Outlander
discussion
*SPOILER* The beating scene and why it is just plain WRONG to try and justify it
Sage wrote: "2) Captain Randall and his soldiers did not take action against a Nobleman (Dougal or Colin), he took it against Jamie and Claire. Yes, I know Jamie is a Laird, however, he isn't acting in a Laird's position and as far as Captain Randall is concerned Jamie is a warrior with a price on his head. And Claire is nothing to Randall but a suspected agent or spy. "This is not correct. Upon Brian's death, Jamie became Laird of Lallybroch, whether outlaw or not. He did not lose his noble title simply because he was accused of murder. Legally he was Laird. Laird is Scottish for Lord. So while not as high up in the hierarchy as a Duke or Earl, as Lord, he was still a Nobleman. As Jamie's wife, Claire was Lady Broch Tuarach - as Collum addressed her properly once they were back at Leoch. Therefore, she was a Noblewoman. They may have been minor nobility, but they certainly were not commoners against whom an English officer could commit any crime with impunity.
Sage wrote: "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.
It most certainly does. The British and Scots discussed in the story are not only BJR’s soldiers and the MacKenzie clan. The background to the story is the rising of the Jacobite rebellion which encompassed more than those two groups.
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. "
It is also made clear within the story that Randall is not always able to get away with what he wants. Since he is not able to always get away with what he wants, and Dougal has history of attempting to free a prisoner (Jamie) through the proper channels, and Dougal knows the law and that Randall would have obviously broken the law, it makes no sense that the MacKenzies didn't first try to get Claire back diplomatically instead of through the raid.
Btw - they would have had no knowledge at the time that she was on the verge of being raped, so using that as an excuse for the exigency of the raid does not work.
...but...it bothers me when people take what I say, add words, twist it around...
Yes, I know *exactly* how you feel.
... 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.
I thought we were talking about the entire story as the author wrote it. Which used the Jacobite rebellion in 1745 as a background to the events of the book. And as I said, that encompassed more than just the clan MacKenzie and Randall's soldiers at Ft. William.
Mrsbooks wrote: "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. ;)"
Admittedly, my first response was to laugh at this. (I hope that’s what you intended!) But then I thought about it more. And I thought and I thought…
And yeah, I’ll admit, the original dispute gets lost after so many posts back and forth. (At least for me sometimes it does.)
But if Randall is not always able to get away with what he wants, then it does not make any sense to me that the MacKenzies, knowing the law, and knowing the he would have had to taken Claire without the Laird's permission, would not have first tried to get her back through diplomatic channels (like he did when Jamie was first imprisoned) in order to avoid the very things that Collum fears - the English army now coming after the Clan MacKenzie.
And like I said in a reply to Sage, since Jamie did not know that Claire was about to be raped until he actually got there, that cannot be used as an excuse for the raid.
Also, I guess for me it goes back to the I Like Things To Make Sense – or I like my novels have some sense of continuity within themselves.
Those may or may not be two different things. :)
But this sequence of events reads as very inconsistent to me. If the Law was not important to the plot later on and can just be ignored because, well...it can....then it's use as an excuse to have Claire to marry Jamie is weak and ineffectual.
Kat wrote: "It is also made clear within the story that Randall is not always able to get away with what he wants. Since he is not able to always get away with what he wants, and Dougal has history of attempting to free a prisoner (Jamie) through the proper channels, and Dougal knows the law and that Randall would have obviously broken the law, it makes no sense that the MacKenzies didn't first try to get Claire back diplomatically instead of through the raid. Btw - they would have had no knowledge at the time that she was on the verge of being raped, so using that as an excuse for the exigency of the raid does not work.
"
They knew of BJR and his reputation and have had direct experiences with him in the past, though. They knew what he was capable of. They also knew/suspected that attempts to go through proper legal channels were not going to work...and their suspicions were confirmed by the things that BJR says to Claire. He had no intention of releasing her, legal or otherwise.
Honestly, I don't understand this point of contention. The book plainly says that BJR is not following the law. The book plainly says that he had no intention of doing so where Claire was concerned....yet, you are trying to assert that regardless of what the book says and what the characters have been established as already knowing, the characters should have attempted proper legal channels anyway and BJR should have complied and that this is evidence of a plot hole or flaw in the narrative? None of that makes any sense or sounds plausible at all. It also doesn't fit into the historical framework of the novel. These two groups were supposed to be hostile toward each other and on the verge of war. If all of the legal channels were fair and working the way that they were supposed to, was there really any reason for animosity between the two groups? If everybody is following the law like they are supposed to, was there any reason to go to war?
It seems to me that the Battle of Culledon should not have even happened all under this new version or interpretation of "historical accuracy"
On another topic - though related to the beating overall, because again it has to do with the set-up of the plot:I find it hard to believe that Claire was allowed to go out unaccompanied (unchaperoned) by another woman with the rent party which was all men - none of whom were related to her. Even though she was a widow (as far as they thought), I think that would have been highly inappropriate for the time, especially for "an English lady of Oxford" as she was presented to Collum in front of the clan at Hall. The book already demonstrated pretty much this attitude toward women being in the company of men unchaperoned as when during the gathering, Mrs. Fitz shooed all the women to the upper gallery (I think it was) and then later, away from the Great Hall where all the men were. Not to mention how shocked the men were to find her alone in the first place. Remember how Randall automatically thought she was a whore (and not just Randall)? It wasn't only because of the way she was dressed, since they thought that she was in naught but her shift, but also because she was alone - and only a whore or peasant/commoner would be unaccompanied. Not an Lady. But suddenly now, it's okay? I don't think so. Being a lone woman - a Lady - in the company of a bunch of men who are not related to you would be highly improper in 1743.
I really enjoyed this book, in fact, I've enjoyed the entire series. Ms Gabaldon is an excellent Storyteller who has created countless interesting characters who have brought the story to life and kept readers entertained for over 20 years. So, since there are thousands of other books out there waiting to be read and discussed, I see no reason to continue looking for, or dissecting in the name of discussion, inaccuracies or so called plot holes in this one novel.
May I say at times it's been interesting, but it's also been done.
Adieu.
I agree with Sage in that this has been very interesting at times. I've had a good time when we weren't discussing something repetitively. In the last while especially there has been some new developments. But I kinda feel like they've been thoroughly fleshed out.It would be interesting to start a discussion dissecting Sandy's comment but someone who says "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.".....
I'm sitting here flabbergasted over the out right contradiction in those statements. Talk about argumentative lol.
Even dissecting the possible plot holes has been fun. But I don't see them and I feel like they've been talked out. While I'm not giving up on this discussion completely, I think I'll just hang back and wait and see if anything new ever comes along.
Kat wrote: I find it hard to believe that Claire was allowed to go out unaccompanied (unchaperoned) by another woman with the rent party which was all men - none of whom were related to her. Even though she was a widow (as far as they thought), I think that would have been highly inappropriate for the time, especially for "an English lady of Oxford" as she was presented to Collum in front of the clan at Hall. The book already demonstrated pretty much this attitude toward women being in the company of men unchaperoned as when during the gathering, Mrs. Fitz shooed all the women to the upper gallery (I think it was) and then later, away from the Great Hall where all the men were. Not to mention how shocked the men were to find her alone in the first place. Remember how Randall automatically thought she was a whore (and not just Randall)? It wasn't only because of the way she was dressed, since they thought that she was in naught but her shift, but also because she was alone - and only a whore or peasant/commoner would be unaccompanied. Not an Lady. But suddenly now, it's okay? I don't think so. Being a lone woman - a Lady - in the company of a bunch of men who are not related to you would be highly improper in 1743. "I thought I would leave with this one. You brought up something I wondered about before myself. While I didn't find it hard to believe that Claire was allowed to go unchaperoned with the rent party, I was a little surprised by it. Actually Outlander surprised me numerous times with it's more frank talk by the characters. There were quite a few moments when I thought "would they really have said that?"
I have wondered if this was because it was highly unlikely or just my expectations were off the mark. I sway back and forth on that one. But most often I think my view may have been distorted by other pieces I've read. While not everything I've read has been historically accurate, I normally don't read this particular time period or location.
Kat wrote: "On another topic - though related to the beating overall, because again it has to do with the set-up of the plot:I find it hard to believe that Claire was allowed to go out unaccompanied (unchaperoned) by another woman with the rent party which was all men - none of whom were related to her. Even though she was a widow (as far as they thought), I think that would have been highly inappropriate for the time, especially for "an English lady of Oxford" as she was presented to Collum in front of the clan at Hall. The book already demonstrated pretty much this attitude toward women being in the company of men unchaperoned as when during the gathering, Mrs. Fitz shooed all the women to the upper gallery (I think it was) and then later, away from the Great Hall where all the men were. Not to mention how shocked the men were to find her alone in the first place. Remember how Randall automatically thought she was a whore (and not just Randall)? It wasn't only because of the way she was dressed, since they thought that she was in naught but her shift, but also because she was alone - and only a whore or peasant/commoner would be unaccompanied. Not an Lady. But suddenly now, it's okay? I don't think so. Being a lone woman - a Lady - in the company of a bunch of men who are not related to you would be highly improper in 1743.
"
I've read several highland historicals that involved women of varying classes traveling with warriors for a myriad of reasons. Either willingly or unwillingly or due to circumstances that involved some combination of both. There have been plenty of books written with this trope.
(edited to add: I re-read the parts where Claire was telling her story of how she came to be wandering around in her shift and she says that she was traveling with her manservant. Nobody believed this story, but no one in the story thought anything of that either. I became curious about this and skimmed the chapter on travel in this book.
https://books.google.com/books/about/...
It basically says that travel was very much a part of women's lives during those times. This chapter seems to focus more on the nature and purposes of travel rather than on detailed specifics pertaining to social conventions of the time, but I suppose that it is likely that Claire probably should have at least had a maidservant with her. However, I also suppose the reason why she didn't is because the intention was to take her to Fort William and they didn't expect her to be returning with them.)
Both sides suspected Claire of being a spy. That's why Dougal wanted her to accompany the rent party so that he could take her to Fort William. In my opinion, the possible plot hole here is not that Claire is traveling unchaperoned with the rent party....it's that Dougal allowed someone whom he suspected as being a spy witness his fundraising activities for the Jacobite rebellion cause. Even Claire wondered as much at one point, but I don't remember if a reason for why he allowed her to witness it was ever given in the story.
Mochaspresso wrote: "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. "I don't remember the book well, so what event are you talking about? Also, I think it's one thing to say that BJR didn't always follow the rule, which I can agree with, it's another to imply he could do whatever he wanted. To me, that totally contradicts the whole premise of Claire's and Jamie's marriage. And that's not what I remember from the book. Yes, BJR is awfull and do terrible things because he is protected by some English powerful man, but there are limits at what he can do cause he still just a captain.
Sage wrote: "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."I was also talking in regard of the Outlander verse "rules" the author established. Because even if the author isn't always historically accurate, I think she's tried to make her story somehow historically believable. For what I remember of the book, I don't think BJR was presented as an all powerful man who could do whatever he wanted, and that the way I understood some of your comments.
Kat wrote: "It is also made clear within the story that Randall is not always able to get away with what he wants. Since he is not able to always get away with what he wants, and Dougal has history of attempting to free a prisoner (Jamie) through the proper channels, and Dougal knows the law and that Randall would have obviously broken the law, it makes no sense that the MacKenzies didn't first try to get Claire back diplomatically instead of through the raid. "This! Thanks for adding this cause that is what I remembered from the book : I never got the feeling that BJR could do anything, he was powerful thanks to some Lord or Duke's protection, but to my recollection he still had to follow and respect at least some rules .
Sage wrote: "I really enjoyed this book, in fact, I've enjoyed the entire series. Ms Gabaldon is an excellent Storyteller who has created countless interesting characters who have brought the story to life and ..."Mmmm...'kay. Bye.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Honestly, I don't understand this point of contention. The book plainly says that BJR is not following the law. The book plainly says that he had no intention of doing so where Claire was concerned....yet, you are trying to assert that regardless of what the book says and what the characters have been established as already knowing, the characters should have attempted proper legal channels anyway and BJR should have complied and that this is evidence of a plot hole or flaw in the narrative? None of that makes any sense or sounds plausible at all. It also doesn't fit into the historical framework of the novel. These two groups were supposed to be hostile toward each other and on the verge of war. If all of the legal channels were fair and working the way that they were supposed to, was there really any reason for animosity between the two groups? If everybody is following the law like they are supposed to, was there any reason to go to war?It seems to me that the Battle of Culledon should not have even happened all under this new version or interpretation of "historical accuracy" "
Honestly, I don't understand this either. And I don't understand what that has to do with "historical accuracy". I refereed to the way the English army was behaving in response to a post that stated that "THE" English" were doing this and that, as if it was a "common knolegde" in all eternity. But even without referring to actual History, I don't remember the book stating that BJR was that all powerfull that he could do whatever he wanted without consequences. Yes, he didn't always followed rules and laws, but he was no war lord either. After all, he had soldiers under his command, nad they weren't going around doing whatever they wanted, which would have been the case if they had witnessed their commander doing this. So, yeah, the situation was tensed, between English contingent and some Scots, but there were still rules of law that everybody mostly tried and followed. BJR didn't always, neither Jamie by the way. But the rule of law was powerful enough for Dougla to come up with his whole marriage idea. The whole purpose fo that stunt was to prevent BJR to try and get Claire. If everybody and their momma supposedly knew that BJR would do whatever he wanted, why come up with this plan and why Claire agreed? THAT doesn't make any sense.
So, I'll stick with what I rememeber from the book itself : BJR was powerfull/protected enough to get away with not following the rule of law, but couldn't do whatever he wanted. Which is why Dougal came up with the marriage idea because he expected that by biding Claire to Jamie and the Clan by marriage and law, she would be somehow protected from BJR.
Red wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Honestly, I don't understand this point of contention. The book plainly says that BJR is not following the law. The book plainly says that he had no intention of doing so where...""He could do whatever he wanted..." is a colloquial expression. It isn't intended to be taken quite so literally.
Mrsbooks wrote: "I thought I would leave with this one. You brought up something I wondered about before myself. While I didn't find it hard to believe that Claire was allowed to go unchaperoned with the rent party, I was a little surprised by it. Actually Outlander surprised me numerous times with it's more frank talk by the characters. There were quite a few moments when I thought "would they really have said that?"I have wondered if this was because it was highly unlikely or just my expectations were off the mark. I sway back and forth on that one. But most often I think my view may have been distorted by other pieces I've read. While not everything I've read has been historically accurate, I normally don't read this particular time period or location. "
Well, I don't really know what would have been realistic here or if it's our (and by 'our' I mean a collective 21st century consciousness) expectation based on film and/or novels: none of which might actually reflect the way things really were.
I do have the impression (though I can't tell you where specifically it originates, although the film "Mrs. Brown" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119280/) seems to support my theory) that Scots in general were more forthright than the more repressed English gentility.
So, yeah, I can believe that the Scots would say the things they did. :)
Love your response!! I couldn't and still can't figure what the problem is. This person must be extra extra sensitive. Clueless.Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decided to just stop reading abou..."
I'm in the middle of this book right now and I'm glad to see some discussion going on here because I'm *seriously* uncomfortable with some of the stuff Gabaldon has included in the book. Historical accuracy is a common excuse that's trotted out, I think - but any modern author has free will and can choose to only include things if they feel that it drives the plot forward. I really don't think Jamie's beating of Claire was the *only* way that she could come to accept her new reality - considering everything else that she's gone through, it's a bit laughable to think that this is the one thing needed to make it sink in.I think I'll have to revisit this book once I'm done with Outlander, but it's seriously unsettled me, enough that I've set the book aside for a day or so to give myself a break.
Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "I'm in the middle of this book right now and I'm glad to see some discussion going on here because I'm *seriously* uncomfortable with some of the stuff Gabaldon has included in the book. Historical..."Hi Kerry ! I am glad to read that, even after over a year, this very long discussion can still be useful for fellow readers as a space where they can read analysis and thoughts that echoe their own.
Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "I'm in the middle of this book right now and I'm glad to see some discussion going on here because I'm *seriously* uncomfortable with some of the stuff Gabaldon has included in the book. Historical..."I think the scene is SUPPOSED to unsettle the reader. I have never had a problem with people disliking the scene, the book, Jamie, etc. The big issue for me when this thread started was the judgment toward those readers who bought into Jamie's redemption and Claire's forgiveness. No one can really help how they respond to a book. It is too personal. I hated "Great Expectations." I really need to have at least a smattering of empathy with a main character to connect. Pip was awful in my opinion. GE is one of my mother's favorite books. I don't judge her personally or negatively because she likes a book I hate.
Now there may be some books out there that might cause me to look negatively at someone if they liked it (i.e., mainly political, non-fiction books that demonize different groups). I can't think of any fiction novels that would create that kind of reaction from me, but I would have to think about it.
Mary wrote: "Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "I'm in the middle of this book right now and I'm glad to see some discussion going on here because I'm *seriously* uncomfortable with some of the stuff Gabaldon has inc..."I'm not so sure that Gabaldon wanted readers to be unsettled by it, to be honest. I'm much further in the book now and I have yet to come across anything that makes me feel 'ahh, yes, this is clearly being presented as wrong and the reader is supposed to judge and dislike Jamie's actions'. We see *Claire's* response, but we're never given any indication one way or the other that we're supposed to side with her over Jamie. If anything it's the opposite - we see the other men suddenly relaxing their contempt of her, and Claire even forgives him for it (the only thing she doesn't forgive is his enjoyment of it). I came away with the decided impression that we're supposed to think that Jamie was right to do it, and honestly, that disgusts me.
As for judgment towards readers - I think that's par for the course, tbh. If someone announces their opinion on something, they have to understand they may be judged on it. Considering that situations like this tie closely to personal feelings on feminism, bodily autonomy, etc, I think people should be aware and ready to defend their opinions. Respecting someone else's right to their opinion doesn't mean that you aren't judging them on it. That doesn't mean that I'm going to universally label a person as sexist or whatever if they like a book that I don't, it just means that I'm going to wish that they felt differently and want to understand why they don't.
Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "I came away with the decided impression that we're supposed to think that Jamie was right to do it, and honestly, that disgusts me. ..." And I have read the book numerous times and I NEVER came away with that understanding of that scene. Claire pretty much tells him if he ever does it again, she will gut him. That is not accepting IMO. The reason (again IMO), we are supposed to be unsettled is because Claire is supposed to be unsettled. This scene more than any other shows that Claire in not in Kansas anymore. It is supposed to depict the major differences in cultural mores between the 18th and 20th centuries.
Mary wrote: "Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "I came away with the decided impression that we're supposed to think that Jamie was right to do it, and honestly, that disgusts me. ..." And I have read the book numero..."Except she then forgives him for it and even says she can understand why he did it. So really, we're left with the impression that the only thing that was 'wrong' was that he enjoyed it. If he had apologized and said that he was wrong to do it, then I'd feel differently, but that doesn't happen. He just says that he won't do it again, which is something, but not everything I'd be looking for to counter the act itself.
This scene more than any other shows that Claire in not in Kansas anymore.
I find this kind of funny, to be honest. She's been there for months, she's almost been raped two times, she's been bodily carried off and threatened with violence. Yet somehow none of that is enough to illustrate the difference in societies? I don't buy it. The scene was purely unnecessary and almost came off more as being there to appeal to those with a BDSM fetish - except BDSM is supposed to be about consent, not domestic violence.
Anyway, like I said, you're entitled to your opinion, I mostly commented her to say that I'm glad that there are others who are as disturbed as I am.
Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "The scene was purely unnecessary and almost came off more as being there to appeal to those with a BDSM fetish - except BDSM is supposed to be about consent, not domestic violence. ..."@@
Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "I'm in the middle of this book right now and I'm glad to see some discussion going on here because I'm *seriously* uncomfortable with some of the stuff Gabaldon has included in the book. "Hi Kerri! Welcome to the discussion!
I've been struggling with this scene ever since I first heard about it, then when I read it for myself, and even still when I saw it on the tv show. Even through the second book (yes, I kept reading - a morbid curiosity, I think.) and in the third book. I have to admit, I skipped a lot of the beginning of the third book and went straight to the middle, (view spoiler). And there's something I just read in the third book that, to me at least, hearkens back to this scene - and it's almost as if the author is trying to soothe some ruffled feathers over the backlash she no doubt got, and still gets, from the beating, but it doesn't work for me. I'll put it behind a spoiler tag in case anyone does not want to be spoiled.
(view spoiler)
I think the author forgot what she wrote. And the more she tries to justify herself in her writing for including this scene in Outlander, the worse she seems to make it, imo.
Mary wrote: "The big issue for me when this thread started was the judgment toward those readers who bought into Jamie's redemption and Claire's forgiveness."That's interesting, because when I first started reading this thread, and then responding, one of the big issues for me was the judgement of those readers who had a problem with the beating and didn't automatically forgive Jamie. The attitude by many of the posters (though, thankfully, not all) who defended the inclusion of the scene seemed to be 'Well, Claire forgave him, why can't you?' And as you said, "No one can really help how they respond to a book. "
Mary wrote: I think the scene is SUPPOSED to unsettle the reader. I have never had a problem with people disliking the scene, the book, Jamie, etc. The big issue for me when this thread started was the judgment toward those readers who bought into Jamie's redemption and Claire's forgiveness. No one can really help how they respond to a book. It is too personal. I hated "Great Expectations." I really need to have at least a smattering of empathy with a main character to connect. Pip was awful in my opinion. GE is one of my mother's favorite books. I don't judge her personally or negatively because she likes a book I hate. Now there may be some books out there that might cause me to look negatively at someone if they liked it (i.e., mainly political, non-fiction books that demonize different groups). I can't think of any fiction novels that would create that kind of reaction from me, but I would have to think about it.
I totally get where you're coming from here. I think it's a normal reaction when a beloved book (or anything someone loves) gets so severely attacked. And when the shoe is on that foot, I don't think anybody enjoys it. Certainly not me.
But there are books that I've read that I thought soooo terrible that I've seriously contemplated the professionalism and life choices of it's high star rating readers.
The only one I can recall at this time that I had this reaction with was the novel Corrupt. While I *can* see *reasons* to like the novel.... if you get your kink on by reading sexual assault or even if you enjoy the truly bizarre. But if you just enjoy romance then I have to think the people liking the novel are delusional. ------> and that's putting it as nicely and politely as I can.
As much as I hate it when people disparage and insult any novel (and it's readers) that really moved me (in a good way) and even though it sometimes makes me pretty mad - I do get it......
Well, I get it that they're wrong and I'm right. LOL
Seriously though, I'm only half joking there.
Much (not all) of what gets said about Outlander I feel is misapplied, misconstrued and just not understood. If someone looked at the scene the exact way I see it as written but yet still didn't like it - I'd be able to more see that it's from personal tastes.
I know this comment probably seems contradictory - everywhere.
I guess I'm just trying to say that there are people everywhere that are always going to think a novel is _____ and that it's readers are ______ for liking it. And those readers are allowed to feel _____ and defend themselves and think the bad reviewers are _____.
Kinda a never ending circle. I don't know if that was confusing or not.....
Mary wrote: "The big issue for me when this thread started was the judgment toward those readers who bought into Jamie's redemption and Claire's forgiveness."I am not really sure which post or posters you're talking about since when I started this thread I was the one being "judged", tone policed, and even told some names for daring to point out what I thought was problematic with that scene and the justification of it. It came to a point where readers who agreed with my points would only do so by sending private messages explaining that they just didn't want to deal with the aggressiveness... And for every poster who thought I was "attacking" and "judging" them, I've always tried and explained that that wasn't my intention, I never meant "wrong" in a morally sense but more in some sort of "historical accuracy scientific" way...
Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "except BDSM is supposed to be about consent, not domestic violence."Exact-fucking-ly !
I will suggest that it has also a lot to do with poor writing, using/relaying on a tired cliché to achieve some pseudo "dramatic" moment, trying and wanting to "shock" your audience more than trying and making sense, etc.
Red wrote: " It came to a point where readers who agreed with my points would only do so by sending private messages explaining that they just didn't want to deal with the aggressiveness... "I received quite a few PM's myself...some for the same reason...and also made a bundle of new GR's friends.
I guess it's just more proof that highly emotional issues are not easily discusses via written format. Context is always open to interpretation by the reader and what one person perceives as judgmental, another simply sees as trying to share their personal feelings and/or opinion. I personally never told anyone they shouldn't feel a certain way about a book or scene. Ever. The very title of this thread puts people on the defense. Just my opinion.
My rub is about how this discussion progressed and had to do with context. Large chunks of the book's text were omitted or misquoted while analyzing the various issues. If I told someone it was incorrect to judge a scene by picking and choosing only the text that would make a viable point, while ignoring text that absolutely disproves that same point... Well, I can't say I'm sorry about that.
For all the newcomers to the thread, I'll try and be brief in restating my position on this scene. It's easy to go into a lot of detail, but I'll try to avoid that. : )
I don't agree with Jamie's actions in this scene. It's wrong to strike a woman...for any reason. He assumed a position of the disciplinarian with a grown woman, which might have been a common practice of the time, but it's still morally wrong and I still don't "like" or "approve of" what he did. It's a very negative side of human nature.
However...
I was able to clearly follow Jamie's reasoning and the plot (which I won't rehash again) as written by DG. That doesn't mean I CONDONE Jamie's actions. I don't consider my opinion "justifying" the scene. It doesn't need to be justified. I don't feel the need to re-write DG's work or that of any other author. If I don't like what I read, I leave a review that says so.
@Kerri... I can understand the scene making you uncomfortable. Even in the second and third book I ran into scenes that made me stop and say "HUH?!?" I call them "Outlander WTHeck?" moments. There's at least one in every book, but after you get through DIA, it begins to settle down. Anyway....we feel how we feel and the first time I read about Jamie spanking / beating Claire it was a shock to me, too. I kept reading though and in the course of the series, Jamie and Claire are able to put it behind them, although it isn't something that happens easily. It's a source of pain for Claire and guilt for Jamie for a very long time...perhaps the rest of their lives? I don't know as I'm not finished with the books, I just know it comes up from time to time. Not trying to talk you out of your feelings, just sharing my experience with the books so far. I respect your position and your feelings about the scene.
Kat wrote: "Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "I'm in the middle of this book right now and I'm glad to see some discussion going on here because I'm *seriously* uncomfortable with some of the stuff Gabaldon has inc..."Hi Kat! & others new to the discussion. I had originally typed this up in a doc in response to Tim Skinner, who I thought had posted on this thread, but now I can't find his post, so I will just reply here, hope you don't mind. I left this thread for quite a while, and this will be my last post, but must say I agree fully with what Kerri had mentioned about the scene being in there for the BDSM/fetish crowd. I've maintained from the beginning, and as I mentioned in this response I typed earlier to Tim (as well as other places) that the scenes placement in the book has little to do with history or justice and more to do with appealing to the fetish readers (no judgement, to each his own as I mention, but I certainly won't defend or justify it as history or justice or whatever reasons, not to mention that thing is usually mutual). I also agree with those who believe we are left as readers to feel that Jamie was right in beating her, and that disturbs me as well. Anyway, here is the response I had worked on to Tim's comment, wherever it has gone, this thread is monstrously long, hopefully he finds it. I will have to do it in two posts, there is a character limit to each response and I surpass it if I put the entire thing in one comment.
Tim,
I gather you're being metaphorical with the "cooking breakfast" statement. ?
Thanks for commenting on this thread, there doesn't seem to be very many men participating in this discussion. There are a lot of Fanatical/Zealot types on here though. You might want to block Goodreads notifications from your email for a while.
As for the 'slave' part, not sure slave is a word I would use. What word would I use? Well….
The evening Claire fell into the 1743 Scottish world, she was taken:
“ he rounded on me, face contorted, and pushed me off the path. As I opened my mouth to protest, he clapped a hand over it and dragged me to the ground, rolling on top of me.
Not again! I thought, and was heaving desperately to and fro to free myself when I heard what he had heard, and suddenly lay still. Voices called back and forth, accompanied by trampling and splashing sounds. They were unmistakably English voices. I struggled violently to get my mouth free. I sank my teeth into his hand, and had time only to register the fact that he had been eating pickled herring with his fingers, before something crashed against the back of my skull, and everything went dark. (yeah I get that he doesn’t want the Brits to hear them, but he is knocking her out and she would like to get free)
...The stone cottage loomed up suddenly through a haze of night mist. The shutters were bolted tight, showing no more than a thread of light. Having no idea how long I had been unconscious, I couldn’t tell how far this place was from the hill of Craigh na Dun or the town of Inverness. We were on horseback, myself mounted before my captor, with hands tied to the pommel, but there was no road, so progress was still rather slow.
I thought I had not been out for long; I showed no symptoms of concussion or other ill effects from the blow, save a sore patch on the base of my skull. My captor, a man of few words, had responded to my questions, demands and acerbic remarks alike with the all-purpose Scottish noise that can best be rendered phonetically as "Mmmmphm. " Had I been in any doubt as to his nationality, that sound alone would have been sufficient to remove it. “
Shortly after she arrives at the cottage where the men are hiding, they determine she may be a British spy and do not allow her to leave them for fear of being found out. (Yes, they were hiding from the Brits and waiting to travel at night even before they found Claire, it’s not a new situation for them after they rescue her from Fort William.):
“ She'll come with us, " he (Dougal) said. He rummaged in the pile of cloths on the table and came up with a tattered rag; it looked like a neckcloth that had seen better days.
The mustached man seemed disinclined to have me along, wherever they were going. "Why do ye no just leave her here?" Dougal cast him an impatient glance, but left it to Murtagh to explain. "Wherever the redcoats are now, they'll be here by dawn, which is no so far off, considering. If this woman's an English spy, we canna risk leaving her here to tell them which way we've gone. And if she should not be on good terms wi' them"he looked dubiously at me"we certainly canna leave a lone woman here in her shift, " He brightened a bit, fingering the fabric of my skirt. "She might be worth a bit in the way of ransom, at that; little as she has on, it's fine stuff”. “
She considers running as they leave the cottage but Dougal stops her:
“ The men were shapeless masses in the dark. I thought of trying to slip away into the trees, but Dougal, apparently divining my thought, grabbed my elbow and pulled me toward the horses.
"Jamie, get yourself up, " he called. "The lass will ride wi' you. " He squeezed my elbow. "You can hold the reins, if Jamie canna manage one-handed, but do ye take care to keep close wi' the rest of us. Should ye try anythin' else, I shall cut your throat. D'ye understand me?" I nodded, throat too dry to answer. His voice was not particularly threatening, but I believed every word. “
After Jamie dumps her in the shrubs by the road to go fight and she is walking, trying to find her way back to the stones and her own time, he stops her:
"Dougal and the others will be waiting by the road. Let's go " He (Jamie) took me by the arm, less as a gallant gesture than a means of forcing me to accompany him. I decided to take a chance and dug in my heels
"No! I'm not going with you!"
He stopped, surprised at my resistance. "Yes, you are. " He didn't seem upset by my refusal; in fact, he seemed slightly amused that I had any objection to being kidnapped again.
"And what if I won't? Are you going to cut my throat?" I demanded, forcing the issue. He considered the alternatives and answered calmly.
"Why, no. You don't look heavy. If ye won't walk, I shall pick you up and sling ye over my shoulder. Do ye want me to do that?" He took a step toward me, and I hastily retreated. I hadn't the slightest doubt he would do it, injury or no.
"No! You can't do that; you'll damage your shoulder again. "
His features were indistinct, but the moonlight caught the gleam of teeth as he grinned.
"Well then, since ye don't want me to hurt myself, I suppose that means as you're comin' with me?" I struggled for an answer, but failed to find one in time. He took my arm again, firmly, and we set off toward the road.
Jamie kept a tight hold on my arm, hauling me upright when I stumbled over rocks and plants. “
At Leoch, Claire says she is kidnapped and Colum agrees:
" He (Dougal) kidnapped me, if you want to know, " I said. I would have liked to keep the conversation cordial, but I wanted even more to get away from this castle and back to the hill with the standing stone circle. Whatever had happened to me, the answer lay there if anywhere.
The laird's thick brows rose slightly, and a smile curved the fine-cut lips.
"Well, perhaps, " he agreed. "Dougal is sometimes a wee bit impetuous. “
Colum suspects she is a spy so he will not let her leave Leoch and orders her to be watched and followed:
“ But I (Claire) would greatly appreciate being returned to the place he took me from. "...
"Well, if you don't believe I (Claire) am who I say, who in bloody hell do you think I am?" I demanded. He blinked, taken aback by my language. Then the sharp-cut features firmed again.
"That, " he said, "remains to be seen. In the meantime, mistress, you're a welcome guest at Leoch.”
Colum didn't say the next words, but he might as well have. They hung in the air behind me as clearly as though spoken, as I walked away:
"Until I find out who you really are. "...
... despite the fact that he apparently intended to keep me here for the foreseeable future. “...
As my captor, it was apparently up to him(Dougal) to make formal application for my receptionor captivity, depending how you wanted to look at it. …
So, I was to be tolerated, but held under suspicion. …
It might be more difficult than I had expected to get away from the castle. “...
But I was not naive enough to assume that no one was nearby. Whether by order or by tact, they were fairly subtle about it, but I knew that I was being watched. When I went to the garden, someone went with me. When I climbed the stair to my room, I would see someone casually glance up from the foot to see which way I turned. And as we had ridden in, I hadn't failed to note the armed guards sheltering under the overhang from the rain. No, I definitely wasn't going to be allowed simply to walk out of here, let alone be provided with transport and means to leave. “
… "And as I (Claire) also told you before, " I said abruptly, bringing him out of his momentary inattention, "I'd like to be on my way to France as soon as possible. "
… "Well, as I told you, Mistress Beauchamp, " he said, eyes fixed on the rising wine, "I think ye must be content to bide here a bit, until suitable arrangements can be made for your transport. No need for haste, after all. It's only the spring of the year, and months before the autumn storms make the Channel crossing chancy. " He raised eyes and decanter together, and fixed me with a shrewd look. ...
"You should take care, my dearie, walking alone in the woods, wi' all the tinkers and folk coming for the Gathering. Colum's given orders" She (Magdalen) stopped abruptly, hand over her mouth.
"That I'm to be watched?" I suggested gently. She nodded reluctantly, clearly afraid I would be offended. I shrugged and tried to smile reassuringly at her. …
I (Claire) have no desire to have anything to do with your filthy castle, " I snapped, wiping my streaming eyes and coming away with charcoal streaks on my handkerchief. "All I want is to get out of here, as fast as possible. "
Claire tries to leave the night of the Gathering and is stopped by Jamie:
I (Claire) had pondered the problem for some time, but finally decided just to leave. ...
Jamie tells her; "How far d'ye think you'd get, lassie, on a dark night and a strange horse, wi' half the MacKenzie clan after ye by morning?" …
"Well, that's verra sound reasoning on your part, Sassenach, " he (Jamie) said, sounding mildly surprised that I was capable of reason. "Or would be, " he added, "did Colum not have guards posted all round the castle and scattered through the woods. He'd hardly leave the castle unprotected, and the fighting men of the whole clan inside it. ...
"In any case, ye could scarcely have chosen a worse night to try to escape, " MacTavish went on. He seemed entirely unconcerned with the fact that I had meant to escape, only with the reasons why it wouldn't work, which struck me as a little odd. "Besides the guards, and the fact that every good horseman for miles around is here, the way to the castle will be filled wi' folk coming from the countryside for the tynchal and the games. " …
He (Jamie) took my elbow with considerable firmness. "I daresay ye can. But you'll not want to meet any of Colum's guards alone. "... you're a good bit smaller than most of Colum's guards. " …
I (Claire) scuffed along the paddock fence, pondering escape routes. The difficulty was that I had only the vaguest idea where I was, with reference to where I wanted to go. (Continues...)
Roweena wrote: "Kat wrote: "Kerri (Book Hoarder) wrote: "I'm in the middle of this book right now and I'm glad to see some discussion going on here because I'm *seriously* uncomfortable with some of the stuff Gaba..."(Continuation of my post above)
Claire is told she has to marry a Scot or be taken by the British:
"Scots law and English law are verra similar, " he (Dougal) 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 (Claire) paced around and around the narrow room, feeling increasingly like a rat in a trap. …
"There's to be no question of it bein' a legal union”...
I (Claire) was now shut in the room of a rural inn, awaiting a completely different husband, whom I scarcely knew, with firm orders to consummate a forced marriage, at risk of my life and liberty. …
The forced marriage is supposed to keep Randall and the Brits from taking her:
...Dougal answered casually. "He's (Randall) more to worry about than one stray Sassenach wench, no matter how pretty. " He raised an eyebrow and half-bowed toward me, as though the compliment were meant in apology. "He's also better sense than to rile Colum by kidnapping his niece, " he said, more matter-of-factly. … And that, after all, had been the point of this ridiculous arrangement. “
Claire is left alone and finds an opportunity to try to get back to her real home via the stones. She is caught and taken by the British, the British who aren't supposed to have legal rights to her now that she is married to a Scot. We all know quite well the consequences she endures for this attempt at her freedom. Since she has nowhere else to go (without risk of further capture or beatings), she stays with a group of men who believe in physical punishments for non compliance. But hey, her husband is really handsome and good in the sack, so that makes it all OK. Or so the story would like us to believe.
No Tim, I don’t think ‘slave’ is a word I would use to describe Claire, but ‘trapped’ seems to fit.
Are there worse people to be trapped with than Jamie Fraser? Sure. Does Claire eventually decide on her own that she is happy to stay with Jamie, a man she loves by the end of the book? Yes, but anytime prior to around Chapter 23, ‘trapped’ is a good description of Claire’s situation.
Was Jamie simply forced to follow orders and trapped into marrying Claire? I really don’t think so. He admits he has little marital prospects considering his current outlaw and monetary status. And we all know by the end of the book how he really feels about Claire, even at this point in the story.
"Me?" Jamie seemed entertained by the question. "Well, as I've no money to start with, and precious little chance of ever getting any, I suppose I'd count myself lucky to find a lass would wed me without.”
… "Oh, am I (Jamie) promised? Nay, I'm no much of a prospect for a girl. " He hurried on, as though feeling this might sound insulting. "I mean, I've no property to speak of, and nothing more than a soldier's pay to live on. "
... He rubbed his chin, eyeing me dubiously. "Then there's the minor difficulty that I've a price on my head. No father much wants his daughter married to a man as may be arrested and hanged any time. Did ye think of that?
In Chapter 27, Jamie reveals the last reason he had for marrying her:
"There was another reason. The main one. "
"Reason?" I said stupidly.
"Why I married you. "
"Which was?" I don't know what I expected him to say, perhaps some further revelation of his family's contorted affairs. What he did say was more of a shock, in its way.
"Because I wanted you. " He turned from the window to face me. "More than I ever wanted anything in my life, " he added softly.
… "You mean to tell me that you married me out of love?" I demanded. He raised his eyebrows, struggling to draw in breath.
"Have I not just been saying so?"
In Chapter 31, Jamie reveals it was more than just ‘wanting’ that inspired him to marry her:
"I wanted ye from the first I saw ye but I loved ye when you wept in my arms and let me comfort you, that first time at Leoch. "
Yeah, they had a happy relationship by the end of the book, but I couldn’t help but be bothered by the underlying sexist theme of ‘woman is trapped, must marry a man to take care of her, is beaten when she disobeys him and causes trouble for him and his men but stays with him because she has nowhere else to go’. I know I’m in the minority, for some reason, but that was just a turn off. I was also turned off by the use of the threat of physical punishment or death for one character or characters to justify physical punishment on another character, as in Claire being physically punished in exchange for the men rescuing her from Fort William. The whole ‘violence begets violence, even upon your own family’ theme is disturbing to me. I also can’t bring myself to define it as historical accuracy since I don’t believe the Chapter 22 scene is in the book (or show) because of history or justice, but more fodder for the fetish readers/watchers. No judgment, to each his own where books and sex are concerned, I’m just not going to spend time justifying it as a ‘historically accurate’ scene choice. I’m also not convinced of the historical accuracy of other elements of the story, but that’s another discussion.
Tim, I was somewhat interested in continuing the saga of Jamie and Claire after I finished the first book (the writer does have an engaging style), but after trying to have discussions with the Fanatics of the series, I decided I don’t want to be part of that mind set. Not to mention when I consider how disturbing some of the content (rape, violence, sexism, more rape, more violence) was for me in the first book, I’d rather not continue to be disturbed as a reader, especially considering how many other books there are in the world available for me to read instead (including yours).
It is a shame more men aren't interested in talking about this. I'm curious as to what they think..... but I think maybe they are afraid to.I mean, you can't go wrong proclaiming Jaime to be a jerkface and that everything and anything about his is terrible.... But if a man were to argue FOR this scene, he'd probably be named an abuser himself. It's different when it's us women debating it.
Alyssa wrote: "This is a fictional book; a story which was made up. You're angry over a fictional scene set in a fictional world with fictional characters. I don't understand how you could be distraught over anyt..."This is endorsing rape culture and a strong departure from the character's values considering she is not described as masochistic.
"I could feel the jolt of each stroke deep in my belly and cringed from it, even as my hips rose traitorously to welcome it."
If you're being hurt, you don't welcome it. Even if you consent, then it gets too rough and you say stop - anything further is rape. This should be a line from a male republican who is then going to explain that women being raped cannot become pregnant. This should not be a line from a female author.
Amy wrote: "Alyssa wrote: "This is a fictional book; a story which was made up. You're angry over a fictional scene set in a fictional world with fictional characters. I don't understand how you could be distr..."The exact line you quoted says she felt pain AND pleasure. Lots of people like both during sex. You do not have to be masochistic to enjoy a little pain.
Masochistic definition:
1.
Psychiatry. having a condition in which sexual gratification depends on suffering, physical pain, and humiliation.
2.
gratified by pain, degradation, deprivation, etc., inflicted on oneself either by one's own actions or the actions of others.
3.
tending to be self-destructive.
4.
tending to find pleasure in self-denial, submissiveness, degradation, etc.
Claire's sexual gratification does not including HAVING to feel pain. But her and Jamie have, at times, quite the rough sex life.
prefaced with OW you're hurting me.
I wonder if a new topic should be created for that topic.... if Jamie raped Claire. This has been talked about a few times on this thread but the original poster and sometimes others felt like the thread was being over taken by an off the subject topic.
Amy wrote: ""I could feel the jolt of each stroke deep in my belly and cringed from it, even as my hips rose traitorously to welcome it." If you're being hurt, you don't welcome it. Even if you consent, then it gets too rough and you say stop - anything further is rape. This should be a line from a male republican who is then going to explain that women being raped cannot become pregnant. This should not be a line from a female author.
"
It seems like you are projecting your personal feelings onto a fictional character and then onto all women, by extension. A fictional character that has sexual agency and her own desires and standards for sexual gratification. Sexual agency that she should be entitled to just as any other woman. Imo, a female author should be able to write whatever she chooses and neither she or her characters should be shamed for it. I personally wouldn't go so far as to classify Claire as a masochist. I don't think experiencing arousal and sexual gratification during a rough sexual encounter is enough to justify that classification. I also think conflating this with rape culture in our modern society when they aren't truly related represses women sexually more so than liberates them.
If you read that scene from chapter 23 in its entirety, it isn't rape. It's only rape if you deliberately choose to stop reading and completely disregard Claire's agency and feelings that she expresses in that scene. Yes she does initially say no to the pain at first, but she also acknowledges that she is sexually aroused, welcomes the pain that she experienced and calls out his name while saying yes while she is climaxing. Claire is a grown woman and this is not some drunken sexual encounter taking place at a kegger frat party with a random guy. It Claire says that her encounter was consensual and sexually gratifying for her, readers shouldn't be attempting to twist the narrative to claim otherwise under the guise rape culture. That's a bigger disservice to women and their acknowledgment of their own sexuality, in my opinion.
The OP isn't about this specific topic but I can't help but give my 2 cents, 'cause to me this may be another example of bad and problematic writing.Mochaspresso wrote: "Yes she does initially say no"
This is where this conversation should end. If she DID indeed say NO, there shouldn't be any "but...". When someone says "no", you just Stop. No matter the situation or circumstances. No, means NO. Also : being physically aroused is NOT a form of consent. Why would the writer include a clear "no" and then proceed to continue putting these character in such a situation? Like for real, WHY? It's just poor, bad taste. UGH!
Ok, mini-rant over.
Roweena wrote: "As for the 'slave' part, not sure slave is a word I would use. What word would I use? Well…."Captive is a more appropriate word then slave. Which, as the circumstances were, was as much for Claire's own safety as well as for the Scots concerns over who she was, where she came from, and why she was wondering alone in the woods scantly clothed. A woman alone and unarmed would surely seem harmless, but in times of unrest you never know who might be a spy.
As for trapped...Claire was certainly trapped in another time, but she was held captive by the Scots.
Red wrote: "This is where this conversation should end. If she DID indeed say NO, there shouldn't be any "but...". When someone says "no", you just Stop. No matter the situation or circumstances. No, means NO. Also : being physically aroused is NOT a form of consent. Why would the writer include a clear "no" and then proceed to continue putting these character in such a situation? Like for real, WHY? It's just poor, bad taste. UGH! Ok, mini-rant over. ."
If the book were set in modern times and the sex was happening under different circumstances, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. The book it not set during modern times. You may not want to hear this or acknowledge this, but I don't expect a man from the 18th century to understand that no means no and that it's wrong to attempt to seduce his wife into wanting sex.
I am being very careful with my words because I think the connotation that different words carry is important when discussing this scene. I use the word "seduce" because I think there is a very distinct difference between rape/coercion and seduction. I also think what different women view as "seductive" or "sexy" or stimulating can vary and it isn't my place to pass judgement. Whatever floats your boat. Claire decides that she likes rough sex and that is fine. Or at least, it should be.
When it comes to that scene, I think what Claire feels, says and does is important. Not "interpretations" and "spins". What the book actually says. She is a grown woman and she has agency. The book says that she said no because she initially experienced pain and then she decided that she like it, changed her mind and said yes. Like it or not, Claire has a right to change her mind. All women have the right to change their minds. Do they not? This actually works both ways. She has a right to say yes and then decide to say no at any time. Conversely, she has a right to say no and then decide to say yes to sex, which is exactly what she did.
Sexual arousal is not a form of consent in and of itself, but you are deliberately choosing to disregard certain parts of the book that don't fit the spin you want to put on that scene. I am focusing what the book actually says and EVERYTHING that the book actually says. Claire gave consent. She changed her mind and said yes. Not only did she say yes, she also enthusiastically and continually participated in the sex and has no remorse or regrets for her decision. Nor should she have any. She is entitled to have and enjoy sex with her husband.
Mochaspresso wrote: ."I really liked your comment. All if it. I feel similarly.
We live in a society where pathetic excuses for men say things like "I know she wanted it, her body told me" in an attempt to excuse rape.
And it's so easy, because we feel so passionate about standing up about abuse that we can misinterpret the more innocent things.
I like your use of the word seduce because I think that's exactly what happened.
Claire changed her mind. Which is evident by her response that followed. She hasn't been drugged. She's not being manipulated or pressured into anything. And Claire is not afraid of Jamie.
If Jamie seducing Claire hadn't worked and she didn't want to have sex what do we predict her conduct or actions would have been? And this is a woman who has held a dagger to his neck.....
If that scene stands exactly as it is written but we change the aftermath to Claire crying rape - I'd have been floored reading that. I wouldn't have understood. I'd have been extremely confused. So much would have to be re-written for it to make sense.
If it weren't for the beating that happened earlier in the book, I often wonder if this scene would even be up for questioning. If reading this book, you KNEW the male character to be someone decent, someone trustworthy, would people feel this was rape?
The scene in question:
(view spoiler)
Mrsbooks wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: ."I really liked your comment. All if it. I feel similarly..."
The male character, Jamie, is someone decent and trustworthy, and he loves Claire completely..."seems I can't possess your soul without losing my own". I have a hard time understanding why people feel the need to change him.
When Jamie found out where Claire was from, he took her to the stones so she could go home, willing to sacrifice his own happiness for hers. If she felt he had abused, raped and mistreated her, she would have gone.
Mochaspresso wrote: "If the book were set in modern times and the sex was happening under different circumstances, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. The book it not set during modern times. You may not want to hear this or acknowledge this, but I don't expect a man from the 18th century to understand that no means no and that it's wrong to attempt to seduce his wife into wanting sex."Technically, the book/story is indeed set in historically speaking "modern times" so... But besides the technicalities, I disagree with yet another example of some kind of "historical relativism" in regard to story time vs reader time. If we were 18th century readers, we may not consider problematic that a man forces himself onto a woman/his wife despite that she clearly stated that she didn't want to have a sexual encounter with him. But not only are we not 18th century readers, not only is the writer not a 18th writer, but even back then, in 18th, things, both legally and ideologically (either religiously or even philosophically) were more complex than that. The understanding of consent may have changed but "rape" was not something so easily disregarded, either by the woman being victim or even by the man being the perpetrators. As very well argued previously about the whole domestic violence issue, even during a time were women had less legal power than today, there were still rules (either legal or ideological) prohibiting certain violent behaviours, even among spouses.
But at the end of it, it always the same underlying point : just because things may have been done a certain way back in the days doesn't mean that as a readers we have to "accept" it uncritically. And also, it's all about the writer choosing one rather than another way to further the plot/characterization and those writing choices aren't set in stone or can't be justified simply using the "time period" as a legitimation. They are debatable and can be criticized. To me, it's just yet another example of poor/lazy writing choice.
Finally, I may not remember the book well, but I am not sure that what happened was a husband trying and "seducing" his wife, and even if that was the case, the moment she said "no" he should have backed off. If the writer wanted to covey the sense that Claire had had a change a mind, she then could have initiated it. But they rather had Jamie disregarding her very loud and clear "no", forcing himself on her and have Claire physically and emotionally forced into the act. That's really shitty and problematic.
And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with liking rough sex or not. Liking rough sex, hate sex, kinky sex, or any type of sexual activities between people have one thing in common : consent. If it's not consensual, if someone is forced into a sexual encounter,
Mrsbook wrote: "If it weren't for the beating that happened earlier in the book, I often wonder if this scene would even be up for questioning. If reading this book, you KNEW the male character to be someone decent, someone trustworthy, would people feel this was rape?"
I don't understand this : you can find some, many aspects of the book problematic, in a very unrelated way. To me, there are many instance of gratuitous violence in the book, the beating scene wasn't the only one that bugged me. The conversation started because other readers tried and justified it using what I think is a erroneous/false/wrong line of justification. But there are other problematic aspects that could be discussed independently of it.
Sage wrote: "I have a hard time understanding why people feel the need to change him."
It's not about "changing" the character, it's about appreciating the characterization differently. Just because one finds no fault in the writing, doesn't mean that there aren't any. Just because one sees/writes a character one way doesn't make the character BE for everyone reading or for all eternity that way. That's the whole point of this very website : discuss book, writing, characterization. Scratch that : that's the whole point of the writing/reading experience itself.
Red wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "If the book were set in modern times and the sex was happening under different circumstances, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. The book it not set during modern times. Yo..."It seems to me that part of the disconnect is that you don't believe that Claire consented to the sex whereas I do. I understand and acknowledge that she initially said no and Jamie disregarded it and continued. I also acknowledge that if this were to have happened in contemporary times, I would have found it problematic. Especially if she continued saying no and he continued disregarding it. However, this didn't happen in Outlander. You seem quite fixated on what Jamie should have done. In the other thread, I mentioned that I disagree with whitewashing characters and giving them "Pollyana" perfect qualities where no one ever exhibits flaws and always behaves perfectly. I also think that I'm more focused on Claire and what she shows that she wants for herself. Claire found that she experienced sexual gratification from the pain, changed her mind and said yes. Not only did she say yes, she was an active participant. She does not say that she was raped. She does not express regret or remorse over the sex that they have. Please explain why you believe that her subsequent "yes" does not qualify as consent?
I have my own theories as to why, but I don't want to put words into your mouth.
Red wrote: But at the end of it, it always the same underlying point : just because things may have been done a certain way back in the days doesn't mean that as a readers we have to "accept" it uncritically.Finally, I may not remember the book well, but I am not sure that what happened was a husband trying and "seducing" his wife, and even if that was the case, the moment she said "no" he should have backed off. If the writer wanted to covey the sense that Claire had had a change a mind, she then could have initiated it. But they rather had Jamie disregarding her very loud and clear "no", forcing himself on her and have Claire physically and emotionally forced into the act. That's really shitty and problematic.
And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with liking rough sex or not. Liking rough sex, hate sex, kinky sex, or any type of sexual activities between people have one thing in common : consent. If it's not consensual, if someone is forced into a sexual encounter, .."
What you're telling me, is that when my husband tells me he doesn't want to have sex but I continue touching him and he responds.... is that I've raped him because he has never given a verbal yes?
Red wrote: "Just because one finds no fault in the writing, doesn't mean that there aren't any. Just because one sees/writes a character one way doesn't make the character BE for everyone reading or for all eternity that way...."I never meant to imply I found no fault in the writing or the story. In fact I found many situations/scenes, disturbing and perhaps unnecessary (as I have said before). And, I don't think Jamie is perfect, he has many faults, as does Claire, (as I have also said before) but he is a decent, honest man, and he does love Claire completely, which has been a constant throughout the series.
Of course, everyone has the right to like or dislike any character, but it isn't fair to not admit that even those we dislike do have some redeeming qualities. Even twisted BJR shows a different side with the way he cares and respects his brother Alex, to the point of humbling himself and taking on responsibilities that don't seem to fit with our opinion of him. This doesn't redeem him from his past actions, but it does show that he has the ability to care and do the right thing.
Yes, Jamie did aggressively force himself on Claire without her full consent, but it wasn't a case of Jamie bursting into the room and mindlessly attacking her, it was his reaction to Claire's mistrust of his feelings for her and her jealousy of Longhaire. Let me be clear...it was not Claire's fault...but as with many of the scenes in this series, the end result is often due to the complexity of a much larger, ongoing, and often emotional, situation.
Life is complex and just because people know what is right and wrong, doesn't mean they always make the right choice or react properly. This is one of the things I like about the series, the characters are real. Jamie is a good person, who sometimes makes bad choices, as do all the characters. None of them are perfect, and they don't always follow the written or implied rules of proper behavior but often act with their emotions instead. And isn't that true of all of us, at one time or another.
I do understand the meaning of the discussion/reading experience...I also understand that experience works both ways.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Breath of Snow and Ashes (other topics)The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
..."
1) And 'who' determined whether the unspeakable action was for a very political and precise purpose...obviously not the victim (Scot or Highlander).
2) Captain Randall and his soldiers did not take action against a Nobleman (Dougal or Colin), he took it against Jamie and Claire. Yes, I know Jamie is a Laird, however, he isn't acting in a Laird's position and as far as Captain Randall is concerned Jamie is a warrior with a price on his head. And Claire is nothing to Randall but a suspected agent or spy.