Outlander discussion

The scene was actually mentioned several time in the following books. Once in the second book after the Faith incident (trying not to give things away for those who haven't read it) and once many many years later it was brought up in the middle of an argument and they both still disagree on the matter.

Maddie wrote: "The scene was actually mentioned several time in the following books. Once in the second book after the Faith incident (trying not to give things away for those who haven't read it) and once many m..."

I had no idea! I didn't read on from the first book. Sorry, let me rephrase my point: it was never actually brought up in that particular book, furthermore I believe it didn't damage their relationship completely, though it remained an unpleasant memory.
Thank you, Maddie, whoops.

Amora wrote: "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 fi..."

I think I understand you better now. In your first comment it sounded as if you completley missed or forgot that Claire was hurt and said. I don't think their romance had gone to long to be halted. If a man enjoyed beating me I would leave him first chance I got and I am not nearly as brave as Claire is otherwise described in the book.

I appreciate that you try to address the issue of Jamie enjoying to beat Claire even though I don't think you succeed. Very few of all people who's comments I have read about this even try to explain that.

I don't know if the response to the scene has been so negative. I have read many comments from people that enjoyed it, thought the scene was the best, fond it funny, and laughed at it. Many women see Jamie as a romantic hero. That is my big problem with it.

Why do you tell me to ask DG about it? Why don't you ask her? We are both troubled by the scene.

I actually did ask Diana about another thing in the book, whether the book starts before or after the Second World War ends, as there are facts indicating both. It was a question session in a book store where you could post questions on Facebook in advance. They choose not to ask my question and DG didn't answer it on Facebook either.

Anyway here are two links where Diana comments the scene. The first is interesting because it shows how Diana imagines Jamie's view of Claire. It is also evident that to DG it's no big thing that Jamie enjoy beating Claire. She had caused to trouble so no wonder he enjoyed it.

http://forums.compuserve.com/discussi...

The second link tells that she had no intention of describing the terror of women beaten in past centuries when they had little or no protection from the law. She ment for the scene to be erotic and fun. When she writes "he's plainly not "beating" her" it is simply hilarious. I mean she wrote beat constantly in the book. I also think she is completely wrong in thinking that the TV series showed both Claire's and Jamie's perspective. The voice over was only from Jamie's point of view, and Jamie's perspective got much more room in the book, then Claire's in the TV series.

http://forums.compuserve.com/discussi...

Hi again, love
Yes, I actually asked her straight after I suggested it, because it seemed like a sensible thing to do since she was the one who wrote and included the scene. I was only suggesting it, as I definitely feel that a response from the author and person who had illustrated this tale as the only person to confirm any points we have made as what was the correct objective to the scene.

And yes, that's how I thought that she had meant to make the beating erotic and fun: I called it kinky, which is a term for bizarre sexual behavior. Claire still loved Jamie, and you never know (and hopefully I get the author's intention on how the two of them truly felt) Claire might've had some pleasure from it, because I remember their makeup moment. It was quite a dolorous reunion from their being apart, which emphasizes how Claire did put this behind them, and they were both fairly happy together afterwards. I counted Claire's happiness, she is the heroine, and I don't support abuse. But the author might've been, as I mentioned before, trying to portray Jamie's supposed upbringing and how he may have misinterpreted or simply wasn't aware of how to treat a wife well. Or again, he was kinky, and he had the false impression that it would amuse him, and it certainly taught him a lesson afterwards, whether he agreed it was necessary or not, when Claire locked him out. I don't think he meant to hurt her in the sense of mistreating her. It's only my opinion, however! It doesn't bother me the slightest if someone thinks different, or entirely the opposite. I love to read different perspectives and ideas, it's quite entertaining and a learning experience of it's own.

And, haha, I apologize you don't find my justification very successful: I do try to be open-minded, particularly as I do love this book. But you did yourself mention later on that the author had no mind on what I tried to support towards the fact Jamie enjoyed beating Claire, so I'm not so sure I can agree with you there, only because the author herself was not bothered if that was the case of him acting out because he found it pleasurable.

Amora wrote: "Hi again, love
Yes, I actually asked her straight after I suggested it, because it seemed like a sensible thing to do since she was the one who wrote and included the scene. I was only suggesting i..."

Sorry I realize I sounded presumptuous and perhaps full of myself in the previous comment. A (lame) excuse is that English is not my native language and I can not always express with finesse what I mean. I also get very engaged in this discussion. This is the first time I have ever discussed a book on line.

You are right of course that you captured what the author tried to do in writing the scene. I found the second link when I was looking for the first one, that I had read before in a link in another discussion. I did suspect that DG wrote the scen to be erotic although l didn't find it so. I have never seen her admitting it before though.

I actually read five spanking scenes in historical erotic romance novels, that I could find for free on Amazon, after a discussion Becky and I had. They did not upset me the way Outlander does because they were obvious erotic fantasies with no claim on historical accuracy. These were also spankings with the hand so the violence was much less severe than in Outlander. DG somehow tries to do both, writing a scene that is fun and erotic and at the same time makes claims to historical accuracy. That I think is so wrong, because one thing I am certain about. The absolute majority of women belted by their husbands through history did not find it erotic. Here I must defend DG she doesn't in any way put it as if Claire enjoyed it.

Amora wrote: "Hi again, love
Yes, I actually asked her straight after I suggested it, because it seemed like a sensible thing to do since she was the one who wrote and included the scene. I was only suggesting i..."

It's okay, I understand how your engrossment in the topic might alter your otherwise lovely approach, I find myself lost in discussions like this often.

Thank you, yes that was the point I tried and hopefully did not appear as a failure to make. I'm glad we agreed on something finally, haha.

I totally get where you're coming from on the dissenting impression it left. I did read this a while ago, and I came across this... (it was just after Jamie had "disciplined" Claire, and my heart did reach out to her, whilst I found myself fuming with anger.)

"I felt deeply betrayed that the man I depended on as friend, protector, and lover intended to do such a thing to me. And my sense of self-preservation was quietly terrified at the thought of submitting myself to the mercies of someone who handled a fifteen-pound claymore as though it were a flywhisk."

I think you should check this site out, it's most interesting:
Chapter 22, Reckonings Recap

Someone explains the chapter in a perspective I find it very unbiased and captures everyone perspective in a nutshell, plus some vital facts I think a lot of people overlooked. It talks about the necessity of the belting, the offense, etc... it's very good.

Amora wrote: "Amora wrote: "Hi again, love
Yes, I actually asked her straight after I suggested it, because it seemed like a sensible thing to do since she was the one who wrote and included the scene. I was onl..."

Thank you for the link Amora. It was very interesting and has a lot of god points. I really recommend everyone to read it. For example she mentions that it would be a bit absurd to rescue someone only to execute him. In her conclusion she is right of course that adjusting to the norms of society would be a major obstacle for a time traveler. I don't agree with her about Jamie being basically nice obviously.

Mrs. Books the quote you couldn't find a while back where Jamie says he almost never loses control is in this article.

I would recommend everyone to read Diana Gabaldons comments in the discussion I linked to yesterday as well. It doesn't take to long and answers some questions about how she intended the scene. When Claire describes it as beaten within an inch of my life it's hyperbole. When Jamie says he will enjoy punishing Claire it is because it is a way to relieve his feelings. He isn't sexually aroused at this point. When he belts her he is sexually aroused by the sight of her bare bottom and that's what he means when he admits he enjoyed it the next day.

I can accept this although it still in my opinion make Jamie a very unpleasant man. It could have been a part of another book with a more serious somehow realistic tone. What is completely unacceptable in my opinion is that she wrote the scene to be erotic and fun. A man punishing his wife by belting her isn't fun or erotic and should not be described as that.

This book series definitely shouldnt be read by individuals who are triggered by the subject matter and the actions of the fictional characters.

Set it aside, find something fun to read, like the series by Jan Karon.

Or do like I do with many books, turn the page and keep reading there is plenty of really good moments in the Outlander series. DG isnt perfect, her characters arent perfect but there are some excellent twists and turns. And some incredibly lovely secondary characters.

I agree very much with your point, Brenda.
Outlander is indeed a very good read and has moments with a more than fair regard to romance.
It just requires a certain audience, is all.

Brenda please contact Goodreads with your opinion. I mean with your opinion you must see it as wrong to discuss litterateur so Goodreads shouldn't provide a platform for it. Or is it sensible to discuss literature you like but not literature you don't like?

In the heat of the debate I have sometimes had to remind myself that it's fictional characters. My basic problem though isn't with the character Jamie. It is with the fact that people are so ready to accept wife beating and defend Jamie. Many women see him as a complete hero. Look at Facebook page of the TV show if you don't believe me.

I haven't read any of the links yet but I will. I thought I should comment on a few things before my thoughts are lost.

I DO think there are women stupid enough to base their real life relationships on Heroes in books (or tv, movies, etc). I don't think Authors should be our teachers. Or made to feel like they should use their platform to teach women what's appropriate in a relationship. An author should never feel the need to stifle their creative work because there *are* stupid people out there who will take it, manipulate it, change it or misapply it in a negative way.

Having said that, there are certain books I've read that I did wish the Author wrote a foreword or a closing and just commented on a few things. An example, would be.... a Hero I found abusive that women just gush over. But I don't think the authors work should have been written differently as much as I may hate the work, part of the work, or peoples reaction to it.

Forgive me if that wasn't a point in previous comments. I read through them a while ago and thought it was. I might have misapplied something someone said.

Anna wrote: "My basic problem though isn't with the character Jamie. It is with the fact that people are so ready to accept wife beating and defend Jamie.."

Somewhere else you commented about people not sympathizing with Clare like they do Jamie. I thought it was a fairly good point and I've given it some thought.

From me: While I do sympathize with Clare (to a degree) she isn't one of my favorite characters. I like all the main characters better than her. I feel like DG could have done a much better job writing Clare. We don't get much on her back ground. We know her parents died in a car crash. She was sent to a boarding school, refused to stay there and was raised by her uncle in Egypt on archaeological sites. Her uncle never spanked her.

It's a sad little history compared with how we get to experience Jamie. We get to know and come to love many members of his family. Even distant ones. We are told many stories of how he was raised. We get to understand why he thinks a certain way even if we don't agree with him.

Clare on the other hand, I don't really understand. I can put myself in her shoes and try to understand her perspective but it's not often she makes decisions I would. I don't understand her falling in love with Jamie after three months. I don't truly understand her forgiving Jamie so quickly after the beating. I don't understand Clare choosing to stay with Jamie and leaving Frank. I don't understand how Clare couldn't move on when she's back with Frank. And then in book three (view spoiler)[ I will never in a million years comprehend her choosing to leave her daughter and go back in time to try to find Jamie (hide spoiler)]

More often than not through out the novels, I find myself nodding with Jamie's reasoning and not understanding Clare's.

I can see how this might affect how vigorously I defend Clare.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Anna wrote: "My basic problem though isn't with the character Jamie. It is with the fact that people are so ready to accept wife beating and defend Jamie.."

Somewhere else you commented about peop..."

Hello Mrs Books!
I can understand how your sympathy for a character influences how much you defend it. Jamie without the beating scene I wold have defended. He has other faults however for example when he calls his sister a whore. The quarrel between Jamie and his sister I think is not very good written. I wonder if any sane (or insane) woman in history has grabbed her brothers balls.

I basically like Claire although I would have liked her to react stronger to some inequalities in the 18th century. For example while a young boy gets his ear nailed and even risks having his hand cut off for a petty theft, it's accepted (by the Scots) that grown men steal cattle. I react to this why doesn't Claire. The rent collecting is described completely uncritical by DG. There is no social factor.

I agree that the picture of Claire is sketchy. I get the feeling that it may be because DG first intended for Claire to come from about when Outlander was written. Some of her thoughts are not coherent with a person from 1945. There are also some details in the beginning of the book that makes me think that. The bed & breakfast where Claire and Frank are staying is described as having sun bleached wallpaper. A few pages later the building is described as being rather new. It's as if it's pieces of two descriptions that don't fit together. And did they build much in Britain during the Second World War? A bus load of Italian tourists, all with cameras, at Stonehenge in the 1930s doesn't sound right.

I can't understand why Claire stayed with Jamie either, but that's mainly because he beat her. It was also strange that she thought people were simpler in the 18th century right after a witch trial. I don't think Claire and Frank were very close. They had been apart during much of their marriage.

I agree about what you wrote in the spoiler although the person was grownup I think? I don't know how to hide a spoiler. 😉

In the first book I don't think you really get to know any of the other characters very well So I can't comment on that.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I haven't read any of the links yet but I will. I thought I should comment on a few things before my thoughts are lost.

I DO think there are women stupid enough to base their real life relationshi..."

I completley agree with you that an author has the right, to write the story as she wants, without censoring herself because of how the work might affect the readers. I just can't understand DG's choice of plot. To me it destroys the joy of reading the book. I don't want to take away Diana Gabaldons right to write what she did. I discuss it here because I want to understand how so many women can like Jamie so much.

What book would you have wanted of foreword in?

Hi Anna!

I just caught up with the thread and had the strangest thought that I want to throw out there for consideration. One of the things you're struggling to understand is "...how so many women can like Jamie so much." That's a very reasonable thing to wonder.

There has also been a lot of discussion about how much more is known about Jamie's past. It struck me that Jamie appears to have enjoyed a "fairly" normal childhood, despite losing a mother and brother to illness. I'd forgotten about Jenny grabbing him by the balls, though. My kids fought with each other growing up, but...good gravy! I don't even have the words!

Considering this is a fictional family, let's assume he had some balance as a young person. As we know, that all changes after his initial imprisonment.

I wonder if the brutal whipping by Jack Randall, the guilt and grief surrounding his father's death, and his exile from home, creates a "tragic" hero that might appeal to some women. Even the first time we meet Jamie in the book he is injured with a dislocated shoulder.

Here is my point: I wonder how many of these same women are softened towards Jamie because of nature's instinct to be the care giver or nurturer? I quit counting the number of times Jamie was injured during the book and who can forget how he was victimized by Jack Randall. Yuck.

Most women are by nature maternal otherwise we wouldn't have the desire to reproduce. Most, but not all. I'm NOT saying all women should mold themselves into nature's perfect mother, wife, and nurturer, but it is one way we are dramatically different from men.

Before I get too off track here, I'll just say we are blessed that we can think for ourselves and live in a society where we can choose to work in any field we desire, including motherhood, if that's what we prefer.

There is a lot of dysfunction in today's world. Many high school girls under the age of 18 claim (sadly) that they want to get pregnant so they have someone to love. While it isn't exactly the same as having a baby, perhaps there is a little dysfunctional empathy for Jamie's constant injuries and abuses going on here?

Even I've said that I'm a sucker for the tortured soul protagonist, but it's the personal victory the character achieves that I enjoy, not the tragedy he or she suffers or a misplaced need to see someone else make the character whole again.

I'll be the first to admit it's a weak explanation, but sometimes things just pop in my head and manage to make their way to my keyboard. Stranger things have happened. : )

What do you think? Could this be a possible explanation? Or am I off my rocker today? It's been an odd week.

Hello Becky!
I think your argument makes sense. I think it can be true at least for some women. It's a bit like "the hero in need of improvement" that romancing the bookworm wrote about.

I am surprised at how often women contact infamous criminals in jail thinking that they can change them. Even men that have committed horrific crimes are often contacted. It's the mechanism you describe in work I think.

You stated it much better than I did, Anna! : ) It does make sense though. I've always felt sad for the women that buy into the lies some men tell them from prison. It seems like they always get hurt in the end.

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..."

Omg lol, isn't telling your wife that you're entitled to break her arm a not-so-veiled threat? Like, I don't think he said that just to explain his point. He said that to scare her into submission. Why are we even searching for excuses for what he did? And no, that lame sentence about 'and I beat you for it' IS. NOT. AN. APOLOGY. It does not show remorse.
And no, I don't believe in redemption paid on the expense of other people: so no, if a husband hits a wife, he's an asshole, and no amount of remorse is going to make me say 'Aaw, but he repented, his wife should totally remain with him bc ofc he's not going to beat her again, he repented!'. But we're talking about a book, so ofc if the author wants she can make the man totally repent and never hit his wife again. In real life? Uhm no, if my husband ever beat me, leaving me sore for days, he could be remorseful all he wants, but the violence he perpetuated on me would still be a violence, and personally I'd never stay with someone who hurt me once, partly for fear, partly because of loss of faith. Like, repent all you want, but it doesn't mean I'm in any way obliged to stay in a relationship with you just because you ""changed"". So, even if James repented (which is, highly debatable), that doesn't in any way mitigate the violence.

Dan wrote: "Anna wrote: "Dan wrote: "1,550 comments and counting about OP's outrage about a fictional scene in a work of fiction set partially in the 1700's. OP should read non-fiction stories about the time....."

it's a discussion. People answer to other people. Get over it, and possibly, get over yourself, you seem so full of it you act like someone debating with you is an affront to your person ('Who are you why should I care what you think' Seriously lol?).

____

Brenda wrote: "This book series definitely shouldnt be read by individuals who are triggered by the subject matter and the actions of the fictional characters.

Set it aside, find something fun to read, like the ..."

Sigh. Is it still possible to be critical of a scene in a book without being called 'triggered', and thus having your arguments belittled by the insinuation that you're being an irrational crybaby (bc that's usually the subtext when someone says 'ur triggered?!?!?').
Newsflash for everyone on this trainwreck of a thread still defending this scene by saying 'it was not beating it was a sexual consensual spanking like bdsm' 'it was not violence it was 1700 it was normal!' (no violence is still violence, no matter the historical setting); I can read of a rape and be disgusted/repulsed by it and that's not triggering, that's critical thinking kicking in and telling me how to interpret that scene according to my values. What really baffles me is the sheer number of people ready to dismiss actual violence/rape depending on the historical time, or to say the victim saw it coming and the poor assaulter is just misunderstood (that comes from the James fangirls btw).
That said the last pages of this thread have been especially nasty, considering that the few people who think it was violence have been ridiculed/mocked and their opinions called 'triggered' and other nice words. So I think that I'll end it here because I'm so goddamn tired of reading the same things all over again, with added rudeness. I'm so tired I can't believe people are saying that a husband telling his wife he can break her arm by law is comparable to an idiom (what?? Never heard of this kind of idiom honestly) and not a threat (yeah, sure, he told her so in a context where he was about to beat her and said he was gonna enjoy it, and it's not a veiled threat. Sure). That and the other wtf excusations I've read for James. I'm giving up, think what you want, I still think it's absurd that people can't read a straightforward domestic violence scene as it is, and try to dismiss it and derubricate it as a mere spanking/bdsm play/earned punishment for Claire bc she was the one true asshole and James the real victim in that context. Peace.

Well I've just read the beating scene and skimmed the following scene. Fiction or not, domestic violence make me feel ill. The book nor the author need my loyalty or defense. The scene was gratuitous. Fiction can be anything, and this scence was unnecessary. I'm not going to bother with the rest of the series.

Senny wrote: "Dan wrote: "Anna wrote: "Dan wrote: "1,550 comments and counting about OP's outrage about a fictional scene in a work of fiction set partially in the 1700's. OP should read non-fiction stories abou..."

I think that one reason that so many people make excuses and defend Jamie is that the scene is not a straight forward domestic violence scene. Both the author and the TV production meant for it to be erotic and fun. I wasn’t shore about how DG intended it before I read here comments in the link I posted in an earlier comment.

DG states in the comments that she reads a lot of porn. I think she somehow makes the mistake of trying to include a spanking scene in a serious setting. But the violence she describes is much to severe and Jamie acts completely viciously. Her claim to historical accuracy also turns it in to an attempt to eroticise domestic violence.

There is no excuse for the beating in the books intrigue either. Dougal and other men in the group put the men’s lives in danger by cattle theft but are not punished. Neither does Jamie want them to be.

The book actually describes Scottish highland society as extremely misogynist. A society where only women and children are punished. A society where more severe violence is accepted towards women then men. The book describes it as both legal and accepted for a man to break his wife’s arm. But when black Jack has crushed Jamie’s hand everyone thinks it’s awful. That a seventeen year old girl is to be publicly whipped over her bare bottom in a room full of people probably mostly men is horrible.

I think DG tryes to address this in a later book in a scene where Jamie is to punish one of his sisters sons. It is there mentioned that only girls are beaten with there skirts down. In this scene I think Jamie also lets his sisters son beat him over his bare bottom. DG mentions this scene in her comments and it is discussed earlier in this thread. I haven’t read it.

Thank you for this. I was so upset after reading the scenes that I couldn't sleep. I know it's just fiction but I was invested in the characters. How do we live in such a messed up society that there are women who love and defend this. I take comfort in knowing that I'm not alone in my distress, thank you.

It's fiction, and fiction should cause discussion and perhaps not only bring us joy but make us uncomfortable. That's what successful writers do, but if triggered by particular topics, steer clear. I will never be comfortable with many things and steer clear.

Bella wrote: "Thank you for this. I was so upset after reading the scenes that I couldn't sleep. I know it's just fiction but I was invested in the characters. How do we live in such a messed up society that the..."

Bella wrote: "Thank you for this. I was so upset after reading the scenes that I couldn't sleep. I know it's just fiction but I was invested in the characters. How do we live in such a messed up society that the..."

I wasn't a fan of that scene either. I'm surprised that many women think it can't be considered violence because it was a normal occurrence in that time period. Or that it was erotic play. So, we can't consider it violence because of historical accuracy but we can consider it erotic play even if it wasn't a common occurrence in that time? I don't get it, many women seem a bit confused on the matter.
In my opinion a person reading a violent scene and then being surprised by the many persons that don't even think it is violence doesn't equal to being triggered. I think we use this word too easily nowadays.
I personally don't like the gratuitous violence Diana Gabaldon puts in her books with the excuse of historical accuracy: I still enjoy the story but there are many flaws, story and characters wise. I think it is nice talking about the good and the bad of a story, criticising some aspects doesn't mean we should read something else, it means we like to talk about a story in depth. It means we actually like that story very much and enjoy discussing every aspect of it.

Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decided to just stop reading abou..."

Corporal punishment was commonplace in the 18th century. A man would certainly chastise his children if they were badly behaved or disobedient, and since a husband had authority over his wife as a parent did over their children, it would not be that remarkable if he spanked her for misbehaviour. It would not be considered abuse at that time. Chastisement of children, servants, apprentices etc was commonplace. Flogging was a common punishment in the army and the navy, and in prisons (in America at any rate still seems to have been in use in prisons in the 1950s, Elvis Presley is flogged in prison in Jailhouse Rock). People in past centuries were nothing like as squeamish as we are over corporal punishment.

Louise wrote: "Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decided to just stop ..."

But Claire isn't from the 18th century. So while I can understand Jamie thinking that belting his wife is an okay thing to do, the thing that really made me angry was Claire forgiving him so quickly and easily. She's such a pushover. And then there was that scene a little further on where Jamie essentially rapes Claire (or at the very least peer pressures her into sex) to 'teach her the lesson' that 'he might be gentle, but I can't say no'. Can't say no to sex? And she's okay with that? Claire really irritates me, she's very un-feminist.

Louise wrote: "Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decided to just stop ..."

Louise wrote: "Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decided to just stop ..."

I don’t think anyone here has argued against that corporal punishment was much more common in the 18th century then it is today. The objection I have is that a man that beats his wife can never be a romantic hero and I can’t understand how so many women see Jamie as such. The TV series is described by both the company that makes it and Netflix as romantic. That’s unacceptable to me.

I must say I object calling us today squeamish about corporal punishment. I am glad to live in a time and place where corporal punishments are seen as unacceptable.

From the moment that I saw this scene in the TV series, I had a huge problem with it. I agree with you completely!! You put my feelings and misgivings about this scene exactly to words! I am extremely disturbed by this scene.. the humiliation that he subjects her to with his family outside the door hearing him beat her. I thought the book would bring more comfort about this scene.. but it was far far WORSE!! The book indicates that he proceeds to give her a SEVERE BEATING... and that within hours she is completely over it and friends again with him. I understand that the heroine in the story must suffer a conflict with her husband and then the repair of the relationship must occur.. I cannot watch the TV scene without cringing.. I have tried hard to find humor in the making of the scene.. you can see the actors are having some fun with Claire throwing things and putting up a struggle to fight him. You can see Jamie smiling as he catches her in his arms … she runs straight to him! I cannot fathom the character of Jamie becomes a completely different person that on his wedding night when he vowed to protect her... he was so gentle with her...
In my mind.. I just have to ignore the author's take on this.. and make up one of my own that I can be content with. It is no harm to anyone else's point of view and I can trust Jamie's character again to love Claire.
Thank you for verbalizing the wrong of this particular scene. I m glad to know I was not the only one that was disturbed by this. I think the author was giving in to sensationalism in an extreme way. I could have almost accepted the torture if it had come from BJR's hand but the one whom she trusted.

As someone who lives D/s lifestyle and writes about it, I dont have a single problem with WHY he spanked her. She sinned against the clan. They could have ordered her flogged or worse. And YES men were ALWAYS punished worse. They were flogged, ears clipped and more even boys. So men had it worse in those times. Look up US corporal punishment in the Colonial days it will curl your hair. I hate when those times are expected to measure to modern. sensibilities.
The sale of books like Shayla blacks and 50 shades say women like it too. It can be a beautiful, powerful thing to submit and when I have done wrong absolution can be heaven. No guilt no fights.

YEs it was a spanking. I have personally received WAY worse consensually. However how its depicted is the problem. I personally write about this very thing but one there is an element of consent somewhere and there is SUBMISSION to the punishment too.

Also spanking can be inherently sexual with a mate. because the buttocks are an errogenous (sp) zone. Its not unusual even after a punishment for me to be aroused. I think in an effort to make Claire look like the victim she made Jamie look like the monster.

I write dominant alpha males who spank because that is what Im attracted to but consent is very important. 50 shades was poorly done too by someone who NEVER actually lived the lifestyle.

Now Shayla Black can write it well.
Secretary was good. Its a travesty that no one can write a punishment scene between consenting adults accurately.

Fuzzball wrote: "Louise wrote: "Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decide..."

She isn’t from the 18th century, but she is from the early 20th century, when corporal punishment was still commonplace. Even if she had never experienced it herself, she very likely knew people who had. It probably wasn’t such a shock to her as it would be for a delicately nurtured 21st century woman. She would have known that Jamie was acting in a way that was normal for his time and place. So it wouldn’t necessarily put her off him.

Louise wrote: "Fuzzball wrote: "Louise wrote: "Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the disc..."

agree and today it would be a kink or fetish as it is in many circles. as someone who has experienced it (i consented) personally i think that people blow it way out of proportion.

As I have said before on this thread, the scene was of the time. People are basing their opinions on today's attitudes. The book was written about the 18th Century and this would have been totally accepted then.

Stumbled by chance on those new comments on this old thread. Still surprised that some people try and justify the most problematic aspects of this novel. This is a 21th century book, written by a 21st century writer to a 21st century audience. No 'back in the time it was ok' rationalization applies here. And by the way, even 'back in the time' there were some LAWS that forbade violence against women or kin. One can enjoy one's favorite problematic book while acknowledging it is indeed problematic. For some of us, it is about 80 to 90 % of our cultural consumption. It's OK. You'll survived. You might even learn a few things.

I completely agree with the comments in this thread. Outlander justifies spousal abuse and rape and suggests women somehow want this occasionally and love their husband after getting beaten half to death. Then raped the next day? And Jamie seems to enjoy this? He is no better than Captain Randall then. And Claire “loves” him after this? Perhaps Stockholm Syndrome. That a woman would write this crap under the guise of historical fiction is disappointing. There are so many books to read out there. I am done with this one. As someone who has been the victim of violence, this was triggering. Won’t watch the series either. Life is too short.

Laura wrote: "I completely agree with the comments in this thread. Outlander justifies spousal abuse and rape and suggests women somehow want this occasionally and love their husband after getting beaten half to..."

I didn’t get the impression she was beaten half to death. Men at that time were routinely beaten half to death in the army, navy etc, but I don’t think that’s what happens to the girl in this book. If she had been a man, she would undoubtedly have suffered a much harsher punishment for what she did.

I loved the spanking scene in both the book and the show there's nothing wrong with it. It's historically accurate!

If it was a man that did what she did he would have been flogged if not killed.

There was nothing 'historically accurate' about that scene.

Edward Cullen is Bae wrote: "I loved the spanking scene in both the book and the show there's nothing wrong with it. It's historically accurate!

If it was a man that did what she did he would have been flogged if not killed."

Exactly. Men routinely suffered brutal corporal punishment, she gets off very lightly.

This is a fiction, not an history book. This was a writing choice, not an scientific assessment of corporal punishment in medieval Scotland. This is glamorizing domestic violence and it's shitty. You're welcome.

Red wrote: "This is a fiction, not an history book. This was a writing choice, not an scientific assessment of corporal punishment in medieval Scotland. This is glamorizing domestic violence and it's shitty. Y..."

It’s realistic for its time period. It’s not a prettified view of the past. Harsh corporal punishment was a fact of life for most people. And the 18th century was well past the medieval era.

Red wrote: "This is a fiction, not an history book. This was a writing choice, not an scientific assessment of corporal punishment in medieval Scotland. This is glamorizing domestic violence and it's shitty. Y..."

How is it glamorizing??? Claire threatens to cut him with a knife if he ever touches her again and he swears that he never will. When he finally finds out that she is from the future, he agonizes over beating her. And in fact, over the course of 8 books, he never touches her in violence again.

The writing glamorizes the beating. It turns it into some sexually enjoyable moment for Jamie, Claire forgiving him, him the forcing onto her afterthatt and the her love confession. It's pretty well summarized in the original post I published. And just because he promises not to do it again doesn't negate what it did, and how awful it wqs and howbunforgivable, IMHO, it was, and why I disagree with people who do historical gymnastics to try abd justify it. Which is the point I've been making.

When people get so uptight - on rampage about a book, that they cannot accurately list the events of the “Wrong Things” in the book….
It takes away from the “justification of their righteous indignation & anger”.
I am not saying I believe in spousal abuse - or the abuse of any human.
I am speaking about a fictional story and an amazing amount of Time ( thankfully paper & ink were not wasted for all this upset) & Energy that accomplished absolutely Nothing.

Nope - not going to write the spoiler line, but I know beyond a doubt that I am correct.
I have read and reread this entire series to date over 20 times - start to finish.

Now I know why I don’t read and join in these groups of drama reviews.

Red wrote: "The writing glamorizes the beating. It turns it into some sexually enjoyable moment for Jamie, Claire forgiving him, him the forcing onto her afterthatt and the her love confession. It's pretty wel..."

Claire didn’t find it unforgivable though. That you do doesn’t matter, since it’s her story, not yours.

Well since I am the one who started this thread, and she's not real but I am, it does matter. To the point that you Louise Culmer, took your time and energy to come and try and 'defend' some very problematic domestic abuse scene. So how about you mind your business and let me decide what matter to Me and just go and gush all you want about what an healthy writing this is ELSEWHERE? Bye!

Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decided to just stop reading abou..."
I can't justify this scene, nor can I justify all the other horrors in this book, (rape, masculine empowerment, more rape) however; this book is fiction. Punishment, beating, and rape ALL happened a lot before, during, and after that time. Doesn't make it right, and if one is sensitive to this topic, this book may not be the right one to you. The thing is, men were women's "masters" back in the day, they believed it was their right to do whatever they wanted to do to their wives, and the wives would have to obey. Again. This DOES NOT make it right. It just makes it honest as to what it was like to live back in the day of Claire Randall and Jaime Fraiser. Also, if you're wondering why Claire stays with Jaime, well she hates him for a long time because of that, and they do have a big fight about it (where many profanities are thrown at each other) but because of Claire's fight and independence, Jaime realizes what he did may not have been right. Which afterwards he swears to never do it again, which he does live up too. Claire realizes that Jaime did what he did because he didn't know better (being from the 1700s and all) and now that she talked some sense into him (and that he really is the only thing keeping her safe from the rapist Jack Randall) she decides it may be better to trust the word of Jaime when he tell hers he'll never do it again, then run away to either die, get raped by some random idiot, or be killed by someone else. Again. She is in the 1700s, she doesn't know a whole lot about the times, scared, and she has no connection to anyone except for these Scottish Highlanders that rescued her from rapist Jack Randall. I honestly love Diana's writing I appreciate how raw and honest she is. Some author's are afraid to write this kind of stuff or just find the mere thought of writing about it disgusting; if that's the case then don't write about it. Thank goodness that women rose up and declared their independence so that we weren't stuck in the 1700s belief of beating and raping. Rape and beating of your wife is NOT okay. I disgust people who do that, they need to be caught, beat, and jailed for the rest of their miserable lives, but this book is fiction. FICTION. If you don't like what you're reading, close the book and get on with your life. It is okay to not like a book.

Leah wrote: "It is okay to not like a book.."
It's okay to not like a book.

It's also okay to use an open forum to express why you do not like a book without other people who do like the book telling you how wrong you are for your opinion at every turn.

If you do like what you are reading, move past the negative posts and just keep reading.

Kat wrote: "Leah wrote: "It is okay to not like a book.."
It's okay to not like a book.

It's also okay to use an open forum to express why you do not like a book without other people who do like the book tel..."
I agree. Just trying to add to the discussion by sharing my thoughts.

Leah wrote: "Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decided to just stop ..."

On the subject of women being beaten, a man who did what Claire did would have been more severely punished than she was. Corporal punishment was used on men to a fearsome degree, men in the army and navy could be, and were, beaten to death. Jamie would have been much more harsh on a man in Claire’s position.

Louise wrote: On the subject of women being beaten, a man who did what Claire did would have been more severely punished than she was.."

That has no bearing on the discussion of Claire's beating. Please do not change the subject in a sad attempt to justify the scene.