Outlander discussion

Kat wrote: "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. ..."

It does have bearing, because Claire is being punished for something that a man would have been punished for much more severely. Don’t be silly.

Louise wrote: "It does have bearing, because Claire is being punished for something that a man would have been punished for much more severely. Don’t be silly."

No, Claire is being punished for something for which a soldier would have been punished more severely. Don't forget, ALL the other people in the company were men. And not just ordinary, random farmers and peasants type men. They were the Scottish clan equivalent of military. So of course the rules would be different for a man in that company had he done what Claire had done.

But this discussion isn't about appropriate punishment for a military man who disobeyed a direct order. THIS discussion is about a husband who beat his non-military wife at the direction of his superior officer and fellow soldiers because she didn't obey his order, when she had absolutely no understanding of the the situation which would have enabled her to do so.

You don't be silly.

I watched the first few seasons a few years ago and quite liked them so I thought why not giving the books go? Some reviews mentioning rape made me a bit hesitante (involving rape into "couples romance" is just not for me) but I gave it a shot anyways and as I moved along the chapters I relaxed cause nothing of the sort seemed likely. Jamie so far was a very caring and mature guy and Claire and he had great consensual sex. All good.
But then: "being beaten within an inch of my life" came up, and ugh.
I keep coming across in this discussion with people describing it as "she was spanked"
NO.
He knee punched her on the back. He smothered her with the sheets. He cause her to make so much noise the other men thought she was being "murdered". Im seriously wondering if we all have the same book....
The saddest part is how many comments I read justifying the beating, saying it was: "the times", even though 1) the character of Jamie himself states he knows Claire didn't hurt anyone ON PURPOSE or would ever hurt him or the men on purpose.
(Yet he is going to now hurt her on purpose.)
Comments saying Claire is dumb or acting stupid...
She just went through war, she saved thousand of lives. She isn't stupid or weak. And kinda has every right to want and search what's best for herself.
And she doesn't want to be beaten by Jamie not because she is a comfortable feminist. its because of: "I felt deeply betrayed that the man I depended on as friend, protector and lover intended to do such a thing to me"

Saying it was ok, it was justified, it is earned. To have no sympathy towards a character that has been beaten so badly by her husband that she couldn't sit for days but all the meant still groped her badly injured behind. Its Disgusting

ale von bohlen wrote: "I watched the first few seasons a few years ago and quite liked them so I thought why not giving the books go? Some reviews mentioning rape made me a bit hesitante (involving rape into "couples rom..."

She forgives him though. And she still seems to love him afterwards. It’s really up to her I think. We are not all constituted alike.

Kat wrote: "Louise wrote: "It does have bearing, because Claire is being punished for something that a man would have been punished for much more severely. Don’t be silly."

No, Claire is being punished for so..."

Take it up with Claire. She seems to find it forgivable, since she still loves him afterwards. It’s ultimately her feelings that matter. Not sure why you’re getting your knickers in a twist about it.

ale von bohlen wrote: "I watched the first few seasons a few years ago and quite liked them so I thought why not giving the books go? Some reviews mentioning rape made me a bit hesitante (involving rape into "couples rom..."
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You're spot on ! Am glad this thread is still a useful space for other readers to share their minds.

Louise wrote: "ale von bohlen wrote: "I watched the first few seasons a few years ago and quite liked them so I thought why not giving the books go? Some reviews mentioning rape made me a bit hesitante (involving..."
She may forgive him, that doesn't mean us as reader have to just because she does as a character. This thread wasn't aimed at Claire, not even at Jamie, or at least not most of the criticism, but at the writing choice made by the author. This impacted the way some of us viewed Jamie, who is the lead male character that we are supposed to root for, and made us disliked him and their romance. This is the reason why I started this thread and I am glad many found their way here.

Louise wrote: "Kat wrote: "Louise wrote: "It does have bearing, because Claire is being punished for something that a man would have been punished for much more severely. Don’t be silly."

No, Claire is being pun..."

Claire is a character. It's not about "getting our knickers in a twist", but sharing our thoughts about a problematic scene that upset many of us. So the question is more : what are YOU doing hre, getting YOUR knickers in a twist, about people discussing a book/character/writer ?

ale von bohlen wrote: "I watched the first few seasons a few years ago and quite liked them so I thought why not giving the books go? Some reviews mentioning rape made me a bit hesitante (involving rape into "couples rom..."

I'll just echo Red's comment and thank you for the well reasoned and astute comment! I very much enjoyed reading it.

Louise wrote: "Take it up with Claire. She seems to find it forgivable, since she still loves him afterwards. It’s ultimately her feelings that matter. Not sure why you’re getting your knickers in a twist about it.."

Lol! Yes, I'm obviously getting my knickers in a twist. Although, I'm not going to 'take it up with Claire' because she is a fictional character and that would be quite impossible. So what does that say about you to even make that silly suggestion?

Red wrote: "Claire is a character. It's not about "getting our knickers in a twist", but sharing our thoughts about a problematic scene that upset many of us. So the question is more : what are YOU doing hre, getting YOUR knickers in a twist, about people discussing a book/character/writer ?"

Thank you Red. And thank you for starting this thread that so many readers still need to find and use as a space to discuss a very problematic scene.

There are many disturbing scenes in Outlander and although I wish this book were not so brutal, this comment is only about the beating scene in the show, not the book.
It also is not a comment about Claire. That is another comment for another day.

This scene was so contrary to the character of Jamie. No where else is there any indication that he would ever hurt Claire. He was so protective of her and said several times in different circumstances that he did not want to hurt her.

But he really did hurt her. He hit her hard and wanted to hurt her. Watch his face and the effort he is making. He also betrayed and humiliated her. This was not his character at all. In addition:

He took a beating for a girl he hardly knew so that she would not be hurt and humiliated and was injured at the time. He showed empathy and compassion for her, but beat the crap out of his wife that he supposedly loved????

When told he had to punish Ian with a thrashing after bringing him home from Inverness ,he chose to punish him with a non violent task.

He told Claire he could stand his own pain but did not have the
strength to stand hers. What??? Shouldn't he have added to that, unless you disobey me , and then I will beat you and have fun doing it?

He couldn't even give her a shot of penicillin because he couldn't bring himself to hurt her! The fact that he hurt Claire and enjoyed it is sadistic, and there is no other incident that I can recall that indicated that Jamie was sadistic. Perhaps the writers wanted to show that he was more like the sadistic psychpath Jack Randell, or was this Jamie's "evil twin"?

Jamie knew what he did was wrong and regretted it based upon his swearing on his sword and promising to never beat her again. He also apologized after he learned the reason she ran away.

This is not a statement about the historical acceptance of spouse beating or about Claire deserving it or not. There is no indication in the series that Jamie would do this or enjoy it. It is just not in his character based upon his actions ,or lack there of in the remainder of the series.

In addition, it really did no good at all. Shortly after the beating he warned Claire to stay away from Geilis Duncan. That same day Claire went to see Gaelis when summoned and ended up being accused of witchcraft and could have easily been put to death. (just saying)

Red, I have to say I agree with you on most things and want to add a few of my own.

1) Jamie enjoying spanking Claire. I don't like it but I get it. Inexperienced and didn't know spanking cud b sexually arousing. Wen he admits to Claire that he wanted her but thought better of doing anything, she sarcastically congratulates on refraining from committing rape on top of assault. That he never expresses remorse for enjoying sumthing that caused her pain though, that's wrong and out of character.

2) Forgiving him right away. That's one of the worst decisions made by the author. He hurt her, he humiliated her and she just let it slide? What self-respecting 20th century woman does that? I'm not saying she shud have never forgiven him but just like that? Without so much as making him examine his actions. Becoz the thing I was itching for Claire to tell Jamie is that despite having been married for 7 years before him, the only other man to raise a hand to her was Black Jack Randall. That wud have made him think long and hard.

3) Rape. Jamie never raped Claire. He never even slept with her. After they reconcile he even remarks about wanting to share her bed again and how cold it is on the floor. There's a lot he's done wrong here. That's not on the list.

4) Telling him she loves him after he beat her. Now this is the worst decision in the entire book. What's the message here? If u beat your wife she'll love u for it? It's also out of character for Claire. She doesn't suffer fools but a beating from her husband inspires devotion? No woman who doesn't have victim mentality wud do this? Also, where was the editor and all the ppl who got their hands on this b4 it was published? Did not a single one think to point out this mistake? This is like being a gud dog after u've been kicked. Did Diana ever explain this monumental error in judgement? Send me a link if she did. Ironically, u're the 1st other person I've found who pointed out how wrong this is.

5) Rough childhood. Here's the thing: Jamie doesn't consider his childhood to have been rough. He found it to be a happy one and physical punishment was par for the course. He didn't see anything abusive abt it. That factors into his actions here. I also don't see y the author cudnt have Claire point out to Jamie that she is neither his child nor his subordinate becoz where else is he going to learn that?

5) Characteristic of the era. This is sum bullshit. Just becoz beating your wife was an accepted practice, doesn't men every man beat his wife. If they didn't want to seem like they were putting Jamie on an unrealistic pedestal then fine but then they have to deal with the fallout as befitting a woman who grew up in a century where such shit is unacceptable. Or y make her a time traveller at all? This is a part of the book I truly detested becoz not only is it out of character for both these ppl but the author forcibly creates this issue and then doesn't actually deal with it. (More on that later).

6) Laoghaire Mackenzie. Jamie took a beating for her becoz he knew it wud b a humiliating experience she wud carry for sum time but he turns around and puts the woman he loves thru that?! He knew they had an audience even if it was not visible and he encouraged her not to be afraid to face them the next day becoz he knew he'd humiliated her. So who is Jamie? A guy who wud take a beating to spare a girl he doesn't even see humiliation or one who'd beat a wife he loves and humiliate her? He can't realistically be both.

*That point I said I'd speak more abt. Let's call it Punishment. Jamie distinguishes between discipline and abuse. He sees being hit on the ass with a belt or a switch as discipline and being hit with fists and kicked etc as abuse (wen inflicted on a woman or child). Fine. I don't know if the next part was ret-conned into the story to make him seem more sympathetic after the backlash (and he deserves sum sympathy, it's the puppet master who twisted him into something out of character) but Jamie tuk it upon himself to punish Claire becoz Dougal was going to do it himself publicly. Sure. But what is Claire being punished for here? The only reason Randall went so far as to kidnap a chieftain's niece was to compel her to sign a statement saying the war chief, Dougal, and his men were raising money for a Jacobite army. Which is exactly what they were doing. She decided to protect them and thus became Randall's target. So whose fault is this kidnapping? I'm going with the ppl committing treason. Furthermore, Claire didn't make them storm the castle, Jamie did. So y must she b punished? She didn't force them to cum n get her. It worked out in her favor but it wasn't her decision. "Hello victim-blaming, fancy meeting u in the company of abuse. I've heard u're fast friends."

Last but definitely not least: wud u believe this issue is made even worse later on in the series? Book 6 (that's where I stopped reading). The topic is brought up again when Claire expresses concern abt a girl who's father is beating her (in the way that's considered acceptable discipline). Jamie tells her there's nothing he can do abt how another man disciplines his children. (It cums back to bite him in the ass. Unfortunately he has no idea that if he'd done something abt that girl's abuse it wudnt have blown back on him.) They end up discussing what measures men can take in their homes. Wen it comes to him beating Claire (he wishes she wudnt call it that, it's not a beating) he points out that he cud do it n there's nothing she cud do to stop it. Jamie thinks the entire affair was hilarious, laughing abt how she screamed like a ban-shee. Claire gives him a pass by talking about wife beaters but then saying they use their fists n cause serious injuries so Jamie feels vindicated. He laughs sum more about how she brought it on herself and, instead of explaining the issue to him and all that's wrong with everything he's saying and doing, she screams that he apologized. He points out that he didn't apologize, he just promised never to do it again and that he cud have if he wanted to.

Why bring this back up only to make it worse than before? Before I read book 6, I thought Jamie felt remorse for beating Claire and thought maybe she didn't give him an indepth talk on abuse becoz it might b hard 2 explain wyl skirting time travel. This time, she had no such obstacles. She even told him that beating your wife is a crime so y let him think beating her with a belt isn't actually beating her. Jamie also said it never once occurred to him to beat Laoghaire becoz he didn't love her. What is Diana playing at here?! I get that he's saying he gets the urge 2 punish her wen she's done something that made him worry she'd die becoz he cares about her but sum1 from a more enlightened era shud show teach him abt healthy expressions of love and control but no1 does and I don't just mean Claire, even though she has the most ample opportunities.

I get Diana wanting to keep Jamie as 18th century as possible but she cud have done that while removing the toxic elements of it. And what's with the flip-flopping in Jamie's character?! In the 3rd book/season 3, he cudnt bring himself to give her an injection that wud cure her fever but all of a sudden he thinks beating her is a fun idea?!

Good day Diana. There's only so much any1 can take.

Mrs Brooks. In a world where sum men beat their wives and others don't, Jamie is the type of man who wud fall into the latter category. I can, however, see how he cud fall into the former category (all things being equal). The problem for me is the inconsistency in his character and, frankly, how badly the issue was dealt with.

1) Laoghaire. If she'd have been beaten. U bet the audience wud have raised a stink. But she wasn't beaten. Y not? Becoz Jamie recognized that the experience wud inflict emotional/psychological damage she wudnt soon get over so he tuk the beating for her. Injured, I might add. Now this same man is going to put the woman he loves thru the pain n humiliation he spared sum1 he doesn't care abt? How do u reconcile those things?

I cud suspend that part of me though, if Diana had taken the trouble to deal with the major issue she forced to play out properly. Jamie is an 18th century man. Claire is a 20th century woman. No 20th century woman (who isn't deeply damaged) just takes a man back immediately after he puts her thru that. A sense of self-worth doesn't allow it. Don't even get me started on that love confession. Telling a man u love him for the first time right after he beats u?! What woman does that? Not 1 who is used 2 being treated as an equal in her marriage and certainly not one educated enuf 2 understand patterns of behavior. What went into that decision from Diana's side?

I wudnt have had such a problem with that scene if it had been dealt with in a way that was true to those characters. And then Diana brings it up in book 6 only to make everything that was already wrong even worse. She has Jamie treat beating Claire like a joke, after everything they've been thru. And Claire fails once again to educate him on what constitutes abuse in a marriage. As a matter of fact, she strengthens his conviction that hitting your wife with a belt isn't abuse by saying wife beaters use their fists. He also said he didn't apologize (just said he'd never do it again) to Claire and that she'd brought the beating on herself. And he's laughing like this is all a joke and points out that he cud have beat Claire again if he wanted to and she wudnt have been able to do anything abt it.

This is basically saying that not only did Jamie not grow from the experience, he actually devolved. This is the man who (in book 3/season 3) cudnt bring himself to stick Claire with a needle to cure her fever. Call me crazy but that feels inconsistent. Y did the author feel the need to spit on who Jamie and Claire's characters? Becoz wat woman doesn't take the opportunity to educate her daughter's father abt how she can b treated. She mentions Brianna but Jamie dismisses it with a joke and Claire just lets him.

I've actually stopped reading the books becoz Diana is intent on destroying these characters. She actually had Jenny relate a story abt how she told her daughter to keep quiet abt being raped by her brother in law and carry on with life as usual. She did it to keep Claire from telling Jamie that the man who raped her had escaped. Since wen is jenny Murray the woman who says let rapists b n keep quiet n cross your fingers n hope for the best? I don't expect her to go 21st century on the issue and report it to sum authority. I expect her to handle it though. This woman bribed the watch to check the red coats n the guy who turned in her brother inexplicably burned 2 death, now u're telling me that he solution to her daughter being raped is keep quiet n carry on?

These books weren't without flaws but this is getting ridiculous. She shud have quit while she was ahead.

It's fascinating reading people's thoughts on consent from only a few years ago. Jamie raped Claire. She asked him to stop, said and I quote "Stop, please you're hurting me!" It's simply gross the justifications in this thread. I'm nearly done with the first book and it's really clouded how I see Jamie. But still I understand not all books are pleasant, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what happened.