Outlander discussion

And before anyone adds that this makes the reason for Claire and Jamie's marriage moot, it doesn't.

Now Claire is able to ignore the summons.

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. 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."

It's not that I disagree with this. But it's just that it's all subjective. You can take any book, even an incredibly well written one and you will have people argue points that others are like "Wha??? Are we reading the same book?"

Sometimes authors need to clarify because people are just weird. lol

It's probably a bad example to use Outlander when you're applying this to Outlander to begin with. But what do you think of Frank? Of Frank and Claire together?

I thought they were amusing and presented what can be a typical relationship dynamic. But lots of people when reading find Frank condescending, controlling, manipulative and dorky.

I like watching the show version of him because it's what I saw when I read the book. But so many people didn't see that and I'm glad DG gets the chance to help clarify Frank's personality and his motives while she's a consultant for the show.

Anyways, I think what a person has lived through and how they were raised greatly relates to how they apply or see characters in a novel. Even when it seems obvious what the writer is trying to do.

Sage wrote: "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."

He didn't have to allude that everything was fine. In fact, saying what you suggested above would not have alluded that everything was fine. And maybe they would have gone ahead and fought and gotten it over with. You see, Claire is not a child, so she should not react the same way as a child would. Jamie is not her father. So he should not act the same way a father would either.

My point was that he never even told her that he was glad that she was okay. And I'm not okay with that.

"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."

Maybe. Maybe not. She eventually acknowledged - at least to herself - that the beating did help restore her into the good graces of the rest of the men, did she not? So who's to say that the next morning, after thinking about it, what she might have been more willing to accept.

Sage wrote: 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. "

First - not all roads are property boundaries. And in those days, when roads could and did change, property boundaries were much more likely to be more permanent markers such as bodies of water: lakes, rivers, streams. Or mountains. Look at the original 13 colonies/states. And look at what most of the boundaries between them are and you'll see what I mean.

Claire didn't walk far before she fell in the pool. Again, she was walking slowing over slippery rocks. And if the clan left her that close to the border of MacKenzie land that she was able to leave it so quickly, knowing that she could and would be taken by English soldiers, when her only protection from being married to Jamie was being on clan land, then that is just as stupid as it gets. I can see Dougal not caring either way. But Jamie would. Or Should have anyway.

Sage wrote: "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. "

I didn't actually look up the copse. Or the road. I'm not dumb enough to try to look up road that does not exist. I looked up a map of Clan territories because I wanted to see how close the real MacKenzie land (since the fictional MacKenzie clan is based on the historical one) came to the real Ft. William (since that is also based on the real one.) There's nothing wrong with that, since I'm pretty sure the author would have done the same thing when writing the book.

Red wrote: "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.


This is true under normal circumstances. However, what you state here in this sentence...

"The whole point is to gather clues from the text..."

The problem here in this thread is that in several instances people based entire scenarios and interpretations off of erroneous things that were either not actually in the book or off of things that were taken completely out of context. When this happens, it is no longer "interpretation". It becomes "MISINTERPRETATION".

Just as there is "lazy writing", there can also be "lazy reading". Misinterpreting the text and taking things out of context is something that I consider to be "lazy reading".

Sage wrote: "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. "

Well you see Sage, even in the novel it's clear that it's not all Highlanders and not all English that don't like each other. It's BJR and his soldiers in particular that this particular group of Highlanders don't like. And with good reason, I might add.

It's also clear from the novel that the only reason BJR is able to get away with the stuff he does is because he's got a powerful ally in the Duke of Sandringham(sp?) who covers for him.

And even BJR wasn't able to get away with always treating his prisoners the way he wanted. Yes, those subordinate to him followed his orders. Um..because he was a superior officer, yes? But remember Jamie's first flogging? BJR didn't do it, got there right after and wanted to flog him again immediately? But the doctor, I believe it was, wouldn't let him. Oh that's right. The doctor would have also been an officer, (Do you really think they employed a Scot?) but not one subordinate to Randall. So while the doctor couldn't prevent Jamie from getting the second flogging (since that was for stealing the bread and cheese he had on him while attempting to escape) he could stop Randall from doing it right away.

I think it's interesting that historical accuracy is only allowed to defend someone's view when it serves their purpose. If historical accuracy is not expected or followed at all, then why would any reader expect any soldier to follow Randall's orders at all?

Mrsbooks wrote: "It's probably a bad example to use Outlander when you're applying this to Outlander to begin with. But what do you think of Frank? Of Frank and Claire together?

I thought they were amusing and presented what can be a typical relationship dynamic. But lots of people when reading find Frank condescending, controlling, manipulative and dorky.

I like watching the show version of him because it's what I saw when I read the book. But so many people didn't see that and I'm glad DG gets the chance to help clarify Frank's personality and his motives while she's a consultant for the show.

Anyways, I think what a person has lived through and how they were raised greatly relates to how they apply or see characters in a novel. Even when it seems obvious what the writer is trying to do. "

I know you replied to Red, but I want to answer this too because I've seen a lot of Frank-hate on other forums.

To be honest, I really don't remember him much from the book. I'd have to go back and read it again. But then, I did watch the first 8 episodes of the TV show before I read the book, so that may have already colored my opinion of him. I did like show Frank. And I liked show Frank and Claire together. They seemed to have a very warm and caring relationship. Like I said, I really can't remember about the book.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 think BJR was only able to get away with what he did because he had the Duke of Sandringham protecting him, if you recall. That's why I think he could probably only get away with breaking the law inside his own jurisdiction. Outside of it, other officers wouldn't be as willing to overlook his infractions.

"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)."

Also recall that when he punched Claire the only other person in the room was Corporal Hawkins - a subordinate - who was not likely to go tell on a superior officer. I doubt he could have gotten away with it had there been another officer of equal rank in the room with him.

"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."

Even Dougal didn't make it up. He told that after talking to Ned the lawyer. So why would he bother talking to Ned the lawyer about it if he only wanted to manipulate Jamie into marrying an Englishwoman to take him out of Laird possibility? No, that doesn't make sense. I think Dougal also wanted to protect Claire. Perhaps he needed to - because how would it look when after Claire had been presented at Hall as requesting protection from the Clan MacKenzie and Collum accepted but then the Clan failed to protect her? Their honor would have been called into question. And to have the honor of the clan, or a man, questioned was a serious matter.

Kat wrote: "First - not all roads are property boundaries. And in those days, when roads could and did change, property boundaries were much more likely to be more permanent markers such as bodies of water: lakes, rivers, streams. Or mountains. Look at the original 13 colonies/states. And look at what most of the boundaries between them are and you'll see what I mean.

Claire didn't walk far before she fell in the pool. Again, she was walking slowing over slippery rocks. And if the clan left her that close to the border of MacKenzie land that she was able to leave it so quickly, knowing that she could and would be taken by English soldiers, when her only protection from being married to Jamie was being on clan land, then that is just as stupid as it gets. I can see Dougal not caring either way. But Jamie would. Or Should have anywa
"

In chapter 20, (at ibooks location 1138) when Claire makes the decision to leave the copse, she says...."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 nor more than three miles due west of the hill of Craigh na Dun."

Claire goes on to say "I dared not take the road. This close to Fort William and several small villages that surrounded it, there was too much risk of meeting someone."

After Claire is rescued from Fort William, the book says... "After a short conference, Dougal decided that we had better make for the border of the Mackintosh lands, as being the closest safe clan territory. "Doonesbury's within riding distance by tonight, and likely to be safe enough. There'll be word out on us tomorrow, but we'll be across the border before it reaches there."

Since the book says that Fort William is no more than three to four miles of these given landmarks, isn't it safe to infer that they were in fact very close to the border? I think it's very clear that they were. I don't think that this necessarily has to be explicitly stated or spelled out for anyone.

Not that the specific location of the copse truly matters. Imo, what made it safe was not whether or not it was on clan lands. (I'm inclined to think that it was, btw.) What made it safe was that it was well hidden and hard to find. However, Claire did not stay there as directed. She left.

I admit that I am not much a Frank fan. When I first read Outlander, I got the impression that Claire and Frank were struggling in their marriage. Most of it was due to war and separation. When they come to Scotland, they are supposed to be on a trip to reconnect and rekindle things, but he had been spending large portions of that time off doing his research. It's as if he turned their "second honeymoon" into a business trip.

I know that this is me projecting from personal experience, but I know how I've felt when we are supposed to be on vacation and your spouse/significant other spends the entire time working. I'm re-reading the first chapter and it also seems like Claire considers Frank's research rather boring at times.

Back to BJR, I'm rereading Ch.1 and found what I thought that I remembered reading. (This pertains to BJR running rogue and doing whatever he wanted without being held accountable.)

"The vicar's located a whole series of military dispatches that mention Jonathan Randall". "Well, a good deal of the prominence seems to have been Captain Randall's own doing," the vicar observed, taking some of the papers from Frank. "He was in command of the garrison at Fort William for four years or so, but he seems to have spent quite a bit of his time harassing the Scottish countryside above the Border on behalf of the Crown. This lot" -- he gingerly separated a stack of papers and laid them on the desk. -- "is reports of complaints lodged against the Captain by various families and estate holders, claiming everything from interference with the maidservants by the soldiers of the garrison to outright theft of horses, not to mention assorted instances of "insult" unspecified."

I was amused. "So you have the proverbial horse thief in your family tree?" I said to Frank. He shrugged, unperturbed. "He was what he was, and nothing I can do about it. I only want to find out. The complaints aren't all that odd, for that particular time period; the English in general, and the army in particular were rather notably unpopular throughout the Highlands. No, what's odd is that nothing ever seems to have come of the complaints, even the serious ones."

The vicar, unable to keep still for long, broke in. "That's right. Not that officers then were held to anything like modern standards; they could do very much as they liked in minor matters. But this is odd. It's not that the complaints are investigated and dismissed; they're just never mentioned again. You know what I suspect, Randall? Your ancestor must have had a patron. Someone who could protect him from the censure of his superiors."

Kat and Red seem, in their arguments, to be focused on an idealistic notion of "what's legal" and "what should occur" and it's conflicting with what the book actually says. Imo, for whatever reason, they are completely ignoring narrative that clearly establishes that BJR was not following the law. Dougal could not have just gone to the Fort and demanded that Claire be released. In a perfect idealistic world, he should theoretically have been able to, but I think it's safe to say that canonically, the Outlander universe is not depicted as being such a place.

Outlander is a very long book and the plot is so layered -- the events are intertwined and dependent on each other, it's very easy to forget something that was said in Ch.1 when you are analyzing something in Chapters 20-22. It's also very easy to (mis)quote something in Ch. 20 and have it taken out of context when you forget/choose to ignore or disregard something that happened earlier in the book that directly correlates to what you are quoting.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I admit that I am not much a Frank fan. When I first read Outlander, I got the impression that Claire and Frank were struggling in their marriage. Most of it was due to war and separation. When the..."

I have found this last possible plot hole interesting because it's the first one that's been mentioned that actually sounded like it could be a plot hole to me. Now I don't think so.

But I have to say that I don't mind a plot hole. Well, it all depends on the plot hole and how it plays out in relation to the story. Vampire Diaries used to be one of my favorite shows and I remember taking to the inet and talking to random ppl about all the plot holes. That show had a ton of them but were hard to pick up because the show was so fast moving it was just hard to keep up. I liked doing that!

With Outlander, if we come across a plot hole, I'll be disappointed. I'll have fun dissecting it though. But so far and after reading all the novels and novella's I've never found one. Even with such an intricate plot.
________________________

Kat wrote: I think BJR was only able to get away with what he did because he had the Duke of Sandringham protecting him, if you recall. That's why I think he could probably only get away with breaking the law inside his own jurisdiction. Outside of it, other officers wouldn't be as willing to overlook his infractions.

I think Mochaspresso explains this well in #1328.


Even Dougal didn't make it up. He told that after talking to Ned the lawyer. So why would he bother talking to Ned the lawyer about it if he only wanted to manipulate Jamie into marrying an Englishwoman to take him out of Laird possibility? No, that doesn't make sense. I think Dougal also wanted to protect Claire. Perhaps he needed to - because how would it look when after Claire had been presented at Hall as requesting protection from the Clan MacKenzie and Collum accepted but then the Clan failed to protect her? Their honor would have been called into question. And to have the honor of the clan, or a man, questioned was a serious matter. "


So why would he bother talking to Ned the lawyer about it if he only wanted to manipulate Jamie into marrying an Englishwoman?

For ways to manipulate the marriage into happening! lol
Seriously though, he does say that Jamie will do as he's told. I don't think Jamie is so much the issue. I think Dougal also suspects Jamie has a spot for Claire anyway.

It's Claire that needs the convincing. What better way to do that than to find legal reasons she'll benefit from it? Especially when, for the times, there is no other benefit for this arrangement. Jamie is a criminal, on the run. What woman would normally be interested without special circumstances?

I think Dougal wanted to protect Claire also. But that doesn't negate the rest of his reasons. Which, IMO are the more predominate ones.

Kat wrote: "She eventually acknowledged - at least to herself - that the beating did help restore her into the good graces of the rest of the men, did she not? ..."

Good graces, or not, why would Claire, or any woman, consent to something unacceptable and humiliating simply to satisfy 'the men'? Claire is far to independent to submit to a beating to please someone.

Jamie, Dougal and the men may have been satisfied with Claire's punishment, but that doesn't make it right.

Even after Jamie explained how he and his sister had accepted having a belt taken to them as punishment, Claire didn't change her mind that it would not happen 'to her' again. I'm sure, sleeping on it, wouldn't have made her more acceptable.

Kat wrote: " You see, Claire is not a child, so she should not react the same way as a child would. Jamie is not her father. So he should not act the same way a father would either..."

I believe that's exactly what I said.
"You see, Claire and Jamie aren't the same as you and your father"

Kat wrote: "First - not all roads are property boundaries. And in those days, when roads could and did change, property boundaries were much more likely to be more permanent markers such as bodies of water: lakes, rivers, streams. Or mountains. Look at the original 13 colonies/states. And look at what most of the boundaries between them are and you'll see what I mean...."

First of all, I didn't say 'all' roads were boundaries, I said roads were 'often' boundaries.

Secondly, I beg to differ. I've read/studied many Deeds researching our family history, and 'in those days' roads, trees, and even stones were often boundaries...as were creeks, streams, and rivers.

Futhermore, we aren't talking about 'state' boundaries, we're talking about 'property boundaries' which are often only described as being along the lands of the neighbor.

Claire didn't walk far before she fell in the pool. Again, she was walking slowing over slippery rocks. And if the clan left her that close to the border of MacKenzie land that she was able to leave it so quickly, knowing that she could and would be taken by English soldiers, when her only protection from being married to Jamie was being on clan land, then that is just as stupid as it gets.

How do you know Claire didn't walk far before falling in the river?

She wandered through the copse before coming to the river and then after picking her way along from stone to stone: "luckily the bank widened again, and I stepped gratefully ashore into warm sticky mud. 'Short periods' of more or less comfortable squelching alternated with 'much longer periods' of precarious rock-hopping through the freezing rapids, and I found to my relief that I was much to busy to think very much about Jamie. 'After a time' I had worked out the routine." She could have easily walked for an hour, or more, or a mile, or more.

As for being 'stupid as it gets'...Jamie told Claire she was safe and to stay put, Claire chose not to listen and leave. The soldiers didn't come upon her in the copse, they came upon her after she left. They left her in a safe place, she's not a toddler who wandered off, she's an adult who made a well thought out choice to leave.

Kat wrote: "And even BJR wasn't able to get away with always treating his prisoners the way he wanted. Yes, those subordinate to him followed his orders. Um..because he was a superior officer, yes? But remember Jamie's first flogging? BJR didn't do it, got there right after and wanted to flog him again immediately? But the doctor, I believe it was, wouldn't let him. Oh that's right. The doctor would have also been an officer, (Do you really think they employed a Scot?) but not one subordinate to Randall. So while the doctor couldn't prevent Jamie from getting the second flogging (since that was for stealing the bread and cheese he had on him while attempting to escape) he could stop Randall from doing it right away...."

Where did I implied that I thought the doctor was a Scot, or even mention the doctor for that matter.

And, Jamie received the second flogging because: "He (BJR) was quite plain about it. If I would...ah, make him free of my body, he'd cancel the second flogging. If I would not..then I'd wish I'd never been born". Stealing the bread and cheese was Randall's excuse. As you stated, Randall had already made his mind up to flog Jamie again before he was removed from the post the first time.

Well you see Sage, even in the novel it's clear that it's not all Highlanders and not all English that don't like each other. It's BJR and his soldiers in particular that this particular group of Highlanders don't like. And with good reason, I might add.

I agree, Randall and Clan MacKenzie's dislike runs deep, with good reason, but I can't recall where it was 'perfectly clear' in the book that it was only this particular group that disliked each other. Would you refresh my memory?
As Mocha pointed out, the complaints were many, varied, and from different people.


I think it's interesting that historical accuracy is only allowed to defend someone's view when it serves their purpose. If historical accuracy is not expected or followed at all, then why would any reader expect any soldier to follow Randall's orders at all?

If this is directed to me, I'd like you to show me where I ever said the Outlander Series is based on history so it should be historically accurate. In fact, I've said the opposite many times...it's a fictional novel based on history, written to entertain.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Back to BJR, I'm rereading Ch.1 and found what I thought that I remembered reading. (This pertains to BJR running rogue and doing whatever he wanted without being held accountable.)

"The vicar's located a whole series of military dispatches that mention Jonathan Randall". "Well, a good deal of the prominence seems to have been Captain Randall's own doing," the vicar observed, taking some of the papers from Frank. "He was in command of the garrison at Fort William for four years or so, but he seems to have spent quite a bit of his time harassing the Scottish countryside above the Border on behalf of the Crown. This lot" -- he gingerly separated a stack of papers and laid them on the desk. -- "is reports of complaints lodged against the Captain by various families and estate holders, claiming everything from interference with the maidservants by the soldiers of the garrison to outright theft of horses, not to mention assorted instances of "insult" unspecified."
..."

Thank you Mocha...this is what I've been trying to point out. It's not that the laws protecting the Scots didn't exist, or that complaints couldn't be filed; it's that in this story, Outlander, Randall (a fictional character) didn't worry about or obey the laws, he did as he pleased. That's why he's the villain.

Mrsbooks wrote: "For ways to manipulate the marriage into happening! lol
Seriously though, he does say that Jamie will do as he's told. I don't think Jamie is so much the issue. I think Dougal also suspects Jamie has a spot for Claire anyway...."

I think Dougal also has 'a spot' for Claire. He tells her later, in the cave before she rescues Jamie, that 'if he hadn't been married, he would have married her himself' and that 'he had wanted her ever since he kissed her sweet lips the night of the gathering', as well as making a few other endearing offers. Keeping her safe and married to Jamie, meant keeping her near. And I remember thinking at the time if this wasn't really the reason he refused to rescue Jamie. If Murtagh and the other 5 men, including Dougal's Lieutenant, were willing, why not Dougal. Jamie after all was 'like a son' to him. Most fathers would risk their lives to save their son.

Mrsbooks wrote: "So why would he bother talking to Ned the lawyer about it if he only wanted to manipulate Jamie into marrying an Englishwoman?

For ways to manipulate the marriage into happening! lol
Seriously though, he does say that Jamie will do as he's told. I don't think Jamie is so much the issue. I think Dougal also suspects Jamie has a spot for Claire anyway.

It's Claire that needs the convincing. What better way to do that than to find legal reasons she'll benefit from it? Especially when, for the times, there is no other benefit for this arrangement. Jamie is a criminal, on the run. What woman would normally be interested without special circumstances?

I think Dougal wanted to protect Claire also. But that doesn't negate the rest of his reasons. Which, IMO are the more predominate ones. "

I think you just put way more thought into this piece of plot than the author originally did! Lol! And I've been accused of making things difficult. Well, if the simplest answer is the best, then the simplest answer is what is given in the text: While Dougal did use the necessity of 'making Claire a Scot' to his advantage, I think that the reason he gave her as the law was also his primary reason. Not just to manipulate her into it.

Sage wrote: "Good graces, or not, why would Claire, or any woman, consent to something unacceptable and humiliating simply to satisfy 'the men'? Claire is far to independent to submit to a beating to please someone. "

And yet that is exactly what Jamie expected her to do, isn't it? That's exactly what other women in that time were expected to do. Apparently, that's what Jenny did and that's what Jamie's mother did. (both who were also supposed to be very independent women) And that's the argument given by the author herself when justifying the beating. Because 'that's just the way things were.'

Sage wrote: "Kat wrote: "And even BJR wasn't able to get away with always treating his prisoners the way he wanted. Yes, those subordinate to him followed his orders. Um..because he was a superior officer, yes? But remember Jamie's first flogging? BJR didn't do it, got there right after and wanted to flog him again immediately? But the doctor, I believe it was, wouldn't let him. Oh that's right. The doctor would have also been an officer, (Do you really think they employed a Scot?) but not one subordinate to Randall. So while the doctor couldn't prevent Jamie from getting the second flogging (since that was for stealing the bread and cheese he had on him while attempting to escape) he could stop Randall from doing it right away...."

Where did I implied that I thought the doctor was a Scot, or even mention the doctor for that matter.
"

No, but you had said that basically BJR could do what ever he wanted whenever he wanted. I was simply pointing out that was not always strictly true. BJR wanted to flog Jamie again immediately. The doctor didn't allow him to.

Sage wrote: "I think Dougal also has 'a spot' for Claire. He tells her later, in the cave before she rescues Jamie, that 'if he hadn't been married, he would have married her himself' and that 'he had wanted her ever since he kissed her sweet lips the night of the gathering', as well as making a few other endearing offers. Keeping her safe and married to Jamie, meant keeping her near. And I remember thinking at the time if this wasn't really the reason he refused to rescue Jamie. If Murtagh and the other 5 men, including Dougal's Lieutenant, were willing, why not Dougal. Jamie after all was 'like a son' to him. Most fathers would risk their lives to save their son. "

I think Dougal's primary motivation is power and greed. He wanted to be chief of the clan. Going to rescue Jamie would have put his life in danger (and he didn't think they'd succeed) so he didn't want to risk that. Possibly marrying Claire was just a nice, although unexpected, bonus.

Sage wrote: "Kat wrote: "I think it's interesting that historical accuracy is only allowed to defend someone's view when it serves their purpose. If historical accuracy is not expected or followed at all, then why would any reader expect any soldier to follow Randall's orders at all?

If this is directed to me, I'd like you to show me where I ever said the Outlander Series is based on history so it should be historically accurate. In fact, I've said the opposite many times...it's a fictional novel based on history, written to entertain. "

You have said quite often – as of late (I don’t know if you *ever* said it throughout the thread. I can’t remember all distinct 1000+ posts) – that Outlander is fictional and not necessarily historically accurate. I agree with this.

My point is; if I am not ‘allowed’ to use historically accurate facts, figures, accounts, etc to defend my point of view, then neither are you. Take the rocks, trees and roads as boundaries disagreement. You said you found that from researching your own family records. Well, that’s something that is historical accurate and you used it to defend your pov. But if Outlander is not necessarily historically accurate, then my opinion that they would not have used roads (with nothing in the text to contradict this pov) is just as valid as your assertion that they might have.

See what I mean?

While the discussion is interesting, I do think that we are being overly pedantic with regards to what the historical fiction genre should or should not entail. I don't believe that "historical accuracy" means that you shouldn't have flawed characters, people who break laws and controversial scenes. ("Johnny Tremaine" wouldn't have won a Newbery if that were the case.) Including it does not automatically render the book "historically inaccurate".

edited to add....I think the same applies to the use of maps and landmarks. It's okay to include a fictitious place or landmark if it fits into the story.

Kat and Red seem to be fixated on what the law of that time says and want to criticize Outlander for having characters who break these laws. While it is certainly their right, it just doesn't make sense. I've talked about this before. The law says that music, movie and book piracy is illegal. That doesn't mean that it doesn't still happen in our society. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It's actually extremely prevalent. I even feel comfortable saying that it is actually rampant in our society. PLENTY of people do it and plenty get away with it. Not everybody obviously, but certainly a lot. If 300 years from now, some historian attempts to use law books to determine whether or not a novel that includes a character illegally downloading all five seasons of Game of Thrones is historically accurate and comes to the conclusion that the book is somehow flawed for including that, they will be wrong. Their perceptions of our society will be one sided and skewed.

Just because something was against the law, it doesn't mean that it did not happen or could not have happened in a historical fiction novel.

Kat has said... "My point was that he never even told her that he was glad that she was okay. And I'm not okay with that. "

I meant to respond to this and forgot. I understand and under different circumstances I would normally agree. However, because of everything that is also going on in the story at that point, I understand a lot of the different heightened emotions on both sides. Imo, Jamie demonstrated that he cares about her safety and well-being. He risked his life to rescue her. Many the people around him, including his Uncle, thought she was a spy and not worth risking all of their lives over. Yet, he got them to do it. He has a price on his head and risked the possibility of being shot on sight or possibly flogged and then hanged. He killed a guard and broke into a fort armed with nothing but an unloaded gun to rescue her. After all of that, does he really need to say that he's glad she's ok to prove that he cares? I don't necessarily think that he does and I also don't think that this somehow should trump all of the other emotions that both of them are feeling. Claire was not depicted or characterized as a woman who needs that type of support from a man after a trauma and I don't think it is fair to expect Jamie respond to her in a way that she isn't even exhibiting as wanting or needing.

Mrsbooks wrote: "It's probably a bad example to use Outlander when you're applying this to Outlander to begin with. But what do you think of Frank? Of Frank and Claire together?

I thought they were amusing and presented what can be a typical relationship dynamic. But lots of people when reading find Frank condescending, controlling, manipulative and dorky.

I like watching the show version of him because it's what I saw when I read the book. But so many people didn't see that and I'm glad DG gets the chance to help clarify Frank's personality and his motives while she's a consultant for the show.
"

I haven't finished the series yet, so I don't know how Frank is further characterized or portrayed beyond book four, but I think part of my dislike of him was also influenced by how Claire and even Brianna describe him in one of the later books (...Voyager, I think, but I'm not sure.)

I just don't see it a plot hole.

Was Claire taken off Clan Lands? So far, it's only been shown to be a possibility. And the possibility of something does not a plot hole make.

Even if she was taken from Clan lands, we've already seen, quoted directly from the book that BJR was known to have spent quite a bit of his time harassing the Scottish countryside ........reports of complaints lodged against the Captain by various families and estate holders, claiming everything from interference with the maidservants by the soldiers of the garrison to outright theft of horses, not to mention assorted instances of "insult" unspecified."

And that's what we get from BJR. He frequently breaks the law.

If an author wrote a story that took place where I lived and they applied a similar story line, say someone gets lost going from point A to point B. I'm familiar enough with the area and I realize, "Hey, that point B doesn't actually exist!" Or "Hey, point B is a few hours from there, that doesn't work." - This isn't a plot hole either. Because it is fiction. At least IMO.

Also just because Dougal quoted the law doesn't mean he believed BJR would uphold it. I'm not saying that Dougal spent all this time trying to manipulate this marriage. I'm saying that the opportunity presented itself. Dougal wanted to protect Claire. He also wanted Jamie out of the way to the point that (spoiler from book 3 or 4?) (view spoiler)[ he already tried to kill him (hide spoiler)] Do we not think he would latch on to and push for this when he was willing to go as far as he already had?

I'm don't believe I'm putting way more thought into this piece of plot than the author originally did. Or making it complicated.

The fact that Jamie tells Claire to hide in the copse because he doesn't trust that BJR wouldn't take her if he finds her is the answer in itself. This isn't a contradiction to what Dougal said because the story line flows together. It's just up to that point in the story, we don't know everything yet.

Kat wrote: "And yet that is exactly what Jamie expected her to do, isn't it? That's exactly what other women in that time were expected to do. Apparently, that's what Jenny did and that's what Jamie's mother did. (both who were also supposed to be very independent women) And that's the argument given by the author herself when justifying the beating. Because 'that's just the way things were.'..."

Yes both Jamie's mother and Jennie were strong women and Jennie did comply with her father's spankings (I don't recall anything saying Jamie's mother did), however, both Jennie and her mother were from the 18th century, Claire on the other hand isn't, therefore, Claire wouldn't/didn't comply just because it's the way it was then.

I have never read where the author justified the punishment because 'that's the way it was then', but other people have in the context that Jamie, Dougal and the rest considered the punishment acceptable. I doubt the author meant Claire would comply because that's the way it was, because she didn't.

Kat wrote: "My point is; if I am not ‘allowed’ to use historically accurate facts, figures, accounts, etc to defend my point of view, then neither are you. Take the rocks, trees and roads as boundaries disagreement...."

Yes I did use what I know is fact to defend my POV, but only because when I said roads were often boundaries, you said I was wrong. I wasn't using historical accuracy to find fault with the story or the author, or to prove there was a plot hole. See the difference.

Kat wrote: "No, but you had said that basically BJR could do what ever he wanted whenever he wanted. I was simply pointing out that was not always strictly true. BJR wanted to flog Jamie again immediately. The doctor didn't allow him to...."

I didn't say it was 'strickly' true, obviously Randall had to reconcile himself when other Officers or Superiors were around, but when he was in charge he did as he pleased. Which was clearly stated in the book.

Nor did I say Randall could do what he wanted, when he wanted.

What I actually said was:
1)"Randall doesn't really care what the rules are, he does what he wants...that's what the bad guys do."
2) "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."
3) "It's not that the laws protecting the Scots didn't exist, or that complaints couldn't be filed; it's that in this story, Outlander, Randall (a fictional character) didn't worry about or obey the laws, he did as he pleased. That's why he's the villain."


Kat said: "Well you see Sage, even in the novel it's clear that it's not all Highlanders and not all English that don't like each other. It's BJR and his soldiers in particular that this particular group of Highlanders don't like. And with good reason, I might add.".

Once again Kat, I didn't say 'all' Highlander and 'all' English, I said: "in the book there is very little love between the English and the Scots, especially the MacKenzie clan." And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 'especially the MacKenzie clan' the same as 'this particular group of Highlanders'. And, since Randall is the Superior at Ft William and these are the soldiers Dougal is dealing with, it can be implied that Randall and his soldiers were the enemy.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I just don't see it a plot hole.

If an author wrote a story that took place where I lived and they applied a similar story line, say someone gets lost going from point A to point B. I'm familiar enough with the area and I realize, "Hey, that point B doesn't actually exist!" Or "Hey, point B is a few hours from there, that doesn't work." - This isn't a plot hole either. Because it is fiction. At least IMO..."

Exactly. How many times have books created a town where there is none. Or changed the name of an existing place. It's not a plot hole, it's just the way the author wants the story to go. In this case, the author wanted Claire to be captured and taken to Randall at Ft William. Having Jamie leave her in the copse and Claire wandering off is the way the author chose it to happen. Ms Gabaldon is a Storyteller. She writes to entertain. And, she excels at what she does.

Mrsbooks wrote: "The fact that Jamie tells Claire to hide in the copse because he doesn't trust that BJR wouldn't take her if he finds her is the answer in itself. This isn't a contradiction to what Dougal said because the story line flows together. It's just up to that point in the story, we don't know everything yet."

I still think it's a bit contradictory - and I'm rather surprised Claire didn't call him out on it when she was arguing with him about staying. 'Hey wait a minute - I thought the English couldn't take me off Clan lands without the permission of the Laird now that I'm married to you, so what's wrong with me going with the rest of the men on to Lag Cruime?' And yeah, I know he says he wouldn't put it past them to take her anyway. But that point, why wasn't her response, 'So what was the point in marrying you in the first place?' I would have loved to read that response!

Sage wrote: "I have never read where the author justified the punishment because 'that's the way it was then', but other people have in the context that Jamie, Dougal and the rest considered the punishment acceptable. I doubt the author meant Claire would comply because that's the way it was, because she didn't. "

I posted a link to an interview with the author where she says essentially just that awhile back ago in the thread.

ETA: Sorry I don't think I was clear when I originally made this post. The link referenced above was in response to this:
"I have never read where the author justified the punishment because 'that's the way it was then'"
The author has used the 'just the way it was' excuse for including the beating in the book.

As far as this:
"I doubt the author meant Claire would comply because that's the way it was, because she didn't."

I don't think the I've read or heard anything to contradict this.

Sage wrote: "Yes I did use what I know is fact to defend my POV, but only because when I said roads were often boundaries, you said I was wrong. I wasn't using historical accuracy to find fault with the story or the author, or to prove there was a plot hole. See the difference. "

No, I don't see the difference. We are both using historical accuracy to prove our points. You even said 'in those days' roads, trees, and even stones were often boundaries Therefore, using 'historical accuracy' to justify to plot, story, and author. You seem to think I shouldn't be able use 'historical accuracy' to find fault with the story, but it's okay for you to use it to prove the story is right. But if the story is not necessarily supposed to be 'historically accurate' in the first place, that makes your 'historically accurate' arguments a moot point.

And I didn't say you were wrong about the roads. I said "not all roads are property boundaries. And in those days, when roads could and did change, property boundaries were much more likely to be more permanent markers such as bodies of water: lakes, rivers, streams. Or mountains." See the difference.

Sage wrote: "Once again Kat, I didn't say 'all' Highlander and 'all' English, I said: "in the book there is very little love between the English and the Scots, especially the MacKenzie clan." And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 'especially the MacKenzie clan' the same as 'this particular group of Highlanders'. And, since Randall is the Superior at Ft William and these are the soldiers Dougal is dealing with, it can be implied that Randall and his soldiers were the enemy. "

You know, Sage, if you are going to call me out for not quoting you directly or putting words in your mouth, or whatever you are trying to do here, then the same goes for you. I never said that you said 'strictly' or 'all Highlanders' or 'all English'. But if you believe that things can be 'implied' from text, then perhaps you should be more careful about the way you word your posts. From the way your original posts were worded, it's not surprising that I *implied* that you meant 'strictly' and 'all' since you were not clear that it was not what you meant.

You said:
1. 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.
2.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.
3. And, in the book there is very little love between the English and the Scots, especially the MacKenzie clan.

As you made no mention that it did not apply to everyone, the way the the phrases 'the English and the Highlanders', so as the story Outlander, goes, 'the British and Scots', and 'the English and the Scots' were used certainly implies All English and All Highlanders/Scots.

I didn't say it was 'strickly' true, obviously Randall had to reconcile himself when other Officers or Superiors were around, but when he was in charge he did as he pleased. Which was clearly stated in the book.

Nor did I say Randall could do what he wanted, when he wanted.

You said:
1. Randall (a fictional character) didn't worry about or obey the laws, he did as he pleased.
2. ... And that the British Army was allowed to pretty much do what ever they wanted.
3. Randall doesn't really care what the rules are, he does what he wants...that's what the bad guys do.

'did as he pleased' and 'pretty much do what ever they wanted' and 'does what he wants' basically implies that Randal could do what he wanted, when he wanted. I was just pointing out that this wasn't always true. Since Randall was 'in charge' as the Garrison Commander, and yet he couldn't do as he pleased, which was flog Jamie a second time immediately, because the doctor would not allow him to do so.

I don't understand what the importance Randal having someone draw limits for him is.

It's already been established from lines in the book that Randal is able to break the law even if it's also presented that he doesn't always have carte blanche. If it's presented in the novel (and it is) that he is able to break some laws, and do what he wants *sometimes* then when he does break another law, we should suppose he was able to do it, and get away with it, because....well, he just did.

I think ya'll debating about something moot. ;)

Kat wrote:I still think it's a bit contradictory - and I'm rather surprised Claire didn't call him out on it when she was arguing with him about staying. 'Hey wait a minute - I thought the English couldn't take me off Clan lands without the permission of the Laird now that I'm married to you, so what's wrong with me going with the rest of the men on to Lag Cruime?' And yeah, I know he says he wouldn't put it past them to take her anyway. But that point, why wasn't her response, 'So what was the point in marrying you in the first place?' I would have loved to read that response! "

I probably would have done just that if I were Claire. But this might be a possible explanation as to why she didn't.

"He (Jamie) came down at last to the road. The others had gone on before, but Jamie, mindful of our last experience with deserted glades, wouldn't leave until he had thoroughly searched the copse...."

They've already argued over it a little bit and continue to do so after this. The novel doesn't say when exactly the men left Jamie and Claire. It's not clear if they already left before they started this fuss or during or whatever. It only says "before" but it doesn't say before what.

I've never been one to justify Jamie beating Claire for several reasons. The main reason being I am convinced that scene's placement in the book has nothing to do with history or justice, but is there to appeal to the "fetish" readers. (Those who love to read those kinds of scenes in fiction). I found a published commentary that states the same thing and shows website addresses where Outlander is on several lists of "Favorite Spanking Scenes in Fiction". A link to the commentary is at the end of this post.
Another reason being, we never see grown men punished under Scottish rule, at least not in the first book (the only one I've read and probably will ever read). Under British rule, we of course see Jamie flogged and abused, and the beggar's tongue cut out in Algiers, but we only see women and children punished under the Scottish rule. This point is made in the commentary as well, in further detail.
A third reason is, I don't believe it was Claire's actions that put everyone in danger, but Jamie's haste to storm the castle. This is a point also made in the commentary, in further detail. This thread is already too long to put the whole explanation there, but I definitely was enlightened when I read it.
A fourth reason I won't justify it, is because I don't believe it was a Clan issue, but a marital one. I'll just use the author of the commentary's words for this part:
1. Jamie warns her what he would do if she left the safety of the thicket. (Marital)
2. Jamie and the men risk their lives to save her. (Marital and Clan)
3. Jamie furiously tells Claire by the roadside "…I dinna know whether to strangle ye or throw ye on the ground and hammer ye senseless, but by Jesus, I want to do something to you." (Marital)
4. Jamie says "My pride is hurt. And my pride is all I've got left to me." (Marital-he knows he loves her but he doesn't think she loves him, plus she's embarrassed him by not following his orders and making it look like he doesn't have her under control)
5. Jamie says "…if it were only me ye'd hurt by it, I wouldna say more about it." (Clan-he seems willing to dismiss it from a marital point of view, but…)
6. Jamie gives her two reasons, the first being that she will believe him when he says things are dangerous and follow his orders. The second reason being justice for the other men. (Marital and Clan)
7. Jamie tells her if she doesn't cooperate, the beating will be worse than if she does. (Marital-she doesn't cooperate, thank goodness!)
8. Dougal says the next day, "…it wasna necessary to half-kill the lass." (Proof that the Clan issue turned Marital)
9. Jamie says "I don't often lose my temper, but usually regret it when I do." She tells us as readers that this will most likely be the only apology she ever gets. (Marital)
10. Jamie gives Claire the long explanation about the personal issues with Black Jack Randall and immediately follows the explanation with "…can ye understand, maybe, why I thought it needful to beat you?" (Marital)
11. Jamie admits he enjoyed it. (Marital)
12. In Jamie's vow on the road to Bargrennan included "…If ever my hand is raised against you in rebellion or in anger…" showing he admits that he was angry when he did it. (Marital)
There seems to be eleven counts for it being marital, and three counts for it being a clan issue, at least the way I've counted it. Keep in mind the things Claire mentioned about "mob rule" and "stand(ing) against a crowd" in Chapter 9 when the little boy is getting his punishment on the pillory. We know Jamie has more than the ordinary amount of courage, so why doesn't he stand up to the mob (the clansmen) and tell them he will not beat his wife? In this travelling party, he is pretty high up in the chain of command, probably second under Dougal, he could tell the men plainly that he won't do it, and give them a speech similar to the one he gave the crowd when he rescued her from the witch craft trial; "…I swore an oath before the altar of God to protect this woman. And if you're tellin' me that ye consider your own authority to be greater than that of the Almighty…", yeah, that whole piece. Perhaps he truly feels she deserves it for what she has done to him as well as to them, making it more so a marital issue than a clan one.
The commentary is here, like I said I found it interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Strapped-Commen...
If you don't agree with my points, fine. But do not comment. I am not here to argue but to express my views. I do not have time to keep revisiting this page to try to discuss something with people who only want to argue for the sake of arguing. I've made my statement, deal with it.

Sandy wrote: "I've never been one to justify Jamie beating Claire for several reasons. The main reason being I am convinced that scene's placement in the book has nothing to do with history or justice, but is th..."

It sounds to me like someone is promoting the selling of their commentary on a novel as an ebook for ninety nine cents. I won't knock their hustle....but I can comment if I feel like it. (Odd about the audacity that the internet creates. People feel empowered enough to post an opinion and then tell others to not comment because they aren't interested in hearing what others have to say. Seems to me like that creates a venue for blowhards who only want to hear themselves talk rather than a venue for DISCUSSION.

Meh. I prefer discussion even if it is with people that I don't agree with. Even if it is with people who don't particularly like me or who, by the end, decide that they can't stand my guts. Those are actually best kinds of discussions, imo. If you can't deal with comments, perhaps you shouldn't post in a discussion board where people are allowed to comment. You need to be one of those pissy authors who vets and edits the negative comments out of their Facebook feeds and promotional websites.

"Another reason being, we never see grown men punished under Scottish rule, at least not in the first book (the only one I've read and probably will ever read). Under British rule, we of course see Jamie flogged and abused, and the beggar's tongue cut out in Algiers, but we only see women and children punished under the Scottish rule. This point is made in the commentary as well, in further detail.
A third reason is, I don't believe it was Claire's actions that put everyone in danger, but Jamie's haste to storm the castle.
"

First, Jamie's "haste" saved Claire. Had he not been hasty, Claire would have been raped by BJR and no telling what else and then shipped off to a prison. The haste was necessary and Claire directly benefitted from that haste.

Second, it's a nice caveat to add the line in that one hasn't read any of the other books and has no intention of doing so...when the other books directly negate and refute their original argument several times over.

It's also not true. Jamie was punished by Colum when he was 16 for sassing Mrs. Fitz. That was the first instance that comes to mind.

A fourth reason I won't justify it, is because I don't believe it was a Clan issue, but a marital one. I'll just use the author of the commentary's words for this part:
1. Jamie warns her what he would do if she left the safety of the thicket. (Marital)


That's not really true. It didn't happen this way. It doesn't tell the whole story. Re-read it. Jamie gives valid reasons why it is dangerous reasons for her to go that have nothing to do with the fact that she is his wife. It is only because she keeps protesting and insisting to come with them that Jamie invokes the "I'm your husband and you promised to obey" move. That was a just last ditch straw that he pulled out of his hat to get her to do as she was told. This doesn't suddenly turn the issue into only a marital issue in my opinion. It was dangerous for Claire to accompany them regardless of whether she was his wife or not. This line doesn't magically negate everything else that is going on in the story and make it a marital issue. That's not how life works and it wouldn't be realistic or believable in fiction either. To go that route renders the story utterly ridiculous.

2. Jamie and the men risk their lives to save her. (Marital and Clan)
3. Jamie furiously tells Claire by the roadside "…I dinna know whether to strangle ye or throw ye on the ground and hammer ye senseless, but by Jesus, I want to do something to you." (Marital)

I'm confused as to why this is deemed solely as being marital. Do you think that he would not have been angry at her had she not been his wife? I don't think so. In fact, Jamie told her that had she been a man, she might have killed outright for disobeying an order. Second, it wasn't only Jamie that was angry with her. All of the men were. "....dinner was a grim affair....".


4. Jamie says "My pride is hurt. And my pride is all I've got left to me." (Marital-he knows he loves her but he doesn't think she loves him, plus she's embarrassed him by not following his orders and making it look like he doesn't have her under control)

This line is being taken WAY out of context. At this point in their argument, he was referring to her almost being raped in front of him and being helpless and unable to stop it. He was not referring to beating her when he says this.



5. Jamie says "…if it were only me ye'd hurt by it, I wouldna say more about it." (Clan-he seems willing to dismiss it from a marital point of view, but…)
6. Jamie gives her two reasons, the first being that she will believe him when he says things are dangerous and follow his orders. The second reason being justice for the other men. (Marital and Clan)


Again, I fail to see how this is marital at all. For him, it isn't. He's telling her that something is dangerous. Claire is actually the one that is making it a marital by not listening because of her hangups about having her husband (or any man) tell her what to do.

This goes back to what I said about a husband telling his wife not to drive the car and she angrily does it anyway....only to find out that the only reason why he said that had nothing to do with a husband giving a wife an order and everything to do with the fact that the engine actually needed oil.

7. Jamie tells her if she doesn't cooperate, the beating will be worse than if she does. (Marital-she doesn't cooperate, thank goodness!)

Wouldn't this have been the case had they not been married?



8. Dougal says the next day, "…it wasna necessary to half-kill the lass." (Proof that the Clan issue turned Marital)

This line is also taken out of context. Dougal also pats her on her ass at this point. He is clearly joking and teasing her.

9. Jamie says "I don't often lose my temper, but usually regret it when I do." She tells us as readers that this will most likely be the only apology she ever gets. (Marital)
10. Jamie gives Claire the long explanation about the personal issues with Black Jack Randall and immediately follows the explanation with "…can ye understand, maybe, why I thought it needful to beat you?" (Marital)
11. Jamie admits he enjoyed it. (Marital)

I don't see how any of this is strictly marital. Especially not #10. The explanation (which actually included more than just Jamie's back history with BJR) seems more about having her understand their overall culture rather than just a marital issue. Other than his pledge, they don't even discuss the beating from a marital standpoint. They do eventually, but not at this point in the story.

Can we also talk about Jamie's "enjoyment" again for a minute? It seems that people are putting some type of sadistic spin on it. In my mind, I likened it to feeling better after releasing frustration and aggression. There were times when I felt better after swiftly kicking or punching one of my brothers in retaliation to something they'd done. It's the darker side of human emotion, but it is also a very honest side. This isn't Jamie's shining moment. Not at all, but I am rather glad that he is honest and human. I think his feelings regarding punishing someone who he feels deserved it would have been exactly the same regardless of whether he was married to them or not. The fact that they are married is conflating things. Certainly, but imo, it is not truly or solely a marital issue.


12. In Jamie's vow on the road to Bargrennan included "…If ever my hand is raised against you in rebellion or in anger…" showing he admits that he was angry when he did it. (Marital)

This is the only one that agree with, however, it's also pretty much the same pledge that he makes to Colum at The Gathering. I can imagine if he wanted to make a blood promise to either Rupert or Murtagh or anyone else, he might of said and done pretty much the same. I've changed my mind. I don't think this line is evidence of that beating being solely a marital issue. I think the fact that they are married complicates matters, but their dispute is not truly and solely a marital issue.

Btw, speaking of The Gathering, these are Claire's thoughts as Jamie has but no choice to pledge his loyalty to Colum even though he didn't really want to....

"He could, of course, announce that he did not mean to swear his oath to Colum, and head back to his warm bed in the stables. If he wanted a serious beating or his throat cut, that is."

In this instance, Claire was aware that Jamie was in an impossible position where he would not be able to just say no to the clan. I think to them, her beating was similar. Claire was just unable to see it from any other perspective because she is now the one about to get beat. Saying no in some instances has serious ramifications. Refusing to punish her would have put them both at odds for the clan and that was a position that they could not afford to be in at that moment. There are instances in life where one can take a stand against "mob rule" and then there are times when it might not be in your best interest to do so at that particular moment. At least, not yet. I think this is about knowing how to pick and choose your battles wisely.

Sage wrote: "And, in the book there is very little love between the English and the Scots, especially the MacKenzie clan. "

Sure, but again, that doesn't mean even BJR could do whatever he wanted just because.


Sage wrote: "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."

Hmmmm...I don't remember "most posters" agreeing with what you said, rather he contrary. It's one of the main point of my arguments from the beginning regarding the reason why some (many) have justified the beating scene. Also, just because it is a romance novel doesn't mean the author can take as many liberties they want with history. If they did, it would be something like a alternate universe historical romance, not an historical romance novel, which is the genre this story belongs.

Sage wrote: "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. "

Yet again, this is factually false, and I don't even need to refer to actual history, but just the very book you're talking about : even with all of her plotholes and weak writing, that's anot what the author wrote, on the contrary ! She went to great pains to write the whole "forced marriage" plot and the very argumentation SHE gave was to protect Claire, so that the English couldn't take her into custody. As per Outlander universe at the time, in the book, Scots and English aren't the most friendly but aren't at war. And there are, indeed, customs and laws that need to be respected by both parties.

Mochaspresso wrote: "The problem here in this thread is that in several instances people based entire scenarios and interpretations off of erroneous things that were either not actually in the book or off of things that were taken completely out of context. When this happens, it is no longer "interpretation". It becomes "MISINTERPRETATION".

Just as there is "lazy writing", there can also be "lazy reading". Misinterpreting the text and taking things out of context is something that I consider to be "lazy reading". "

Of course one can misinterpret, but whose to say (aside fro the author) which one is the "right" or "wrong" interpretation, especially when the writing is sloppy and contradictory? So you interpreted the scene one way, another interpreted the same scene another way, those are two different interpretations, there is no way to say one is a "misinterpretation", except for asking for the writer to play referee. And as I said before, to me it's a bit of a cheat to make things "canon" afterwards.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat and Red seem, in their arguments, to be focused on an idealistic notion of "what's legal" and "what should occur" and it's conflicting with what the book actually says. Imo, for whatever reason, they are completely ignoring narrative that clearly establishes that BJR was not following the law. "


I would really appreciate that posters stop doing things like that : trying and telling what I think or talking about me as if I was dumb or I wasn't even around. That's very, VERY annoying!
Where in my posts did a ever "idealistically" argue about "what should occur" or that BJR always followed the law? I have been replying to some of Sage's posts stating that the English could do whatever they wanted, which is not true. Is it to say that ALL of them followed the law ALL the time? No. But where did I stated the contrary? WHERE? Please, tell me excatly in which post I "idealistically" stated this?

I don't even understand why this is a point of contention to stated that BJR wasn't this all powerfull CAPTAIN who could do whatever he wanted, especially since the book establish the very plot that is literally tying Claire and JAmie together BASED on the fact that it is a mean to legally and lawfully protect Claire. I guess the author was being "idealitic" there...

Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat and Red seem to be fixated on what the law of that time says and want to criticize Outlander for having characters who break these laws."

And hee you go again, completely making things UP. Like, really? We are discussing a particular point and now we're supposedly obsessed with characters breaking law? Like really? After 27 pages of discussion that's all you have left ? I eman, did you actually read any of the many post were I discussed the "historical accuracy" part and that happened WAY before we started this little bit about English soldiers supposedly doing whatever they wanted? Because if you had, you wouldn't be posting such nonsense, really? That's totally dishonest and so, so condescending !

I stated many times now that my problem was never that Outlander was or wasn't totally historically accurate but that some (many) readers USED this line of argumentation to justify the beating. That has been my main and many times explained, clarified point. Now for you to come and totally twist it the way you do is pretty insulting. SMDH.

Red wrote: "Sage wrote: "And, in the book there is very little love between the English and the Scots, especially the MacKenzie clan. "

Sure, but again, that doesn't mean even BJR could do whatever he wanted ..."

Once again...I did not say BJR could do whatever he wanted anytime he wanted.
I wish either you or Kat would provide me with the post # where I made this comment, because I can't find it and truly don't recall saying it.


As per Outlander universe at the time, in the book, Scots and English aren't the most friendly but aren't at war. And there are, indeed, customs and laws that need to be respected by both parties.

I believe 'Scots and English aren't the most friendly' is the same as 'English and Highlanders did not like each other'.

and...I didn't say they were at war, I said they were on the verge of war...which in 'the story' they were.

As for disregarding the rules/laws, once again, I didn't say they didn't have to be obeyed, I said BJR and the English Army (meaning his soldiers) didn't obey them. You know, the fictional characters in this fictional story that is not, nor does it need to be, historically accurate.

I agree this thread originally was regarding the beating scene, however, in discussions the subject often changes and if those taking part in the discussion go off road, that is perfectly acceptable.

Kat wrote: "As you made no mention that it did not apply to everyone, the way the the phrases 'the English and the Highlanders', so as the story Outlander, goes, 'the British and Scots', and 'the English and the Scots' were used certainly implies All English and All Highlanders/Scots...."

It implies no such thing. The British and Scots being discussed in the story are BJR and the soldiers from Ft William, and the Mackenzie Clan.

"didn't worry about or obey the laws, he did as he pleased...the British Army was allowed to pretty much do what ever they wanted...doesn't really care what the rules are, he does what he wants." is not the same as 'could do whatever he/they wanted, whenever he/they wanted'.

It means there were laws, however BJR and his soldiers didn't follow them. I will agree I said British Army and wasn't perfectly clear that I was talking about the British Army dealing with the Mackenzie Clan, but I assumed anyone following the thread would know which groups of English and Scots we were discussing.

Furthermore, as Mocha pointed out, it was made clear in the very beginning of 'the story' that BJR and his soldiers did not follow the rules.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I think ya'll debating about something moot. ;) ..."

I completely agree and always tell myself don't bother to reply....but...it bothers me when people take what I say, add words, twist it around, then justify themselves by telling me I should be more clear when I comment. It's perfectly logical to me that since we are talking about Jamie, Dougal and their men, and BJR and the soldiers from Ft. William, that referring to them as the English and Scots would be understood. I do understand however why Kat and Red were confused, I was talking about the story as Ms Gabaldon wrote it, and they weren't.

It was a moot point though, and I should have ignored that they added the word 'all' so they could tell me I was wrong.

Red wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat and Red seem to be fixated on what the law of that time says and want to criticize Outlander for having characters who break these laws."

And hee you go again, completely ..."

I am not completely making things up. This is what you said in post 1306....

"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.

What were you referring to, if not to what happens in Outlander? I've been talking about the book and what actually happens in the story. The book itself refutes all of the above in the very first chapter. BJR was depicted from the very beginning of the story as a Captain who was not following the law.