Outlander discussion

Perhaps the author wrote it in this fashion to help balance Jamie - he's not perfect, the 18th century is not perfect by our standards just as this century will not be perfect when viewed through the lense of the 24th. This was her first novel and perhaps she should have balanced him earlier before we all fell in love with both him and Claire.

Overall, I liked the book, but yeah that scene pissed me off too. Especially when Claire forgave him so easily. And I was pissed off about him raping her the next day too. When she compared him to Captain Randall, he got all angry, but she had a good point. Their unequal marriage is infuriating; she's supposed to be an educated, independent woman from the present time, why would she put up with this?!

I almost feel bad about stirring up a thread that's several years old, but I feel the need to vent my feelings about this issue, since I'm the only one of my friends who has a problem with the Outlander book and the rest of the series.
I've now read Outlander twice, and the next four books in the series once each. This scene has stuck in my craw each time, and each time I've put the book down for several days. This most recent time I was surprised to find I was tearing up by the end of the scene.
I think my main problem with the scene is that its so damaging to my feelings about Jamie as a character. Up until this moment, I really liked Jamie. Then the beating scene comes along and it completely destroys my interest in him as the hero. I dislike the implication that he beats her because he knows what's best for her. I don't particularly care that it's "historically accurate" because the author has already taken multiple liberties with this so-called accuracy. Jamie is the hero, he shouldn't be beating women at all. Period. Ever. For any reason.
The other reason the beating pisses me off, is because of the sheer amount of gratuitous violence in the book already, and then there's more after that. I'm a fan of the A Song of Ice and Fire series (aka Game of Thrones), so I'm not squeamish about violence when it serves a purpose for the plot. Not only do I feel a portion of the violence in Outlander is pointless, there are also multiple instances of violence being romanticized.
Then there's what I've heard called "torture porn". Jamie, for all his broad shoulders and enormous manhood, is still a human, yet DG puts him through multiple situations of beating, torture, rape, etc. Some of these beatings are so intense even a strong human being should have died, yet he recovers with basically just some scars. It gets to a point where I started hoping Jamie WOULD die so we could stop seeing him get tortured and then miraculously healed. There comes a point when I, as the reader, get bored by yet another torture/beating scene. Once again, I have no problem with violence, when it serves a purpose. But when a character repeatedly suffers with almost zero long-term problems, its stupid, its lazy and it rubs lots of readers the wrong way.

Thank you Evelyn you put it so well. I completely agree with you. A romantic hero just shouldn't beat a woman. The scene completely destroys Jamie's character.

The reason for the beating that Claire put the men's lives in danger seems shallow. Dougal put the lives of all of his men in danger by having them steel cattle. If they had been caught by the English I think they could have been hanged. The same thing also happens when some of the men steel cattle and another clan retaliates.

I also think that how well Jamie recovers is unrealistic. For example 200 lashes within a week from that awful sort of whip would probably kill or at least cripple a person.

I am so late to this thread, but I'm so relieved I found it. I just started reading the book and everything you mentioned appalled me. I felt like an idiot for feeling so, since so many women adore these books, but I lost most respect for the character Claire. After he beats her and later rapes her, he opens the door, gives her the option to leave, and tells her they never have to share a bed again. It's incongruous that a woman of her experience or values would not avail herself of that chance. Is she suddenly reduced to a completely altered state because they've had "good sex" a few times? Jamie takes a beating for a girl accused of "loose morals" to protect her reputation, but he wouldn't forgo beating his wife to protect her physical well-being and dignity? These plot points simply do not add up to the characterizations we've seen so far, and because they are so incongruous, it makes it difficult to stay connected to the characters.

Totally agree with you Miranda.
The book started off so well, and I loved Claire's character at the beginning. But then it's like the author got lazy and just turned her and her husband into stereotypes of the roles men and women sometimes take. Ruined both characters

Anna wrote: "Thank you Evelyn you put it so well. I completely agree with you. A romantic hero just shouldn't beat a woman. The scene completely destroys Jamie's character.

The reason for the beating that Cla..."

Thank you Miranda what you write is so true. The beating damages both Claire's and Jamie's characters. One of the saidest things with this is that some women don't even like the strong Claire character. At a preview of the episode with the beating many fans applauded at the beating scene.

https://ellacydawson.wordpress.com/20...

This is by far one of the most controversial parts of the book, the first time I read it (as I have never been struck) and recognize that the character is fictional. I laughed. But on retrospect, as I come back to this event over and over again, it is so out of character for Jamie. On the first reading, just loved the story and still do but recognize that often characters will do things out of character or do we have to require that characters act in character at all times? Probably, people do. Your character is your character, but what about when people change? For better or worse, is that still in character? And to be be clear, kindergarten rules always apply, keep your hands to yourself in real life. Can we love characters who are flawed? Murderers, rapists, thieves?
Everyone is entitled to their thoughts and opinions, and if the series isn't for you, don't read it.
And sometimes you have to wonder...why do we like things we know are inherently bad, like I love murder mysteries but am quite sure would not like to witness or discover a murder.

Do you think the scene gives approval for beatings in real life? Maybe that is the danger? That males would read and decide, this is how women like to be treated? Or females, I suppose?

Brenda, if you need convincing on why this scene ruins this book for so many of us, read that like Anna provided.

Yes, I agree it is totally out of character, it goes against so many things we know about Jamie's character. I think for people who have been beaten, this is not the book for them.

I know it's been discussed but I don't think any links were provided for those interested.
This is one of the many scenes that I feel shows this doesn't actually go against Jamie's character. Although from book two, there were scenes in book one as well.

Here it is for those that would like to read it:

(view spoiler)[
Dropping my hand, he strode out to the edge of the fire, and with one peremptory jerk of the head, gathered the scattered men into a reluctant, half-wary clump before him. Their faces were big-eyed, orbits scooped with darkness by the shadows.
I didn't understand everything he said, as he spoke in an odd mixture of Gaelic and English, but I gathered sufficient sense to realize that he was inquiring, in a soft, level tone that seemed to turn his listeners to stone, as to the identity of the sentinels on duty for the evening.
There was a furtive glancing to and fro, and uneasy movement among the men, who seemed to clump more strongly together in the face of danger. But then the closed ranks parted, and two men stepped out, glanced up--once--then hastily down, and stood shoulder to shoulder, eyes on the ground, outside the protection of their fellows.
It was the McClure brothers, George and Sorley. Close in age, somewhere in their thirties, they stood hang-dog near each other, fingers of the work-toughened hands twitching as though longing to link and clasp together, as some small protection before the coming storm.
There was a brief, wordless pause as Jamie looked over the two delinquent sentinels. Then followed five solid minutes of unpleasantness, all conducted in that same soft, level voice. There wasn't a sound from the grouped men, and the McClures, both burly men, seemed to dwindle and shrink under the weight of it. I wiped my sweating palms on my skirt, glad that I didn't understand it all, and beginning to regret not following Jamie's order to return to the tent.
I regretted it still more in the next moment, when Jamie turned suddenly to Murtagh, who, expecting the command, was ready with a leather strip, some two feet long, knotted at one end to provide a rough grip.
"Strip and stand to me, the both of ye." The McClures moved at once, thick fingers fumbling with shirt fastenings, as though eager to obey, relieved that the preliminaries were over and the reckoning arrived.
I thought perhaps I would be sick, though I gathered that the punishment was light enough, by the standards applied to such things. There was no sound in the clearing, save the slap of the lash and an occasional gasp or groan from the man being flogged.
At the last stroke, Jamie let the thong fall to his side. He was sweating heavily, and the grimed linen of his shirt was pasted to his back. He nodded to the McClures in dismissal, and wiped his wet face on his sleeve as one man bent painfully to retrieve the discarded shirts, his brother, shaky himself, bracing him on the other side.
The men in the clearing seemed to have ceased even breathing, during the punishment. Now there was a tremor through the group, as though a collective breath had been released in a sigh of relief.
Jamie eyed them, shaking his head slightly. The night wind was rising, stirring and lifting the hair on his crown.
"We canna afford carelessness, mo duinnen," he said softly. "Not from anyone." He took a deep breath and his mouth twisted wryly. "And that includes me. It was my unshielded fire drew the lad to us." Fresh sweat had sprung out on his brow, and he wiped a hand roughly across his face, drying it on his kilt. He nodded toward Murtagh, standing grimly apart from the other men, and held the leather strap out toward him.
"If ye'll oblige me, sir?"
After a moment's hesitation, Murtagh's gnarled hand reached out and took the strap. An expression that might have been amusement flickered in the little clansman's bright black eyes.
"Wi' pleasure...sir."
Jamie turned his back to his men, and began to unfasten his shirt. His eye caught me, standing frozen between the tree trunks, and one eyebrow lifted in ironic question. Did I want to watch? I shook my head frantically, whirled, and blundered away through the trees, belatedly taking his advice. (hide spoiler)]

This is of course just after he just broke the sixteen year old boys arm, cut him with a knife, and threatened to kill him before he tricks him into giving him the information he wants.

"I could have broken him, Sassenach. It would have been messy, though, and likely permanent. I'd rather not use such means if I dinna have to. Mind ye, Sassenach"--his voice reached me from the shadows, holding a note of warning--"sometime I may have to. I had to know where his fellows were, their arms and the rest of it. I couldna scare him into it; it was trick him or break him."

"He said you couldn't do anything that would make him talk."
Jamie's voice was weary. "Christ, Sassenach, of course I could. Ye can break anyone if you're prepared to hurt them enough. I know that, if anyone does."

I get that Jamie is a badass Highland warrior with murderous tendencies, and literally all of that is forgivable in a hero until he beats and pretty much rapes his wife.

And Brenda - I have never been physically abused but I still don't like this book. I even know people who are deeply into BDSM who don't like this book and the very deliberate way in which Jamie hurts his own wife on multiple occasions.

Sorry for three comments in a row, this is just on my mind this morning. My real issue with these scenes is two things: lots of women become so swept up in the "romance" of these types of books that they think this kind of behavior is ok in a partner. And it's not. Beating your spouse is not ok for any reason - including "historical accuracy" in a book where the protagonist goes back in time 200 years (I mean come on) and marital rape - which yes is what you call it when your wife says "no" repeatedly and you do her anyway.

Evelyn,

You don't have to like the book, but I think your moral outrage on behalf of other women takes it too far. Are you saying, "lots of women" who read books are dumb as a rock?

You made the comment: "...lots of women become so swept up in the "romance" of these types of books that they think this kind of behavior is ok in a partner."

This is exactly the type of blanket character judgement towards other readers that just pisses me off.

Outlander is clearly written for adults. If an adult woman doesn't realize that Outlander is fiction, that beating ANYONE is inappropriate, and that rape is a form of violence, then they probably aren't making intelligent decisions in their lives to begin with. A woman learns self-confidence, boundaries, and responsibility from her parents.

And yes, a husband beating his wife was not punishable in the 1700's. That doesn't make it morally right then or now, but it is a historically accurate fact that a man could legally get away with beating his wife. It's just a fact, not an excuse for Jamie's behavior.

If you don't like reading about the realities of this time frame, stick to contemporary writing. But labeling a fictional book as dangerous because it could negatively affect the poor mindless masses of women is highly offensive to me.

What about self-responsibility? Geez...

Becky bravo well said
People need to get real and stop berating this series and author
History is history whether we like it or not

Mrsbooks wrote: "I know it's been discussed but I don't think any links were provided for those interested.
This is one of the many scenes that I feel shows this doesn't actually go against Jamie's character. Alth..."

A man punishing men under his command just isn't the same thing as a man beating his wife. Also Jamie doesn't express any sort of enjoyment in punishing the men. He clearly said he enjoyed beating Claire both before he did it and the night after.

I also have to ask you is there to versions of this text. This scene was mentioned in another discussion I had. I then asked if Jamie also dropped his pants to be whipped over his bare bottom and the answer was yes he flipped up his kilt.

Not all women have great role models to learn from, and I didn't imply that any of them are stupid for thinking any of this. It doesn't make them stupid, it makes them misinformed, and unlucky to have better examples in their lives. The fact is that until adults actually experience healthy relationships, they only have other relationships to look to for examples of how they should be. And people who have no examples of healthy relationships will from time to time see romance novels as examples of healthy relationships. Media of all kinds has a deep impact on people, going as far back as the Bible. If it didn't, people wouldn't create it. And yes, readers should have self responsibility, but so should the author. And it isn't just an issue of responsibility - as I said earlier in this thread, its an issue of characterization. It's a choice the author made to insert this scene as an example of Jamie's character, and any reader is allowed to say that it has ruined their enjoyment of Jamie, and the series. The excuse of historical accuracy, for those of us who dislike this scene, is flimsy when we're talking about the fact that Claire has literally traveled back in time.

Brenda wrote: "This is by far one of the most controversial parts of the book, the first time I read it (as I have never been struck) and recognize that the character is fictional. I laughed. But on retrospect, a..."

Why did you laugh? What in the scene did you find funny? Did you also laugh at the scene where the men are whipped (the scene just copied by Mrs Books) ?

Evelyn wrote: "Not all women have great role models to learn from, and I didn't imply that any of them are stupid for thinking any of this. It doesn't make them stupid, it makes them misinformed, and unlucky to h..."

I only find the historical accuracy argument flimsy IF, that wasn't historically accurate. Which is debatable. If you read back enough pages of this thread you'll find some links some have posted that question whether this was historically accurate or not. Personally I wasn't convinced although I am in doubt.

I do find Clare going back in time to be a weak argument against the author following historical accuracy though. Perhaps because this is one of my favorite plots. Personally, I would love to read more historically accurate novels with this same idea. To see someone from our time experience another and how they go through it and reconcile it.

Would you be less bothered by it if the novel was based upon science fiction instead of fantasy? Some scientists created a time machine and Clare goes back and gets stuck? Or can this plot simply not exist because time travel isn't possible? What if Clare never went back in time to begin with but was just a rare wild child who didn't abide by the cultural norms and things still played out as they had? Does it make a difference to you?

I totally understand how this scene could have ruined Jamie and the series for some. I've read my fair share of books and felt the SAME way over those Hero's that many have voiced in this thread about Jamie. I'm left shaking my head because I don't understand how others can still love the hero and just move on. So I get it.

Anna wrote: "I also have to ask you is there to versions of this text. This scene was mentioned in another discussion I had. I then asked if Jamie also dropped his pants to be whipped over his bare bottom and the answer was yes he flipped up his kilt.."

I actually think that's a different scene. I think that's one of the times he gets a beating from his Father. I can see if I can find it later.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Anna wrote: "I also have to ask you is there to versions of this text. This scene was mentioned in another discussion I had. I then asked if Jamie also dropped his pants to be whipped over his bare..."

No it´s that scene. This is how it goes. We discussed other thing as well but this is what she said about the scene. Can´t believe people actually lie about the scenes.

Other person: When it was Jamie's fire that ended up bringing A young Lord John to his camp and tried to capture him, Jamie also says he was responsible and handed the strap over for his own lashings, and he does it again later with young Ian too. Jamie takes his own beatings for wrongdoings too.

Me: As I wrote above I only read the first book so let me ask you a question. Did Jamie also pull down his pants to be whipped over his bare bottom?

Other person: well he flipped his kilt up, no underwear to be found :)

Me: I take that as a no about dropping his pants.

Other person: then you misunderstood, i do believe flipping a kilt up when going nekkid under it, means bare assed whipping last time I checked.

Me: I thought you were being ironic about him flipping his kilt. I am surprised that he did.

Anna wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Anna wrote: "I also have to ask you is there to versions of this text. This scene was mentioned in another discussion I had. I then asked if Jamie also dropped his pants to be whip..."

Haha, yeah copy and paste the scene to her.
It doesn't even really make sense that he would lift his kilt cause they were whipped on their backs, weren't they? On the bottom was more of a childs punishment.

I like trying to be as accurate as possible talking about scenes too. Although sometimes my brain goes wonky and I get things confused. There is a scene where he's getting whipped bare bottom but as I mentioned, I'm pretty sure that's during his youth and by his Father, although I could be wrong about that too. Maybe she got her scenes confused?

What I'm saying is that in a plot where the protagonist goes back in time, the argument that it's ok for Jamie to beat his wife because it's "historically accurate" is silly. He's the hero, and therefore should be different than the other men of his Age, otherwise he wouldn't be the hero.
I'm saying that when I state that this scene bothers me deeply, and ruins the character for me, and another reader responds with the argument that "its historically accurate," I find that to be a convenient excuse. My feelings on this scene ultimately boil down to this: the scene is terrible and makes me dislike the character completely after that, and because of this I find it to be a poor plotting choice on the author's part. I think this scene was entirely written for shock value and to titillate the reader, and I don't think it works as a scene.
I think we could have had a situation where Jamie teaches Claire a lesson about being responsible for the lives of other people, and the dangers of his world without beating her. And I think there are 1000 ways to show how much Jamie desires Claire without him raping her.

Evelyn wrote: "Not all women have great role models to learn from, and I didn't imply that any of them are stupid for thinking any of this. It doesn't make them stupid, it makes them misinformed, and unlucky to h..."

Ahhhh.......no. Your suggestion that an adult woman would look to Outlander for romance advice is stupid and implies other women (and men) who enjoy reading romance are stupid and gullible. If these women you speak of were unlucky in childhood and do not have a role model, then they need to take steps to catch up and balance their lives.

Not having a real life role model is not an excuse for being misinformed. If it was, defense lawyers would use the "misinformed" argument all the time and get people off the hook for all sorts of crimes. Women can choose ... no, scratch that ... women have an obligation to themselves and their future happiness to become strong, healthy, and well-educated adults instead of expecting the world to conform and take responsibility for their mistakes.

These women you speak of need to take a positive approach to their relationship problems instead of blaming ***insert whatever: bad parents, abuse, criminal violence, poverty, Outlander (pfft), the Government...*** for their ignorance ... excuse me ... for being "misinformed".

The women you're so concerned about need to do whatever it takes to understand the difference between a healthy relationship and an unhealthy relationship before getting involved in one.

Today the world is full of positive role models that a woman can look to for guidance in how a man should treat a woman. It's usually the parents, but if that relationship is absent or dysfunctional, there is always the ultimate example of our loving Father in heaven. If you don't believe in God, look to supportive friends in stable relationships, or psychotherapy, or self-help (non-fiction) books, or a women's support group (these are available online for free). There are so many options available.

Any of the above listed options are better than looking to Outlander as a guide to healthy romance.

Perhaps that's still not clear enough. Let me try this: If an adult women is looking to Outlander for a healthy relationship model, she needs supportive therapy because:

A. It's a fictional bookthat crosses multiple genres, including fantasy, time travel and science fiction.

B. The characters are fictional and complex to the point they find themselves in circumstances NOBODY would ever realistically experience ... like traveling through time. I would think that fact would give these wisdom seeking readers of yours a clue that they are barking up the wrong tree.

C. The time traveling character (a woman) just happens to land 200 years in the past ... in a culture where women are considered the husband's property.

Your argument that Outlander can cause women to think it's okay to be beaten and/or raped is an insult to all women. It's also a lame excuse for you to act self-righteous and continue bashing an author and her book because you didn't like a controversial scene. You don't have to like the book and you're entitled to your opinion, but you cross the line when you call the book "dangerous." What's next on your agenda? Censorship?

As I stated earlier, maybe you shouldn't read books that are set in the 18th Century, or any other historical fiction where women do not have legal rights over their person or property.



DISCLAIMER: (again...*sigh*...SO tired of restating this): I didn't like the beating/spanking whatever scene. I was furious over the way it put a dark stain on an otherwise good read. As I've also said a gazillion times, Jamie is not my idea of the perfect man, book boyfriend, or "whatever" adjective some have assigned to him strickly in fun. I married the perfect man and he's actually a real, breathing, walking, talking human who treats me like a queen.

A. Once again, I did not at any time state that anyone is stupid or gullible for reading and enjoying romance novels. I read and enjoy romance novels. I simply don’t enjoy books which trivialize sexual violence.

B. “The women you're so concerned about need to do whatever it takes to understand the difference between a healthy relationship and an unhealthy relationship before getting involved in one.” Yes – they do need to do that, I’m NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU HERE. But lots and lots of people don’t. Books don’t exist in a vacuum in which they have zero impact on the people who read them. I have watched grown adults use fiction to formulate a list of perfect characteristics their future spouse must have. Is it silly? Absolutely! Is it wrong? Absolutely! Do they need counseling? I’m not a professional, I don’t know. Maybe they just need to experience a relationship that actually makes them happy. But we can’t pretend like the books people read don’t have long term mental and emotional effects on them – whether positive or negative.

C. I understand that this book is fictional, thank you. I understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction. And since the book is fictional, the author could have easily thrown historical accuracy out the window (since she did so on several other occasions in this book) and refused to sully Jamie’s character by writing this scene. Several people who disagree with the OP’s opinion have pointed out that wife beating is “historically accurate,” and then in the same breath have yelled that it’s fiction and we all need to take this less seriously. So if it’s fiction, why are we so hung up on whether Jamie is historically accurate or not?

D. I also think saying that I've insulted all women is pushing it. I cast exactly zero shade on any women for eating this book up with a spoon, I've simply stated multiple times that this scene sticks in my craw, that I feel glorifying sexual violence is gross, and that this scene ruins the book and Jamie for me. I have never once said no one should read it or that there's something wrong with people who like this book.
F. No, I don't think censorship is the answer, censorship is never the answer. But I do think readers should discuss these things, and I think readers have the right to criticize books for gratuitous portrayals of sexual violence as well as other social topics. Both readers and authors should realize that books aren’t just pure entertainment. They do have an impact on people’s lives - any fandom will tell you that. I don’t think there's nothing wrong with expecting more of romance authors, it’s how the genre will continue to grow, change and stay fresh. I am not saying we need to do anything about Outlander or try to convince people not to read it. I just think it’s necessary to speak up when a scene is off-putting.
Gabaldon is a really skilled writer, she describes things well, she doesn’t abuse the thesaurus, and most of the time I don’t get “bullshit flags” while reading her material. (Bullshit flag is my personal term for those times when you roll your eyes because what you just read is just plain unbelievable.) Precisely because she’s so skilled, I think we are justified in wishing this plot point had been handled better.

G. I don’t ever recall accusing you of “liking this scene.”

Hello Becky!

You write that Evelyn's comment implies that women who enjoy reading romance are stupid. Is it common in historic romance litterateur that the hero beats the heroine? I ask because I have not read very many romance novels.

I read this text where an expert on romance novels analyses the scene and I sort of get the impression it is. She enjoys the scene. She also thinks that a completely different moral is valid in romance novels then in real life.

http://romancingthebookworm.tumblr.co...

To clarify I do think that women owe them selves more then to just get relationship advice from books. You need to have self confidence and a sense of your own value. If you don't you have to seek help to get there.

Evelyn wrote: "I almost feel bad about stirring up a thread that's several years old, but I feel the need to vent my feelings about this issue, since I'm the only one of my friends who has a problem with the Outl..."

Thanks for sharing your analysis and feelings. Totally agree with all you worte. I am glad this thread is still used/useful as a safe place for readers to discuss and debate respectfully.

Jeanine wrote: "Becky bravo well said
People need to get real and stop berating this series and author
History is history whether we like it or not"

"History is history" Oh Jeanine, self-rightous reigning queen of truisms...

Evelyn wrote: "And it isn't just an issue of responsibility - as I said earlier in this thread, its an issue of characterization. It's a choice the author made to insert this scene as an example of Jamie's character, and any reader is allowed to say that it has ruined their enjoyment of Jamie, and the series. The excuse of historical accuracy, for those of us who dislike this scene, is flimsy when we're talking about the fact that Claire has literally traveled back in time."

What she said !

Anna wrote: "Hello Becky!

You write that Evelyn's comment implies that women who enjoy reading romance are stupid. Is it common in historic romance litterateur that the hero beats the heroine? I ask because I ..."

************************************

Hi Anna!

Thank you very much for the link! It was very interesting! I would encourage everyone that read Outlander to read the entire post, just to gain some inside knowledge on the history of romance.

Before I answer your question, I want to apologize for the length of this post. It's going to be a long one! I'm so sorry! I'll try and break it up into two sections using references to the link you provided.

To get started, I want to point out the first of two comments from the link that I found particularly helpful:

The first one is:

[You [TL:DR, another poster] and I are differing in opinion because you are taking the characters and scenes in Outlander and measuring them against real life - and that’s fine! That’s one mode of interpretation/analysis. I am taking these scenes and characters and measuring them against a history of romantic fiction, not life! So you’re right: in real life Jamie’s behavior would be O.U.T. out. But I’m talking fiction not life.

I felt this directly address the root of the historical accuracy problem. It also applies to Eveyln's comment:

"...lots of women become so swept up in the "romance" of these types of books that they think this kind of behavior is ok in a partner."

Her quote is one example of what the poster describes, except Evelyn's opinion takes it a step further. Her comment passes judgement by literally saying this [clarifications mine]:

"...lots of women [read] become so swept up in the "romance" of these types of books [romance books] that they think [that they normalize] this kind of behavior [being beaten and/or raped by] is okay in a partner.

Notice that I didn't change the meaning of anything she wrote. I think what she's saying here is pretty clear. "A" results in "B" and those women are too stupid to know the difference between real life and fiction. I find her statement insulting and offensive.

Why? Because fiction, ( especially Outlander) only mimics real life and relationships. It's fantasy, no matter how close it comes to realistic fiction. I'm sure many other readers who include romance in their reading rotation would agree.

I know I was very blunt in my earlier responses, but I stand by it.

*****

Anna, I've always appreciated that you have such an open mind and are willing to learn about other people and their experiences. I hope I can answer your questions satisfactorily today! : )

I've found that a hero beating the heroine is more prevalent in the "bodice rippers" from the 70's & 80's, but it can be found in today's romances depending on which sub-genre you select. I'll talk more about sub-genres in a moment.

From my limited exposure to bodice rippers (I was pretty young in the 80's), it isn't unusual for the hero to slap, spank, or otherwise beat the heroine to the point of bruising and swelling. Rape is also common. Captive heroines were very popular. One example with a high star rating on GR's that I found particularly disturbing is: The Velvet Promise by Jude Deveraux. I hated everything about that book and it's characters. It was all control, cruelty, and rape.

Ick.

On the flip side, A Kingdom of Dreams by Judith McNaught (pub. 1989) remains one of my favorite romances to this day. The writing was far superior and so was character development. There was a spanking scene after the heroine used her sewing skills to sabotage the laird's army uniforms (that was pretty funny), but the heroine was so feisty she turned around and laughed in his face.

Now take a look at this comment from the link. It may explain one reason why I enjoyed one book, but not the other. The posters is still talking about Outlander, but I think it applies:

These scenes, which are being read as so controversial, then are in fact just setting the scene for Jaime’s education. These things he is doing/thinking are wrong by virtue of Claire’s modern (and therefore superior) moral code. So by doing/thinking them Jamie:

- identifies himself as a hero in need of change
- activates the “love improves” narrative
- and gives us a base line by which to judge his later character growth.

This sums up everything about DG's goal for Jamie's character from the moment he told Claire to "stay put" to the scene where Claire reveals she's from the future (Jamie's apology). I still don't believe it was okay for Jamie to beat Claire because it was historically accurate/lawful at the time. I just think it was all he knew. Obviously, he was in the wrong.

When I look at my "read" list of Historical & Historical Western Romance books (pub 1995-2017), the hero beating the heroine is an extremely rare occurrence. It's not unusual to have a secondary character or villain beat his wife or be over controlling as a plot device. As always, there are exceptions.

As romance evolved so did the sub-genre, allowing me to get mega-picky about my choice of book. That means there are probably more heroes out there beating and raping the heroine in historical romance novels if you look in the erotica or BDSM sub-genres.

Before I was GR's savvy, I stumbled upon a Historical Western Romance that fell into the Erotica sub-genre with a few BDSM elements. Surprise! Talk about an eye opener. Yikes! The hero constantly pushed the heroine (physically and mentally), slapped her at one point, and forced himself on her repeatedly. The book was part of a group read that I had joined, so I suffered through the book and gave it an unbiased review. Normally, I don't read erotica. I don't judge others that enjoy it, I'm simply saying it's not my thing.

There are plenty of dysfunctional heroes out there in romance, which is why I'm surprised that Outlander catches so much heat over this scene when I can point out a contemporary book that is ten times worse. We're talking kidnapping, rape, forced prostitution, and it falls under the Romance/Erotica genres. Yes, they "love" each other and "get together" in the end according to the spoilers. I have no idea how that worked because I was freaked out just by reading the reviews! I never read the book.

I hope this post wasn't too long or overkill and managed to answer your question. I don't know if I've mentioned it here, but my husband and I listen to audiobooks together daily. He's a big science fiction guy so we started out with The Martian. Then he got caught up in one of my Susan Elizabeth Phillips audiobooks. For his sake, I reread the first two Chicago Stars series books with him and we finished that series together. While we still read lots of Science Fiction, Urban Fantasy, and Epic Fantasy, he won't hesitate to read a historical or contemporary romance with me.

I also laugh and think of Outlander when the hero does something really stupid and my husband says to me, "What a jerk. I'd never treat you that way." Or my favorite: "You'd kick my a$$ out of the house if I ever did that wouldn't you!"

And I say, "Yes, dear. Yes I would."

Hello Becky
No need to apologize for a long comment it was interesting. I would say the bodice ripper is alive and well in the genre erotic romance. I found one author that had books with all sorts of spankers, medieval knights, 18th century dukes, aliens and even where wolfs. One book had the subtitle "A billionaire where wolf romance". 😂 I also saw books with forced prostitution and the happy whore theme which disgust me. At least it seems that spankings/beatings are know out of mainstream romance.

Becky, once again, I did not say nor do I believe that women who enjoy romance novels are stupid. You completely ignored that I stated I read and enjoy romance novels. You also had to edit what I said in order to make your point. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but what I meant when I said "these types of books" is books where the "hero" beats the heroine and it's all hunky dory afterwards.
It's not my place to tell women what they should or shouldn't read, nor to censor an author. But as a person who reads and enjoys romance novels, and also enjoys talking about them, I believe the genre can be improved by reader discussion. Personally, I feel that non-consensual beatings from a hero are unacceptable - or he wouldn't be a hero.
Yes, novels only mimic reality, but you can't pretend books don't have an affect on the people who read them.

Earlier there has been arguments here that a writer has to write the story as she truly think the characters would act. This link shows that it's not like that for all writers. Some can consider how a scene would be received.

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showt...

About the analysis by Romancing the bookworm I think it is strange to say that a whole genre can teach us nothing about life. I mean I often read just for entertainment but shouldn't books make us a bit wiser.

Anna wrote: "About the analysis by Romancing the bookworm I think it is strange to say that a whole genre can teach us nothing about life. I mean I often read just for entertainment but shouldn't books make us a bit wiser."

Thank you for the link, Anna! It's interesting to see how different authors think and create their work.

Wiser is a good word. I agree that books should and usually do enlighten us in some way. I've read some very poorly executed stories with horrific grammar, but still learned something from the experience. I think it all depends on the willingness of the reader to be open to learn. In many cases, historical fiction inspires me to dig into the past and research the true stories that are included with the fiction.

Even Outlander has historical facts that resulted in a few late nights while I researched the Jacobite rebellions. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I've discovered things while reading fiction (vocabulary, geology, cultural customs, etc.), that inspired me to learn. I know that sounds kind of picky about phrasing, but even among the examples listed, fiction portrays many things as facts that should only be applied to memory once they've been confirmed.

One of the reasons Outlander appeals to me is because Claire and Jamie's relationship isn't a happily-ever-after, lifelong honeymoon. It might mimic real life in some areas, but at the end of the day they are still fictional characters from a mostly fictional world.

For arguments sake ... looking at the spanking incident ... I would say the way Jamie and Claire cope as a couple is fairly realistic to the way a couple resolves a break in trust IF the reader considers the entire text of this book and the following books. Is it perfect? No, but that's why Outlander is fiction written by DG, not non-fiction written by a marriage counselor. ; )

I love that a book can take me somewhere I may never be able to travel, or paint a picture of something I'll never see in person. It's not exactly the same, but I'm grateful for the experience. I've always had a wild imagination, which is probably why I'm such a bookworm in the first place!

Evelyn wrote: "Yes, novels only mimic reality, but you can't pretend books don't have an affect on the people who read them. ..."

I never said otherwise. It's much easier to have a discussion when you don't deal in absolutes. You see, books do affect people, but YOU can't control how the individual is affected. It's also not up to YOU to try and dictate what any author writes by calling names or attacking his or her work.

And...

No, I didn't change your comment. You just don't know how to take criticism and admit when you make a mistake. I didn't change the meaning at all, but I'll break it down for you anyway.

1. "...lots of women"

Your words. I didn't change that. Although, I do wonder at times how many women would comprise "lots of women".

2. [read] = "become so swept up in the "romance" of "

Doesn't a person have to READ a book to get swept up in it? Yes, I thought so, too.

3. these types of books = [romance books]

Since you said "lots of women become so swept up in the "romance" of these types of books", it was only logical to make the leap to romance. Please. Do tell. To which genre do you refer? Perhaps those readers will be less offended?

4. "that they think" = [that they normalize]

Normalize is probably what you meant to say, but let's look up "think" in a Thesaurus just for grins: assume, be convinced, comprehend, conceive, conclude, conduce, credit, deem, determine, envisage, envision... shall I go on? Oh why not! ...fancy, gather, imagine, presume, realize, surmise, understand... I think we all get the picture. I was actually throwing you a bone with 'normalize' by making "lots of women" sound more intelligent.

5. "this kind of behavior" = [being beaten and/or raped by]

We ARE talking about the spanking/beating scene in Outlander and others have claimed Jamie also raped Claire that night. This "edit" covers the basics of domestic violence that might be found in "these kinds of books". Again, threw you a bone.

6. "is okay in a partner."

Jamie was Claire's partner. Any other book would obviously have a partner. No problem here, so...??????

*****

Now that I've clarified things, I'm going to repeat myself because all I see is denial. You just say, "I didn't call anyone stupid."

Okay, I'll throw you one last bone. You didn't use the word "stupid". You used a blanket judgement statement to judge others that don't agree with your point of view.

What you said implies romance readers, or readers of (to use your own words) "these types of books" somehow glorify or romanticize abusive behavior between romantic couples. You took it even further over the line when you suggested women without healthy role models would look to Outlander as an example of a normal partner or relationship material.

Your second implication was just ignorant, but the first comment was judgmental and ugly. In my opinion, you also minimize the REAL victims of domestic abuse, the women who are so terrified and emotionally scarred that they can't break out of the relationship, or the ones who are killed by their partner before they are able to get the help and support they need.

By the way, I'm wasn't ignoring what you wrote. I was ignoring you.

Ta!

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Anna wrote: "About the analysis by Romancing the bookworm I think it is strange to say that a whole genre can teach us nothing about life. I mean I often read just for entertainment but shouldn't b..."

I am much like you I also often look things up when I read historical fiction. Once or twice I have even spoiled some of the story by doing that.

About Outlander we simply disagree as whether DG handles the beating scene realistic. I think not. I think it takes a book with another depth and tone to handle domestic abuse. The mere fact that some readers admit laughing at the scene or called it their favorite, somehow implies that DG has not succeeded very well in writing the scene.

I object to other parts of how the book treats violence as well. For example when Jamie's sister is to be beaten by her father she is terrified then as an adult she laughs about children being beaten. At one point Jamie says he was scared because he knew he was going to be beaten by his father. At another time he says he was not afraid of his father. Beating children was of course accepted in the 18th century but did people really sit around and laugh at it. I saw a documentary once where it was said that physical punishment can be used to alter human behavior but only if the threat of physical punishment is constant.

Wow, I skimmed through this conversation, and isn't Becky just so incredibly rude! From her first answers to Red till now, she just accuses, dismisses, insults and acts like everyone disagreeing with her is personally attacking her. It's been a years long discussion and you're still here, telling off every new response, maybe get a hobby, lol?

Anna wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Anna wrote: "About the analysis by Romancing the bookworm I think it is strange to say that a whole genre can teach us nothing about life. I mean I often read just for ..."

Hi Anna!

I'm so sorry this is late getting to you. I've had a sick horse and been very busy, so I missed a lot of notifications. I hope you are doing well!

Yes, I know we don't always agree on everything about this book and that's okay! I've always known that. I appreciate you because we can discuss these issues without attacking each other. I've never felt demeaned or attacked by you for my personal beliefs and while I know that I can be firm, especially in my recent posts, I have always believed that people have the right to their own opinions.

I only get testy when those opinions turn to judgements against others that don't share the same opinion. There's no reason why any of us can't have respectful open dialogue. I wish everyone could communicate like you and many others who've contributed excellent information on this thread, regardless of whether they hate the scene or are indifferent to it. There wouldn't be so much trolling going on.

It's been a very long time since I've read the book and I would have to look up the conversation between Jamie and Jenny discussing their father. I have to wonder if this was unclear phrasing on DG's part. Did she use "beating" instead of "spankings" or some other more precise adjective? Here are my reasons for asking....

I was part of the generation that still received spankings as corporal punishment and remember my mom's plastic fly swatter to this day. It only came off the wall when I was in BIG trouble. When the blue one wore out, she bought a white one. Both were fully plastic.

My sister and I have had some conversations about that fly swatter in the past, usually because it was used when we had done something atrocious to each other. Sisters can fight and my sister had it down to an art form. We would draw blood.

Our parents are both gone now, but we never felt any anger or ill will toward them for any discipline we received. In fact, we have actually laughed about each other getting our hind ends beat, but we remember the reason for it more than the spanking itself. We came from a devout Lutheran background and it was "Spare the rod, spoil the child." That's just the way it was in our home.

Here's my point. As a teenager, I was physically pushed around by my first boyfriend (shoving, twisted arms, dumped out of his car miles from home, etc.). He didn't last long at all, but knowing the way I feel about him, to this day makes it very clear to me that I could NOT hold any love or affection for my parents if they had truly beaten me.

I agree that physical punishment can be used to alter human behavior, but I'm not so sure that it has to be a constant threat. Perhaps in a home where a paddle is on the wall and the behavior boundaries are clearly defined, that might be considered a constant threat? However, as someone raised in a very similar environment, I didn't feel threatened at all. I knew where the boundaries were. I was being taught how to behave with manners and learning responsibility in preparation for adulthood. Maybe I didn't understand how deep the methodology was at the time, but I certainly do now and I'm grateful for it. I don't remember my parents using corporal punishment after I turned 9 years old.

As I mentioned, I don't expect everyone to agree with this and I'm sorry if some are offended by it, but in my mind and with my life experience, there are spankings and there are beatings. Beatings are done out of anger in an attempt to vent the rage and fury of the one doing the beating. It's all about the abuser. It's the abuser's defective thinking that's wrong. His/her actions are wrong, He/she is 100% guilty and his/her actions are domestic abuse. This isn't a spanking and it doesn't teach anything, even if it LOOKS like a spanking.

In my opinion, a proper spanking, if it's even done these days, is done when a parent is calm and rational. The parent speaks to the child when he/she is also calm, making sure the child understands what they've done wrong. Together they discuss alternatives to correct the behavior in the future. After the spanking, the child is reassured that they are loved and all is forgiven. In this case, the spanking itself is only a deterrent to the inappropriate behavior. It's up to the parent to add the teaching element.

I will also add, since we are a Christian family, my parents also reassured us of their love and forgiveness by referencing how we are all forgiven through Christ's death on the cross and Resurrection. Again, all of this is my personal belief and opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree with it.

The world tries to be a more civilized society today and can take privileges or use "time-out" to punish instead of striking a child. It takes more diligence and time on the part of the parent, but it yields the same if not better results.

So, I'm inclined to agree with you that there are areas of Outlander that DG could have clarified things, like the part about Jamie and Jenny's father. I'll even agree that there is a LOT of violence in the book and what Jamie goes through at the hands of Jack Randall was nothing short of sick and twisted. In the future books she does tone down the violence, which I was glad to see, but there are still moments where I just don't understand why she "went there" if that makes any sense?

I think by the time I got through The Fiery Cross (book 5), the story is SO incredibly different from the first book when it comes to the violence, that I can relax a little and enjoy the dialogue between Claire and Jamie. There is still violence, but it's nothing like what we see in Outlander.

As always, it's good to hear from you and I appreciate your thoughts. I hope you are having a great week! : )

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Anna wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Anna wrote: "About the analysis by Romancing the bookworm I think it is strange to say that a whole genre can teach us nothing about life. I mean I often r..."

Hello Becky!
You certainly don't have to apologize for not getting back to me sooner. I'm sorry to hear about your horse. I hope it's better now. You can worry so much about a sick animal.

I think DG probably used the word beat. I don't think the swedish word for spank ever occurred in the book.

I was never beaten/spanked as a child. I don't think it was something normal swedish parents did during the 70s (I was born in 72). The tought never crossed my mind that they would. In 1979 it was actually forbidden in law to beat/spank children in Sweden. I don't have any children but I am completely against beating/spanking. I have never been beaten as an adult either.

I respect your experience of being spanked as a child of course. Still l can't understand how anyone would learn anything from it. I think it makes a lot of sense that the threat of violence must be constant to alter human behavior. As soon as the threat is gone the person would go back to the old behavior if he/she changed it only to avoid physical punishment. Learning is something else, where you realize that you hurt someone or cause trouble for your self or others by your behavior, and therefore change it.

I am an atheist and a secular humanist.

I really enjoy discussing Outlander with you and you have not been rude to me.

I wish you all the best.

Thank you, Anna!

I've enjoyed discussing the book with you and getting to know you a little better. I've always enjoyed meeting other people from different cultures and backgrounds. The internet has opened so many doors and the world isn't such a big place anymore!

Times have definitely changed in American when it comes to children and corporal punishment. When I was in Elementary school, our Principal had a rubber hose in his office that was "said" he used to spank unruly children. Shocking, right? Whether this was true or just a threat, I really can't say for sure as it was never used on me. I did see the rubber hose hanging on his coat stand when I was teacher's aide for a day. It definitely kept me in line out of fear, which wasn't the best way to handle things. I remember being afraid and uncomfortable around this man.

Even the thought of a teacher disciplining my child in that way absolutely mortifies me. It would be considered child abuse today and the principal would go to jail.

I was born in 1968, so I heard about this in the 2nd grade (around 1975). Our parents transferred my older sister into a private Christian school when I was in third grade and I soon followed. That school didn't actively follow corporal punishment. They just called your parents to come deal with you immediately if the infraction was serious enough. I'm not certain when the law changed here in America, I'd have to look that up, but I think it wasn't long after my school transfer.

"Still l can't understand how anyone would learn anything from it. I think it makes a lot of sense that the threat of violence must be constant to alter human behavior. "

I can understand this and agree with you. I was very blessed to have parents that kept their cool and used their voices far more than that fly swatter on the wall! When we did something wrong, especially if it involved hurting someone else emotionally or physically, they made sure we understood what we had done, why it was wrong, and explained the correct behavior before they administered punishment.

In my situation, the behavior changed A) because I was ashamed of my bad behavior and B) I respected my parents and wanted their approval. If you've ever heard the phrase, "This is going to hurt me a lot more than it's going to hurt you." I would say that this fit my parents very well. I don't remember the spankings nearly as much as the feelings I had about disappointing my parents...especially my father. It makes me wonder if the spankings were even necessary, or how things would've been if they hadn't spanked us as children. Although, I DO remember a time I was given a choice: three swats or no stereo for a week. I took the swats! I just couldn't stand the idea of being without my music for a week!

Had they just whacked me with the flyswatter or a hand without talking about it, I wouldn't have learned a thing.

It's fascinating to me to watch how things change over time. I think American society has improved greatly in disciplining our children, but those same conversations my parents had with me, still need to happen with children today, even if they are going to a timeout, or losing a privilege.

We are definitely on the same page when it comes to violence against anyone. This scene in Outlander is complex and I hate that it soured the book for so many people. I remember thinking it was just plain odd. Despite all the differences of opinions in the thread and the different thoughts on how the plot brought us to this point, the bottom line is that violence is wrong. While I can understand "how" Jamie got to this point in the story and the "why" of things, I still take issue with him taking a belt to a grown woman.

I appreciate all our conversations and the interesting links you have brought to the conversations we've shared, Anna! You've always been very respectful of our differences, which is a wonderful quality! I appreciate you very much.

I wish all the best for you as well and hope that our paths will cross again in the future!

Senny wrote: "Wow, I skimmed through this conversation, and isn't Becky just so incredibly rude! From her first answers to Red till now, she just accuses, dismisses, insults and acts like everyone disagreeing wi..."

That's the problem with skimming complex discussion threads. You don't get the complete picture. There are many rude comments on this thread from many different people. Did you come here to discuss Outlander? Or is your hypocritical ad hominem attack all you have to say?

What is your position on the original post? How do you feel about the beating scene? Should Claire have forgiven Jamie? Did it ruin the story for you?

I found their makeup scene really unsatisfactory. Jamie didn't apologize properly, and the girl (can't remember her name right now) forgave him way too easily. I found it frustrating

Hi Amora!

Welcome to Goodreads, Amora! I hope you enjoy the site and make plenty of friends that can give you great book recommendations!

I agree with a lot of what you said, especially about Jamie's lack of knowledge and inexperience. I think he was already a pretty ethical man for that era, but he didn't know that it was wrong to discipline his wife, especially with a belt or a hand! I don't condone his actions, but I can understand where the author was going with the scene. A little shock value, an opportunity for personal growth, and a way to open Claire's eyes to the dangers of life for a woman alone in The 1700's Scotland ... especially and ENGLISH woman.

It took awhile for Jame and Claire to finally reconcile this issue, but love it or hate it, I think it's a tough scene for all of us to read. Personally, I felt that Jamie went overboard out of fear, anger and other factors. I certainly agree with you that Jamie didn't know anything else.

What I think was special about the book is how that particular scene was used to bring about character growth and have the couple come full circle to true forgiveness. Yes, it takes a bunch of chapters and not everyone could get past it, but I was so pleased to see Jamie finally apologize for it and realize how wrong he was. It's also interesting how it still comes up in later books.

How far along are you in the series? I still have a way to go. My next book is A Breath of Snow and Ashes.

Hello Becky,
Thank you for your kind words.
You are quite far in the series! I wasn't aware of the remaining seven books until much later on, actually. It made sense to continue the story, though... even if I was more than satisfied with Outlander's ending.
I had skimmed through the blurbs of the rest of the series, and I found myself in immense awe. I had spoiled a great deal for myself, but I was very emotional in the discovery of the supposed deaths and climaxes then separation within the storyline: I just don't think I'd want to continue on from this particular series. I don't think I want to know what else happens, you know?
Mainly because of the disturbing experience Jamie had to undergo when he was held captive by Randall: that was truly unsettling. I now view Jamie in a very fragile state of mind, and he cannot be put through anymore heartbreak or akin. So! Outlander is still one of my favorite books. Just the first book. Always. ;)

I feel the same way at times. I haven't reached the part in the Outlander series where lots of people are dying or killed off, but I remember that Dragonfly in Amber was a real tear-jerker. Voyager was my favorite, then I kind of slogged through the next two "door stoppers". A Breath of Snow and Ashes has been on my iBooks app for nearly 18 months. I'm just not in the mood for it because I know tragedy is right around the corner! Yes! It is so hard not to get accidentally spoiled over future books when reading story summaries, reviews or discussion threads. I ruined a few BIG THINGS be reading just the story summary for a future installment! lol!

Thanks so much for the friend invite! We definitely share an affection for Historical Romance! I also adore Tessa Dare. Her first book in the Castles Ever-After series is fantastic, as is the first book in Spindle Cove. She's one of my all time favorite Regency Era writers! I was excited to see a new series come out at the library this month! Now I'm just waiting....and waiting.... : )

I don't se a man that first threatens to break his wife's arm and then puts a knee in her back and beats her badly with a belt, enjoying himself while he does it, as a little kinky. I see him as a sadistic monster.

I don't understand the scenes after the beating as you do either Amora. Jamie was sexually aroused by beating Claire but Claire was just hurt and devastated by being beaten. I can't understand how you can have all this compassion for Jamie but none for Claire. It makes me so said.

I understand how you might feel that way, Anna. As I mentioned, this scene has roused a lot of controversy, and the response is mostly negative.
I thought I might, unjust as it may seem, try and find a way to explain his actions. Only because I couldn't see Jamie as a sadist or anything of the sort, just simply troubled. He does seem like mostly a sweetheart throughout the entirety of the book, and that chapter befogged many people.
Plus, Claire, if you are concerned about how she was affected – I certainly was, their romance story had gone on too long to be halted by the incident – I think it's safe to say Claire was pretty much besotted with Jamie nevertheless. Take the next seven books of the series, for example. I don't think this scene was ever mentioned again, though it was wrong...
I'd ask the author why she decided to include that part.

You're welcome, Becky ;)
I must read some more of Tessa Dare, I've added a bunch of her stories to my to-read. Do you have any particular recommendations?
(Be sure to post them on my profile, however, I fear this might be irksome for others as it is off topic) <3