Outlander discussion

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Red, there are a few comments you posted that I'd like to discuss.


"- Jamie would have done it to any of his man : maybe (we will never k..."

Ok, here we go again, another Goodread Outlander spokesperson. I really don't get your post : obviously, I disliked the scene I pointed out in my ORIGINAL POST. I mean, it's in the title of the discussion. So, yeah, the whole point of starting this discussion is about why I think this scene is problematic and why I disagree with some of the lines of arguments I read about that specific scene. That's the whole point! So, you disagree with my point, you said it in many ways, I have no problem with that. I know a hell lot of people didn't mind this scene or didn't find anything wrong with this. I may be in the minority in my dislike, so what? Can't I share my criticism then? Like, seriously, what is YOUR point? You're not even discussing the point I made ? So, this discussion is obviously NOT your cup of tea. It doesn't have to be. Now, just let it go, let it go.

gertt wrote: "Red wrote: "The reason why I posted Medieval Muse's article is precisely because, IMHO, it made good points questioning the author's writing choice and debunking "historically accuracy" line of jus..."

None of the points I made were about the freaking year of the novel. I don't think that the fact that the beating scene happened in 1743 or 1749 (talk about getting YOUR facts right!!!) fundamentally changes the way I received this scene and my dislike of the choice the author made in moving the plot/drama into this peculiar distinction. As for the arguments about "historical accuracy", it isn't about what exact year, or date the story takes place, but about justifying the beating with some general "cultural customs" line of argument. But yeah, you're big on getting the exact date right, so everything else beside that (which is actually the main point) is null and void for you. Ok, I got the message. Thanks for stopping by. Bye, now.

Red wrote: "As for the arguments about "historical accuracy", it isn't about what exact year, or date the story takes place, but about justifying the beating with some general "cultural customs" line of argument. "

Actually, the date the story takes is a factor in understanding this scene. If the book was written in 1990, or even current day, I'd share your outrage. Bottom line, it wasn't and I don't. Big. Deal.

In post 106 (as with the rest of this thread), there are numerous problems with misquoted facts. Now you claim the scene isn't historically accurate because Jamie wasn't a typical man of the times. You stated:

"...let's say, there was a majority who behaved that way and a minority who didn't. The "majority" of young lads like Jaimie would have also been married (or widowed) with a couple of kids. Yet, Jaimie isn't. The author found a way to try and explain how and why. So, he is in the minority, and it's explained and justified by some fictional personal family drama. That doesn't make it historically inaccurate or totally unrealistic.

Apples to oranges, but just for the record. Jamie wasn't married because there was a price on his head. He was an outlaw. He only married Claire to save her from Black Randall. They were both in the same boat. Here again, most people who've read the book are perfectly aware of that fact. How this backs up your position that the beating should've never happened doesn't quite work. It's called taking a situation and twisting it out of context.

The fact that Jamie wasn't married young with kids by this point obviously means he shouldn't have beaten Claire, right? Excuse me if I can't swallow that argument. It's preposterous.

This also applies to your "logic" about Jamie's beatings and close calls with death. It's a little hard to argue the point of historical accuracy when we're talking about something so uncontrollable as the human body and its reaction to trauma. Some people are stronger than others. Some people of that era got a scratch and died from the infection, others suffered horrific injuries, yet survived. Again, it doesn't validated your position about the beating.

The book has a few supernatural elements, but the realistic human behavior is very appealing. Jamie does tend to have 9 lives in this series, but since I'm not finished with it, I haven't ruled out some magical hocus pocus. You don't have to worry about that though since you won't be reading on. Here again, just because Outlander has time-travel and some fantasy elements doesn't make the spanking scene any less right or wrong.

You didn't like the scene. WE. GET. IT.

Jamie and Claire had an ugly confrontation. I didn't "like" it either, but the difference is being able to comprehend (NOTE: I said comprehend ) the events, emotions, and factors that brought the characters to that point. While the date and customs had a bearing in my acceptance of the scene, it isn't the only fact in the book that is critical to comprehension of Jamie's behavior. There are multiple considerations written pages and pages before the scene to consider, such as: Human relationships, human error, strong emotions of anger, frustration and passion brought out by fear of loss and helplessness.

I don't have a problem with what you believe. Hating this scene is a fundamental right and I get that. It's no skin off my nose if you think Jamie belongs on a poster to end spousal abuse. The world is full of opinions. The ones that really stick have a foundation in TRUTH.

Well said Becky but wasn't also that he pretty much was talked into it?
He didn't want to hurt her one bit. His clansmen said he had to do it.
It was the right thing to do they said or something to that affect.
Besides didn't he just spank her a little roughly.
History has had through out the ages shown women in a role of subservience and abuse and belittling. Until equal rights or maybe before women were always deemed dumb

Yes, Jeanine, you're right about Jamie. He was under tremendous pressure to "discipline" Claire for putting all the men at risk. I can't recall atm if he had a conversation with Dougal before hand, but there were definitely comments from the men the next morning. That made it pretty clear to me what was expected of Jamie. It gave me the impression if he didn't do it, Dougal would. Jamie really didn't want to do it, but saw it more of an act of duty. Better for Claire that he handle it, than put her through the humiliation of someone else. If he refused, he'd be in a tight spot with the men, too.

I cringe to use the "beating" word over the "spanking" word when it comes to this scene, too. Yep, she had a sore butt the next day and was bruised, but it wasn't the beating I think of when I consider spousal abuse.

EDIT: Let's not forget about the black eye she gave Jamie, or the scratches and bites she gave him. If I recall, she tried to knee him in the groin that afternoon while they argued in the woods. Not saying it was right or wrong, just that she was no shrinking violet.

I picture the entire spanking scene on a pedastal held up by various legs. One leg is the culture, the other the time frame, another the arguments leading up it. You can go on and on...add Claire running away and endangering herself and the others, high emotions like I listed previously, etc. Break off one of these legs and the scene starts to fall apart. DG really thought about this scene and it shows in her prep work.

You say it eloquently better than I could
Yes it was a spanking yes she was sore
DG researches extensively before writing, I believe that is why it is several years between books. I say if you can't read a book with a mind for the time period it is, then you are not enjoying the book at all. You are only nitpicking what you think is right or wrong based on the era you live in.

Jeanine wrote: "You say it eloquently better than I could
Yes it was a spanking yes she was sore
DG researches extensively before writing, I believe that is why it is several years between books. I say if you can'..."

Thanks, Jeanine. : )

Life is too short to read books that we don't enjoy. I think the reason DG appeals to me so much is because I can thoroughly lose myself in her books. I read to enjoy and uplift my day. I don't like it when a scene causes the book to take a wild right turn that it so dramatic I'm taken out of the story. Especially those scenes where the characters responses don't match the event. While the spanking scene raised my eyebrows, I was still fully engaged in the tale.

I can understand Red's fury, but only to a very small point. This scene and these characters were not out of context. She's judging an author and anyone else who doesn't agree with her perspective as "wrong" when in truth we all (I would certainly hope) believe it is wrong for a man to hit a woman. The difference between Red's position and the other side of the issue comes down to basic COMPREHENSION of the scene.

I've been in the minority over a scene before, but it was just the way it came across to me. If I could've stayed in the "human dealing with an alien from another planet" sort of mindset, it wouldn't have been so bad. However, the writing was so unrealistic when it came to the human woman's responses that it smacked right up against my morality nerve. I acknowledged that it was my preference at issue, left a pointed review, and moved on with life. I won't read the author again because she really wasn't that good in the first place. I certainly don't lurk on threads about that book and bash others who conflict with my opinion. Why? Because they aren't wrong in their factual interpretation of that particular story. It could be taken both ways.

Another point I'd like to make is that no matter if a book is Fantasy, Paranormal Romance, Time Travel, or Alien Erotica (no, I don't read alien erotica, but no judgment) the AUDIENCE is HUMAN and needs to be able to relate to those characters. I think I've said before that life isn't black and white. There is a lot of grey area in between. Those grey areas make life interesting.

Thanks, Ashleigh. Guess I'm on my soapbox tonight. LOL!

gertt...LOVE your insight on Jamie. His training as a laird hadn't really crossed my mind when considering the issues in this thread. You make an interesting point. Excellent post!

I don't know if it's this way with you but I've met numerous people who can not tolerate this scene and it ruined the book for them because they had encounters with abuse in their own lives. So context, which matters so much to the rest of us, means nothing to them.

Gertt mentioned something that Diana has about the scene that I guess I never focused on the way that Gertt brought it out.

"Jamie truly thought Claire would comply with the spanking as punishment because he would have complied with a whipping, as would any of the other men.."

That is so true. Why would he have imagined otherwise?

He also learned from the situation.

I would probably totally agree with Red's feelings had Jamie not learned from this. If he continued to abuse Claire. And I'd think Claire was a complete idiot for staying with him too.

Someone mentioned, and I've brought up in the past too that if Jamie didn't do it, Dougal would have. I'm not entirely sure that's true. My opinion on that is only based upon reading other historically accurate novels, not upon reading any real encyclopedia's or history books etc.

But my impression is that had Jamie refused to deal with Claire, although possible she would have been taken to Colum for a "trial" type thing so to speak, I rather believe they both probably would have been ostracized from the clan. To have someone else take a "hand" or whatever you want to call it, to someone else's wife, against their "owner's" desires would have been a HUGE no no. There are times when that would happen, real laws broken, but I'm not sure in this instance that it would apply. Claire didn't follow a chain of command but is that the same thing?

I also don't like saying that Jamie had to do it because Dougal would have (even if it's true) because Jamie wanted to do it too. Jamie's own justice scale was out of whack. He recognized the rightness of the justice scales needing to be balanced.

However, from this event, onward, his idea of what constitutes justice when dealing with Claire is greatly altered, which is why we don't see this sort of thing again. Even though Jamie still believes in this type of punishment. He receives it himself, willingly at another time in the future and applies it to his men in the army.

Another very insightful post. Total agree with this: I've met numerous people who can not tolerate this scene and it ruined the book for them because they had encounters with abuse in their own lives. So context, which matters so much to the rest of us, means nothing to them.

I'm very sensitive to those who've feel this way and yes, context has nothing to do with it in that particular instance. It goes back to my statement on owning ones feelings. If this is the case, all a person needs to say is "it's not for me."

Getting back to the scene, had Jamie not taken this action with Claire there would be loads of possible outcomes. I think the most likely would have been expulsion them from the clan. It's interesting to look at all of the different scenarios. Would Dougal have done it to keep Jamie close? Who knows. It's a whole other direction to consider.

Idk
I was abused as a child abused as a wife but still understood the scene and why it happened.
I think I am tired of this discussion and will just agree to disagree

Mrsbooks wrote: "IHowever, from this event, onward, his idea of what constitutes justice when dealing with Claire is greatly altered, which is why we don't see this sort of thing again. Even though Jamie still believes in this type of punishment. He receives it himself, willingly at another time in the future and applies it to his men in the army. ..."

I think this is what many people cannot understand. That Jamie CHANGES. How many of us did not do something stupid during the first year(s) of marriage? I remember when my oldest child was about 9 months old and I was very, very sick (104 temperature). I could barely lift my head. My husband who was ready to walk out the door for work looked at me laying on the floor with my very active daughter and said, "what are you going to do?" No offer to help. No offer to call someone. Just, "what are you going to do?" I am glad I did not have enough energy to find a weapon! Over the years, he learned. He also started his own business so he could be at home and help raise his children. When I told my newly married daughter that story, she was shocked that her Daddy did that. She was able to apply that story to her own difficulties in negotiating marriage. Marriage takes time, negotiation and a large learning curve. When two people are from different cultures and CENTURIES, that learning curve is a little larger.

gertt wrote: "Mary, your comments on new marriage are so on target...the reality of married life is far removed from the love and infatuation of falling in love. You are so right that marriage takes time, negotiation and is a large learning curve...it also requires a lot of patience, forgiveness, and humor, and most of all the ability to talk things out.

To me, it isn't agreeing or disagreeing with Jamie's actions, it's the entire picture, from the time they arrive at the Inn until Jamie and Claire's discussion the following day. Frustration, anger, discussion, negotiation, patience, forgiveness, and a little humor...a learning curve. Both Jamie and Claire learned something about each other and themselves. .."

YES! They LEARNED about each other through this instance. If Jamie had decided to lord over Claire, then the fragile relationship they had forged would have been ruined forever. He LEARNED that he could not treat her the way he thought. Claire began to learn that her impulsiveness did not just affect her, but everyone in her sphere. It was a turning point that could have gone bad or could have gone good. Because they talked it out and negotiated, it turned good.

Through out the entire series they talk and negotiate
It is a wonderful relationship even with the 20 year separation

I keep thinking people simply forget that authors have no obligation whatsoever to write perfect, politically correct characters that fit into the current moralities of a given society. Characters have to resemble as much as possible real people and real people are not perfect but have their own personal, private motivations to act or not in a certain way according to their own view of their circumstances. Characters have to do the same and act according to their circumstances and the context of the story, not our current beliefs. If people often act out of character, why shouldn't fictional characters in a book? Just because we don't like either the motivation or the resulting action, just because we disagree with the circumstances that lead to a certain action, or we don't get it, doesn't mean it is "wrong" or should have not been written. If that were the case, there would be no written fiction at all.

Great posts! Jamie and Claire are such wonderful examples of an author digging deep into human emotions and relationships. I get tired of the "perfect" guy and girl, no matter what genre I'm reading. It's much easier to identify with characters that make "real life" type choices and mistakes...especially when the author gives us significant and realistic character growth.

To me, it isn't agreeing or disagreeing with Jamie's actions, it's the entire picture, from the time they arrive at the Inn until Jamie and Claire's discussion the following day...

Yes! Love this whole paragraph!

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 was having the same issues and feel similarly.

Mary wrote: "Oh good grief! This book does not glorify or condone beatings! If you had any understanding of the book at all you would see that this scene was primarily about Claire and not about Jamie. For m..."

Agreed!

I think that the idea of writing this scene off as "historically accurate" is wrong. This is very controversial for almost everyone that reads the book because it happens to the main character. No one bats an eye when it (almost) happens to another person. But because it is the main character and between husband and wife it is wrong. Which I think we call all agree it is wrong. However, I think that the reason so many people (not just women) love the book and move on is because of the, to use Reds repeated word, "framing." If the DG wouldn't have explained Jamie's perspective afterward, and would not have made Claire thrash and bite while it was happening, and change her mind about forgiving Jamie in the middle of the night because as she moved it hurt, or that afterward she told Jamie that if he ever hit her again she would kill him, then the reaction would have been different. This is a pivotal scene for their relationship almost as much, if not more, than the conversation about honesty on their wedding night. It is referenced anytime that Claire has gone against Jamie's word. For example in the second book Claire has done something to anger Jamie, he reaches for his belt and she says "you promised you would not do it again" He had no intention to hit her but was simply getting undressed. This shows that it did not simply go away she did not simply forgive him, fall in love, and forget it. She understood his reason for it and was about to guarantee that it would not happen again and slowly moved on. This shows that it was not easy for her to get over either. I would even argue that she never forgave him for it but she simply understood why he felt he needed to do it. Context and actions surrounding the action that is wrong to everyone matter in instances where we will never actually know what the norm for society was but we can know what the norm for that character was.

gertt wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I think that the idea of writing this scene off as "historically accurate" is wrong. This is very controversial for almost everyone that reads the book because it happens to the mai..."

That makes sense. I guess I was just trying to get across that it's not like it was never mentioned again. Just like the honesty thing it is brought up multiple times. I agree with what you said now that she probably forgave him but she never forgot about it.

Wow! I agree that Gabaldon should have thought of these things but she didn't and I don't think it's that complicated. I think the reason she put this scene in without thinking so muchabout it, is because it's supposed to be "sexy" and even "funny". Personally, I don't find it so, I find it disturbing for many of the reasons people mentioned above, but I've seen similar scenes in other historical romances. I also was very disturbed by the numerous near rapes that Claire experiences, the extended descriptions of Jamie's various tortures, and Claire's "cure" of him toward the end of the book. I thought all of that, whether historically accurate or not, was played up in a way that was semi-pornographic. Maybe I'm behind the times as I can't understand why anyone would read 50 Shades either.

I don't find it sexy or funny in the least, either. I do think that DG knew what she was doing, though. There was way too much buildup and resolution for it to be just a random idea. I think she meant for the scene to make the readers think...perhaps even be controversial. Just my opinion of course, but that was my take on it.

I will say that she toned down the sex in the following books. Rape is always a highly disturbing subject to read, but there was enough character development and interaction between those scenes to keep my attention.

Believe it or not, I'm actually considering reading 50 Shades. When I saw they actually made a movie...*smacks head*...a movie? It's a subject that comes up often and if I'm going to be discussing the issues, I need to be informed. I'm not set on it though. When adult romance slips over into hard core erotica, I tend to bail pretty quick. I find it boring. Add the BDSM element of 50 Shades and I'm pretty uncomfortable. Not sure I want to give up those hours of my life...not to mention having the images in my head.

I completely disagree that DG put the scene in the book without thinking about it. I also do not find the part funny or sexy at all! It is quite disturbing and I think she meant it to be so. I also disagree that any of the cures were semi-pornographic. I agree that some of the sex scenes are and she does lessen that in the later books. I have read, well attempted to read 50 Shades and was not disturbed by the sex scenes as much as the material itself. Granted I didn't get to any of the hard core ones I don't think since I couldn't force myself any further. I don't understand the appeal of that in the slightest because it is meant to be sexy but this scene was not.

Becky
I found the writing of 50 shades immature like it was a pre teen trying for porn
I read all of them hoping for some questions to be answered but they weren't
As for the movie I will not see it.

Jeanine wrote: "Becky
I found the writing of 50 shades immature like it was a pre teen trying for porn
I read all of them hoping for some questions to be answered but they weren't
As for the movie I will not see..."

I have no desire to see the movie either. How is there enough plot to carry something like that? *shrugs*

Did you know it started out as a Twilight fan fiction story? The majority of fanfic authors are just messing around, but a few are practicing their craft. I've read a couple of stories that are BETTER than some published works. I avoid the Twilight fandom like the plague. Personal choice.

A lot of my reason for considering 50 Shades is I'm hearing a lot of wild judgments that strike me as a bit radical. The only way to separate truth from embellishment is to read it. Guess it goes to show that negative publicity is still publicity, huh?

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Believe it or not, I'm actually considering reading 50 Shades. When I saw they actually made a movie...*smacks head*...a movie? It's a subject that comes up often and if I'm going to be discussing the issues, I need to be informed. I'm not set on it though. When adult romance slips over into hard core erotica, I tend to bail pretty quick. I find it boring. Add the BDSM element of 50 Shades and I'm pretty uncomfortable. Not sure I want to give up those hours of my life...not to mention having the images in my head. .."

I read them all for precisely that reason...to be able to discuss something that had taken popular culture by storm. The first book was really hard to get into. I got about 75% of the way through before I gave a damn about what happened to the characters. Then I was curious enough to continue. The biggest problem with the books is they started out as fan fiction. They are VERY redundant at times. The basic premise was not bad, but some editor needed to wield a great big red pen. About 50-75% of the narrative could have been cut out and ONE decent book being the result. The 2nd book was better and by the third, the author was more in the swing of things. To me, these books were not really about BDSM at all. Most of the BDSM was just talk. The action was more conventional. The one time BDSM was actually employed in their sexual encounter, the heroine ended up leaving the hero.

Jeanine wrote: "Becky
I found the writing of 50 shades immature like it was a pre teen trying for porn
I read all of them hoping for some questions to be answered but they weren't
As for the movie I will not see..."

Just curious...what questions were you hoping would be answered?

We cannot look at this book with the eyes of our generation. In our eyes, it is impossible to justify the actions that Jamie takes.

But Jamie dealt out a child's punishment. He says himself that he was spanked frequently as a child and he accepts it and moves on.

This book depicts a time where much of what we consider horrible was everyday type stuff. Animals were slaughtered in non-humane ways. Public punishments were common. There was slavery in America. Children who were mentally disabled were left out in the woods to die. Do we condone any of this now? No. But what we see does not change how things were done in the past.

The spanking scene (because it wasn't a beating) was somewhat necessary to the plot because it shows the stark differences in how Jamie and Claire were raised and how to deal with their cultural differences.

Do you know, I've read this whole thread from beginning to end and I've come to a conclusion. That the person who instigated the discussion has absolutely no manners at all.
If anyone has "dared" to disagree or point out errors in Red's argument it has been met with defensiveness and rudeness. Is no-one allowed to disagree? Well yes, but they are then told "Thanks for stopping by. Bye, now." Very rude, very dismissive and very bad mannered, and all because someone had a different opinion.
As someone has already pointed out, this thread was opened in the sure knowledge that it would cause a discussion, but should anyone not agree with Red's opinion (and she does seem to be in the minority) then she has regressed down to playground petulance. A dismissive attitude and the use of CAPITAL LETTERS to shout at people is not very mature and shows a complete lack of respect.

I am now making the decision not to visit this thread again. This being my first and last contribution.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Jeanine wrote: "Becky
I found the writing of 50 shades immature like it was a pre teen trying for porn
I read all of them hoping for some questions to be answered but they weren't
As for the movi..."

I read 50 Shades before I even knew what it was. Honestly, I thought it was HILARIOUS!! I seriously had no idea that it was this big hype of a book that was taken so seriously. I laughed through the whole thing. When I found out that it was this big deal, especially because the Hero is abusive, I was surprised.

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..."

If you aren't emotionally connected to the characters in a book you're reading, you aren't reading the right books.

gertt wrote: "Robin wrote: "Wow! I agree that Gabaldon should have thought of these things but she didn't and I don't think it's that complicated. I think the reason she put this scene in without thinking so muc..."

That's a fair response, you are right that I can't speak for the author. Of course Gabaldon did an amazing amount of research and work on this book and her series.

I can just speak for myself that my response when I got to that scene was "Oh, this again". I can think immediately of historical novels by Judith McNaught and Susan Elizabeth Phillips, who are both romance writers I generally enjoy, where there is a spanking scene. It's always referred to as spanking rather than beating and it comes in a part of the book where the hero and heroine may have already had some sexual contact but there is still some sexual tension. The way Jamie admits how he enjoyed it and the joking about it by everyone the next day seems to put it in this category in my personal view. I perceive it as having a different tone than the attempted rapes or other violence in the book.

Would you ban the book after reading one third of it? Justify that!

I must admit there were a number of times when I wanted to smack Claire myself!

I totally agree. I think throughout the series there have been times where I wanted to smack all of the characters at least once. Especially in Drums of Autumn!

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..."

100% agree with you.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 ..."

Excellent summary. I agree 100 % with you

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Red wrote: "As for the arguments about "historical accuracy", it isn't about what exact year, or date the story takes place, but about justifying the beating with some general "cultural customs" li..."

I think you misunderstood my point about historical accuracy. I musn't have made myself clear enough. I actually disagree with people using this line of arguments to try and justify the scene. I am not talking about the exact (by the year) time, but the general period (that is medieval or renaissance or modern, or contemporary). And even while considering those, I still disagree with the "historical accuracy" justification. I used the xample of Jaimie not being married to show that, even though, by the time's standard he could have been, the author chose not to have him married or widowed. She made a peculiar writing choice that she try and explained and make it somehow work.

So, yeah, I read the book. I undesrstood the character's supposed motivations, trajectory, etc. No need to try and explain it to me. I just disagree with the author's writing choice.

But just as you stated : you don't agree with my point. I GET. IT. I started this discussion because I wanted to express my view on is very specific subject. I didn't force anybody to agree with my point. You obviously didn't. Duly noted.

gertt wrote: "Red wrote: " I don't think that just because it's a fiction that deals with time travel, that gives licence to step out of the realm of reality. I get that it's not a "fantasy" novel..."

Actually,..."

I never believed Jamie was without fault. I never stated it. I even explained teh very opposite: I understood the seemingly complexities of both characters as they were written.

Also, no, the reason why I started this discussion is because I wanted to express my view/feelings on this topic, whis is the very purpose of this forum. There have been a lot of topics discussed, and will be again, and everybody is free to post its own, on its own terms.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I get that many may disagree. Now you may believe whatever you want about me, but I would appreciate that others don't try and put words in my mouth or try and police me about posting here.

Purple wrote: "I keep thinking people simply forget that authors have no obligation whatsoever to write perfect, politically correct characters that fit into the current moralities of a given society. Characters ..."

It's not about "forgetting" anything, or wnating some supposed "political correctedness", etc. It's about discussing a book and criticizing a writing choice. One can choose to consume culture passively and accept everything and be content with everything one read or see. I, myself, do sometimes, about specific things. But one can also enjoy discussing and criticizing and disagreeing about a piece of contemporary or ancient culture/fiction. And that's basically the whole point of a place such as Goodread.

Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "We cannot look at this book with the eyes of our generation. In our eyes, it is impossible to justify the actions that Jamie takes.

But Jamie dealt out a child's punishment. He says himself that..."

I disagree with that whole line of arguments. 1st : you always look at a book with you own contemporary eyes and still understand it "in context". I understand the characters and plot of that book in context. My point is about the said "context of the time" and the choice the author made, which I don't think was "necessary" to show the cultural difference. I simply object that choice : to me it was "wrong" for many reasons (as explained by the blogger whose article I posted), including the said "context" of the time and the dynamics of the relationship between the characters.

BA 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..."

I don't get what that has to do with my point. What being emotionally connected has to do with me objecting the beating scene? The very reason why it bugged me is precisely because I was reading along and somehow enjoying the plot and characters. I think the choice the author made was wrong precisely because it "emotionally" disconnected me from both characters.

Robin wrote: "Wow! I agree that Gabaldon should have thought of these things but she didn't and I don't think it's that complicated. I think the reason she put this scene in without thinking so muchabout it, is ..."

I don't think you're "behind the times", it's part of the time and the genre that is still a bit behind when it comes to using violence against female characters within plots.

Red wrote "I think you misunderstood my point about historical accuracy. I musn't have made myself clear enough. I actually disagree with people using this line of arguments to try and justify the scene. I am not talking about the exact (by the year) time, but the general period (that is medieval or renaissance or modern, or contemporary). And even while considering those, I still disagree with the "historical accuracy" justification."

No. I understand completely. You're entitled to your opinion. I just disagree with your point of view 100%. I was pretty clear with my reasons.

Red wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "We cannot look at this book with the eyes of our generation. In our eyes, it is impossible to justify the actions that Jamie takes.

But Jamie dealt out a chi..."

Do you discount movies where they kill the dog or the little brother or whatever and say they are horrible movies because of one aspect of them?

Like it or not, the spanking scene filled a vital role in the book showing a difference of culture. Claire was not obvious with much of her habits and mannerisms but her affront to her punishment as decided by her husband shows the discrepancy of a couple of centuries.

Claire came from a society where women were somewhat newly liberated with the necessity of being involved in nursing/manufacturing during the war. She is forced into a time where women are often treated like children. She gets a child's punishment. Therefore, plot development and character growth. It's much more effective than "getting a talking to" and a more humane punishment than what the other men had in mind.

How would you have shown a difference in culture and a clash between characters? Teaching Jamie how to swing dance?

Red wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "We cannot look at this book with the eyes of our generation. In our eyes, it is impossible to justify the actions that Jamie takes.

But Jamie dealt out a chi..."

Context is context. There's no difference between the "context of the book" and your "context of time." It's your interpretation that makes very little logical sense. Not agreeing with the author's creative choices does not make her "wrong," especially when your conclusions are based on a blog post that is riddled with factual errors.

I'm beginning to wonder if this discussion should just end

As for 50 Shades my questions were about character development
Not enough of it
Like a little more of how Christian was seduced into this type of sex
There is a discussion I started about this series so let's take it there ok?

I plan to read 50 Shades next month and would love to talk about it. I'm entering the story with several biased opinions so I'm curious which will be validated and which ones were brought on by the hype. I'll look for your discussion as soon as I'm finished.