Claire as married. But also try avoiding that because it may uncover Jamie's presence at the same time.

I feel like I'm talking in circles but that's largely because I find the plot to be like a circle. One thing leads to another, then another, etc, but then it leads it back to the first point.

I may have taken too much time thinking about this and I was looking for a particular point in Outlander and got side tracked reading a couple chapters and now my brain is fried.

I think I will continue this....later. Maybe in the mean time someone will know the answer to my question?

I had meant to respond to this before and forgot all about it.

Response to Red at #1249

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. "

Red Wrote: 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.
____________________

I don't know, I feel a inner contradiction about this. It's a known fact that many women fantasize about being raped. It doesn't mean that any of them really actually want to be raped or physically assaulted. So what's wrong with reading your fantasy play out?

To be fair, these sorts of romance novels *shouldn't* be classified as romance. But I guess maybe that's part of the problem?

I already find it difficult to find *real* romance novels. I mean something without Insta-love or Insta-lust. Not that you can't lust after someone immediately but the panty dropping kind of lust that happens so often in *romance novels* is mind numbingly ridiculous. And I'm not a believer in love at first sight so I naturally cringe when I read a novel with that in there.

So perhaps this lack of a real substantial relationship in romance novels and these sexual fantasies have coupled together to create something that *could* be problematic. I mean if you're reading it for the intent of a romance novel, you're kind of idiotic. LOL, if you're reading it to get your jollies on, then whatever.

Mrsbooks wrote: "My point about BJR having limits with going all psycho was based upon him being able to get away with something. He's obviously gotten away with treating his prisoners anyway he wants. But I was thinking perhaps this might have limits if someone is not really a prisoner. Although he probably could just make something up to make them a prisoner? I don't know."

Without me going back and reading that right now either, wasn't there some point that BJR was threatening to send Claire to the Tollbooth? I think it was during this second 'interrogation'. The Tollbooth is/was a prison. So, if Claire was his prisoner, I don't think he could send her to prison, could he?

"BJR does not know that Claire has circumvented the law. She is a person of interest to him and if he finds her, if he can manage, he will surely take her with him."

Yes, he does. Because Dougal told him. Remember, BJR said to Claire about them ('her husband's family') not coming to get her:

"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."

Why would he call her a 'kinswoman' of Dougal and how did he know they'd 'adopted her as one of their own' if he didn't know she'd married a MacKenzie?

Now, 'the occasion of their last meeting' was presumably when Dougal told BJR that he didn't have to produce Claire at Ft. William. This conversation happened when Jamie and Claire were coming back from their outing I think the first day after the wedding:

"Dougal's not back yet, either," I observed as we came down the hill. The large black gelding he customarily rode was not in the inn's small paddock. Several other beasts were missing as well; Ned Gowan's for one.

"No, he shouldna come back for another day at least—maybe two." Jamie offered me his arm and we descended the hill slowly, careful of the many rocks that poked through the short grass.

"Where on earth has he gone?" Caught in the rush of recent events, I had not thought to question his absence—or even to notice it.

Jamie handed me over the stile at the back of the inn.

"To do his business wi' the cottars nearby. He's got but a day or two before he's supposed to produce you at the Fort, ye ken." He squeezed my arm reassuringly. "Captain Randall willna be best pleased when Dougal tells him he's not to have ye, and Dougal would as soon not linger in the area afterward."

This is a little out of order, but that also answers this:
"I can't recall if Dougal sent word to BJR that Claire had married a kinsmen? I didn't think he had but he could have. Does anyone else remember?"

"I remember wondering at the time if there were no other unmarried men in the renting party and that was why Dougals suggested Jamie. Or perhaps just none of the other men were interested?"

I believe that Dougal also offered to let Claire marry Rupert - who was a widower and a good bit older, in the book. She said No Thank You to that. :)

Blonde moment! It just occurred to me why now why Dougal pushed Jamie to do this. It was because once Jamie was married to an English woman there would be no one willing to back Jamie politically to take over Clan Mackenzie as Laird. They wouldn't want a Laird who was married to an English Woman. I can't remember where it is Jamie talks about that to Claire but it isn't revealed until later.

He tells her one of those first few days they have to themselves (the first day, I think) after the wedding. I just read it, trying to find the above passage where he mentions Dougal going to let Randall know he won't be delivering Claire after all.

"Anyways, I had thought he just wasn't going to bring Claire for her summons and ignore it and if called out on it, would produce Claire as married. But also try avoiding that because it may uncover Jamie's presence at the same time."

No, Dougal couldn't have just refused to produce Claire and ignore her summons. If that were true, there was no reason for the wedding at all, was there? No, Dougal says, in Chapter 13 (and I cut out the part where Claire has to put her head between her knees to save room and because that's not really relevant...)

"Ye see, I have orders," he emphasized the word sarcastically, "from the good captain."

"Orders to do what?" I asked, the agitated feeling increasing.

"To produce the person of an English subject, one Claire Beauchamp by name, at Fort William on Monday, the 18th of June. For questioning."....
..."There's a way out of it," he said abruptly. "The only one I can see."

"Lead me to it," I said, with an unconvincing attempt at a smile.

"Verra well, then." He sat forward, leaning toward me to explain. "Randall's the right to take ye for questioning because you're a subject of the English crown. Well, then, we must change that."

I stared at him, uncomprehending. "What do you mean? You're a subject of the crown as well, aren't you? How would you change such a thing?"

"Scots law and English law are verra similar," he said, frowning, "but no the same. 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."

"You've been talking to Ned Gowan," I said, beginning to feel a little dizzy again.

He nodded. "Aye, I have. I thought it might come to this, ye ken. And what he told me is what I thought myself; the only way I can legally refuse to give ye to Randall is to change ye from an Englishwoman into a Scot."

"Into a Scot?" I said, the dazed feeling quickly being replaced by a horrible suspicion.

This was confirmed by his next words.

"Aye," he said, nodding at my expression. "Ye must marry a Scot. Young Jamie."

"I couldn't do that!"

"Weel," he frowned, considering. "I suppose ye could take Rupert, instead. He's a widower, and he's the lease of a small farm. Still, he's a good bit older, and—"

I included the part where he offered her Rupert instead. Just for kicks. :)

So you see - Dougal couldn't have just ignored the summons. Claire had to get married to a Scot in order for him to refuse to produce her at Ft. William. He chose Jamie for the reason you outlined above (succession as laird).

So once again, if Claire was on Clan Lands, then the English soldiers had no right to take her 'without permission of the laird concerned.'

Response to # 1275 Kat wrote: "

Well it certainly sounds like you've found a plot hole.

If BJR knew that Claire was married now and no longer under his authority and if she was on Clan lands when she was taken, then why didn't Dougal just go and get her?

Other than not actually wanting to. I mean, he wanted to leave her there. But it doesn't make sense to support Jamie sneaking into the fort if Dougal could have just gone in himself.

As for the men still being worried Claire would still be taken, even if they thought BJR was depraved enough to ignore the law, then why get married in the first place? Except we know there was another agenda going on behind the scenes not yet revealed.

The later I can make some sense of but so far I'm stumped on the former. Sounds like a plot hole to me!

Anybody else think of something I may have missed?

Mrsbooks wrote: "I really should proof read these before I post. If you see that mine are constantly edited it's because I tend to forget and post it and then come back and proof read and fix everything. GAH!..."

I'm so glad you said this because I do it all the time...my fingers and mind don't always work together.

Kat wrote: "So once again, if Claire was on Clan Lands, then the English soldiers had no right to take her 'without permission of the laird concerned.'..."

Well, they may not have had the right, but they took her. So much for that.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Other than not actually wanting to. I mean, he wanted to leave her there. But it doesn't make sense to support Jamie sneaking into the fort if Dougal could have just gone in himself...."

How do we know they were on Clan Land?
Why do you think Dougal could just go knock on the door and ask for Claire back?
Do you think Randall really cares what the rule/law is regarding taking a Scot prisoner?

There's no hole in the plot...it's perfectly clear...Randall does what he wants, to whomever he wants, anytime he wants...that's why he's the villain.

If Dougal rode in the Fort and asked for Claire back, Randall could shoot him, arrest and flog him, have him hanged, or all three...all he had to say was Dougal attacked him, or the Fort, or anything else he cared to make up, after he was done with him.

Who do you think Randall's superiors would believe, the Captain of their Army, or a Scot?

Kat says: "And before anyone jumps in and says she was definitely NOT on clan lands, go back and read that section. It's not clear."

Exactly...There's nothing in the books that indicates where they were other than on a Highland road, when Jamie left Claire in the copse.

Furthmore, your assumptions regarding the distance Claire was from the stones, are just that, assumptions. Just because you think 'right behind' is about 1 mile, doesn't mean it is, 'right behind' could be a foot or several miles. If the author wants the the road where Claire is on to be 7 miles from the stones, then it's 7 miles from the stones. Since we don't know what road she's on, it can't be found on a map....and why would you want to bother looking it up?

I have to re-read to be certain, but I am pretty sure that Claire was wanted by the English. I think she was wanted for questioning or something along those lines. Didn't Column get a formal demand to bring her to the fort? Wasn't the whole point of her marrying a Scot was to make her no longer subject to English laws?

I'm also pretty certain that shortly after they marry, Dougal informs Randall of their marriage and Randall is not happy about it. It's true that Randall is not legally supposed to be able to remove Claire from Clan lands. The part that I don't remember is whether or not she's actually still on clan lands when she leaves the copse and runs into the British soldiers. But it's not as if Capt. Randall was characterized as an upstanding soldier who respects and obeys the laws.

heh....interesting things you come across when you are re-reading to find something else...

This is what Claire says after one of her almost rapes. "Except for a lingering tendency to laugh hysterically over nothing, I seemed to suffer no ill effects from our encounter with the deserters, though I became very cautious about leaving the campsite." Claire isn't characterized as the type that needs support and comfort after experiencing a trauma. She's characterized as being rather resilient.

....anyway, I'm re-reading the part where she's at Fort William and talking to Randall. He suspects that she is a spy, but he doesn't know who she works for. He is speculating that she's working for the French. That's why she was wanted for questioning.

This is what she says during Capt. Randall's attack...

"I was furiously angry, disgusted, humiliated, and revolted, but curiously not very frightened. I felt a heavy, flopping movement against my leg and suddenly realized why. He wasn't going to enjoy it unless I screamed - and possibly not then."

When Randall took Jamie at the age of 19, he wasn't a wanted man and he was on Clan lands. And, Jamie's father, the Laird, didn't go knocking on Randall's door to get him back. So obviously, the rule regarding taking a Scot from Clan lands without the Laird's permission was meaningless to the British Army, as were most things regarding the Scots.

Kat wrote: "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."

I fail to see how this implies that BJR is saying Dougal could walk up to the door and ask for Claire back.

"they would presumably be calling on me already" is exactly what Jamie did when he appeared in the window.

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.

I think it's cute that you actually believe Dougal could do this.

Mochaspresso wrote:"....anyway, I'm re-reading the part where she's at Fort William and talking to Randall. He suspects that she is a spy, but he doesn't know who she works for. He is speculating that she's working for the French. That's why she was wanted for questioning...."

Yes, this is the reason BJR wanted to talk to Claire, and had his men bring her to him regardless of what the law/rule said regarding not needing to appear for the Summons because she married a Scot or whether or not she was on Clan land. Randall justified his action by insinuating she was wandering alone because she had parted company with the McKenzie's, which made him assume she must be an agent for the French.
Since England was at war with France, he wanted to know the name of her 'employer'.

When he told her the pleasure of teaching her a lesson would need to be postponed indefinitely because he was sending her to the Tolbooth in Edinburgh, she brought up the Duke of Sandrington which enraged Randal and caused him to attach her.

Randall doesn't really care what the rules are, he does what he wants...that's what the bad guys do.

I really don't understand the need to make a simple story difficult.

It reminds me of the discussions on Jane Eyre. People tend to make it difficult when Jane sums it all up in the beginning, "I didn't mean to fall in love with him, but I did". Much like Claire and Jamie.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Well it certainly sounds like you've found a plot hole.

If BJR knew that Claire was married now and no longer under his authority and if she was on Clan lands when she was taken, then why didn't Dougal just go and get her?

Other than not actually wanting to. I mean, he wanted to leave her there. But it doesn't make sense to support Jamie sneaking into the fort if Dougal could have just gone in himself.

As for the men still being worried Claire would still be taken, even if they thought BJR was depraved enough to ignore the law, then why get married in the first place? Except we know there was another agenda going on behind the scenes not yet revealed.

The later I can make some sense of but so far I'm stumped on the former. Sounds like a plot hole to me!

Anybody else think of something I may have missed?
"

Based on the full conversation that Randall had with Claire, it sounds like that is what he was expecting Dougal to do eventually if/when they ever found out she was there. I also get the impression that he had no intention of ever turning her over if/when it happened. It seemed to me like he was going to send her away to Tolbooth and then deny that she'd ever been there if they did come. Jamie and Dougal knew of BJR's reputation and were aware that simply walking into the Fort and demanding her back was not going to work, even if the law was theoretically on their side. (I'm actually not convinced that this is true because BJR suspected that she was a spy. I suppose that changes things considerably.)

Sage wrote: "Randall doesn't really care what the rules are, he does what he wants...that's what the bad guys do.


Exactly. Which is why I'm a bit puzzled as to why this would be deemed a "plot hole".

Speaking of possible plot holes, this question is for those who have read the later books. You can put the answer in spoiler tags if you want.

Is Jamie's ghost looking up at 40's Claire's window in the beginning ever explained?

Is it his ghost? Did he find that he could go through the stones and find her as a ghost even though he couldn't while he was alive?

Nothing has been explained in the books as yet. Diana has said that Yes it is Jamies ghost & it will be explained how & why he is there on the last page of the last book

Edit to add - Whenever that(the last book) may be :)

So the possible plot hole comes mostly from Dougals saying this to Claire when telling her she should marry Jamie.

"...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."

I've been thinking about this more and I'm not certain it constitutes a contradiction. I believe what Dougals is telling Claire but we know he has other reasons to be pushing this marriage. So while what he says may be true, he may not actually believe it. Claire's marriage to Jamie does immediately result in protection as far as her not having to listen to the summons. But in the mens mind that doesn't mean they don't believe BJR still won't take Claire if he comes across her.

Does that make sense?

Sage wrote: "Well, they may not have had the right, but they took her. So much for that. "

If that's all there was to it - if Randall just did what he wanted regardless of the Scots, or the law, or Dougal or Colum even, then why even allow Dougal to remove Claire from his custody at Brockton? He already had her and suspected her to be a french spy, so why didn't he just keep her then? According to you, he could have. There's a flaw in your reasoning. So obviously, he did care, somewhat about the law or not outright starting a war with a powerful clan.

As for when Jamie was 19, I believe he was 'arrested' for obstruction. Remember, they trumped up charges against him. So again, why not do it to Claire to keep her before he even let Dougal take her back?

Furthermore "calling on me already" certainly doesn't imply a break in. And I'm pretty sure that's not what Randall had in mind either.

Sage wrote: "How do we know they were on Clan Land?"

Well, they were collecting MacKenzie rent, which I'm pretty sure they only were able to do from cottars, etc on MACKENZIE land...so there's that.

Also, a few pages/paragraphs before Jamie left Claire in the copse, she talks about how 'they turned north' again. That's at least a couple days before he leaves her alone. Turning North again would indicate heading back to Castle Leoch, which would put them deeper into MacKenzie land, not so close to the border.

Third, if she only has protection on clan lands (according to Dougal himself - and the author wrote this, remember? I didn't make it up.) that would just be all kinds of stupid to leave her alone not on clan land where she has absolutely no protection, wouldn't it?

"Why do you think Dougal could just go knock on the door and ask for Claire back?"

Uh, well, he pretty much did it at Brockton and that was before she was technically a "Scot". And remember the law - and the part about 'permission of the laird concerned'? While Randall was obviously able to get away with some things with prisoners in his charge, I seriously doubt he could have gotten away with this for long.

"Do you think Randall really cares what the rule/law is regarding taking a Scot prisoner?"

I think if he'd been called out on it - and the Scots had gone to his superiors, then yeah, he would have cared at that point. Or at least been made to comply.

"There's no hole in the plot...it's perfectly clear...Randall does what he wants, to whomever he wants, anytime he wants...that's why he's the villain."

Really? Okay, well, if that's the case - why bother with the wedding in the first place? That's a pretty thin excuse if there's no real protection for Claire anyway.

"If Dougal rode in the Fort and asked for Claire back, Randall could shoot him, arrest and flog him, have him hanged, or all three...all he had to say was Dougal attacked him, or the Fort, or anything else he cared to make up, after he was done with him."

Um...No. I'm pretty sure he couldn't have just done any of those. There would have been other witnesses. Randall wouldn't have wanted that.

"Who do you think Randall's superiors would believe, the Captain of their Army, or a Scot?"

Dougal wasn't just any Scot. He was the war chief of the Clan MacKenzie - which was a very powerful Highland Clan. On the road, deal with Dougal was like dealing with the Laird, or Collum, himself. So again, unless they wanted to start a war with a very powerful Highland Clan (and the English didn't at this point - regardless of what Randall was doing) Randal's superiors would have listened to him. And without proof to the contrary, which they had none, they would have had to believe him.

"Exactly...There's nothing in the books that indicates where they were other than on a Highland road, when Jamie left Claire in the copse."

Go read what I wrote above - about them collecting rents, etc. I think it's actually pretty clear that they did leave her on Clan MacKenzie land. To do otherwise would have been the epitome of stupid.

"Furthmore, your assumptions regarding the distance Claire was from the stones, are just that, assumptions. Just because you think 'right behind' is about 1 mile, doesn't mean it is, 'right behind' could be a foot or several miles. If the author wants the the road where Claire is on to be 7 miles from the stones, then it's 7 miles from the stones."

Uh, furthermore - it wasn't just my assumption. I got those distances straight out of the text. And using the Pythagorean theorem, (you can Google a calculator online) I calculated the length of the hypotenuse. Yeah, I can be a little math nerdy at times.

"Since we don't know what road she's on, it can't be found on a map....and why would you want to bother looking it up? "

Curiosity? Why wouldn't I want to look it up? What's wrong with that? How does that possibly negatively impact your life if I want to spend (waste) my time doing it?

Sage wrote: "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 didn't have to make love to her to comfort her. As I've stated many times, he could have at least just said, he was glad she was okay. He didn't even do that.

And how do you know it would have been much worse for Claire to be punished the next day? Maybe she would have been more accepting of the necessity of it after she'd calmed down, not felt in as much danger, and actually felt cared about. There were many times when I was older that I wasn't punished immediately after having done something wrong - or even discovered that I'd done something wrong. I was sent to my room to 'think about it' - which probably meant my dad had to calm down before he meted out the punishment. Doesn't mean it was any worse than when I got punished. In fact, it probably wasn't as bad as it would have been had I been punished directly. And it did also give me time to think about the error of my ways.

"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."

IMO, since Jamie had already decided to punish Claire before they got to the inn, he didn't do it to satisfy Dougal and the others. That's only the reason he gave Claire to cast some of the blame she was going to feel off of himself. He did it because HE wanted revenge on her for hurting his feelings - as he accused her of going out and getting kidnapped to punish him for not protecting her in the glade.

"Jamie didn't expect Claire to resist, he expected her to comply."

Yes, I think we've all agreed on this. So what's the point of restating it yet again?

Red wrote: "See, this is where I disagree : if something is inferred and not explicitly 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. "

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Maybe that's the scientist in me that likes answers clear. (And yes, people - I know Life is not always cut and dried.) Still, if you want me to KNOW something you'd better come out and say it plain. Otherwise, my interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's.

"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."

Okay, it took me awhile to figure out what you meant. I think you meant, if the author later came out with a public statement in an interview or on a website and clarified something, right?

Yeah, that's fair. Again, if the author wanted something known, they should have written it explicitly enough to avoid gray areas.

Kat wrote: "Sage wrote: "How do we know they were on Clan Land?"

Well, they were collecting MacKenzie rent, which I'm pretty sure they only were able to do from cottars, etc on MACKENZIE land...so there's that.

Also, a few pages/paragraphs before Jamie left Claire in the copse, she talks about how 'they turned north' again. That's at least a couple days before he leaves her alone. Turning North again would indicate heading back to Castle Leoch, which would put them deeper into MacKenzie land, not so close to the border.

Claire left the copse, though. She also doesn't have the most solid grasp of exactly where she is. She thinks that she does, but it does seem as if she's guestimating a lot. She thinks that she is 7 miles from the stones when she leaves. I'm re-reading that part. The book doesn't indicate how long she travelled on foot or how far she managed to get. I think you've done some speculation as to how far she might have travelled on foot in an earlier post, but that is still just speculation. The book also doesn't give specifics as to where she was captured. We don't know exactly where she was when she fell in the water and was captured and we also don't know where Jamie's man sees her crossing the ford with the British soldiers.

Plus, this mapping thing gets a little dicey, imo, when you factor in that some of the places in the book, like Craigh Na Dun, are fictional.

I know people don't like this, but I'm doing another comparison...in a "The Great Gatsby" thread on Goodreads, some people were doing some mapping and couldn't figure out which road Tom and Nick may have been driving on toward the Valley of Ashes...a road that would also be parallel to and visible from the railroad. People were studying old maps and were stumped. It's because it didn't actually exist, at least not precisely in the way it's described in the novel. That small detail of the novel was authorial license. I don't think that is necessarily a flaw depending on how it's handled and it's relevance to the plot. Fitzgerald was using imagery to create a setting and a mood. He wasn't trying to be accurate down to every single minute detail. I think the same can be said of DG and Outlander. I think her historical accuracy is more about dates and events moreso than maps and locations...even though she did incorporate some real places into her novel.

Third, if she only has protection on clan lands (according to Dougal himself - and the author wrote this, rememeber? I didn't make it up.) that would just be all kinds of stupid to leave her alone not on clan land where she has absolutely no protection, wouldn't it?

Again, Claire left the location that was deemed to be safe.

"Why do you think Dougal could just go knock on the door and ask for Claire back?"

Uh, well, he pretty much did it at Brockton and that was before she was technically a "Scot". And remember the law - and the part about 'permission of the laird concerned'? While Randall was obviously able to get away with some things with prisoners in his charge, I seriously doubt he could have gotten away with this for long.

Brockton was a little different. Claire was not "captured", "detained" or "under arrest" or whatever word fits. Dougal took her there to find out whether or not she was a spy. He also immediately took her out of there as soon as he realized how BJR assaulted her. (Wouldn't this technically be against the law, btw? Yet, he did it anyway and men under his command helped him without question.) I think it's safe to infer that BJR does not always play by the rules.

I also think that the only reason why Randall doesn't try to stop them is because of where they are. He's away from his Fort. Had this all taken place at the Fort, I don't think it would have happened that way.

"Do you think Randall really cares what the rule/law is regarding taking a Scot prisoner?"

I think if he'd been called out on it - and the Scots had gone to his superiors, then yeah, he would have cared at that point. Or at least been made to comply.

I'm not so certain of this. I think it really depends on who his superiors are, what the offense is and how important they deem it to be in regards to their overall aim or mission in Scotland. (ie...I don't think that they are going to care too much about how he's treating someone suspected of being a spy. Still happens today....waterboarding detainees at Gitmo? Some people cared and PLENTY of people did not care at all.) He seemed to have been given a lot of latitude in Outlander and the English have been turning a blind eye to his reputation.

Really? Okay, well, if that's the case - why bother with the wedding in the first place? That's a pretty thin excuse if there's no real protection for Claire anyway.

That is the reason that he gives to Claire. However, as Mrs. Brooks and others(?) has already pointed out, the story reveals that there were also other politically motivated reasons behind have Jamie and Claire marry.


"If Dougal rode in the Fort and asked for Claire back, Randall could shoot him, arrest and flog him, have him hanged, or all three...all he had to say was Dougal attacked him, or the Fort, or anything else he cared to make up, after he was done with him."

Um...No. I'm pretty sure he couldn't have just done any of those. There would have been other witnesses. Randall wouldn't have wanted that.

Several of the men under Randall's command demonstrated several times that they were willing to blindly follow orders without regard as to whether they were just or not.

"Who do you think Randall's superiors would believe, the Captain of their Army, or a Scot?"

Dougal wasn't just any Scot. He was the war chief of the Clan MacKenzie - which was a very powerful Highland Clan. On the road, deal with Dougal was like dealing with the Laird, or Collum, himself. So again, unless they wanted to start a war with a very powerful Highland Clan (and the English didn't at this point - regardless of what Randall was doing) Randal's superiors would have listened to him. And without proof to the contrary, which they had none, they would have had to believe him.

This doesn't sound logical at all. All Randall has to say is that he suspects that Claire is a spy and all of this goes out the window. Claire with no family, no background or history and no way of proving who she is or where she came from would not have been believed. They would have taken Randall's word over hers and Dougals.

Kat wrote: "IMO, since Jamie had already decided to punish Claire before they got to the inn, he didn't do it to satisfy Dougal and the others. That's only the reason he gave Claire to cast some of the blame she was going to feel off of himself. He did it because HE wanted revenge on her for hurting his feelings - as he accused her of going out and getting kidnapped to punish him for not protecting her in the glade.
"

This isn't true at all. In a very heated argument (where both Jamie and Claire are ADMITTEDLY saying things in anger that they don't necessarily mean) Jamie does accuse Claire of getting kidnapped on purpose to get back at him, but he never says that he is beating her to get revenge and there is nothing that he says or does to infer this.

He tells her why. As to why we don't see a discussion with the men about it, Sage(?) was correct in saying that is because Jamie is of that culture. He doesn't need to be told by the other men. He already knows.

Kat wrote: "Red wrote: "See, this is where I disagree : if something is inferred and not explicitly 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. "
"

That is not what inferencing means or how it works. Considering that inferencing questions are on just about every single standardized reading comprehension test given to children in the US and in other countries, I think it's generally regarded as a very important reading skill. "Interpretation" is a completely different reading skill. Believe it or not, they are actually not one in the same.

Kat wrote: "Do you think Randall really cares what the rule/law is regarding taking a Scot prisoner?"

I think if he'd been called out on it - and the Scots had gone to his superiors, then yeah, he would have cared at that point. Or at least been made to comply."

You really believe that Randall's superior's would take the word of a Scot, a Highlander no less, over the word of Captain Randall.

You do realize that the British and Scots not only hated and distrusted each other but that they were on the verge of war don't you. And that the British Army was allowed to pretty much do what ever they wanted.

If Randall's superiors were so honorable, why didn't Dougal or Jamie's father go to them when Randall took Jamie off their clan's lands, or better yet, knocked on Randall's door and asked for him back, instead of allowing them to nearly beat him to death.

In fact, Dougal told Claire that had the old sergeant-major still been in charge at the garrison, he might have gotten Jamie released, but as Randall was new and didn't know Dougal, he didn't much care what Dougal said. Randall was the superior.

Sage wrote: "Sorry, but the last sentence turned any implied humor into sarcasm.

'My bad' what? Isn't that simply a way of saying 'sorry, but I don't really mean it'. "

Hmmm...No. If I wanted to say that, I would have said that, like I said in an earlier post "sorry - not sorry". "My bad" here means I thought my point was clear, it wasn't, my bad. Plain and simple. And I don't even understand WHY this short comment is being dissected and made into way more than what it was.

Sage wrote: "The comparison wasn't the 'reason' for the beating, it was the 'justification'...Jamie justified beating Claire, the boy's mother justified beating him. "

Either way, I think the comparison is too stretched.

Mrsbooks wrote: "The way I'm reading things, it came off as though we all agreed on this point. And although Claire obviously exaggerated using that phrase, it doesn't mean the beating wasn't bad. She was obviously sore for a couple of days and didn't want to sit down either. Someone said she had bruises that lasted a few days, I can't remember if that's been confirmed or not but either way, we've all acknowledged these things to be true. So what are we talking about? lol"

Frankly, I am not sure what it was about anymore ! I started questionning Sage's comment because I didn't remember very well what the whole thing was about and why she was stating that that quote was misleading. Then I followed the line of argumentation, for the sake of it, I guess. What I meant to say was that, if the expression "beaten within an inch of her life" indeed was written in the book and attributed to Claire, it must have been for a reason. It expressed something the character felt. So it was somehow legit to quote it. Also, it's not as if it was the only part of the scene that was quoted here : the whole scene has been quoted here.

But really, my main point is that there was indeed a beating, and it was brutal enough to leave bruises and to hurt hours later.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I don't know, I feel a inner contradiction about this. It's a known fact that many women fantasize about being raped. It doesn't mean that any of them really actually want to be raped or physically assaulted. So what's wrong with reading your fantasy play out? "

Because some fantasies should remain just that, fantasies? Because played out in a book take them a step too close to something "real" or somehow "accepted" (nor the fanasy part, but the rape part)? I don't know really...I mean, I get what you mean, and I know about "rape/incest fantasy" and the likes, and I know that there is nothing wrong with them per se. Yet I feel that, because of the world we live in, in which rape is such a systemic occurence, and in which violence against women is STILL so widespread in our cultural settings, having such fantasies "romanticized" is just way too problematic for me.

By the way, I, too can't stand the "instalove/lust" think is so many (too many) romance novel. It's not just the believability of the thning that has me rolling my eyes, but also the lazyness of it : it's like the author can't make the effort to actually build an actual relationship between the characters and just skips to the love/lust/sex at first sight...

Kat wrote: "Okay, it took me awhile to figure out what you meant. I think you meant, if the author later came out with a public statement in an interview or on a website and clarified something, right? "

Yes, that's what I meant. Because to me, it's like a re-write, another/new/alternate version of the story they create when/if they decide to come after the deed and "clarify" things. Because on some level, the book/story speaks for itself. All that needs to be said is supposed to have been said in the book. It is what is written and what you read, and nothing more. All the meta can add to your understanding, but a the story itself should be enough. If not, then it means the writer failed somehow along the way...

So yeah, say what you need to say in the book, and all that is left unsaid I can freely write on my own.

Mochaspresso wrote: "That is not what inferencing means or how it works. Considering that inferencing questions are on just about every single standardized reading comprehension test given to children in the US and in other countries, I think it's generally regarded as a very important reading skill. "Interpretation" is a completely different reading skill. Believe it or not, they are actually not one in the same. "

Check again, but "interpretation" is very much part of the inference process. The whole point is to gather clues from the text and what the meta to draw your own conclusions. You assign meanings to different things and to the connections between them. Which is, basically, a form of "interpretation" (= also synonymous with "elucidate", "explicate", and the likes. They are NOT the same words, but their meanings can be similar and used alternatively).

Also, the whole thing depends on how good the clues left are, how tight the writing is. So, if the writing is weak, full of plotholes, contradictory, unclear, you can pretty much make up every inferences you want and every one could be right.

So either the writing is clear enough for you get the exact picture of what is going on, and there is no room to debate, or it isn't, and there's space for possible alternate scenarii... And as I said before, it can be due to good or bad writing, it can be done on purpose, and part of the writing and the style the author chose, or due to a lack of technique and just lazy writing.

Sage wrote: "You do realize that the British and Scots not only hated and distrusted each other but that they were on the verge of war don't you. And that the British Army was allowed to pretty much do what ever they wanted."

Hmmm...this is not only some pretty (historical) exaggeration but also in contradiction with what has been said before.

1st of : yeah, the English army, wherever it has colonized a land, has done unspeakable things and all. BUT, if there is such a thing that has always stood as strong as (some would even say stronger than) any army is the English Law, which some would say pretty much MADE their Empire. So no, the English Army wouldn't do whatever it wanted. And when allowed to do unspeable things it was always for a very political and precise purpose. And certainly NO Captain could just do whatever they wanted against a Nobleman (even a Scot).

Also, stating that BJR could pretty much do whatever he wanted totally contradicts all the explanations on how and why Claire must marry Jamie and the state of affairs between the English and the Scots at the time.

Red wrote: "But really, my main point is that there was indeed a beating, and it was brutal enough to leave bruises and to hurt hours later. "

Hours? Try Days. Even Jamie says so himself.

And as I've said, Bruises that last for DAYS are not inconsequential. That's serious. In any age.

Red wrote: "Because some fantasies should remain just that, fantasies?"
Good grief, isn't that the truth?

"By the way, I, too can't stand the "instalove/lust" think is so many (too many) romance novel.'

Me too. And I was never one, until recently who was into romance fiction. But, hey, what can I say? I WANT a happy ending. And you know what? After you've been through what I've been through, you'd want a happy ending too. But still, the insta-lust which automatically turns into love (what the Heck?) is even too much for me to take. I'd like a little more development please.

Red wrote: "So yeah, say what you need to say in the book, and all that is left unsaid I can freely write on my own."

Good Grief, YES.

Red wrote: "Also, the whole thing depends on how good the clues left are, how tight the writing is. So, if the writing is weak, full of plotholes, contradictory, unclear, you can pretty much make up every inferences you want and every one could be right."

Oh good grief YES. Thank you. Just rewatched the extended version of the TV episode Reckonings. And I know this is a book talk thread so I won't say anything else about that. BUT, there is a LOT of interpretation left open to the reader.

Red wrote: "Sage wrote: "You do realize that the British and Scots not only hated and distrusted each other but that they were on the verge of war don't you. And that the British Army was allowed to pretty much do what ever they wanted."

Hmmm...this is not only some pretty (historical) exaggeration but also in contradiction with what has been said before."

THANK YOU.

First, No, Red does not necessarily speak for me. But in this case, I think she said better than what I ever could.

Red wrote: 'Yes, that's what I meant. Because to me, it's like a re-write, another/new/alternate version of the story they create when/if they decide to come after the deed and "clarify" things....So yeah, say what you need to say in the book, and all that is left unsaid I can freely write on my own."

Wanted to say that: if You are not brave enough to say what you want to say in the first place, then don't expect me to have any sympathy later.

Kat wrote: "Jamie didn't have to make love to her to comfort her. As I've stated many times, he could have at least just said, he was glad she was okay. He didn't even do that.

And how do you know it would have been much worse for Claire to be punished the next day? Maybe she would have been more accepting of the necessity of it after she'd calmed down, not felt in as much danger, and actually felt cared about. There were many times when I was older that I wasn't punished immediately after having done something wrong - or even discovered that I'd done something wrong. I was sent to my room to 'think about it' - which probably meant my dad had to calm down before he meted out the punishment. Doesn't mean it was any worse than when I got punished. In fact, it probably wasn't as bad as it would have been had I been punished directly. And it did also give me time to think about the error of my ways."

I didn't say Jamie would make love to her to comfort her, I included it because that's what Jamie and Claire usually do when they go to bed. So, we can leave it out, however, I still say the beating would be worse the following day.

Being sent to your room to 'think about it' and then punished isn't the same as alluding that everything's fine and then beating someone later. And I highly doubt that Claire would have been comforted if Jamie told her "I'm thankful I found you when I did and that you hadn't come to any harm. We can sleep now but I'm going to punish you tomorrow and you can think about your actions in the meantime". In fact, Claire would probably demand to know just exactly what his intentions were and why she would be punished, which would result in them arguing and her getting the beating then anyway. You see, Claire and Jamie aren't the same as you and your father, children usually know what to expect as far as punishments go, and often times the parent needs time to think about it as well. Jamie knew what was expected and what the punishment would be, better to get it over and done with.

I can't imagine Claire accepting or agreeing to Jamie taking his sword belt to her bottom at anytime...the following morning would have ended with the same battle.

Kat wrote: "Exactly...There's nothing in the books that indicates where they were other than on a Highland road, when Jamie left Claire in the copse."

Go read what I wrote above - about them collecting rents, etc. I think it's actually pretty clear that they did leave her on Clan MacKenzie land. To do otherwise would have been the epitome of stupid...."

Claire didn't stay where Jamie left her, we don't know how far she walked, and all the book indicates is that the copse was by a Highland road. She very easily and quickly could have left clan property.

Roads are often property boundaries, so Claire very easily could have left clan property by crossing the road.

Kat wrote: "Curiosity? Why wouldn't I want to look it up? What's wrong with that? How does that possibly negatively impact your life if I want to spend (waste) my time doing it?..."

It doesn't impact my life.

And, I never said you were wasting your time. We all look up nerdy things.

I only asked why you looked it up because this copse along a Highland road, that may or may not be on MacKenzie Clan land, most likely doesn't exist. I'm sorry I asked.

Kat wrote: "Red wrote: "Sage wrote: "You do realize that the British and Scots not only hated and distrusted each other but that they were on the verge of war don't you. And that the British Army was allowed to pretty much do what ever they wanted."

Hmmm...this is not only some pretty (historical) exaggeration but also in contradiction with what has been said before."

THANK YOU.

First, No, Red does not necessarily speak for me. But in this case, I think she said better than what I ever could...."

Well you see, Kat and Red, I'm talking about the book. And, in the book there is very little love between the English and the Scots, especially the MacKenzie clan.

And I think this is a recurring problem, most posters have agreed that since this is novel is fiction, historical accuracy is not necessarily followed or expected, yet historical accuracy is always brought up to defend someone's view.

So, as the story, Outlander, goes, the English and the Highlanders did not like each other and the English did not follow the law/rules, they bent them to suit their needs.

As I already stated before, Dougal is the one to tell Claire she would be safe on Clan lands and that BJR would have no right to take her. And while I don't think he's lying, what makes us all think that BJR's psychoness only extends to breaking the law *inside* his jurisdiction?

I've already brought up that I thought he would have limits on someone who wasn't his prisoner but then was reminded how he punched Claire in the stomach when Claire wasn't even brought there of his own accord and threatened to send her to another prison (if I recall correctly).

Anyways, I think the point of being on Clan lands is moot because as already shown when BJR originally took Jamie in the first place and how he operated the whole situation shows he doesn't abide by the law.

Dougal is the one who tells Claire she can't legally be taken on Clan lands but he's also the one trying to manipulate the situation to get Jamie married to an English woman. And while I don't believe he lied about the law, clearly BJR doesn't care about the laws he if he feels he can circumvent them.

- And I think Dougal knows this. Which is also why Dougal didn't just go up to the fort and demand to have Claire back (if she was in fact taken on Clan lands). All BJR had to do with Jamie was put him up on trumped charges for stealing a loaf of bread. What would make any of the men think he wouldn't do the same thing to Claire?