Outlander discussion

Anna wrote: "Of course people don't automatically follow laws and for example continue to discriminate even though it is illegal. Still I think it's a different thing to hold a trial and convict someone for som..."

No it isn't. This was not some trial sanctioned by the King of England with some of his representatives involved. This was a backwoods religious trial held in the Highlands of Scotland. Who was going to gainsay them? How many black men were lynched in the southern USA by local law enforcement covered in white sheets??? You believe that because something is illegal it doesn't happen?

Anna wrote: "The producer’s decision to make the episode from Jamie´s point of view to make his violence to Claire seem more acceptable I found awful. "

Hi Anna! First, let me say that I respect your opinions and feelings on this particular scene. I do want to share a few of my thoughts about your post. It made me think back to the TV episode a bit more.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the producer filmed this episode from Jamie's POV to ...to make his [Jamie's] violence to Claire seem more acceptable." Personally, I think it was a brilliant idea and seeing Jamie's thoughts were far more interesting since we did not get that in the book.

I recall in the opening TV scene, Jamie is walking along the river and "thinking" to himself that "as a new husband" he felt the responsibility to do what was right, love his wife, and be a good protector, provider, etc. Unfortunately, he was unsure how to do that.

In my opinion, I think the episode was written from Jamie's POV to show Jamie's regret and emphasize that what he did was absolutely wrong. By hurting his wife, he ultimately hurt himself by ripping a huge hole in their relationship. He lost her trust. He lost the tenderness they had before. That night left a scar on the marriage for the rest of their lives. How or if he becomes a hero depends on the reader and if they stick around to see what comes over the next few books.

Do I feel sorry for him? Nope. Not one bit. He's lucky Claire didn't cut off his naughty bits some future night while he slept.

A few more thoughts:

We have a character with a 20th Century wife, trying to be a husband using 18th century values. His 20th Century wife didn't understand the severity of her mistake or the risk to her or the other men in the 18th Century by leaving the forest. A culture clash was bound to happen sooner or later.

Jamie thought his father was the ideal husband and he loved him dearly, but he also watched his father discipline his wife in the same manner. He was simply doing what he was taught to do, thinking it was the appropriate response. It does not justify Jamie's actions in ANY way, it only gives us a glimpse into the reasoning behind his choice that night.

I too struggled with this scene and it took a long time for me to warm back up to Jamie's character. Whether or not a character "can be a romantic hero" can only be decided by each individual reader. There are TONS of women who adore Christian Grey (Fifty Shades of Grey), Travis Maddox (Beautiful Disaster), Jason Bradford Playing for Keeps, and even "Horse" Reaper's Property. I could tell from the reviews that none of these guys were my idea of a romantic hero, so I didn't read the book. Well....with the exception of Fifty Shades...it popped up so often I needed to know what I was talking about, so I suffered through it. ; )

My point is that no one person can interpret the term romantic hero. It means different things to different people. What other women like or don't like in a fictional romantic hero doesn't offend me. If I don't like it, I don't read it. I don't judge anyone else for their book choices, or the type of hero that appeals to them.

In closing, yes it's terribly sad that domestic violence wasn't acknowledged or even punishable in the 1700's. This scene is difficult to read for some and highly offensive to other, but I think we all agree that it was wrong for Jamie to hurt Claire this way even if it doesn't change the facts of those times.

Thank God things are different today, at least in America. In many countries, women still do not have the rights to freedom and safety that I enjoy as an American.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Anna wrote: "The producer’s decision to make the episode from Jamie´s point of view to make his violence to Claire seem more acceptable I found awful. "

Hi Anna! First, let me say that I respect y..."

Hello Becky!
Thank you for a long and tought throw comment to a very late comment.

I had not read the book when I saw the TV show so I just got Jamie's view. I also read some articles that supported the idea that the pov was changed not to ruin Jamie's character with the audience. Also I thought that they just chickened out of the female perspective as soon as it got uncomfortable.

I don't think he shows much remorse. He says he is sorry to Laoghaire when he refuses here. To Claire he never says he is sorry. He gives her sort of an explanation. That wife's obey their husbands and that's the way it always been, and if not the husbands discipline them. That that's what his father did. He also promises never to do it again. But he never says he is sorry.

In the book I just think Jamie is so completley vicious. That he threatens to break Claire's arm. This either you let me hurt you or I hurt you even more. The nasty comments. That he enjoys beating her. That he so completley loses control and beats her so bad.

Of course I can't decide what a romantic hero is to anyone else than myself. I certainly don't judge anyone for what they think is romantic or a romantic hero. I just can't understand how anyone can se Jamie as a hero after he beat Claire, but I don't judge someone that do.

Of the other characters you mention I only know who mr Grey is. Seen the film haven't read the book. I didn't care much for the film but it didn't upset me. I think that is because l knew from the start who Grey was. And also it was consensual.

I have read so many awful comments about this scene. I think the worst was, The bitch deserved it. It just makes me so said that many women seem to dislike Claire so much. A lot of fans of the books even applauded during the beating scene at preview in a theater.

I also think we should ask what Diana Gabaldon wanted to ad to the story by having Jamie beat Claire.

Yes I am grateful to that I live in modern society where things are different.

Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "Of course people don't automatically follow laws and for example continue to discriminate even though it is illegal. Still I think it's a different thing to hold a trial and convict so..."

I get your point still I think it should somehow come up. The priests should have perhaps hesitated to take part since the authorities might get knowledge of the trial. The lawyer should certainly have used it as a defense and threatened to report them.

Anna wrote: "In the book I just think Jamie is so completley vicious. That he threatens to break Claire's arm. This either you let me hurt you or I hurt you even more. The nasty comments. That he enjoys beating her. That he so completley loses control and beats her so bad.."

No he doesn't threaten to break her arm. He EXPLAINS that as her husband he is legally ENTITLED to do so should he choose!!! Nor does he lose control. Here is the passage:

"I will not allow you to beat me,” I said firmly, keeping a tight hold on the bedpost.

"Oh, you won’t?” He raised sandy brows. “Well, I’ll tell ye, lass, I doubt you’ve much to say about it. You’re my wife, like it or not. Did I want to break your arm, or feed ye naught but bread and water, or lock ye in a closet for days— and don’t think ye don’t tempt me, either— I could do that, let alone warm your bum for you.”

If you read the last sentence he intends to "warm her bum." A far cry from some vicious scene you depict. And, he was right. Legally he COULD have broken her arm, smashed in her face and cut off all of her hair and no one could do anything to him legally. I have always maintained that this scene more than any other was designed to show Claire that she was not any Kansas anymore Toto.

Jaime DOES apologize to Claire. When they are on their way to Lallybroch and he finally finds out she is from the future and has a husband there, he beats himself up saying something to the effect..."you were just trying to get home and I beat you for it."

Jaime changes as a result of that night. He changes for the better and not once in the 7 books that follow does her ever raise a hand to Claire.

Anna wrote: "Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "Of course people don't automatically follow laws and for example continue to discriminate even though it is illegal. Still I think it's a different thing to hold a trial a..."

Report them to WHO? The Scots and the English were hardly on good terms with one another. They were not going to allow "one of their own" to be punished by the British.

Colum was playing his own deep game with this one. He didn't care about Gellis, but he did not want Jaime to blame him for Claire, so he sent Ned Gowin to advocate for Claire. He knew Dougal was involved with Gellis and it really was in his best interest for her to go away. He did not set them up, but he used that situation to his advantage.

Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "In the book I just think Jamie is so completley vicious. That he threatens to break Claire's arm. This either you let me hurt you or I hurt you even more. The nasty comments. That he e..."

I will answer tomorrow. It is 11.30 pm in Stockholm and I have work tomorrow.

Anna wrote: "I will answer tomorrow. It is 11.30 pm in Stockholm and I have work tomorrow. "

Have a good night. :o)

Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "In the book I just think Jamie is so completley vicious. That he threatens to break Claire's arm. This either you let me hurt you or I hurt you even more. The nasty comments. That he e..."

Great post, Mary. Jamie didn't really understand why he was wrong until much, much later in the book. I believe he asked for her forgiveness at that time, too, but I'd have to look it up just to be certain. I do have to give him credit for acknowledging that it was wrong and making the change, even when every other man around him would've thought and done otherwise when dealing with their wives.

I read the book before the TV series came about. I found that Jamie and Claire's screaming match in the woods immediately after returning from the castle was harder for me to watch than the spanking/beating scene. The emotion was explosive, as if they were throwing grenades at each other with their words. I'm not certain why that hit me so hard, but perhaps it can be explained by individual life experiences.

For example, I hate conflict and hate to see people ripping each other apart with their words. I've been exposed to that and know the damage it leaves on the heart. I've never seen or been in a domestic abuse situation though. Perhaps that's an explanation?

@Mary...Have a good evening! I'll respond to your post in the morning and look forward to talking with you more. : )

Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "In the book I just think Jamie is so completley vicious. That he threatens to break Claire's arm. This either you let me hurt you or I hurt you even more. The nasty comments. That he e..."

I realize we perceive this scene very differently. I hope that you believe me when I say that I don't mean to upset you or anyone else. I confess the scene could not have been written any other way that would have saved Jamie's character for me. Men should not beat women it's that simple.

Still I think he is vicious. There is no need for him to explain to Claire that he is legally allowed to beat her. It is just a way to press how vulnerable and in his violence she is and I mean he is going to beat her is that not enough. He says he could break her arm and that he is tempted to. To me that is a threat. He makes her the "offer" of twelve lashes if she cooperate so he must realize that's enough for the men to be satisfied. So why don't he just give her twelve lashes? The rest is evilness.

Perhaps Diana Gabaldon used the scene to show to Claire that as you express it she wasn't in Kansas anymore. For one thing I think that is unnecessary. Claire had almost been raped twice in a few days. To defend herself she had had to kill a person probably for the first time in her life. She had also been taken captured. Another problem with this is that if she really trusted Jamie when he promised not to beat her again, wouldn't she believe she was back in Kansas again.

The historical accuracy argument doesn't work either I think. If DG had kept the stor exactly as it is but without the beating scene I believe there would have been very few articles and discussions about how unrealistic it was.

When he says "and I beat you for it" he shows remorse that's true but it's too little too late. Actually also one of Jamie's "defenders" early in this discussion makes a point that he is not sorry. That he thinks it is the right thing to do that he thinks he punishes her like a child.

Reading at least part of this discussion have made me realize how different a scene in a book can be understood. For me the outlander experience was over when Jamie beat Claire but I understand that for others it is not.

Anna wrote: "Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "In the book I just think Jamie is so completley vicious. That he threatens to break Claire's arm. This either you let me hurt you or I hurt you even more. The nasty commen..."

So I guess you do not believe in redemption? I see Jaime's character as a product of his times whose contact with a 20th century woman profoundly changed him. I see the beating scene as a turning point in his life where he will be able to see Claire as his equal. And he does eventually see her as his equal. Perhaps I have the advantage of having read all 8 books and know the progression of growth in his character.

I actually started with the 5th book not realizing it was a series, so I also started with the mature Jaime, not the one barely out of his teens. If I had read Outlander first, I might feel differently, but the Jaime I met in A Breath of Snow and Ashes was a Jaime I very much liked.

Lover of Literature wrote: "Red wrote: "Lover of Literature wrote: "Actually yes! Outlander isn't problematic "
Hmmm...'kay...If you says so..."

I know people disagree and to be honest knowing people see Outlander as problem..."

Lol I know what you mean. I get it though. There are books I've read that have 5 star ratings that I thought the hero was problematic but barely anyone agreed. Im confused as to how people can't see it! Then there are people who feel the same way about Outlander, which I don't feel, and I'm left confused again!

Anna wrote: "Perhaps Diana Gabaldon used the scene to show to Claire that as you express it she wasn't in Kansas anymore. For one thing I think that is unnecessary. Claire had almost been raped twice in a few days. To defend herself she had had to kill a person...."

I agree with this. From my understanding of reading the novel, Diana did make the beating scene Clare's breakthrough of recognizing exactly where she was and that things were real. From my perspective, I would have thought those other things were enough. Not really the rape part or being sexually assaulted as those rates are high now but on killing someone. I think that would have been the shock for me to get it. Although perhaps Claire was somewhat desensitized to death and killing in general because of her time as a nurse through the war?

One of the things I like about Outlander.... but many people dislike is how slow moving it is. Many feel it's plotless and I understand that point of view. The whole series is about their life. It chronicles every day things, about how they live and about the pivotal moments. And that makes it feel real to me. You are not the only person I've heard of that doesn't feel that scene was necessary to further the plot.

But that's how life works. I enjoy this aspect of Outlander. Not everything written has anything to do with anything other than people living out their lives. Good things happen, bad things happen, sometimes because of cause and effect, other times for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.

If anything I felt that scene served to bring conflicting cultural and era perspectives crashing together.

But I guess my point is, I personally didn't require it to be a driving plot point. I can see how others would though.

Anna wrote: "When he says "and I beat you for it" he shows remorse that's true but it's too little too late. Actually also one of Jamie's "defenders" early in this discussion makes a point that he is not sorry. That he thinks it is the right thing to do that he thinks he punishes her like a child.."

Out of curiosity, would you have been able to forgive Jamie had he formally used the words "I'm sorry"? I understand if you couldn't. For instance if the writer had have made Black Jack Randal show true remorse, make huge life style changes and formally apologize, I'd never have been able to forgive him. We all have our lines.

I don't think Jamie was sorry at the time. He did feel he was right in doing it. I do think he was sorry later.

In fact, I believe Jamie is never sorry as far as saying he feels it's wrong to do what he'd done in general. I think he recognizes it's wrong as far as Clare goes. Jamie through out the series is for corporal punishment. He's also not a hypocrite. He takes his lumps just as he expects others to take theirs. He willingly submits to his own beatings. Hes not alone in his views and feelings on this.

I'm not sure how far you read Anna but Clare brings up at some point that in her time a man who had done what he had would be viewed the same as one who took his fists to his wife. He's shocked at the comparison and appalled that there are men who do that. I think his views are the same as, well.... my grandparents. They'd never have dreamed of laying a hand on their children but yet taking a few swats with a belt to them out in the shed when they were disobedient just wasn't viewed the same.

It would have been interesting to see how things would have played out had Jamie and Clare raised children together. Would Clare have been able to change his views on corporal punishment? I can't see her for taking a belt to her child. As it was, Clare had no reason to try to convince Jamie to change his views after the fact. She knew it would never happen again and they raised no children together.

On a side note, earlier you said that even Douglas felt Jamie beat Clare worse than he thought necessary. Why did Douglas think that? He wasn't in the room witnessing it. He only heard Clare screaming and fighting which he, like Jamie, most likely didn't anticipate Clare not submitting. When I read it, I had the impression that *because* Clare was screaming and fighting that they thought Jamie had really gone over board. When in reality Claire was screaming and fighting against it from happening in the first place.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I would have thought those other things were enough. Not really the rape part or being sexually assaulted as those rates are high now but on killing someone. I think that would have been the shock for me to get it. Although perhaps Claire was somewhat desensitized to death and killing in general because of her time as a nurse through the war?"

I agree that the war played a large part in Claire's reactions. The near rape #1 is from a military deserter. One who deserts their post would be seen as a coward especially by Claire who had just had years of up close and personal experience with war. Deserters and rapists were plentiful enough in her time. She also knew of Randall's propensity for violence and his dishonorable character before he captured her. Rape is something that women face regardless of the time. And Jaime rescues Claire from BOTH of these attacks. So Claire is looking at Jaime as her knight in shining armor. His use of violence on her is the first in her time travel journey that is seen as a betrayal of trust.

Jaime does not see it that way. Anyone of his men who had put them in the kind of danger Claire did would have been disciplined even more severely. The men all resent Claire at this point. That poses a problem for their future survival. Without making it right between Claire and the MacKenzies, both Claire and Jaime are in danger from the very people who are supposed to add a layer of protection. He felt he had to balance the scales and make it right. Claire DID put them all in danger. Her single-mindedness of getting back to the stones to get back to the 20th century is very understandable, but her disregard for the very REAL people she put in danger is also problematic. So both Claire and Jaime learn something from this incident: Jaime that his wife will not tolerate physical discipline and Claire that the men of the 18th century are real people with real lives who want to stay alive just as much as she does.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Anna wrote: "When he says "and I beat you for it" he shows remorse that's true but it's too little too late. Actually also one of Jamie's "defenders" early in this discussion makes a point that he ..."

For me when Jamie beats Claire he goes from being a nice man to being a vicious man. But also he is for me no longer a believable character. It just doesn't ad up that he is first so worried about her and saves her at grate risk and then beats her and acts so vicious to her himself. The beating also doesn't combine with his character earlier in the book. Therefore it's not about forgiving Jamie it is just not a story I can believe or want to read anymore.

Claire tryes not to scream when Jamie beats her but the pain is just to intense and she can't stop herself from screaming.

I think that the book has an ambivalent relationship to violence that I find creepy. The TV show also romanticize violence towards women. In a world where women die from and live in fear of men's violence I can't accept that.

Mary wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I would have thought those other things were enough. Not really the rape part or being sexually assaulted as those rates are high now but on killing someone. I think that would hav..."

The men forced Claire with them in the first place. Also Jamie forces her to come with him at one time when the other men are not there. She was then held prisoner at Castle Leoch. At an occasion when she is left alone against her will she then see an opportunity to get back to her own time and she takes it. I really can not see that as being neglectent to the lives of others. It's the men that lack respect for Claire. The day after Jamie beat her they grab her and Jamie doesn't defend her.

And no I don't think Claire learned anything the night Jamie beat her. I don't think you learn anything from violence.

Anna wrote: "Mary wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I would have thought those other things were enough. Not really the rape part or being sexually assaulted as those rates are high now but on killing someone. I think t..."

Oh good God. I think one learns quite a bit from violence. We live in a very violent world. Perhaps you meant to say that no one learns anything positive from violence??? I would dispute that as well.

Have you ever been spanked? I have. I have been switched (hit with a tree branch), spanked with a bare hand and while I was never belted, my brother was. My parents were taught by their parents who were taught by their parents that to spare the rod was to spoil the child. Violence against children is probably the worst violence there is, yet society accepted it as the norm for thousands of years. My parents were/are not vicious, awful people because they disciplined me by a method that was socially acceptable at the time. Approximately 75% of parents spank. Are you saying that 75% of parents are vicious people?

I learned from that method of discipline. I learned that I would not use violence to discipline my children. I would NOT spank. My baby is now 25 years old and I can state that all three of my children grew up to be very mature and responsible human beings without spanking being on the menu.

If people bothered to read past the first book then it would become very apparent that violence never again becomes a part of Claire and Jaime's relationship. He LEARNED not to do it again. No one CONDONES the beating. But, we can place it in historical context just as spanking can be placed in historical as well as present day context. Ironic that spanking children is still legally and socially acceptable today when children are the most vulnerable members of society. Is every parent who spanks their children a vicious person not worthy of a chance at redemption?

Black and white thinking often makes for poor literary analysis. White hats and black hats are boring characters IMO.

Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "Mary wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I would have thought those other things were enough. Not really the rape part or being sexually assaulted as those rates are high now but on killing someo..."

No I don't think that all parents through history that have beaten or spanked their children were vicious. Most of them were probably doing what they thought best. Those who enjoyed beating their children and threatend to break their arms I think were vicious however.

I have stated my reasons for thinking Jamie was vicious in a comment above. Apart from that I think he also humiliated her by whipping her over her bare bottom especially since he didn't even defend her when the other men grabbed her. That way he exposed Claire to much of the humiliation that he saved Laoghaire from.

The whole scene where Laoghaire is to be whipped I have a problem with. It is just not the logic of a so called honor culture that her father would publicly announce her bad behavior in this respect. Also there is no explanation in the book why it I Jamie's duty to beat Claire but not Laoghaire's fathers to beat her.

One last thing about Laoghaire. I think Jamie exposed her to the risk of another whipping punishment by kissing her. So I didn't se him as without flaws before he beat Claire but I saw him as basically nice.

I don't think Claire was neglectent of others lives but even if she were how wold a beating change that?

Anna: I live in the southern USA and we have a lot of strange sayings. One of them we say when we are mad or frustrated. It is "I ought to snatch you bald-headed." We don't MEAN we are going to pull out their hair or even that we want to. It is just a saying that goes with being frustrated. It is understood that we don't mean it literally. I understood that Jaime was not threatening Claire with a broken arm. It was his frustration talking.

Mary wrote: "Anna: I live in the southern USA and we have a lot of strange sayings. One of them we say when we are mad or frustrated. It is "I ought to snatch you bald-headed." We don't MEAN we are going to pul..."

I guess it's all in how you read it. Like Anna said, for Jamie to be so vicious was a contradiction to his earlier personality. Which is why I read it like you. I thought he was stating fact but still talking out of his ass.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I guess it's all in how you read it. Like Anna said, for Jamie to be so vicious was a contradiction to his earlier personality. Which is why I read it like you. I thought he was stating fact but still talking out of his ass. .."

Exactly!

Mary wrote: "Anna: I live in the southern USA and we have a lot of strange sayings. One of them we say when we are mad or frustrated. It is "I ought to snatch you bald-headed." We don't MEAN we are going to pul..."

So what do you say if you're angry at someone that's already bald? Of course I understand that such an expression is not to be taken literally. I don't think Jamie saying he could break Claire's arm was such an expression though.

The whole scene can be understood very differently. It has bothered me that so many women se Jamie as a romantic hero. The TV shows Facebook page is full of it. But as Becky wrote I can not decide what's a romantic hero to anyone else.

The historical accuracy argument has also annoyed me especially since there are some things that I think are at least historically questionable.

I thank you all three for your comments. Now I think l will just move on from Outlander.

If you girls don't like this book you sure don't want to read Roots or any other antebellum novels. Not only do they contain beating and rape, but murder and even slavery .

Laurie wrote: "If you girls don't like this book you sure don't want to read Roots or any other antebellum novels. Not only do they contain beating and rape, but murder and even slavery ."

As I wrote in my first comment here I don't have a problem with historical novels reflecting that past societies have been much more violent than modern society. The thing I have a problem with is that this is a romantic historical novel and it is the hero that beats the heroine. With that comes a lot of excuses for the beating.

I first saw the TV show based on the book. After that I googled and found that the production had done several things to make the beating seem more acceptable to the audience. The perspective had been changed from Claire's to Jamie's. They used the music to comfort the audience. Several things had also been taken out of the scene, Jamie doesn't threaten to break Claire's arm, he doesn't say anything about beating her till his arm tires and he doesn't put his knee in her back.

The production also did several interviews about the beating scene. This is of course because this is a controversial scene that bothers a lot of people. The production therefore made a lot of precautions so that Jamie would not look to bad.

Anna wrote: "Laurie wrote: "If you girls don't like this book you sure don't want to read Roots or any other antebellum novels. Not only do they contain beating and rape, but murder and even slavery ."

As I wr..."

Did you actually read the book?

Anna wrote: "Laurie wrote: "If you girls don't like this book you sure don't want to read Roots or any other antebellum novels. Not only do they contain beating and rape, but murder and even slavery ."

As I wr..."

It's a work of fiction and if we don't like it we put it down.

I thought this section in the book was in context, and not done for the sake of violence or over indulgent.

I think to say, beating this slave for running away, or killing that master for being mean is ok, but not ok when this woman being spanked when she almost killed a group of their clan, something that was expected in their culture is contradictory. Half a dozen of one and 6 of the other.

I've only read the first book so far, so I can't comment if there is anything after the first.

Are you asking me? I read parts of the book the beating scene and some before and after that. I also read the witch trial chapter and some other parts. In the TV series I didn't watch past the episode where Jamie beat Claire. I couldn't bring myself to.

About the witch trial I actually read yesterday that Diana Gabaldon admitted that it isn't historically accurate.

Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "Laurie wrote: "If you girls don't like this book you sure don't want to read Roots or any other antebellum novels. Not only do they contain beating and rape, but murder and even slaver..."

Of course it is not okej to kill a slave and I don't think that anyone who has ever read a book or scene a film about slavery has ever thought that. My problem would be if the slaveowner that killed the slave were somehow portrayed as a nice guy and excuses were made for him.

Claire was forced to come with the men in the first place and she was held prisoner. She saw a chance to get back to her own time and she took it. She did not deserve to be beaten. The fact that you call a woman being beaten that bad spanked makes me realize you and I simply have very different values.

The thing that has made me most said when I have read comments about this scene is how many women that dislike Claire so much.

I am well aware that it's fiction thank you. The whole idea here is to discuss fiction. Why are you commenting here if you do not want to discuss fiction?

Anna wrote: "Claire was forced to come with the men in the first place and she was held prisoner. i>

Yes. And for those who read the book they know that Jamie didn't know that she was just trying to get back to her own time; it doesn't change the fact that she almost killed them all and got herself raped and most likely killed. if you can't see the story from Jamie's view the discussion is pointless. The book addresses this fact.

Anna wrote: "Of course it is not okej to kill a slave and I don't think that anyone who has ever read a book or scene a film about slavery has ever thought that ..."

My point wasn't that you think it's ok. It's that bad things happen in books all the time and not just by protagonists. What do you think we should do censor everything that isn't vanilla?

Anna wrote: "Are you asking me? I read parts of the book the beating scene and some before and after that. I also read the witch trial chapter and some other parts. In the TV series I didn't watch past the epis..."

So you didn't read the whole book or any that came after? Did you read merely for confirmation bias?

I do se Jamie's point of view. I am well aware he doesn't know Claire is from the future and trying to get back to her own time at this point. I also realize that he is under pressure from the other men and that he thinks she risked everyone's lives.

When I saw the scene in the TV show I thought this is not happening. Especially the end where Jamie says he will enjoy it and his grim face I found awful. At the same time though I thought why don't this scene upset me more. So I googled and found out about the change of pov and the music. That made me feel that the production tried to manipulate me into accepting a mans violence to a woman.

I also read some articles from witch I got the impression that the scene was worse in the book than in the Tv show. I wanted to make up my own mind about the scene and therefore I borrowed the book. I did not do it to confirm my bias.

I have written before that I don't think the scene could have been written in a way that would have saved Jamie's character for me. Still I think that DG went completely overboard perhaps most important in the part that Jamie enjoys beating Claire. A man that enjoys beating his wife while she screams and screams from pain is simply not a nice man. Nothing he does later in the book can change that.

The historical accuracy argument I certainly think takes a blow when the author has included an entire witch trial that is not historically accurate. Nor do I think the beating scene had to be included to make the story believable. In fact I think there would have been very few articles and discussions about how unrealistic it was that Jamie didn't beat Claire.

I don't think DG tried to romanticize men's violence to women the way the TV show did. I do think however that she perhaps doesn't want to take responsibility for what she wrote. When a journalist at a press conference asked, if the scene where Jamie beats the crap out of Claire would be included I the TV show, DG said he spanked her. And a spank is simply not what she described in the book.

I commented on this forum because I wanted to get input from others. I try to be civil. I don't know why I upset you Mary.

Lover of Literature wrote: "Jamie never beats the crap out of Claire it was a spanking/ thrashing in outlander terms. The books is set in 1743 you have to look at when the book takes place in. Woman had little to no control b..."

Beat the crap out of Claire are the journalist´s words not mine. I quoted because I wanted to be fair to DG. To show that she used the word spank after a rather sharp expression from the journalist. My point is that not even the author herself seems completely comfortable talking about this scene.

http://ew.com/article/2014/01/10/outl...

I use the word beating because that’s the word used in the book by both Claire and Jamie. To me the word spank means something much milder than what DG describes in the book.

I am well aware of the fact that women “had little to no control back in those days”. How does that make Jamie beating Claire right?

As to what of punishment people got in this sort of situation in the scottish highlands in the 18th century I have no idea. One problem is that the situation described is out of court justice where the sources probably are not that good.

Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "Of course it is not okej to kill a slave and I don't think that anyone who has ever read a book or scene a film about slavery has ever thought that ..."

My point wasn't that you think..."

A tip if you don't mean that someone thinks something don't write that she does.

I think your comment "spank this woman" indicates an inability to see Claire's perspective.

I absolutely don't think we should sensor anything but what we're doing here is discussing an authors choice of plot. Perhaps I do have a tendency to se things black and white. The shift in Jamie's character is just to big I think. From saying "you are so small I don't want to hurt you " to enjoying beating her. It's not believable.

Maybe the romance changer isn't for me. The ones I have read I have found a bit shallow and simplistic. Outlander is absolutely much better litterateur but I don't like it either for the sake of this beating scene.

Anna wrote: "I commented on this forum because I wanted to get input from others. I try to be civil. I don't know why I upset you Mary. "

I am not upset with you Anna. I just have a hard time taking someone seriously who debates a book she has not read in its entirety. I have read all of the books (the first 4 several times). I have "traveled" with Claire and Jaime through over 30 years of their lives. I know how their relationship began and how it progressed over the years.

If the only part of To Kill a Mockingbird I ever read was when Atticus shoots the dog, as an animal lover I might judge him as a callous character not worthy of respect. Picking and choosing to fit a preconceived confirmation bias about a literary character is lazy IMO.

I se the discussion as being about this scene. I wouldn't take part in a discussion about the book without reading it. When I saw the TV show I really felt that it wouldn't be right to watch the rest. But that is unfair to the book so fine I will read it. I will comment again when I read it.

Perhaps you can think about some questions till then. Please ad questions of your own if you want.

How do you understand that Jamie enjoyed beating Claire? Was it sexual pleasure? How does this influence your opinion of Jamie?

Would Dougal have allowed Jamie to break Claire's arm?

Why did Laoghaire's father publicly accuse her of being flirty? What would he gain from that? Wouldn't it be more logic in an honor culture to punish her himself at home?

Would a woman in 1945 swear using the word fuck?

Would a woman in 1945 make the reflection that it's nice with a man that does not get his sexual references from pornographic magazines?

Did the man in "To kill a mockingbird" enjoy killing the dog? (I read the book but it was so long ago in high school. I really liked though.)

Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "I commented on this forum because I wanted to get input from others. I try to be civil. I don't know why I upset you Mary. "

I am not upset with you Anna. I just have a hard time taki..."

How do you mean preconceived? I had watched eight episodes of the TV show and saw Jamie as a complete hero before he beat Clair.

Anna wrote: "How do you mean preconceived? I had watched eight episodes of the TV show and saw Jamie as a complete hero before he beat Clair. .."

Yet not once before that scene in the television series were you tempted to read the book? Only AFTER you saw a scene that upset you did you go to the text and do research online? Then you picked out snippets of the text to support a view that you had already decided?

I do not care if you like Jaime as a hero or not. Different strokes. But in order to judge a literary character, it is usually dependent upon actually having read the book that contains that character. That is pretty much my only issue with you.

When the 50 Shades books were the phenomenon of the moment, I read all three books so I could discuss them with some authority. I really slogged through the first one it was so redundant. I finally started to give a sh*t about the characters about 75% of the way through the first book. The 2nd book was better, but none of them were well written IMO. They could have been with a good editor, but as is...not so much.

What irritated me about discussions on these books was that it was very apparent that many commentators had never read any of the books. They were commenting based on the opinions of others. "Reading these books will make teenage girls romanticize abuse!!!" Well, if they had bothered to read the books, the only time that they had any bondage sex, Anna actually leaves Christian and she will not come back to him unless he gets mental help. So no, they did not romanticize abuse.

If after reading the book(s) you cannot get past this scene and what it says about Jaime, then fine. You have the right to your opinion, whether you like a character or not and whether you like a book or not.

Lover of Literature wrote: "People, Jamie Never beat Claire!!!"

Jamie never beat Clare? What book did you read? Lol

Okay, I have to say that I disagree with some of the arguments. While literary pieces in their nature are subjective and no two people comprehend them in an identical fashion, historical accuracy is just that - accurate. Yes, I was also taken aback by several scenes, dedicated to rape and violence against both women and men, but that does not necessarily mean that this sort of thing did not happen at the time. My shock is all the proof you need that said scenes did not seem okay to me. But I did not necessarily feel belittled, and I certainly did not end up thinking that a lover hitting you is okay. Because I am not moronic and can make the distinction between then and now, here and there, fiction and reality. And as a female (with a moderate understanding of post-feminism) I don't feel particularly insulted by the scene. I think it showed Jamie learning about women, tradition and also evolving. I believe it was an important scene and it's there for a reason. Him learning to deal with expectations and his particular predicament is needed for his character to develop fully.

Anna wrote: "A tip if you don't mean that someone thinks something don't write that she does.

I think your comment "spank this woman" indicates an inability to see Claire's perspective.
..."

1st. I didn't say that you thought anything.

2nd. I most certainly do see Claire's perspective and might well have held a knife to his throat as well. The problem here is that people fail to see context of the time or Jamie's perspective. This of course is almost impossible for those who haven't read the book and don't see how it is addressed by both Jamie and Clair later on.

And no, I did not see this as a 'beating' in the typical sense. The man spanked her. No not your typical sexy time spanking. One that kept her from sitting down afterward. And neither a typical 21st century beating.

Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "A tip if you don't mean that someone thinks something don't write that she does.

I think your comment "spank this woman" indicates an inability to see Claire's perspective.
..."

1..."

You wrote that it was inconsequent to think its okay to kill a slave but not to spank this woman. But okey let's leave that be.

I chose to believe you when you say you see Claire's perspective, but a tip for the future, your choice of words yesterday strongly suggests differently.

I do see Jamie's perspective by leaving the hiding place and getting caught she put herself and others in danger. He tought he had to beat her to satisfy the other men and to make her obey him in the future. That's his perspective. But even if I accept that witch I don't. Why did he beat her so bad? Why did he beat her worse than Dougal tought necessary? And perhaps most important how do the fact that Jamie enjoyed beating Claire influence your opinion of him?

How can you not see it as a beating when that is what it's consistently called in the book. Being spanked within an inch of my life and spank you half to death sounds strange to me. What is a beating for you?

Anna wrote: "Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "A tip if you don't mean that someone thinks something don't write that she does.

I think your comment "spank this woman" indicates an inability to see Claire's perspec..."

Yes, if you don't get the concept of an encompassing statement we should leave it at that.

At least I've read the book and get the context, that is more than enough justification.

Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "A tip if you don't mean that someone thinks something don't write that she does.

I think your comment "spank this woman" indicates an inability to see Cla..."

This discussion is primarily about this scene not about how the characters develop later. But I am reading the entire book now so stop throwing that in my face.

Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "Laurie wrote: "Anna wrote: "A tip if you don't mean that someone thinks something don't write that she does.

I think your comment "spank this woman" indicates an inability to see Cla..."

How the hell is that encompassing? You used words that reduced both Claire and what she was put through.

Anna wrote: "This discussion is primarily about this scene not about how the characters develop later. But I am reading the entire book now so stop throwing that in my face.

I really am glad to hear you are reading the book. I will take issue with just reading one scene in a 600+ page book (not even including the other 7 books in the series). I do not believe a single person applauds Jaime for his behavior toward Claire after he had to rescue her from BJ Randall. I can disagree with something and still see the rationale from the opposite perspective.

For example: I disagree with the USA's decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII. The devastation and lingering impact it had on civilians was not worth it IMO. Those in support of that military decision state that it brought the war to a close quickly and it would have drug on for years otherwise. They may be right. We will never know, but I do not believe that discounting civilian casualties as "collateral damage" is ever a humane way to look at warfare.

I understand the anger people have toward the fictional character of Jaime after he punishes Claire. I did not particularly like him right then either nor did the fictional character of Claire. But over the course of the book we get the....rest of the story. Jaime is perplexed as to why she is so mad. In HIS world this is the norm. It takes him a while to get the reason for HER anger and he makes a pledge to never hit her again. AND...he doesn't. He follows up that VOW with action not just empty words. He learned as a result of his relationship with Claire and ultimately became a better person for it. I think Jaime is 22 or 23 at the beginning of Outlander. Claire is around 26 or 27 and has been married for a number of years. There is a gap in their maturity at that point as well. Jaime does grow up.

Mary I really respect you. You seem like a wise person with good values. Unfortunately your wrong about no one applauding Jamie for what he did. I have seen it described as my favorite scene and the best.

Anna wrote: "Mary I really respect you. You seem like a wise person with good values. Unfortunately your wrong about no one applauding Jamie for what he did. I have seen it described as my favorite scene and th..."

Well they were probably trolls then or misogynists who haven't read the book. I don't think anyone in this discussion applauds it.

I am reading a book right now set in the 19th century. The heroine doesn't want to get married because she would lose her business to her husband if she did. He sympathizes with her stance but is also slightly hurt that she doesn't trust him to protect her business. He grew up thinking he would protect a wife with both his body and his wealth and doesn't quite understand why she wants to work when she doesn't have to. The heroine is an anomaly for that time. Now she would be the norm. It is difficult to look through a glass darkly and try to imagine how inequality was just rarely questioned; how biblical quotes can be used to justify violence as a discipline technique. When you are raised in a certain culture it is the outlier who questions WHY? Most people don't ever ask WHY. They just do what their parents and grandparents before them did. That is why we are having so much animosity toward gay marriage and LGBT issues - a couple of passages in the bible that could be interpreted that way. However most never ask WHY would that passage even be there.

I think it's one of my favourite scenes. But that doesn't mean anyone agrees with his actions or thinks they're right. One of my other favourite scenes in the book is when they're arguing just after Jamie rescues her. Wow! Can you say intense?! Those scenes make a person really feel, and that's why I like them.