Outlander discussion

"Outlander" is one of my favourite books. But I didn't like the beating scene (and to me, there's no doubt that it is in fact a BEATING scene, NOT spanking) either. It just didn't sit well with me and felt wrong. It kind of ruined the story a bit for me, and it ruined Jamie for me. So in order to retain my love for the Outlander series, and for Jamie in particular, I just pretend it never happened, and on re-reading it, I skipped those pages (even considered ripping them out of the book). Block it from my mind entirely. Jamie as I see him would never do such a despicable (in MY opinion) thing, so I deny that he did. There, problem solved. This is an approach that works for me :-)

Christina wrote: ""Outlander" is one of my favourite books. But I didn't like the beating scene (and to me, there's no doubt that it is in fact a BEATING scene, NOT spanking) either. It just didn't sit well with me ..."

Haha. Although I disagree with your assesment of Jamies character I'm glad you were able to keep reading and enjoy the book. Whatever works!

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "I respect everyone's opinion, but I just cannot wrap my mind around the application of modern thinking to the 1700's. If my husband beat me, or spanked me, I wouldn't think it's okay because I rea..."

I was thinking that reading this too. There are many books I have put down because I could not handle a scene of mistreatment of a woman. This was not one of them. Claire is in no way cowed or submissive either during or afterwards. Jamie's treatment of her in future parts of the novel is anything but lacking respect or care. It may not be what we would do today, but if we were to leave out everyhing from a historical novel that would or should not be done today, we might as well have no historical novels. and while we're at it, we'd better not watch any vintage tv or movies either because those might make us think we have to go back to those days as well.

This isn't a perfect love story. Life is not perfect either. But, I think Jamie more than redeems himself, for "beating" on his wife's butt, when he takes her place at Jack Randall's side. He let Randall rape him so Claire could escape.
Claire and Jamie both suffer in this story... but for Jamie it was worse.

Christina wrote: ""Outlander" is one of my favourite books. But I didn't like the beating scene (and to me, there's no doubt that it is in fact a BEATING scene, NOT spanking) either. It just didn't sit well with me ..."

Good for you to have been able to block out the scene and keep reading and enjoying the book and the series. This is precisely what I couldn't do. I kept reading and finished the book, but I couldn't erase that moment and the way it was dealt and all, and kept thinking about that.

It ruined the character and the book for me and even ruined the tv show and the fine ass actor playing Jamie. I actually came to the book because I kept seeing posts about the tv on my tumblr dash and it looked good so I went and checked the original source being the book lover that I am. I don't know if it was a bad or a good move on my part, cause now I can't with either the book or the show, which is a damned shame 'cause that Sam Heughan guy is a hottie ;).

Red wrote: "Christina wrote: ""Outlander" is one of my favourite books. But I didn't like the beating scene (and to me, there's no doubt that it is in fact a BEATING scene, NOT spanking) either. It just didn't..."

Red, have you tried watching the show to know that you wouldn't like it?

Red wrote: "Christina wrote: ""Outlander" is one of my favourite books. But I didn't like the beating scene (and to me, there's no doubt that it is in fact a BEATING scene, NOT spanking) either. It just didn't..."

It wasn't easy to block out, because like you I found the scene very disturbing and just plain wrong. The first time I read it I got so mad I threw the book across the room and refused to pick it up for several days, but was persuaded by my bestie to do so (who was also the one who'd recommended the book to me, and who incidentally didn't remember that scene either. It turns out she had also blocked it from her mind LOL). Blocking it out was just the only way I could keep reading and loving Jamie. But if I'm being honest, that scene did forever change my opinion of Jamie. After that he wasn't QUITE as dreamy, and my blind adoration of him ended. It also really bothered me how quickly Claire forgave him. Not that holding a grudge helps anyone, least of all the one holding it, but she got over it way too quickly.

Can someone refresh my memory of what chapter and page this was on, because I don't remember this scene to be so detailed.

Jeanine wrote: "Can someone refresh my memory of what chapter and page this was on, because I don't remember this scene to be so detailed."

Chapter 22 "Reckonings" Just after Jamie rescues Clare from BJR.

Thanks. I reread the chapter and I was right it was not that graphic. The intent of graphic was there so in your mind you can picture the scene any way you want. Don't want to start a war people, I just think it is in how you visualized it. I just didn't get disturbed about it.

I think saying that "Outlander" glorifies beating and rape is like saying that books like "Kindred" by Octavia Butler (another book about time travel) justifies and romanticizes slavery. The main character in "Kindred" is a black woman and she is treated horribly when she travels back to the times of slavery. Her beatings and whippings are far more brutal and graphic in detail than anything that either Claire or Jamie is depicted as suffering through in Outlander.

Is "Kindred" historically accurate? Not all slaves where beaten and whipped.....but the point is that enough were and it was common enough that many through the years have chosen to write about it. What happens between Jamie and Claire is historically accurate in the sense that these are things that can and did happen between husbands and wives in those times. To say that Diana Gabaldon shouldn't have included it because of a "pc" or "feminist" agenda doesn't sit well with me considering that the book's intended genre is historical fiction.

Understanding an event within the context of the fictional story that it occurs in is not the same as condoning those actions in real life.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I think saying that "Outlander" glorifies beating and rape is like saying that books like "Kindred" by Octavia Butler (another book about time travel) justifies and romanticizes slavery. The main ..."

Where did you read that I said the author shouldn't have include that scene because of what you call "pc" (a term people really should stop to use in that derogatroy/negative way because...HISTORY!!) or a "feminist agenda". I criticizes her writing choice because I found it was a bad writing choice and I disagree with people trying to justify it using "historically accurate" arguments.

As for your comparison with "Kindred", you will have to cite a precise scene where the main female character is beaten by her love interest, and Butler chose to frame it in a way that makes it somehow ok (because that's what was being done at the time) by having the female lead character confess her love for the man who beat her and admitted that he enjoyed beating her. Then I'll have to re-read the book and THAT scene to be able to judge the avlue of this example.

Jeanine wrote: "Thanks. I reread the chapter and I was right it was not that graphic. The intent of graphic was there so in your mind you can picture the scene any way you want. Don't want to start a war people, I..."

I get that some people didn't found it problematic. Or were able to move on. I did. And it bugged me up until the end and made me dislike the book, teh characters and then made it imposible for me to wacth the show.

But my main point isn't even about it. It's about the line of arguments trying to justify that writing choice by talking about "historical accuracy".

Mrsbooks wrote: "Red wrote: "Christina wrote: ""Outlander" is one of my favourite books. But I didn't like the beating scene (and to me, there's no doubt that it is in fact a BEATING scene, NOT spanking) either. It..."

No I haven't. Reading the book actually prevented me from doing so. That's one of the secondary reasons why it annoyed me : it ruined both book and tv Jamie for me. 'Cause it's not that I don't think I could enjoy it. Judging from the gifs I saw on my dash, I could really enjoy it. The thing is I don't want to. I don't want to get sucked into loving tv Jamie and tv Claire and tv Outlander, because of the original material it is based on. I know some people are able to disconnect the two. I sometimes can do the same, when it comes to book sand their tv/movie version. In this case, not so much.

Maybe also because I really hate this kind of "writing choice", the way violence against women is used in this genre, in romance and in tv in general, as plot device, or to "educate" a character, etc. I hate it and Outlander (the book) happened to epitomize this for me. Maybe if I had read it when I was a teen and loved classic romance novel, and wasn't aware of all teh systemic flaws and problems, it wouldn't have bothered me so much. But now, I just can't.

Now, I am curious to see if and how this scene is "adapated" in the show...I am not sure the tv writers will keep it at all, and if they do, how the are going to write it. Caus eit's one thing to read about a husband beating his wife (ene if it is "justified" in one way or another) but it's something else to actually see it...

Mochaspresso wrote: "I think saying that "Outlander" glorifies beating and rape is like saying that books like "Kindred" by Octavia Butler (another book about time travel) justifies and romanticizes slavery. The main ..."

Your comment is perfect. It's just like people trying to ban To Kill A Mockingbird because of the racial slurs.

Red wrote: "Where did you read that I said the author shouldn't have include that scene because of what you call "pc" (a term people really should stop to use in that derogatroy/negative way because...HISTORY!!) or a "feminist agenda". I criticizes her writing choice because I found it was a bad writing choice and I disagree with people trying to justify it using "historically accurate" arguments.



PC gets used that way because some people often try to re-write or sugar coat history. Is that type of punishment historically accurate for the time, culture and setting of this book? Like it or not, the answer to this question is yes.



As for your comparison with "Kindred", you will have to cite a precise scene where the main female character is beaten by her love interest, and Butler chose to frame it in a way that makes it somehow ok (because that's what was being done at the time) by having the female lead character confess her love for the man who beat her and admitted that he enjoyed beating her. Then I'll have to re-read the book and THAT scene to be able to judge the avlue of this example.
"

In Kindred, she was beaten by her ancestors, but not by her love interest. Although, at one point, her white husband does travel back in time with her and he has to pretend to be her master to protect her from others. The point is that what you are claiming also doesn't happen in Outlander. The beating happened but it was not framed as "somehow okay". Jamie believed that he was punishing her....in the same manner that his own father would have punished him for disobeying an order and putting other lives at risk in the process. Claire was not okay with it and she fought back.

Exactly Claire fought back

Red and I have talked this one out so much by now. I know we will never agree lol.

I simply can't wrap my mind around not making allowances for historical accuracy. Red, you feel that this is used as an excuse for us to accept it. And I don't understand why that's such a problem. I really don't.

Actually you just wrote a paragraph that I totally understand you on though.... "Maybe also because I really hate this kind of "writing choice", the way violence against women is used in this genre, in romance and in tv in general, as plot device, or to "educate" a character, etc. I hate it and Outlander (the book) happened to epitomize this for me."

I actually feel this way totally, about a lot of romance novels but Outlander was not one of them. The difference with me however is that Outlander didn't bother me because it was realistic. When I read those 80's romance novels and it happens I cringe, because they aren't really historically accurate. Although true it did happen, so much else of the story isn't accurate, so I can't seem to swallow it.

I do understand that you can't get past this. I just can't seem to relate that being historically accurate isn't a good enough reason to.

You keep saying it was a poor writing choice and it can't be justified by claiming it was historically accurate. Yet you aren't explaining the difference between, as Mochospresso brought up, books that detail the terribleness of slavery.

I know you've brought up before that this subject was specifically about a husband abusing his wife, not other abuse that occurred through out history. Why is him being her husband more evil than the other atrocities that occur? Why is that worse than when she wrote about the boy who had his ear nailed to a board in the town square or when Laoghaire almost took a public beating? I can't separate them.

You want to talk about this scene specifically, because it's her husband. But we can't see why that makes this book unbearable. Why that takes the cake?!? The other scenes are not being butchered and said that they're poor writing choices all because they weren't between a husband and a wife.

I can't relate to that. I can't understand why one is worse than the other. To me they are one and the same.

Red wrote: "Jeanine wrote: "Thanks. I reread the chapter and I was right it was not that graphic. The intent of graphic was there so in your mind you can picture the scene any way you want. Don't want to start..."

But it WAS historically accurate. It was also not OK. That was kind of the point. Jamie came from a society that deemed it OK, but because of Claire's reaction he learned it was not OK. If he had not sworn not to do it again and not told Claire that she could use his own dirk to kill him if he did, I do not think their relationship would have survived beyond that point. It was an epiphany moment for Jamie and a turning point. He could have continued to try and "master" Claire or he could acquiesce to a more egalitarian relationship. he chose the latter.

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "Jeanine wrote: "Thanks. I reread the chapter and I was right it was not that graphic. The intent of graphic was there so in your mind you can picture the scene any way you want. Don't w..."

^^ Exactly! Whenever I've read those terrible 80's type romances the Hero NEVER learns or changes. He always stays the idiotic Alpha male.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "Jeanine wrote: "Thanks. I reread the chapter and I was right it was not that graphic. The intent of graphic was there so in your mind you can picture the scene any way you ..."

Exactly

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "Jeanine wrote: "Thanks. I reread the chapter and I was right it was not that graphic. The intent of graphic was there so in your mind you can picture the scene any way you want. Don't w..."

I agree. Nice point.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Red and I have talked this one out so much by now. I know we will never agree lol.

I simply can't wrap my mind around not making allowances for historical accuracy. Red, you feel that this is use..."

I totally agree about being confused about why out of all the human atrocities that occur in Outlander, this is the one that generates the most controversy. Jamie has scars on his back from a flogging at the hands of a Brittish soldier. A village attempted to burn Claire and Gellis Duncan (?) as witches. As you mentioned, a boy was punished by having his ear nailed to a post in the town square.

I also think that Red is failing (or possibly refusing) to acknowledge that the punishment was not framed as a marital issue between a husband and a wife. This was not Desi Arnez spanking his misbehaving wife for sneaking into the nightclub on an episode of "I Love Lucy". It was really a clan issue. Jamie was deemed as the one that should do it because he was her husband. Had Jamie not done it, one of the clan leaders would have. I'm not saying that I agree with the decision to punish her in that manner because I don't. However, I do understand why it happened and why they would do this because of the historical context.

For me, it's the same as watching a movie about marines bootcamp and a private is punished by doing laps all night in the pouring rain. I will never forget a conversation that I had with my boyfriend of the time while watching the movie "Glory". In that movie, a white drill instructor is abusive toward the black soldiers. In one instance, he strikes one across the face with the butt of his rifle. My boyfriend was in the marine reserves at the time. I was appalled at the scene and he turned to me and said "Well, what do you think the enemy is going to do to him on the battlefield? It doesn't matter if his drill instructor is racist because he needs to be able to defend himself properly on the battlefield regardless of who his enemy is or why they are trying to kill him."

I think Jamie beating Claire has been misrepresented and taken grossly out of context. The scene was not depicted as romantic and it was not about a husband arbitrarily deciding to abuse his wife. It happened, but it was not "justified" in the story. It was not "legitimized" as far as Jamie and Claire were concerned and it was not romanticized.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Red wrote: "Where did you read that I said the author shouldn't have include that scene because of what you call "pc" (a term people really should stop to use in that derogatroy/negative way becaus..."

1st) No, PC get used that way because by the early 80s there has been a conservative/reactionary backlash against the 1960s-1970s civil rights/liberation/feminist/LGBT movements which tried and partly succeed in reducing some of the advances of those movements. The use of the term political correctness" as some kind of negative/dismissive term is part of it.

2dn) As you admitted yourself, in Kindred, her love interest "pretended" to be her master to protect her, which is an entirely different situation. So, comparing this with Outlander totally misses the point.

3rd) To me, the beating scene was framed "as somehow ok", because of the way it was justified afterwards, how Jamie and Claire discussed it and she kind of moved on easily. Now, you may not have read it that way, but I did. And it bugged me. And made me dislike both character. And made me questioned that writing choices.

Jeanine wrote: "Exactly Claire fought back"

Yeah, she fought back. I pointed that out. No disagreement with me here. Maybe with those who tried and argued that it was a mere "spanking" or that it wasn't that hard or violent.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Red and I have talked this one out so much by now. I know we will never agree lol.

I simply can't wrap my mind around not making allowances for historical accuracy. Red, you feel that this is use..."

There are many things, regarding violence and rape especially, that it disliked in the book. As I pointed in my review of the book (you can check it here), I disliked the amount of violence in the book, not because it was violence per se (I do read and enjoy books and movies and shows depicting way more violent things), but because I found it kind of "gratuitous". To me, the author was trying way too much to show be "realistic" by using it in order to set the book in it time, something like "oh, let's put this character through some horrendous things so that the story will look real authentic" or something like that. Maybe it was the writing or the author style, but let's say that I wasn't "impressed".

I also found pretty caricatural how "villainous" the English captain was, and how he happened to be so closely related to both Claire and Jamie.

But I rolled with it, 'cause not every story or book get to be tightly and well written all around, right? I disliked what happened to Jamie when he was a boy, and even felt for him. I disliked what happened to that infant and much of the violence and rape happening. I disliked what would have happened to that girl who was in love with Jamie if he hadn't intervened. So there's that.

You'll also note that most of those scene were always framed in a way that made what was happening as something bad. Claire felt for Jamie when he told her about his abuses (and the readers were made to feel the same), Jamie even intervened to prevent the baby to be sacrificed (or he tired to, I don't recall clearly), and he took the beating that that girl was supposed to get. Same goes for all the violence that Captain Randall unleash on everyone : he is the villain, the bad guy, and nobody tries and excuse his behaviour, even though what he does is "historically accurate" or such. That's why I pointed out the way that particular scene is "framed".

Now why is that the beating scene bugged me more? Well, what can I say? It just did. Every one has pet peeves or triggers that can turn a somehow decent or even enjoyable read into a very bad one. I, for one, strongly dislikes the use of violence against women as a mean to further plots, characterization and such. Because 99% of the times it ends up either being a mess or, worse, feeding into the negative culture of violence against women. So yeah, Jamie changed after what he did, but by that time, I wasn't as much invested in HIS "redemption" arc as before because of what he did. To me, that's just a No, no.

Also, let's not forget that this scene is happening between the male and female lead characters who are lovers. Those are the ones you are supposed to be the most invested in. Those are the ones you are supposed to care the most for.

Also, why oppose atrocities? You can find a lot of things bad and yet be particularly upset by something that may appeared to be "relatively" less horrible than another.

Finally, as I've been trying to explain, just because something actually happened in history doesn't mean that you have to make your lead male character do it. To me, that doesn't make the all thing more "historically accurate" than NOT making your character do it. Because it is also historically accurate that not everyone behaved one way. Take, for instance, "slavery". I, for one, am always weary of romance stories taking place during modern slavery times between a white master and a black slave. Because it almost always ends up romanticizing a situation which was 99% of the time was more rapey than romantic. Now, among the few that manage to be decent or even good, you won't have any that will show a beating scene where the white master beat his black slave love interest because she tried and escaped or publicly insulted him (which would have put the master in the obligation of punishing her), and then have them discuss it and have the white master explaining that he was beaten, and that he had no choice but beat her, and then have the black slave "understanding" the situation form his POV and ending up being ok with it. No freaking way. Because doing so, even if very "historically accurate" would not only be a very BAD writing choice, but would also contribute to glamorizing a horrible practice and institution. As Mochospresso admitted, in Kindred the male lead interest doesn't beat the female lead. He just pretended (emphasis on "pretended") to be her master in order to protected you.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Red and I have talked this one out so much by now. I know we will never agree lol.

I simply can't wrap my mind around not making allowances for historical accuracy. Red, you feel..."

Well, I, for one, wanted to discuss this peculiar point. I could have write about the numerous rapes or rape attempt which I dislied, or the way I found the author used violence sometimes in a "gratuitous" way. But that's not the point of this discussion, is it? So let's talk about what this discussion is about.

So no, I don't fail or refuse to acknowledge anything. I just disagree with your POV. The beating scene was explained by Jamie himself as both a marital and a clan thing (which isn't surprising 'cause, just like in any clan or tribes culture and customs,, marital issues are dealt with according to clan/tribes rules). He stated that HE had to beat her because HE was her husband and had power over her.

The point that I made a few comments ago, was that there was no inevitability that he HAD to beat her. Granted, I am no expert/specialist) in 17th or 18th century Scottish clan customs. But seeing that this is a fictional book, I don't think that the line of explanation Jamie used is based on an actual sourced piece of 17th or 18th Scottish clan Laws or customs. Sure it appears "realistic", and "historically appropriate" (rather than "accurate"), but as I said before, there were other "realistic" or "historically appropriate" ways that the authors could have used to NOT have Jamie himself to beat Claire. Like, for instance, have it handled by his uncle who was the Clan leader and whose men were put in danger. Or Claire could have, at this moment, told him that he had no real power over her as her husband 'cause he had not properly paid her dowry to her family, or even told him about being already married thus their marriage being null and void. I mean, this is a fiction, right? Any well thought out reason could have worked instead of the route the author chose.

As for the "marine boot camp punishment" example, your boyfriend is surely entitled to his opinion on the matter. But this is, yet again, only one way to see things. There are instances where some of the military "punishment" that had been administered to recruits ended up badly and the whole thing has been questioned. Some may argue that pushing soldiers beyond some physical and mental limits isn't the best way to have them handle stressful situation, but can make them at risk of developing psychopathic tendencies that turn them into insensitive kill/torture machines.

So, yeah, to me, in fiction, like in life, one should always look to for alternative ways of doing things rather than immediately resorting to violence against people.

Red wrote: "1st) No, PC get used that way because by the early 80s there has been a conservative/reactionary backlash against the 1960s-1970s civil rights/liberation/feminist/LGBT movements which tried and partly succeed in reducing some of the advances of those movements. The use of the term political correctness" as some kind of negative/dismissive term is part of it.

I agree, however, I also do not believe that an author has a responsibility to frame their fictional work in a manner that favorably fits into any political agenda or ideology if they don't want to. You are certainly welcome to your opinion and to criticize her work....but Diana Gabaldon does not have to portray Jamie and Claire's relationship in a manner that you personally approve of.

2dn) As you admitted yourself, in Kindred, her love interest "pretended" to be her master to protect her, which is an entirely different situation. So, comparing this with Outlander totally misses the point.

It actually doesn't miss the point, imo. It really isn't that much different. In Kindred, they both had to realize that they were in a different time and place and had to consciously put aside some of their modern notions and ways to be able to survive where they were. That was the primary driving force behind Claire's final acquiescence and it did not come easy for her.

3rd) To me, the beating scene was framed "as somehow ok", because of the way it was justified afterwards, how Jamie and Claire discussed it and she kind of moved on easily. Now, you may not have read it that way, but I did. And it bugged me. And made me dislike both character. And made me questioned that writing choices.
"

I didn't view their moving on as easy by any stretch, but I guess that is a highly subjective matter of perception and perspective.

Red wrote: "You'll also note that most of those scene were always framed in a way that made what was happening as something bad. Claire felt for Jamie when he told her about his abuses (and the readers were made to feel the same), Jamie even intervened to prevent the baby to be sacrificed (or he tired to, I don't recall clearly), and he took the beating that that girl was supposed to get. Same goes for all the violence that Captain Randall unleash on everyone : he is the villain, the bad guy, and nobody tries and excuse his behaviour, even though what he does is "historically accurate" or such. That's why I pointed out the way that particular scene is "framed".


This post was not directed toward me, but I did want to say something about this comment. Had you argued that there was something wrong with how Capt Randall was depicted as a villian, I would also be arguing that his portrayal is "historically accurate" in the sense that there were villainous officers during that time who did some of the things that he is depicted as doing and worse. In doing so, I am not justifying his actions. I am acknowledging where the depiction stems from. That is not the same thing as condoning the actions. I think that is what you don't seem to acknowledge about some Outlander readers. They don't condone the spanking. They simply understand how and why it came to pass within the context of the story. And even then, I think Diana Gabaldon was very conscious of what she was doing with Jamie's reflections, remorse and promise to never do it again.

Red wrote: "So, yeah, to me, in fiction, like in life, one should always look to for alternative ways of doing things rather than immediately resorting to violence against people.
.."

As much as we all wish the world were not violent, it still is. I can understand you not wanting to read about it though. That seems to be a trigger for you and I understand that as well. I hate being preached at in a book. No matter how good the rest of the story might be, that usually ruins it for me. Proselytizing gets on my last nerve. However, I know there are quite a lot of people who enjoy those sorts of stories. I would never tell an author not to preach in his/her books because I personally did not like it. I would just avoid their books from then on. We all have personal likes and dislikes when it comes to literature. The problem with the way you initially framed this thread is that in addition to criticizing the author for her choices she made in the story, you came across as criticizing the readers for liking her story. Most of us on this thread understand why she wrote what she did and understand the psychology of it. Without meeting Claire, Jamie may have never changed from the man he was socialized to be and Claire might have been happy to be just a "helpmeet" for Frank. The two coming together from different worlds changed them both and from this reader's perspective, for the better.

This thread is quickly going into the direction of "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not listening to you anymore."

You can criticize writers' choices all day, every day, but it doesn't change the fact that people will still enjoy the literature and not have the same hang ups as you. So instead of trying to out talk all the other readers, maybe you can just accept that they don't agree with you. You are not the ultimate authority on this matter and neither are any of us. Get over it. Move on.

Red wrote: "Finally, as I've been trying to explain, just because something actually happened in history doesn't mean that you have to make your lead male character do it. To me, that doesn't make the all thing more "historically accurate" than NOT making your character do it. Because it is also historically accurate that not everyone behaved one way. Take, for instance, "slavery". I, for one, am always weary of romance stories taking place during modern slavery times between a white master and a black slave. Because it almost always ends up romanticizing a situation which was 99% of the time was more rapey than romantic. Now, among the few that manage to be decent or even good, you won't have any that will show a beating scene where the white master beat his black slave love interest because she tried and escaped or publicly insulted him (which would have put the master in the obligation of punishing her), and then have them discuss it and have the white master explaining that he was beaten, and that he had no choice but beat her, and then have the black slave "understanding" the situation form his POV and ending up being ok with it. No freaking way. Because doing so, even if very "historically accurate" would not only be a very BAD writing choice, but would also contribute to glamorizing a horrible practice and institution. As Mochospresso admitted, in Kindred the male lead interest doesn't beat the female lead. He just pretended (emphasis on "pretended") to be her master in order to protected you.


You put pretended in quotes. Honestly, that makes me think that you possibly missed a very important theme in Kindred about the psychological affects that being in that environment had on both of them. Dana was whipped and she had to silently watch other whippings. Dana was afraid that the longer she stayed, the more she was actually also developing a "slave mentality" and she had similar concerns for her white husband. In another twist of irony, each time she returns to her time, battered and bruised with no plausible explanation for what happened to her, people began to assume that she was a battered wife and that her husband was the one who did those things to her.

There is also the point that the things that were happening to her (abuse/mistreatment) were also happening to everyone else there as well. The same is true of Claire in "Outlander". Had she been a man and done what she did, she would have been punished also. That's partly why the attitudes toward her among the other members of the clan grew more favorable after that.....she wasn't percieved as receiving special treatment. She was one of them and was being treated as one of them would be.

In another comment, you mentioned that you question whether this type of punishment was truly historically accurate for the Scottish clans of the 17th and 18th century. I'm not an expert, however, of all of the criticisms that Diana Gabaldon has received for this series, the historical accuracy of her novels is not typically one of them.

I understand that you didn't like the spanking and thought it was a poor choice to include it. You are entitled to that opinion. My point is not to change your mind....just to help you understand why I, as a reader, was able to "justify" it. (btw, I also think "justify" is a poor word choice for my feelings toward it. I don't justify it. I don't condone it. I don't romanticize it. However, I do understand it within the context of this particular story. Just as I understood the boy with maimed ear and the burning of women as witches and the attempted rapes and Jamie's torture and rape.)

Red is right, just because something happened in history doesn't mean the author needs to have the lead character do it...however, in this instance the author 'chose' to write the story this way and that is her privilege as an author. As a reader, you can either dislike or accept that choice. If it upsets you significantly, or you can't get past it, you can always choose to close the book and move on.

Nobody, including the author, needs to justify themselves.

I don't condone Jamie's actions, however, when I look at the scene I take into account what happened prior to the spanking, why Jamie felt it was necessary, Claire's objection, and the outcome and understanding that resulted.

The problem isn't whether readers liked or disliked the scene, or if it was necessary to the story, it's the choice of wording for the title of this thread that caused controversy...which is obviously what Red was looking for.

Sageta well said

Sageta wrote: "The problem isn't whether readers liked or disliked the scene, or if it was necessary to the story, it's the choice of wording for the title of this thread that caused controversy...which is obviously what Red was looking for. "

Exactly. I cried "troll" weeks ago. The same points have been hit over and over. While I've enjoyed the enlightened posts of my GR's peers, I'm in agreement with the "Get over it. Move on." statement addressed to Red. If the scene/book/TV series is that disturbing to her, why wallow in it?

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Sageta wrote: "The problem isn't whether readers liked or disliked the scene, or if it was necessary to the story, it's the choice of wording for the title of this thread that caused controversy......"

This is so right.
I really wish that people would move on.

Sageta wrote: "Red is right, just because something happened in history doesn't mean the author needs to have the lead character do it...however, in this instance the author 'chose' to write the story this way an..."

Thanks for telling the world what I was looking for, 'cause all of the posts that I made explaining my arguments and actually dicussing the issues I was pointing with some other readers are for nothing...

Seriously, I really don't understand what YOU are doing here, if you're not interested in discussing this scene. I mean, what's YOUR point, besides writing snide passive aggrisive post about someone who happened to express a view you diasgree with?

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Sageta wrote: "The problem isn't whether readers liked or disliked the scene, or if it was necessary to the story, it's the choice of wording for the title of this thread that caused controversy......"

Again, Becky, what are YOU still doing here? I tried and discuss some of the points I made with you, I even wrote a very detailed reply to some of your posts, which you didn't seem very interested into. And yet, you're back at calling ME a "troll" and tellling ME to move on, which you should really just do yourself...

Red wrote: "Sageta wrote: "Red is right, just because something happened in history doesn't mean the author needs to have the lead character do it...however, in this instance the author 'chose' to write the st..."

You don't have ownership over the thread. Anybody can post whatever they want.

Jeanine wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Sageta wrote: "The problem isn't whether readers liked or disliked the scene, or if it was necessary to the story, it's the choice of wording for the title of this thre..."

Yeah, at least we agree on that : you're not interested in this discussion, move on and let the ones that still are keep the discussion going. Why is this bothering you so much that you seem to want to try and shut this thread? Why are you trying and silencing me so much? Seriously, let it go already. If nobody else is interested in the points that I made, the thread will die its "natural" death. If not, the people interested in actually discussing things will just do that. Why do you have a problem with that? I mean, the internet is a VERY wide place, like world wide...Go and have your own convos elsewhere rather than keep hitting this thread and make snides remarks about someone you don't know from Eve and who is minding their own business.

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "So, yeah, to me, in fiction, like in life, one should always look to for alternative ways of doing things rather than immediately resorting to violence against people.
.."

As much as w..."

I tried and explained better my point : I didn't mean to criticizes readers for liking the book, I criticizes the author's choice (which is part of the very exercice of critizing a book) and readers who triend and justified the scene using the "historical accuracy" line of arguments.

Also, as I explained earlier, I am okay with violence when I think it's "used" well. I read and watch horror or violent fictions without blinking an eye (or not much) and can rather enjoy good books with a lot of violence. So my point isn't about disliking "violence" per se but the way it is written in fictions/stories.

The point I feel like they are making was that there have been several attempts at having a sound conversation, and explaining the position of those that can understand that part of the book. Every Time you tear them down with no respect when it seems like you wanted some clarification as to how any one can justify it. The people who still like the book are not justifying anything. They recognize that characters have faults. In this series like in life everyone makes mistakes and has a past. While you have made it clear that you would not forgive Jamie for what he did. You are not Clare. She has different experiences from you and made a different decision. Yes she is fictitious but so is the whole reason for the discussion. Many of the people on this post have tried to make the point that it is not forgivable for us either but that does not matter because it is Claire's decision not ours.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Red wrote: "Finally, as I've been trying to explain, just because something actually happened in history doesn't mean that you have to make your lead male character do it. To me, that doesn't make ..."

I do understand the deep psychological themes in Kindred, I just don't think the parallel with Outlander is relevant. As I said before, to me, the "problematic" factor is that Claire is beaten by her husband and the whole situation is framed and somehow justified as, let's say, "acceptable" because of "historically accuracy". The female black character in Kindred is NOT beaten by her master white husband : even if people in the story may think she is, we, as readers, do know she isn't. So yeah, it's still a traumatic violent experience and it has a lot of physical and psychological repercussions, and it changes the character, etc. But 1) it is not the husband who is the protagonist of that change, their dynamic as husband and wife may change but not because he beat her; 2) it doesn't serves as a way to make her husband "change" or "evolve" as a character. I think we may have to discuss Kindred (and Butler's powerful writing) on its discussion threads. It IS a multi-layered and powerful book.

Anyway, even though we may not agree on our understanding of that scene, I appreciate being able to discuss with you, if only for the intellectual processing.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Red wrote: "You'll also note that most of those scene were always framed in a way that made what was happening as something bad. Claire felt for Jamie when he told her about his abuses (and the rea..."

About Randall : it's not that he did all those awful things (because I am sure most, many or a lot of colonial British soldiers, throughout the history of British Empire, must have done worse), it's also that he just happens, very fortuitously, to have his all life intertwined with both Claire and Jamie. I wa slike "C'mon!!!". But I rolled with it, 'cause i=he is a secondary character who I didn't care much about, and him being such an obvious villain kind of made me way less invested in him.

I do understand that there were many reactions to the scene. I tried and explained my points focused on very specific ones. Also my criticism towards the author isn't about wanting to read what I want (like, I read a lot of book that don't always go the way I wished and can still find them being great). Maybe your disagreement is that I don't think that the author here is such a good writer and that she didn't handle the situation well enough to make it work, at least for me.

Maddie wrote: "The point I feel like they are making was that there have been several attempts at having a sound conversation, and explaining the position of those that can understand that part of the book. Ever..."

Well, maybe I didn't appreciate the dismissive tone of some of the people who keep on posting about me being a "troll" on the very discussion I started, or not being as smart as the readers who didn't mind the scene or understood it a different ways, or how this discussion should just stop as if they were the Goodreads police. Go back and check some replies.

Now if you re-read also some of my replies, I also tried and explained, sometimes with long detailed posts, some of my points. And when the person I was discussing with was willing, we had an interesting discussion.

And yeah, I know I am not Claire, I know it's a character, and "her" decision. You may have noted that I did replied to some comments that where somehow blaming Claire for what had happened. But the whole reason of this discussion is discussing fictional characters in fictional books written by real writers. Which is the point of pretty much any discussion concerning fiction books that are happening at the everywhere on this site.

The point I was trying to make is that even the people that we nice and understanding and tried to explain their perspective you dismissed saying that is stupid and, like you put in the title of this post, "just plain wrong"

Maddie wrote: "The point I was trying to make is that even the people that we nice and understanding and tried to explain their perspective you dismissed saying that is stupid and, like you put in the title of th..."

Contrary to some posters here, I don't recall calling anyone or anything "stupid". Please tell me which of my replies contain such mentions. I may express strongly and passionately my opinions, but I always tries to not call anyone names. Now I may have slipped and done that, in which case, when called upon it, I always apologize.

Also, my title refers to a line of justification being "wrong". So, yeah, my original post may express some points harshly some times, but if you've read the discussion from the start I also took time to try and explain some of my points better.

At the end of the day, what I am interested in is discussing some of the issues I pointed out,whether one agrees or disagrees.

Red: I am a feminist. I also have a History as well as a law degree. So looking at things in a historical book and basing it on history is kind of my thing. William Blackstone, one of the premiere British legal scholars of the late 18th century (wrote one of the first comprehensive commentaries on English law) stated that men could not do violence to their wives EXCEPT as a means of ruling and chastising her. The Catholic Church stated the husband's duty was to stand in judgment of his wife and that included beating her to save her immortal soul. So the church which was central to the everyday lives of Scottish people condoned the punishment of wives by their husbands. Corporal punishment of children was nearly universal. Jamie grew up with corporal punishment and received it from a father he loved and admired. He maintained that his father used corporal punishment to turn him into a good man. He would not have witnessed the interactions between his father and his mother because his mother died when he was very small, but he would have witnessed other husbands in his community chastising their wives. The fact that Laoghaire being brought before the laird MacKenzie for a public beating (he father accused her of loose behavior) did not raise any eyebrows shows that this type of punishment was very common. Jamie took her beating not because it would have hurt, but because she was so young it would have embarrassed her to have it done publicly.

Jamie is 22 years old when he meets Claire. This type of social structure would be all he knew. So historical accuracy is very much crucial to this part of the story. If you have never experienced any different and you were taught that physical chastisement was the key to becoming a good person, then it would never occur to you that it was wrong. Just as I have stated in previous posts: we still have a majority of our society that believes corporal punishment towards children is necessary for them to grow up to be good Christians. Jamie was just doing what he had been taught by the man in his life he most respected.

When he was shown that there was another way to view this, he changes and he never does it again.

Red wrote: "Maddie wrote: "The point I was trying to make is that even the people that we nice and understanding and tried to explain their perspective you dismissed saying that is stupid and, like you put in ..."

I have read the whole discussion from the beginning and I am not saying that there weren't some good points made by you are by the other side. On the contrary this discussion has changed my mind about this scene and I find the scene repulsive now, whereas before it just was. And cannot understand Claire's fast acceptance of the situation (I do not believe that she forgives him for a long time). I also think this fast acceptance or forgiveness happens a lot and it really bothers me about Claire. Even if you are thrown into a situation and have to face the fact that things are difference there. I don't think that, since the first time she is ever hit on purpose is by Black Jack, that she would trust him again so easily. I certainly wouldn't.
I am also not one to think that Jamie is the perfect man. In fact, I don't think that if give the chance I would ever choose Jamie for a partner. I think that in the past in this feed there have been some nasty exchanges from many people definitely not just you. I did not mean that you called someone specifically stupid I was saying that the way that things were addressed was rude, granted the other person most of the time was rude as well.
As I said I have read the whole discussion and I am still a little confused about your point on a few things simply because you have use the same turn of phrase and it does not explain things enough for me. For example: I am still uncertain what you mean by "writing choice of the author" or the "framing" of the scene I am still a bit confused about that part and what exactly you mean.
I do think that the distinction should be made on justify and condone. Most reads would not say that the historical aspect of the book justifies it in any means but it does give you a frame of reference to understanding Jamie's frame of mind. The I think it is up to the reader to forgive and move on or to remember and leave the book alone or to take it as a fault of the character and understand.

Maddie wrote: "The point I feel like they are making was that there have been several attempts at having a sound conversation, and explaining the position of those that can understand that part of the book. Ever..."

Hallelujah! Thank you, Maddie. This horse is dead and has been for a long time.