Outlander
discussion
*SPOILER* The beating scene and why it is just plain WRONG to try and justify it
I aplogize for this being so long but I hope it gets read. I'm not done btw lol. Sorry. The rest will be in another comment.Mocospresso said earlier that "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."
I agree with that. I know Red, you'll say that's not the case but then everything you write from that moment on only proves it's true. As shown in past comments.
I also agree with Becky that we're all just beating a dead horse there. I think Red that you've tried your best to explain where you're coming from and at times, I could *almost* understand, although not agree.
Having said that, I'm going keep talking about it lol.
Red said "I, for one, strongly dislike the use of violence against women as a mean to further plots, characterization and such."
I still have to revert back to historical accuracy. Which is why this feels like beating a dead horse (or is it dog?).
I don't have a wide knowledge of this time period. I do have enough that I can tell when other fictional books go off course. But I do know, because I researched it after reading Outlander, that Outlander is held in high regard because of it's historical accuracy especially regarding clan cultural.
I've said it before, but I love novels that are accurate. I don't need the hero to beat his wife because it was *typically* considered *the thing to do*. I don't NEED that, because like you brought out earlier Red, not *everyone* felt that way.
However, what I do need, is a formula of realism. I need the plot to develop in a natural way. In a way that makes sense. And this is where the quote from Mochospresso said comes into play. Who knows, maybe Diana could have written Jamie in a way that told us he didn't feel beating your wife was the right thing to do. Writer's have done it before. They've written it believably. But if you keep this same plot up and until the beating having Jamie not meet out the punishment doesn't make sense.
Because there had to be one. Because with this story line, with these things that have happened and with Diana's desire to keep things historically accurate, what followed was what would have happened in real life. Because this isn't really about what Jamie would have wanted or believed in. This wasn't about a husband and a wife. This was about a clan. To have the whole clan (or enough to make the majority) feel that Claire should not be given a corporal punishment or to have the clan from the very beginning not believe in them would have changed the entire story and ruined it for so many people who love to learn about history, the good and the bad.
I have given it some thought. You suggested that Diana possibly could have written it so that Jamie refused to beat Claire and instead take her to the clan for punishment. I've imagined it in my mind, I've played it out in my head and I can honestly say that even though I disagree with their customs and with what happened to Claire, I understood it. But I would have HATED Jamie had he done what you're suggesting. Because Diana would have still carried on the story accurately even if Jamie himself didn't agree with beating his wife. I can't imagine having forgiven Jamie had he brought Claire to the clan for a public beating. As mortified as I'd have been, had I been her and being beaten in the room at the Inn, it would have been 10 times worse the other way. Plus, and again, I'm no expert on this... but Jamie would probably have been expected to be the one to carry it out. If you continue with him refusing then you've just opened up a whole new story line because how would the clan ever have forgiven them both? You've just re-written the story into something else entirely.
I'm not saying that there is NO other way out of this. I can't imagine one myself. Perhaps there is one. But why should the author HAVE to take the other way out if there was one? We can go back to saying that what happened promotes and influences some women into accepting abuse. But does it really?
If we removed every single thing in history that was bad because it might promote or influence bad idea's today, then we might as well not write anything based upon anything through out history. Or perhaps this only applies to novels that include physical abuse? Or maybe only romance novels with abuse? Is it now Okay to include abuse if the abused never forgives the abuser or somehow seeks revenge? Should writer's not write about abuse if the couple have learned from it, changed and moved on? What about fictional vs non-fiction? Is it alright for someone to write about an abusive couple only if it really happened? Or is the line where it's okay vs not okay to write about only when "the use of violence against women as a mean to further plots, characterization and such" doesn't happen?
As much as I revert back to talking about the novel being historically accurate and current with the times and their customs.... it's really a moot point. It's my hang up because that's what I love about this novel.But the fact that it's historically accurate in itself shouldn't be what makes it okay to write about abuse. It should just be okay to write about. Honestly. It should be. Even if this written about a married couple and EVEN if the couple fall in love. If it's not, then we're talking about heavy censorship and that's a whole different topic.
And last but not least.... PLEASE read this....
I had to post this person's comment here. It's from an entirely different thread on Outlander where we were debating much of the same points. Not all of what's written in this comment applies to this thread but Red, I thought you might find what this woman writes interesting because she's a writer herself. The way she expresses how a person writes is really interesting.
Because when you wrote "I, for one, strongly dislikes the use of violence against women as a mean to further plots, characterization and such." - it struck a cord with me.
My first thought was, "Why do you think this beating scene WAS purposely written for that exact purpose?"
You've also said "Why did his character's growth have to be done at the expanse of Claire's dignity? That is why I so strongly oppose that scene : to me there were no need to make that moment the catalyst for Jamie's character to growth or Jamie and Claire's relationship to take that next step. It could have happened any other way. That is why I talked about gratuitous violence. Its violence for shock value. And having the woman to be beaten so the male character can grow is part of the same tropes that have female character be sacrificed on the alter of male's growth. It happens way too often for it to be incidental in this story."
That is what happened. The end result is what you're saying. Claire learned from it, Jamie learned from it, etc, it definitely furthered the plot and added some character growth. But did Diana write it for that reason? You've brought this up so many times in different words how you dislike writer's *using* this plot, a plot of abuse against women for those reasons. So I have to wonder, if you KNEW that Diana didn't write it for those reasons, would it bother you less?
Please read what Heidi has to say (I added the bold):
__________________________
Heidi comments:
Hi all, just wanted to jump in here and say how absorbed I've been reading this discussion thread. (Not necessarily a good thing as I'm supposed to be writing a book, but I digress). So first off thanks to Trisha and Chelsea for kicking it off.
I am a huge fan of Outlander, an ardent feminist and also a romance novelist, so that probably explains why I find this debate so fascinating. Although I'll admit right here and now I know absolutely sod all about germ theory or bacteria so I have to admit that part of the debate when totally over my head.
Just really wanted to make a few (sorry, rather long-winded.. I’m a writer people, bear with me!) personal observations from my own perspective (although I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread due to time constraints, so if I'm repeating what someone else has already said please forgive me!).
I think what fascinates me most about this debate is how people construe an author's motives when they come to read a book.
What particularly stood out for me was Chelsea's statement:
Gabaldon is a woman, writing for women, but she chose to perpetuate all these subservient women tropes.I don't like that.
Firstly, I don't think for a minute DG thinks she's writing only for women, she's made quite a point of saying she doesn't think Outlander is a romance for precisely this reason. I'd have to disagree with that myself, but that's from my perspective as a reader because I love romance and it's the romantic relationship between Jamie and Claire that I find so compelling.
Similarly we can all argue until we're blue in the face whether the tropes in the book are reinforcing the subservience of women. Again, I'd strongly disagree with that reading.
I saw Claire as being remarkably strong, she's thrown into an impossible situation and yet she does everything she can to survive... And that survival for a very long time involves her attempts to return to the time in which she was born. Does she perceive herself as chattel when she marries Jamie? I thought she agreed to it so she could prevent herself from being re-arrested by BJR? The marriage is a means to an end to stop that happening and nothing to do with her agreeing to become Jamie's possession (even though she may be perceived as such due to the mores of the time once they're wed)...
Anyway, again this has already been discussed at length, as has the beating, the rape, etc etc etc. And ultimately that’s just my personal opinion.
But the point I wanted to make is this - the flaw for me in that statement Chelsea has nothing to do with your opinion of the book, obviously you didn't care for it. And I did, and I can't change your opinion any more than you can change mine because every reader is unique and what they bring to their reading of a book, whether they identify with the characters or find their actions and reactions really annoying, whether they are drawn in by the writing style etc, is different.
But here's where I had a problem. Your stated opinion of DG's motives when writing the book. Because…
1). I think it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens creatively when a writer is writing a book.
2) It is also a strangely anti-feminist thing to say…
And here’s why.
Obviously every writer is different, no two writers have the exact same process. But I'd say that a couple of things when writing are fairly universal, whether you're writing romance or literary fiction, whether you're a plotter or a panster, hugely successful or completely unknown. Basically you want to tell a story, yes it's your story but ultimately what that story becomes is entirely down to the characters you create. And they quite literally have a life of their own.
Shameless name-dropping alert… That said, I've been to a talk DG gave in Inverness (yup I really am that much of a mad superfan!) when she talked about the genesis of this story and it rang very true with me about what happens when I write my own books.
What you do as a writer is you build characters from the ground up. They become fully formed in your head. They have flaws and weaknesses as well as strengths. You hope like hell at least a few readers will identify with them and enjoy the book as a result, but ultimately that's not something you think about while you’re writing it, because you can't. You can only write the book for yourself. Your characters become real people to you because they have to for you to be able to take them on their fictional journey with any degree of conviction. Then you put them in fictional worlds and situations to challenge them. But those fictional situations again are born out of the febrile writers imagination - the hotbed of information that is percolating in your brain and is in many ways outside your conscious control... I know that probably sounds totally schizophrenic and like a get-out-of-jail free card (as in: ok so the writer’s not responsible for what happens in the book, WTH!)… But it’s not an excuse or an apology, because you will stand by what your characters do and say and how they react because you absolutely believe that’s what they would have done and said and you love them for it (even the really evil ones!) Because they have fired your imagination and let this process happen. You are in control, but only in the sense that you are the only one who truly understands who they are. Because you are the one who is delving into their psyches at every turn to discover how they would react during every step of their fictional journey - whether it be to discover that the hot new guy at their high school is a centuries old vampire who could end up sucking the life out of you if you have sex, or the knowledge that you’re going to have to commit bigamy to save yourself from being tortured by some sadistic British redcoat because you had the misfortune to get thrown back to the 1740s Highlands!
So I guess what you’ve got to ask yourself is with all that going on, was DG thinking about perpetuating subservient women tropes, or setting back feminism 80 years (both arguments I’d disagree with on the basis of my reading of the text but again that’s your opinion against mine)… Or was her focus actually much much narrower than that, of telling a story, being true to the specific characters she had created, making them fully rounded, well-developed individuals and then throwing dramatic conflicts in their path and allowing them to have their own completely unique reactions? From my own experience as a writer, I’d say categorically it is a later.
For more evidence of why I think I’m right about this, check out how DG herself describes her creative thinking behind the Wentworth Prison finale (and some interesting stuff about the ‘love story’) http://www.dianagabaldon.com/2010/12/...
But here’s the thing, (and why I’ve probably bored you all rigid with my comment) as a feminist I believe that female writers should have the same creative freedoms as male writers do. They shouldn’t have to be bound by anyone’s preconceived notions of what women should or shouldn’t write. Anymore than male writers are. And they shouldn’t be judged for them either.
Whether you connect with their characters, enjoy their writing, think their stories are good, bad or complete bollox is fair criticism (and that absolutely includes your reading of the feminist or anti-feminist tropes in the novel btw). As a reader you’ve paid for this experience (or if you’re a reviewer you’re intending to inform other like-minded readers) so absolutely if you thought the book was crap, you should say so and no one should feel offended especially not the author! But when it comes to making personal judgements about DG’s opinions on feminism, the subservience of women, etc based on your reading of what she has created? That to me is an oddly retrograde and in many ways anti-feminist stance. Which says women writers should be held to a different standard, should only write tropes, themes, situations that adhere to what your reading of feminism is. Because why? They are representatives of all women? The female leads they create should always behave in a pro-feminist way that you can relate to?
That’s a problem for me, as a writer, a reader and a feminist, because it doesn’t put female writers on an equal footing with male writers…. It doesn’t allow them the same creative scope or self-determination. Yes they are women writing in an unequal society but by forcing them to write in a certain way to a certain agenda… And indeed saying women should only be free to read the same way... Is that making them more free, more equal, or less so?
______________________
Mrsbooks wrote: "But the fact that it's historically accurate in itself shouldn't be what makes it okay to write about abuse. It should just be okay to write about. Honestly. It should be. If it's not, then we're talking about heavy censorship and that's a whole different topic."Very well stated in both of your posts, Mrsbooks. I can't come up with an alternative scene that works either. As you say, there probably is one, but I think DG has come up with the "most plausible" solution given the circumstances. I've said many times that she's written 'flawed' characters, making them more human and realistic.
Like it or not, the historical accuracy of the 1700's comes into play when analyzing this scene. With that said, I want to share one of my favorite quotes:
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
I think the main reason I'm constantly drawn back to this train wreck of a thread is because there is an undercurrent of censorship. We simply can NOT turn a blind eye to the past when certain historical facts make us uncomfortable by failing to fit today's social customs. Duh...it's history. It's okay to be repulsed by the content of a book, it's even okay to voice ones opinion about the "writing choices" of ANY author. However...
What would it say to future generations if all our history is "sugar coated" in today's popular culture?
Understanding and acceptance are NOT synonymous.
Mrsbooks wrote: "And last but not least.... PLEASE read this....
I had to post this person's comment here. It's from an entirely different thread on Outlander where we were debating much of the same points. Not..."
EXCELLENT synopsis! So many relevant points! Thank you for posting this.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "But the fact that it's historically accurate in itself shouldn't be what makes it okay to write about abuse. It should just be okay to write about. Honestly. It should be. If it's...""Understanding and acceptance are NOT synonymous!"
YES, YES and YES.
You know what I find fascinating? So we know Red isn't the first person or the last person who feels this way about that scene. We've debated numerous times with many people about it. Much of the time it comes down to irresponsible writing. That "to have the victim forgive the abuse and fall in love with her abuser is irresponsible writing. It promotes abuse and romanticizes what happened."
But then I listen to the debates about Gone with the Wind. My memory may be fuzzy on it, I haven't read the book in years. But what I remember is the slavery depicted was those from Scarlet's families plantation. I can't recall other characters being in slavery. However the slaves on their plantation are all generally well treated. Well treated to the point that they're not being beaten or raped. They were taken care of. They seem satisfied with their lot and actually love the family they serve.
Yet people are SO riled up over how Gone with the Wind didn't "accurately" describe slavery. They say it romanticizes it and didn't depict it the way it really was. Irresponsible writing is used and some even say the writer was racist for not depicting it "accurately."
And I use Red's argument. Not everyone through out history acted exactly the same. To me, to say that every single slave through out history was beaten and raped or to say that every single slave owner did those things isn't realistic.
So, on one hand we've got a book that's ridiculed because it DOESN'T depict the real trials and terrors that plagued those people and on the Outlander hand, we've got a book that's ridiculed for doing exactly that when it comes to how women were treated.
Sometimes I get so confused. LOL
Mrsbooks wrote: So, on one had we've got a book that's ridiculed BECAUSE it doesn't depict the real trials and terrors that plagued those people and on the Outlander hand, we've got a book that's ridiculed for doing exactly that when it comes to how women were treated.Sometimes I get so confused. LOL"
A very insightful comparison. I recall thinking that the slaves were pretty well dressed and comfortable in the movie version of Gone With The Wind, too.
I'll jump on the confusion bandwagon with you! I guess it's another example of "you can't please them all."
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "What would it say to future generations if all our history is "sugar coated" in today's popular culture?Understanding and acceptance are NOT synonymous. .."
I so totally agree. As a History major it appalls me that some right wing legislators want to do away with AP History in high schools because some of it shows America in a bad light. Well...there were and are times that America IS in a bad light and we need to digest that and learn from it.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "We've debated numerous times with many people about it. Much of the time it comes down to irresponsible writing. That "to have the victim forgive the abuse and fall in love with her abuser is irresponsible writing. It promotes abuse and romanticizes what happened."..."
This also does an disservice to female readers and attempts to strip us of our own agency...that we are incapable of distinguishing between fiction and real life.
It's been a very long time since I've read it and since I seen the movie, but if I recall correctly, "Gone With the Wind" was written from the pov and perspectives of wealthy white southern plantation owners of that time. The book is reflective of THEIR mindset during those times. Therefore, the book was not written to be social and political commentary to denounce slavery. That isn't what the book is about or was intended to be about. The slaves are not the main characters and the story is not seen or told through their eyes. "Gone With the Wind" is Scarlett's story.I do think that "Gone With the Wind" romanticizes slavery but ONLY because it is Scarlett's story told through the lens of someone who is just like her. I always come back to Kindred, but Dana's white husband romanticized that time period (antebellum south) in that novel, too. He never considered it from the pov of the slaves UNTIL he traveled back in time with his black wife and was forced to.
I don't know if I am articulating this concept properly, but from what I remember of Scarlett's character and the time/setting of the novel, she perceived it as a "way of life" and this was the only "way of life" that she knew. It's not so much slavery that is being romanticized as the old south and it's "way of life".
Mochaspresso wrote: "It's been a very long time since I've read it and since I seen the movie, but if I recall correctly, "Gone With the Wind" was written from the pov and perspectives of wealthy white southern plantat..."I whole heartedly agree. But you'd be shocked about the amount of people who don't see it that way.
Mrsbooks wrote: "And last but not least.... PLEASE read this....
I had to post this person's comment here. It's from an entirely different thread on Outlander where we were debating much of the same points. Not..."
OMG!!! I love love love this post. :) :) :)
This...
"But here’s the thing, (and why I’ve probably bored you all rigid with my comment) as a feminist I believe that female writers should have the same creative freedoms as male writers do. They shouldn’t have to be bound by anyone’s preconceived notions of what women should or shouldn’t write. Anymore than male writers are. And they shouldn’t be judged for them either."
and this....
"But when it comes to making personal judgements about DG’s opinions on feminism, the subservience of women, etc based on your reading of what she has created? That to me is an oddly retrograde and in many ways anti-feminist stance. Which says women writers should be held to a different standard, should only write tropes, themes, situations that adhere to what your reading of feminism is. Because why? They are representatives of all women? The female leads they create should always behave in a pro-feminist way that you can relate to?"
"That’s a problem for me, as a writer, a reader and a feminist, because it doesn’t put female writers on an equal footing with male writers…. It doesn’t allow them the same creative scope or self-determination. Yes they are women writing in an unequal society but by forcing them to write in a certain way to a certain agenda… And indeed saying women should only be free to read the same way... Is that making them more free, more equal, or less so?"
Mochaspresso wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "And last but not least.... PLEASE read this....
I had to post this person's comment here. It's from an entirely different thread on Outlander where we were debating much of the ..."
Who knows who Heidi is but I loved her words. She made some really good points!
Mochaspresso wrote: "It's been a very long time since I've read it and since I seen the movie, but if I recall correctly, "Gone With the Wind" was written from the pov and perspectives of wealthy white southern plantat..."Also, GWTW is not a book about slavery. I have made this point a fair number of times on GR and in other places but it is fundamentally a story about perseverance.
If the story was about slavery, it would be written in an entirely different manner. To Scarlett, having people be subservient to her, whether they be slaves, convicts, men, or family was a non-issue. It was a given. She was going to be listened to, dammit. That's why Rhett was such a trial to her and learning experience.
I'd also like to point out that less than 1% of the population had slaves in the South to begin with so to say it isn't an accurate representation of the time period would be correct in many ways. But, it is (mostly) accurate for their microcosm of families.
Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "It's been a very long time since I've read it and since I seen the movie, but if I recall correctly, "Gone With the Wind" was written from the pov and perspectives of wealthy ..."I agree about Gone With the Wind being about perseverance rather than about slavery.
...I'm just knitpicking at little about this part.... "I'd also like to point out that less than 1% of the population had slaves in the South to begin with so to say it isn't an accurate representation of the time period would be correct in many ways."
http://civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).
Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_c...
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennia...
The interesting thing to me about Red's pov regarding "Outlander" is that I've always disliked Toni Morrison's "Beloved" for some of the same reasons. (The mother's mental state and the killing of her children was problematic for me. I felt it was romanticized and she was martyrized as "brave" and "heroic".) Some of it may be historically accurate or inspired by true events, but that didn't make me like it or appreciate it more. I think I understand why Red feels the way she does. I think I do understand where she is coming from, but I just disagree with the notion that an author has a responsibility to frame their story in a way that conforms to any particular political agenda or ideology. My not liking stories about mothers killing their children is my personal hang-up and I readily acknowledge that. I don't feel that it is something that can be justified to my satisfaction....but I don't begrudge TM for writing her story the way she wanted to and I don't begrudge readers who were able to enjoy the story as it was written. I'm not using my personal dislike to turn "Beloved" into my personal platform stance against some type of moral issue that affects all of society. Morrison wasn't trying to say that all women should be like the main character in Beloved. She was merely telling one woman's story from her pov because her's is one that is very rarely heard or represented in literature. That is why even though I didn't like it, I stand by Morrison's right to her novel and her right to the acclaim that it has received. Red's original title and post didn't seem to convey that, imo and that is where I primarily disagreed with her.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "It's been a very long time since I've read it and since I seen the movie, but if I recall correctly, "Gone With the Wind" was written fro..."I apologize, that should say less than 10% and that's in reference to the number of large slave plantations like the ones that are described in GWTW. Most families owned slaves at some point but the vast majority of the population were "white trash" and considered lower than some slaves.
The point I was trying to make is that people love to select what part of history gets told and the other aspects should just be shoved aside. I've seen many disregard GWTW as a idealistic piece of work and that it glorifies the antebellum South and they refuse to read it.
That seems like what is happening with Outlander as well. This story has the same merit as others but because it doesn't suit whomever's agenda, they condemn it.
Doesn't depict slavery in a certain way? Big red X. Depicts a husband spanking his wife and then learning about the consequences of his actions? Big red X.
That's what I find sad. People want to ban Faulkner, Salinger, Orwell and others because they don't agree with their language or way of handling events but all it does is ostracize the readers that learned something from it. I learned something from Outlander.
I respect the author's choices in her writing and to call it "JUST PLAIN WRONG" is akin to saying your opinion is worth more than the author's intentions. There's a reason for everything.
Mrsbooks 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 ..."Love your response. While that scene was definitely unpleasant and difficult to come to terms with, the scene and story line is more complex than a "beating". I appreciate your intelligent opinions on the book and characters.
Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Red, there are a few comments you posted that I'd like to discuss."- Jamie would have done it to any of his man : maybe (we will never knwo right?),..."
Stop talking about Medieval Muse's article. It was a childish rant that was poorly written. It did not flatter her and it does not flatter you. If you insist on your stance (which you seem stubbornly set on) than at least do it intelligently, thoughtfully and calmly. Both your arguments at times have great points but, become overshadowed by your soap box behaviour. It seems as though both of you have over identified as your discussions dissolve into repetitious, cyclical tantrums.
Red wrote: "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?..."Actually Red, you are the one making the snide comments.
Where did I say that I disagreed with you not liking the scene??? What I clearly stated was that nobody needs to justify their opinion, as well as your poor choice of wording in the title of the thread...including 'why I think' would have been a better choice and shown you were open to discussion.
You are clearly the one who can't discuss this book, every time someone posts something other then your opinion you insult them and tell them to leave and then get angry because they get upset with you.
Furthermore, the last I checked, anyone can post to any public thread.
Sageta wrote: "Furthermore, the last I checked, anyone can post to any public thread. "Exactly. If Red wants to discuss this scene with ONLY like-minded people, she has every right to create her own group and admit only those interested in her vitriolic posts.
Ashleigh wrote: "^this. I thought the point of these discussion boards was to discuss and respect opinions...not try and make people adhere to one line of thinking"Most of the time, there is a wonderful exchange of ideas, regardless of the differences. It's evident in multiple threads across Goodreads. I don't get bothered by a passionate post or even a strongly worded one. The poster can even rant about despising the book with the heat of a thousands suns as long as the poster owns his/her POV.
Declaring this scene a "poor writing choice" sounds a lot like like "DG made me feel bad and that's wrong," which we all know is dysfunctional thinking. I draw the line at stepping on other people's right to free speech or artistic choices.
Ashleigh wrote: "True. I may disagree with some things but I respect that. I just wish people who made huge sweeping statements about one scene affecting whether or not a book should be read or just plain not respe..."There are other more brutal scenes that bothered me more than this one
Personally, I'm not that bothered with historical accuracy/inaccuracy (so long as it's not completely ridiculous and unbelievable). I'm just mad that this scene ruined my hard-on for Jamie LOL Up until that scene I was positively swooning over him, but that scene, and particularly his enjoyment of it, really put a damper on my feelings for him. So thanks a lot, Diana Gabaldon, for fucking that up for me ;-) WHY? WHY? WHY ;-)
Christina wrote: "Personally, I'm not that bothered with historical accuracy/inaccuracy (so long as it's not completely ridiculous and unbelievable). I'm just mad that this scene ruined my hard-on for Jamie LOL Up ..."
I can relate to that, believe me. There were a couple of scenes in Dragonfly in Amber where I wanted to drop kick him into next month! Now that I think about it, there were one or two WTH (what the heck) moments in Voyager, too. It's almost funny that just like in real life, I need to see his character redeem himself in some way. I think if he was too perfect, I wouldn't like that either.
Maybe I'm never satisfied, but where else can you find characters that pull you into the relationship in a manner like Claire and Jamie? It's pretty rare.
WHY WHY WHY? Because it's a wonderful story about people you love who are not perfect. Because of their youth, poor judgment, and imperfections they grow, mature and redeem themselves...and that's what makes them perfect heroes and heroines.Like Becky said...how boring it is to read stories about perfect people.
I mean really, would you have liked it better if Jamie had told Claire...'what you did put us all in danger and if it had been one of the men he would be whipped. Now you need to be punished and if I don't do it we will be outcasts, so I'll hit the bed with my belt and you cry out as if I'm striking you'. IMO, that would have flawed both Jamie and Claire's characters more and added nothing to the story. The way it was written may have been controversial by today's standards but it allowed them to confront the situation they were in and learn to accept and respect each other and their differences. That's what made it important to story, not the spanking itself, but what happened after the spanking. Jamie and Claire had been forced into a relationship that neither of them anticipated or wanted, at some point it had to come to a head so that they could move forward, the spanking and their argument after returning to the castle, helped them to accept each other and their life together. From this point on, their relationship grew into the love of a lifetime.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "It's almost funny that just like in real life, I need to see his character redeem himself in some way. I think if he was too perfect, I wouldn't like that either. Maybe I'm never satisfied, but where else can you find characters that pull you into the relationship in a manner like Claire and Jamie? It's pretty rare. ..."
I totally agree, perfect people are a total snoozefest. But even without the beating scene, Jamie would still have flaws and be interesting to me. And like you, I don't agree with everything else he does either. But the beating just stod out to me, everything else I can forgive :-)
And yeah, Claire's and Jamie's story and characters are fantastic and engrossing and well-written like only few others. It is DEFINITELY rare.
Sageta wrote: "I mean really, would you have liked it better if Jamie had told Claire...'what you did put us all in danger and if it had been one of the men he would be whipped. Now you need to be punished and if I don't do it we will be outcasts, so I'll hit the bed with my belt and you cry out as if I'm striking you'. IMO, that would have flawed both Jamie and Claire's characters more and added nothing to the story. The way it was written may have been controversial by today's standards but it allowed them to confront the situation they were in and learn to accept and respect each other and their differences. That's what made it important to story, not the spanking itself, but what happened after the spanking. Jamie and Claire had been forced into a relationship that neither of them anticipated or wanted, at some point it had to come to a head so that they could move forward, the spanking and their argument after returning to the castle, helped them to accept each other and their life together. From this point on, their relationship grew into the love of a lifetime. ..."If those are my two options, him beating her and enjoying it and her forgiving him soon after, OR the scenario you described above, then yes, I would most definitely prefer the latter.
For me personally, that would not have flawed Jamie or Claire. On the contrary, the actual scene did that, for me.
For me personally, that scene did not move the story or relationship along or mean a positive change for them. Others may have gotten that out of it, but I didn't. I don't see why that particular incident was necessary for them to confront the situation and learn to accept and respect each other, that could just as well have been achieved with the scenario you described.
Mind you, I'm not questioning anyone's right to read it differently, I'm just telling you how I read it and how I feel.
I'm not saying that it was wrong of the author to include it or that she should've chosen differently, or that it's irresponsible writing or antifeminist or whatever other accusations I've seen people throw at it elsewhere, I'm just saying that it did nothing for me and that I hated the scene and what it did to my opinion of Jamie. Obviously I still love the book or I wouldn't have given it 5 stars (trust me, I do NOT give 5 stars easily, I'm a tough rater).
I keep emphasizing that this is just how *I* personally read it and how *I* feel, and that I'm not saying my opinion is the gospel truth, and that I don't expect anyone to change their mind and agree with me, because there seems to be a tendency, for some people, to take even the tiniest bit of criticism of parts of the story personally.
It seems like you can't say that you don't love EVERY SINGLE THING about this book without someone itching to pounce on you and tell you how wrong you are, and that the reason you don't like a particular thing is just because "you don't get it". But then again, that's probably not exclusive to the Outlander fandom.
Christina wrote: "It seems like you can't say that you don't love EVERY SINGLE THING about this book without someone itching to pounce on you and tell you how wrong you are,...."Actually, as much as I like this series, I don't love every aspect of the story. There were many things I disliked about both Jamie and Claire, not to mention Bree, Roger and many of the others.
I wasn't criticizing your view of this scene and I don't recall saying you were wrong, I was simply, like you, giving my view. If you feel I 'pounced' on you then I apologize, it wasn't my intention.
Sageta wrote: "Christina wrote: "It seems like you can't say that you don't love EVERY SINGLE THING about this book without someone itching to pounce on you and tell you how wrong you are,...."Actually, as much..."
Don't worry, I wasn't referring to you specifically and didn't feel like you were saying I was wrong, just something I've noticed in general, that criticism, even when it's constructive, isn't always taken very well. So just a general comment.
Christina...LOVE your post. It's so refreshing to see someone with another perspective that doesn't feel the need to play the blame game. You articulated your position and feelings so well, making it easy for me to understand why you feel the way you do. Kudos!I agree that heated debate isn't just an Outlander thing. Perhaps some readers are so moved emotionally (good or bad) by a powerful story that they can't help but take it personally when someone disagrees with their perspective. I tend to chalk it up to a lack of communication skills, or perhaps it's a maturity/life experience thing, or all of the above.
I'm glad you were able to still enjoy the story. I had a similar experience with Dragonfly in Amber. One of these days I'll start a thread and see if I can wrap my head around the scene with Jamie, Claire, & young John Grey that night in camp. Fortunately, it was only a few pages, compared to nearly 900. I was able to put Jamie's decision in a mental box and stick it on my mental "WTH?" shelf to hash out later. Then I was able to enjoy the rest of the book.
Please Becky or anyone else do make another thread about another scene or book in the series
Mary wrote: "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 premi..."I understand the historical context and all you stated. Jamie behaviour "makes sense" considering the place, time and cultural context he lives in. But having him NOT beat her wife could also have made sense "historically" speaking.
What I disagree is a) the choice the author made by having this character to make that decision (especially the use of violence against the lead female character beaten by the lead male character so that their relationship can evolves and that he can change...I found it weak, cheap, regressive and stereotypical) ; b) the justification of the beating with the "historical accuracy" line of argument (just because that what happened at the time doesn't automatically means that this very character has to behave like that, especially when this very character doesn't always behave the way people at the time were supposed to behave on multiple other occasions).
Maddie wrote: "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..."By "writing choice of the author" I mean the fact that the author chose to make her character behave that way, that she used that beating to advance the plot, so it is both in terms of characterization (the fact that this scene hapled shaped both Claire and Jamie's character into specific direction) and in termes of plot (the scene moved this relationship into a specific direction).
By "framing" I mean everything that precedes and follow this scene/moment and that helps understand it. What stuck me most was that Claire was portrayed as at fault because she tried to escpae and "disobeyed" Jamie's order. She is, yet again, being saved by Jamie, who risks his life, which put her on the defensive and put him in some sort of moral superiority. Then after the scene, the casual way Claire is being treated, the men making fun of the way the walks, and Jamie's comment about enjoying beating her a bit, and the light tone of their discussion afterward, and the fact that it all end with her saying something like "O h, I love you Jamie" (Again, I don't remember verbatim).
You're right, there is a disctinction between "justify and condone". But the lines may be blurred sometimes. The reason why I started this discussion is a) because I think the "historical accuracy" line of justification is wrong, as Medieval Muse's article pointed; and b) because some of the comments I read
And, yeah, it's up to the reader to make a choice, whether to agree, accept, etc. the direction of the book, or not. I, for one, did read to read for a while an then decided to finish it...Cause I wanted to know how it "ends" (even though it's a series and I knew several more books would follow). I wrote a review of the book and then started this discussion because of what some of the comments I had been reading.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Red wrote: "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 wordin..."Perhaps you should ask yourself why you're still posting ("trolling"?) on this thread, playing bad shrink, trying and policing/silencing me. Why don't you move on and leave it alone. If you are so sure about my nefarious intents (despite everything I have been explaining and discussing to the posters who actually want to discuss even if we disagree), why can't you just..."let it go"? Why does it bothers you so much that this discussion exists and is taking place? Aren't there a lot of other more interesting ones you could participate in?
Just...stay in your lane and have a safe journey.
Mrsbooks wrote: "I aplogize for this being so long but I hope it gets read. I'm not done btw lol. Sorry. The rest will be in another comment.Mocospresso said earlier that "I also think that Red is failing (or po..."
I don't know how I would have felt if this scene hadn't happened or had happened another way. Sure, the dynamic of the story and the characters could have been different, or not. Who knows, right?
I do think that it is possible to write about abuse, violence, even domestic violence, rape, etc., in a realistic way (which doesn't always mean it has to BE "real" or "historically accurate" - see "historical fantasy books) and make for good (even great) writing.
Again, it's about something being "okay" because it suits someone cultural and political agenda, and not being "okay" when it doesn't. What I disagree with is not the right to do or not do something, I disagree with the plot/characterization which strike me as "bad" writing, and the justification of this that I think is both "wrong" (objectively not subjectively) or let's say "false" in the sense that just "sticking" to one version of history doesn't make a writing good or relevant or more accurate.
I don't know if those points are clearer now. Maybe we're running into circles now, although I enjoy the intellectual process of clarifying and debating different angles.
Mrsbooks wrote: "And last but not least.... PLEASE read this....
I had to post this person's comment here. It's from an entirely different thread on Outlander where we were debating much of the same points. Not..."
So, MrsBooK, I read it ! ;). It was long and interesting. I thing the poster makes a few good points even though I disagree with some (for instance the "characters have their own lives" free out of jail card she herself mentioned). But mostly, I don't think her arguments apply to the discussion we are having.
My points have never been about the author as a "feminist" or "not a feminist", not about her as a "female" author. I always referred to her as an author. I don't know about The author, didn't researched her before reading and didn't researched her much after either. I don't expect the author to be a feminist just because she is a woman (as if...), nor would I expect her books to be "feminist" if she were a feminist. I am judging her writing as a black POC cis female reader, who happens to be a feminist (and a couple of other -ist too), yes, but I am also geek, a graduate in Modern Literature, and I can read a book critically but I can also enjoy fictions as mindless pleasure. I know how to make a difference between what I believe in (in terms of values, principles, etc.), and what I read, what an author invites me in that is going to be different from what I may have in mind. And that's part of the pleasure of reading, inst' it? to me surprised, to discover new things, etc.
I didn't have any expectation when I started reading Outlander. Ok, maybe I was expecting hotter sex scenes...and was kind of disappointed by the many "fade to dark" ones. By the end of the book I found the writing decent but problematic at some points. I don't think knowing what the author had in mind or what she intended to write or didn't intend to write changes much. she may not have intended to write a "romance novel" but for pretty much everyone else (readers, critics, libraries, bookshops, etc.) , Outlander IS a romance novel/series. But most importantly, I am not judging or criticizing her "intentions", I am criticizing the end final result, that I received and that "spoke to me" in different ways.
Red wrote: By "writing choice of the author" I mean the fact that the author chose to make her character behave that way, that she used that beating to advance the plot, so it is both in terms of characterization"Thanks for the clarification! I understand your perspective a lot more now. I disagree with the writing choice but that is probably because I don't mind the historical accuracy argument and I am not (nor never was) in love with Jamie. I think that something needed to happen to force the two to confront the different backgrounds. I'm pretty sure it could have been done in a different way as well. I just have no idea what way that would be.
I totally agree with you about framing though! I hate that Clarie seems so angry at Jamie sometimes and totally justifiably so and after he talks to her about his reasons she forgives him. I mean she never has her say so that he can see how she felt in return. It drives me up the wall. I don't like that, specifically in this scene like you said, Claire is seen as at fault and she never explained her side to Jamie to make him feel like he might have over reacted. Yes I, realize what she did and the danger she put everyone else in and I think that she needed to realize that as well. But Jamie never gets the realization, even later in the book when he finds out why she left that specific spot. I think that is something that prevents Jamie from growing to accommodate her instead of her accommodating him. If that makes sense.
Sometimes I do think that the lines get blurred between justify and condone. However, I think that most people that defend Jamie are not condoning what he did. I think that a more interesting way to look at things is to look at the reaction of Claire and how she just brushes things off after listening to Jamie's explanation.
I respect your anger for the book. I think that an easier fix than to take the scene out would be to change the aftermath. I think that making Claire angry for a longer period of time and to rant at Jamie more and to have Jamie see her perspective would have been more effective.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "But the fact that it's historically accurate in itself shouldn't be what makes it okay to write about abuse. It should just be okay to write about. Ho..."Hmmm...I am not sure about the use of my points in a discussion about "Gone with the wind". I, for one, may have a lot of things to criticize about that book (which I read and enjoyed when I did, but haven't read since forever and don't think I would enjoy it so much), but this is an entirely different discussion which may focus on the "historical accuracy" or "realism" of the book, but also on the author "privileged" and partial viewpoint, or the treatment of slave characters who are the very caricature on which many racist tropes in tv/movies have been based on, etc. So I am not sure how the discussion and critics about that specific book can be reduced to the few points I am making about a very peculiar scene/moment in an entirely different book.
Mochaspresso wrote: "The interesting thing to me about Red's pov regarding "Outlander" is that I've always disliked Toni Morrison's "Beloved" for some of the same reasons. (The mother's mental state and the killing of..."I never stated that it was the author "responsibility" to write a story that suits my beliefs ! I stated several times that I can and do enjoy a lot of different sort of fictions that are far from suiting my personal beliefs. Like, yeah, I am a reader, I know it's fiction, I don't expect to read a political program when I open a book.
I criticizes a writing choice, because I dislike the direction of the characterization, plot, etc. And I disagree with the people who try and justify this writing choice using a certain line of arguments. That's pretty much it.
I don't understand how this is repeatedly twisted into me either not being smart enough to understand "historical context", "creative licence", and the likes, or having a political (trolling) agenda that I am said to try and push down everyone throats...You have always been fairly correct and respectful Mochaspresso, but I find this kind of statement to be pretty dismissive.
Now about Tony Morisson, and Beloved, that a whole other story !!! I mean, we're not talking about a mere novel but a work of literature. It's quite on another level. I can understand your point in the sense that TM deals with very difficult problematic subjects but to me, she does it masterfully. Her writing isn't problematic, the subject are. So I related to her characters, and her writing in a whole different way than with Outlander.
Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "It's been a very long time since I've read it and since I seen the movie, but if I recall correctly, "Gone With the..."Seriously, people, where did I write about banning this book?!!! Or any book?!!! I am criticizing it! Like, Jeez, chill. Now I feel like what is actually banned is criticism.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Sageta wrote: "Furthermore, the last I checked, anyone can post to any public thread. "Exactly. If Red wants to discuss this scene with ONLY like-minded people, she has every right to create her..."
I have been discussing and debating with posters who happened to disagree with some of my points.
And since when you are the one to decide what kind of group or discussion are allowed on Goodreads? Like, get real, seriously. I can and will post in any way, form and content I want. If you wan to discuss, you can come and discuss. If you don't want, you're free to. just. click. away.
Sageta wrote: "Red wrote: "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 ..."I have amicably and respectfully discussed with posters who disagreed with my points. And, yes, I clapped back at those who started to be dismissive and passive aggressive.
You're free to read or not read. You're free to post and not post. You're free to troll and just click away.
Christina wrote: "Personally, I'm not that bothered with historical accuracy/inaccuracy (so long as it's not completely ridiculous and unbelievable). I'm just mad that this scene ruined my hard-on for Jamie LOL Up ..."
Lol!
Can you imagine how pissed i was when i started to read the book AFTER seeing pics of hottie Sam Heughan on tumblr? Like, WHY OH WHY?!
Christina wrote: "Sageta wrote: "I mean really, would you have liked it better if Jamie had told Claire...'what you did put us all in danger and if it had been one of the men he would be whipped. Now you need to be ..."A-FREAKING-MEN Christina!
Red wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "It's been a very long time since I've read it and since I seen the movie, but..."I didn't say that you wanted to ban Outlander. I said that people want to ban the classics.
You seem to want to ignore part of history. Women were treated like shit. It was put in a book. "Like, Jeez, chill."
Jeanine wrote: "Please Becky or anyone else do make another thread about another scene or book in the series"Bye Felicia
Maddie wrote: "I hate that Clarie seems so angry at Jamie sometimes and totally justifiably so and after he talks to her about his reasons she forgives him. I mean she never has her say so that he can see how she felt in return. It drives me up the wall. I don't like that, specifically in this scene like you said, Claire is seen as at fault and she never explained her side to Jamie to make him feel like he might have over reacted. Yes I, realize what she did and the danger she put everyone else in and I think that she needed to realize that as well. But Jamie never gets the realization, even later in the book when he finds out why she left that specific spot."This is an interesting perspective. If Claire had made it through the stones, none of this would be an issue and there'd be no story, but her motivation for not "staying put" was extremely powerful. Things got messy when she failed in her task.
Jaime doesn't know that she's from the future at this point. I'd have to go back and read the section where she made that revelation, but to me I would think it would re-frame his thinking on why she was so desperate to get to the stones. Up until that point, he only saw her actions as...hmm...what's a good word...reckless defiance. I think it all frustrated them both, pushing their anger higher to make it an explosive situation.
Someone else has said earlier in these posts that while Claire might've forgiven Jamie, she never forgets. In fact it comes up in her thoughts again through the next book. Our emotions aren't always in sync with our decisions. Claire was madder than a wet hen, but she compromises with him because it was the right thing to do...or perhaps the only way to make the best out of horrible situation. She said she forgave him, but the actual "feeling" came much, much later.
Sometimes I do think that the lines get blurred between justify and condone.
Yes! Let's take it further. What we feel and what we believe are vastly different. Feelings just "are" but our beliefs contribute to every decision we make in life. I hope that makes sense. I think it really helped me with the framing of the scene.
Maddie wrote: "Sometimes I do think that the lines get blurred between justify and condone. However, I think that most people that defend Jamie are not condoning what he did. I think that a more interesting way to look at things is to look at the reaction of Claire and how she just brushes things off after listening to Jamie's explanation...."You are correct Maddie, often times it is assumed that because some of us looked at the scene differently, or defend the author (not necessarily Jamie), that we condone Jamie's actions, which isn't the case.
As for the outcome, I don't think Claire ever hangs on to her anger for a long time, she usually speaks her mind and moves on. Even in the later books when nasty things happen to her, she doesn't rant and rave or remain angry. I think Claire forgave Jamie, not necessarily for the spanking, but because she knew she was wrong. And, she does bring this incident up later in the story, so she may have forgave, but she didn't forgot.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Breath of Snow and Ashes (other topics)The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you stir the pot whenever the conversation starts to die down. It's obvious that you're wallowing in your anger and thrive on the attention you're getting here. It's clear by the way you spew at everyone who doesn't address you like fragile china. Everything you've discussed has been discussed over and over and over and over...
Oh never mind.