Outlander discussion

Maddie wrote: "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 c..."

I agree with this so much yet disagree so much (comment 250) lol.

I agree and feel that scene would have less controversy if Claire hadn't have forgiven Jamie so quickly. I know if I were in Claire's shoes, I wouldn't have moved on that fast. So I do find it difficult to relate. I think most of us ladies here would have been panting with rage for who knows how long. Our anger could have probably been seen coming off us as steam.

But yet when it comes to Claire, I can understand why she did move on. I think sometimes we think of Claire as a modern women because she comes from the future but she's not really our contemporary. She was born almost 100 years ago (1918). We have so many rights that women of her time were only just starting to acquire. From the way Claire is written, with her time period and history *of knowing* history (digging up Egyptian artifacts for most of her life and living with a historian), it may have just been easier for her than it would be for us to forgive so quickly.

But it was also the wise and practical thing to do. Would it have been *wise* to hang onto that righteous anger? Not really, since there wasn't anything she could do about it.

I try to think about this in a modern way. What if I somehow ended up in the middle east? I'd never purposely go there. EVER. But if I ended up there, if I disobeyed their rules and was punished for it, in a similar manor, would it be wise or practical of me to keep venting or showing my anger? It honestly would just be stupid. It would also be stupid for me to expect to be treated like I do here, if I was there. Which is, again, why I think Claire so easily moved on. She understood. She may not have agreed, like we don't, but she understood their mind set and their culture.

Also, Claire couldn't really explain her side. What was she to do? Tell him she's from the future? That's a bit ridiculous. I'd never have done that. What plausible reason could she come up with to explain why she disobeyed the order? When she does finally tell him it's because of the high emotion she goes through after almost being burned (or was it drowned?) for being a witch. There was no way for her to explain her side.

But Jamie does get the realization, later in the books when he finds out why she left that spot. It's not talked about in detail, it didn't really have to be. He also comes to the realization on his own. He had felt justified in doing what he had done because he didn't know any better. When he does know, there is regret.

(view spoiler)[ I told him. Told him everything, haltingly but coherently. I felt numb from exhaustion, but content, like a rabbit that has outrun a fox, and found temporary shelter under a log. It isn't sanctuary, but at least it is respite. And I told him about Frank.

"Frank," he said softly. "Then he isna dead, after all."

"He isn't born." I felt another small wave of hysteria break against my ribs, but managed to keep myself under control.
"Neither am I."

He stroked and patted me back into silence, making his small murmuring Gaelic sounds.

"When I took ye from Randall at Fort William," he said suddenly, "you were trying to get back. Back to the stones. And...Frank. That's why ye left the grove."

"Yes."

"And I beat you for it." His voice was soft with regret.

"You couldn't know. I couldn't tell you." I was beginning to feel very drowsy indeed.

"No, I dinna suppose ye could." He pulled the plaid closer around me, tucking it gently around my shoulders. "Do ye sleep now, mo duinne. No one shall harm ye; I'm here." (hide spoiler)]

I also feel the lines between justify and condone get blurred. However I'm not sure we're all thinking about it in the same way.

I feel they get blurred because, well, for me, it's so easy to put myself into that time period. I've always found it rather easy to walk in someone else's shoes, so to speak. So I can easily put myself into the mindset of those men. And when I do, I feel the scene is justified - because I am those men and I am Jamie. And I can also easily put myself into Claire's shoes and I see things the opposite. Then I'm the innocent by stander with my modern sensibilities who's reading these happenings and I'm appalled. I can go through it all and depending on who's eyes I'm looking at the situation through at the time. That reflects my feelings on the scene.

Red wrote: "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..."

Red, how long ago was it that you read Outlander?

I am curious as to how you'd feel if you gave it another read. Or watched the show. I know you don't want to because of what happens in the book. And I do know that the beating scene will also happen on the show as well. But you're so immersed in this conversation, why not give it a go anyways? You may find you have more, I don't know the correct word, tolerance(?) maybe, for the scene now since we've all been talking it to death lol. Or you may be able to ignore it like some other posters here and enjoy other aspects of the story.

Not that you have to, obviously. I'm just curious to see if you'd enjoy it any better now then you would prior to having vented your anger or distaste about these certain aspects.

Mrsbooks wrote: "But Jamie does get the realization, later in the books when he finds out why she left that spot. It's not talked about in detail, it didn't really have to be. He also comes to the realization on his own. He had felt justified in doing what he had done because he didn't know any better. When he does know, there is regret."

Thanks for posting that scene, Mrsbooks. It's been about a year since I read the book, so I didn't recall that Jamie brought up the beating. It was good to see things come full circle.

I've often wondered why Claire didn't tell Jamie earlier about where she'd come from to try an avoid the spanking/beating, but she couldn't be certain he'd believe her, or he might've thought she was a witch. Out of the frying pan and into the fire...literally.

As you mentioned, she only told him after she had already been accused and he saved her from behind burned at the stake. In fact, he had to drag the truth out of her by asking if she really was a witch.

(view spoiler)["I must ask it, Claire! And you must tell me!"

"And if I were?" I asked through dry lips. "If you had thought I were a witch? Would you still have fought for me?"

"I would have gone to the stake with you!" he said violently. "And to hell beyond, if I must. But may the Lord Jesus have mercy on my soul and on yours, tell me the truth!" (hide spoiler)]

Claire flips out a little bit, understandably so, but eventually tells him everything. At that point she had nothing to lose.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "But Jamie does get the realization, later in the books when he finds out why she left that spot. It's not talked about in detail, it didn't really have to be. He also comes to the ..."

EXACTLY! Claire's fear of the consequences of telling Jamie had already occurred. She had already been thought a witch. She was saved by Jamie and he admitted he didn't care if she was a witch.

Up and until that point Claire feared she would be viewed as a witch or insane and put through what had just occurred.

She didn't have to worry about that anymore.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "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 ..."

I was the one that said that Claire forgave Jamie but she never forgets. I brought up the point that she brings it up again in later books. My problem with the fact the Claire and Jamie never talking about Claire’s perspective is that Jamie never gets the chance to learn from it and see that perhaps Jamie was in the wrong. I don’t think that a compromise was the “right thing to do” until they can see each others perspective or at least have the chance to. While we as readers have the chance to see each since we are in her head, Jamie never gets that opportunity. I disagree with the fact that her feelings of forgiveness coming later. I really think that when they are having the discussion by the side of the road that she forgives him then and there. That is my problem with the scene. She never spoke her point side about it. I think that she could have made an attempt at it without having to say where she came from. She could have used the same story she had been using the whole time, i.e. trying to get to France to the rest of her family. It was her first time alone and she took the opportunity. And then later he could see it as a lie. Or she could have just explained that she was not ok with his reaction without giving an explanation for not “staying put.” This is something that bugs me about Jamie and Claire relationship beyond this scene. It happens over and over again. In Voyager, when they finally get back to Lallybrock, after Jamie is shot and Claire returns, Claire listens to Jamie’s perspective and then forgives him. Later in that book with her second conversation with Lord John, she again listens to his perspective and never tells Jamie why she is hurt by it.

Sageta wrote: "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 in..."

I don’t think she hangs on to her anger either, however in many of the situations that I am talking about she never speaks her mind. That is my problem with many of those scenes and in the long run why I find Jamie to be an ass on many occasions. Seeing Claire as in the wrong is the main problem that Red and I find with this scene’s framing, as she stated earlier. In no way was she in the wrong. She was trying to get home to her time. It was not her fault that she was captured. It was not her fault for anything that happened in her effort to get home. I don’t think it was Jamie’s fault either for beating her and treating her like a woman from his time.


Mrsbooks wrote: "Maddie wrote: "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 bot..."

I am going to respond to you one point at a time since that is the only way it will make sense.
“I think sometimes we think of Claire as a modern women because she comes from the future but she's not really our contemporary. She was born almost 100 years ago (1918)” I for one definitely do not think of her in any way other than how she is portrayed in the book. I don’t even think that we can think of her as a normal woman from those times because she spent much of her time in Egypt or random other place. She is abnormal for her time and that is why we only have her mind for what type of woman she is. It was obviously easier for Claire to forgive easier than it would be for us because, well, she did. Haha

“But it was also the wise and practical thing to do. Would it have been *wise* to hang onto that righteous anger? Not really, since there wasn't anything she could do about it.” Whether or not it was the wise thing to do I don’t know since I have never been in that situation. The point I was trying to make was that many of the points that have been made are about the fact that it was what Claire needed to be a culture shock and get her in the right frame of mind. I think that, as I stated in a response to some other readers in this comment, because she doesn’t state her reason from being hurt or upset to Jamie that he doesn’t get the chance to understand her. We get all of it because the realization, anger, and acceptance all happen in her head but Jamie doesn’t get to evolve with her. While yes he did change after this encounter (not because she stated her side but because she said she would kill him if he ever did it again) in other situations he does not get the chance to learn from the issues.

“It honestly would just be stupid. It would also be stupid for me to expect to be treated like I do here, if I was there. Which is, again, why I think Claire so easily moved on.” I don’t think that she was expecting to be treated like she got treated at home at all. But she was still angry, rightfully so. She was so angry that she said she would kill him if he did it again. And then just because he stated his reasons and experiences it was ok all of a sudden. If we use that in our life, if we are really upset about something and the person that did it to us says that they have had the same thing done to them many times, we would be even more angry with them for then turning around and doing it to someone else. At least I would.

“Also, Claire couldn't really explain her side. What was she to do? Tell him she's from the future? That’s a bit ridiculous.” I addressed this earlier. She could have used the same story she was using all along. She could have said that she was trying to get to France and it was the first opportunity that she had. She had disobeyed orders before that and Jamie hadn’t said anything. She had tried to escape at the Castle and the only reason she didn’t was because she ran into Jamie and he explained why it wouldn’t work.

“But Jamie does get the realization, later in the books when he finds out why she left that spot. It's not talked about in detail, it didn't really have to be. He also comes to the realization on his own. He had felt justified in doing what he had done because he didn't know any better. When he does know, there is regret.” Honestly the fact that he has regret at this point is why I don’t hate Jamie. I certainly don’t love him, for several reasons not just this one, but I definitely don’t despise him. I think that it should have been in more detail because that is where he gets his chance to understand and grow from the event. I don’t think that enough emphasis is put on Jamie’s chances to grow as are with Claire. With any other event we don’t see any of his growth and I think that is problem.

Thanks for adding the scene from the book btw! I don’t have my copy availabel and therefore am working all from memory. :)

Sorry that was so long. I should have split it into three comments.

Mrsbooks wrote: "But Jamie does get the realization, later in the books when he finds out why she left that spot. It's not talked about in detail, it didn't really have to be. He also comes to the realization on his own. He had felt justified in doing what he had done because he didn't know any better. When he does know, there is regret..."

Exactly. He does feel remorse and even though by this time he loves Claire very much, he does what he feels is the honorable thing by sending her back to Frank.

Maddie wrote: "I don’t think she hangs on to her anger either, however in many of the situations that I am talking about she never speaks her mind. That is my problem with many of those scenes and in the long run why I find Jamie to be an ass on many occasions. Seeing Claire as in the wrong is the main problem that Red and I find with this scene’s framing, as she stated earlier. In no way was she in the wrong. She was trying to get home to her time. It was not her fault that she was captured. It was not her fault for anything that happened in her effort to get home. I don’t think it was Jamie’s fault either for beating her and treating her like a woman from his time. ..."

No, she is not in the wrong, but he does not know that because she cannot tell him. She forgives him because she CAN see his side even though she cannot tell him her side. When he finally realizes that she is from the future and was just trying to get back to her husband, Jamie is upset and remorseful. This is not a black and white situation where one is right and one is wrong. Not much of life follows that strict path. It is also not a "big misunderstanding" in the way of some romance novels because Claire had great reason to fear being labeled a witch as we learn later in the story, so she could not explain to Jamie. No one BLAMES Claire for getting beaten. So, from her perspective it was wrong for Jamie to discipline her in the ways of the clan, but she could not tell him that and from Jamie's perspective, it was wrong for her to cavalierly put the lives of the men at risk and force him to commit murder to rescue her. Since she CAN understand his perspective, she decides to forgive him AFTER extracting his promise to never do so again. He can only feel remorse for his actions once he has the full truth.

Mary wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I don’t think she hangs on to her anger either, however in many of the situations that I am talking about she never speaks her mind. That is my problem with many of those scenes and ..."

Yeah I understand that he can't feel remorse until after he knows the full truth. And I pointed out that Jamie is not wrong either. I never said it was a "big misunderstanding" nor do I think it is a "big misunderstanding" or "black and white situation". No one in the scene is at fault at all. At the same time you can almost always find a way to explain a persons perspective. There are few people that do something and know that they are wrong. However, I did give other ways that the forgiveness could have been handled. Obviously she should forgive him however I think that she should have attempted someway to describe her side. It is uncommon for someone to accept a major issue like this without at least trying to explain your side. That is why people vent and when they vent they want people to agree with them whether they are right or not they want that acknowledgement that they have feelings too.
Actually people do blame Claire. All the time in fact. That is why I brought it up. And many times when people are discussing this scene I will hear someone say that it was her fault that caused her to need punishment. I don't know if they are talking about just from Jamie's perspective but in either case that is the argument that they use to justify the scene and why it was ok. I think there is a fault in that argument. In the act of explaining Jamie's perspective and why there is actually nothing wrong with the scene (which as I've stated before I think the scene was necessary) they blame Claire and hold by that argument. It is a difficult situation. I think that it was written well, unlike some. My problem is not with the writing. It is more with the realism of Claire's character, if that makes sense.

Maddie wrote: I was the one that said that Claire forgave Jamie but she never forgets. I brought up the point that she brings it up again in later books. My problem with the fact the Claire and Jamie never talking about Claire’s perspective is that Jamie never gets the chance to learn from it and see that perhaps Jamie was in the wrong.

Forgiveness means different things to people, but to me it's a choice backed up by actions, independent of emotion. Can you tell me what forgiveness "feels" like? I know what being forgiven feels like, but when I forgive someone it's not something to which I can easily assign adjectives. The feelings that match the action, or are eased by it, may come immediately, or take a very long time, depending on the circumstance. For something this heinous, it would've taken Claire's heart a long time to catch up to her mind.

You may believe differently and I'm not trying to talk you out of it, but I find it impossible to believe that Claire said "I forgive you" and the anger was gone. Perhaps that's why DG didn't feel the need to expand on it. Some readers might've found that preferable, but if Claire acted on that anger more than once or twice, other readers might've grow weary of it and think Claire was holding a grudge. It's a fine line for the author. Another thought is that if DG had chosen to bring it up again between them for as feasibly long as the hurt remained, the story would've been all about their fight. Boring.

Yes Claire forgave him. Yes they reached a compromise about the future (no more spankings/beatings or the like). No argument about that, but the only one who really knows Claire's mind for certain is Claire (and of course, DG). I tend to think she dealt with her emotions privately and got on with life, i.e, dealing with the next emergency.

Maddie wrote: I don’t think that a compromise was the “right thing to do” until they can see each others perspective or at least have the chance to.

I don't think it was about gaining perspective at this point. Claire's choices were very limited and as we see in Chapter 25, Jamie does get the opportunity to regret his actions. He learned from his mistake and saw things from her perspective. Here's a snippet of their conversation that occurred after Claire revealed she was from the future:

(view spoiler)["When I took ye from Randall at Fort William," he said suddenly, "you were trying to get back. Back to the stone. And... Frank. That's why ye left the grove."

"Yes."

"And I beat you for it." His voice was soft with regret. (hide spoiler)]

To me, this was enough. Things had come full circle and I did not need them to discuss it more. I'd rather the author keep the plot moving. The book was already 800+ pages without DG rehashing Claire's feelings.

As far as Claire not attempting to tell Jamie the truth that day, do you recall her daydream about revealing the truth to Miss Fitz? She had enough to fear in reality without adding unknowns to the pile. I don't think Jamie would've bought that she was leaving for France either. A woman alone? Without a horse, money, food or supplies? She was also wanted by Randall and traveling through an area heavily patrolled by the English. Not a smart move. I don't think Jamie would've believed her and probably would've pointed all these things out in response to her story.

I have more thoughts on Jamie's discipline as a child and why he chose to share that with her. Mrsbooks said earlier (I think, forgive me if I'm incorrect, I'm sure several people have said this or eluded to it) that Jamie was not angry at his father for the corporal punishment. It was the way he was taught right from wrong and to accept the consequences of poor actions. I don't think he was making excuses or a "feel sorry for me" play. What I 'saw' was that this is/was the only form of "discipline" he knew. I gagged on that sentence. Thank God our husband's aren't our keepers in today's society. Anyway, Claire gave him a new tool...communication...and then of course she threatened to kill him if he did it again. Kudos to Claire.

While we see things differently on some of these issues, I will agree 100% about the issue in Voyager. That scene needed more clarification, framing, and especially time. I would've believed it more if she'd (view spoiler)[gone back to Jamie, gave him a shot of antibiotics or two, then left when he was out of danger. A longer separation would've been far more realistic to me. (hide spoiler)] I had to add it to that little "weirdness" pile I have growing on my mental shelf.

Maddie wrote: "Actually people do blame Claire. All the time in fact. That is why I brought it up. And many times when people are discussing this scene I will hear someone say that it was her fault that caused her to need punishment."

I agree that it's wrong to blame Claire. In a perfect world she would've been successful and gone home to Frank, but she wasn't and that caused a lot of trouble...trouble for which there were unforeseen (to her) consequences. I've described it as a "messy" situation, but it definitely gets us talking and thinking.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Maddie wrote: I was the one that said that Claire forgave Jamie but she never forgets. I brought up the point that she brings it up again in later books. My problem with the fact the Claire and Ja..."

Yeah I agree with some of your points but disagree with others. I understand that everyone can feel things in different ways. I have used many of your arguments before, in this conversation in fact. I was never meaning to suggest that Claire tell Jamie about her origins right then and there. And I think that it would have been disastrous. I also never said that she should continuously act on her feelings. That would have been annoying, no it all needed to be dealt with before they moved on. I did say that there were other things that she could have explained. I don't know how it would affect the rest of everything (as both you and I have stated before only DG does) but that is not the point. The overall point I was saying was that the simple forgiveness without explaining her side in any way at all, for me is unrealistic (and I love all the realistic characters of these books).
Like I said earlier, the scene later does make this one not as big of a deal to me. I think the scene was absolutely necessary and I really don't think that anything needed to change about it. For me it was the first point in the story that Claire's character felt unreal to me. And I pointed out the other scenes to show that it is a pastern for Claire's character that I do not like.

Maddie wrote: The overall point I was saying was that the simple forgiveness without explaining her side in any way at all, for me is unrealistic (and I love all the realistic characters of these books).
Like I said earlier, the scene later does make this one not as big of a deal to me. I think the scene was absolutely necessary and I really don't think that anything needed to change about it. For me it was the first point in the story that Claire's character felt unreal to me. And I pointed out the other scenes to show that it is a pastern for Claire's character that I do not like. "

I can see why you and others would feel that way. It's an understandable perspective. : )

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Maddie wrote: "Actually people do blame Claire. All the time in fact. That is why I brought it up. And many times when people are discussing this scene I will hear someone say that it was her fault..."

I think is may be misinterpreted as blaming Claire when readers are attempting to show the scene from Jamie's perspective. Because we can see his side, doesn't mean we cannot also see Claire's side. I have stated that in terms of his relationship with Claire, it was wrong of him to beat her, but he was in between a rock and a hard place and the socialization that taught him to not spare the rod. He was doing what he had been taught to do. That does not mean what he was taught to do was right. In light of our current understanding of the world, it most certainly was not right. But we are all creatures of our upbringing and societal mores.

Maddie wrote: "Mary wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I don’t think she hangs on to her anger either, however in many of the situations that I am talking about she never speaks her mind. That is my problem with many of thos..."

"Actually people do blame Claire. All the time in fact. That is why I brought it up. And many times when people are discussing this scene I will hear someone say that it was her fault that caused her to need punishment."

I do see where you're coming from with this. But I think this is where people's comments are misinterpreted. As I mentioned, I can view the scene through Jamie's perspective and the Men's - so often at times, I do feel Claire got what she deserved. But that's solely because I'm not looking at it from my own perspective. Or Claire's, for that matter.

Maddie wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "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 ..."

"She never spoke her point side about it. I think that she could have made an attempt at it without having to say where she came from. She could have used the same story she had been using the whole time, i.e. trying to get to France to the rest of her family."

I don't think that would have been a viable option at this point. She's married to Jamie. She's accepted his protection and they're also friends. For her to take off and run from him would be a huge betrayal. She is technically really doing that, trying to get back to her own time. But to admit that to him, but saying she was trying to go to France would be really hurtful (and not make much sense). Although that in itself isn't reason enough not to do it. The reason not to do it, is because Jamie being hurt by her trying to run away from him, and him not wanting a wife that didn't want him, and plus with him secretly being in love with her at the time, would probably have sent her there if it was what she truly wanted. Which would just put her further away from the stones and getting home.

But I do see what you're saying about how they never really talked things out as far as how Claire felt about it. I think I would have liked to have read that.

At the same time I don't think it was necessarily necessary. (Does that sentence even make sense? lol) I thought that Claire fighting Jamie back and never submitting to him for that kind of punishment, the fact that she clawed, kicked, bite, etc him showed exactly how she felt about it without her needing to explain why.

And then when he finally does promise to never do something like that again... I don't know... that still shocks me. I'd not have done that if I were him. But it was because he knew it just didn't work with Claire and there was no reason to ever do it again. She wasn't like the others.

I also don't think there is anything Claire could ever say to make Jamie understand her perspective on it anyways. Jamie never stops thinking that's a suitable means of punishment. He just has realized it's not suitable for his wife.

Even in a later book, Claire brings up that if a man in her time would do such a thing, he'd be likened to a man who beat his wife with fists and Jamie is quite stunned and can't seem to connect the two idea's.

I just think that no amount of explaining would ever have been able to make him understand. Not when he's been raised in it, and it worked so well for him, and his entire culture is surrounded in it.

So, I'm kind of curious.

People keep saying that part of why this scene is so distasteful was because it was written as a way for Claire to finally accept the time period she was in. That it finally made her realize her situation and it drew her and Jamie closer.

Personally I think those are all moot points because...
I don't understand why it matters.

I guess I thought the beating itself was a natural consequence to the events that happened, giving the time period and the culture. But lets say Claire didn't learn anything from it. Would it have been more acceptable then?

Would Claire not growing closer to Jamie or have her not realize this time period isn't a dream. have made the beating seem less bad?

To me it doesn't matter that something good came from the beating. It doesn't matter if it was written so that something bad happened either.

I've never really understood the argument about the "framing" of this event because to me it just simply does not matter if something good happened afterwards or if something bad did.

I don't know if I'm making myself make sense or not lol.

I guess I don't understand the reason that something good did come out of this whole thing makes the beating more distasteful than if nothing came from it at all. The beating is a beating. The spanking was a spanking (whatever words you want to use to describe it).

When you get right down to it, the outcome of it all, had nothing to do with why the beating was given. So why does the outcome matter so much for *justifying* it, or for using it to show how *distasteful* it was?

Mrsbooks wrote: "When you get right down to it, the outcome of it all, had nothing to do with why the beating was given. So why does the outcome matter so much for *justifying* it, or for using it to show how *distasteful* it was?"

I haven't thought of that before. Very good questions! And no, I don't think it does matter. Personally, I think DG wrote the story the way she wanted it to pan out. Period. After reading her books, several blog comments, and a few more discussion board posts, I can say with all certainty that she wasn't seeking to "justify" a single "writing choice" she made.

I used the word "weirdness" earlier on purpose. DG uses it herself (among other descriptive words) to describe various scenes in her books. Her writing style is what it is. There's no such thing as the perfect author, but when it comes to realistic human behaviors, DG hits pretty close to home.

Do I blame Claire for being beaten? I've thought about that and the answer is no. I don't blame her. Blame is the wrong word (for me) because the situation and events that led up to it were so complex. Understanding how and why something happened isn't exactly the same thing or synonymous with "blame", imo. I understand why they tried to burn her as a witch, that doesn't mean that I blame her for it or thought this punishment was just or right.

I think my issue is that words like "blame" and "justify" and "right" and "wrong" just don't do it for me when it comes to "Outlander". They don't convey the right meanings for me when it comes to this scene.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Do I blame Claire for being beaten? I've thought about that and the answer is no. I don't blame her. Blame is the wrong word (for me) because the situation and events that led up to it were so c..."

I agree with you! I said that people do blame Claire because in this thread and in others that I have seen people have said that what she is was wrong and that she forgave him because she understood that she was wrong. To me that is blame for the situation. Whether they truly believe that or are just trying to defend Jamie (because in my opinion what he did wasn't "wrong" either just what he knew from his experience was the way to handle a situation like this) I'm not sure. But either way by saying that she forgave Jamie because she knew that she was wrong is give the blame to Claire and I think that isn't right either. Like you and many others have said. It is not an easy situation to wrap our minds around. It is not black and white when you really dig into the situation, and to me that is what makes the DG such a great writer. She writes in the gray and I love that!

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: I used the word "weirdness" earlier on purpose. DG uses it herself (among other descriptive words) to describe various scenes in her books. Her writing style is what it is. There's no such thing as the perfect author, but when it comes to realistic human behaviors, DG hits pretty close to home. ..."
And this ties into what you have said about weirdness (love that btw!!) There is so much weirdness (or grey areas) to deal with in this book series and that is why I love them so much. And imo that is why there is so much to talk about and find differing opinions in this story. There is room for you to hate a main character at times and room for you to (eventually) forgive them. For example I know so many people who hate Brianna and Roger and they are my favorite parts of the book.

Mrsbooks wrote: "So, I'm kind of curious. People keep saying that part of why this scene is so distasteful was because it was written as a way for Claire to finally accept the time period she was in. That it final..."
It is not the justification that was the only thing that made it distasteful I don't think (not that I think things could have gone any other way) it is more, for me at least, the lack of a discussion afterward that made it jarring. I think the scene was necessary for Claire to have that realization and for Jamie to find a different way to deal with Claire. But I don't think that has any affect on my distaste. In my cases at least I found it difficult to manage because it was the first time that Claire just let something go without talking about it that started that pattern that I discussed earlier.
I don't know if I have answered your question or just talked in circles. haha

Maddie wrote: "Seeing Claire as in the wrong is the main problem that Red and I find with this scene’s framing, as she stated earlier. In no way was she in the wrong. She was trying to get home to her time. It was not her fault that she was captured...."

It's not that I feel Jamie was justified in punishing Claire, but she brought it on herself. Jamie had told her "if ye leave the copse before I come for ye, I'll tan your bare arse wi' my sword belt", which is exactly what he did. Claire knew the danger they were in, after all the British and BJR were the reason she and Jamie married in the first place, but still she chose to not listen to or take Jamie seriously. Yes, she was trying to return to her own time, but her carelessness put her in BJR's hands and brought unnecessary danger to Jamie and the others.

I'm not blaming Claire or saying Jamie was right, but Claire, like Jamie, was not without fault.

I do understand how this scene upset people or caused them to be disappointed with Jamie, because I feel the same way about the scene with Claire and Lord John at the end of Echo. Jamie was suppose to be the love of Claire's life, yet he was supposedly gone only a few days when she turned to someone else. Drunk or not, it flawed their relationship to me, and I think it's the reason I haven't been tempted to read MOBY. It's been sitting on my bookcase since the week it was released, but somehow, as much as I love this series, I can't pick it up. I know all will be forgiven and Claire and Jamie's journey will move forward, but somehow, to me, it's no longer the same.

Obviously this topic is important to talk about so I appreciate your view. Your main point is that we are trying to justify the act because of the time period but we are dissecting the story and using the clues given to us by the author to come to a conclusion that the author has explained in depth. You keep isolating this one incident without taking into consideration the larger story, what happens before and after and the time period which makes it impossible to give a fair assessment. You are making a lot of assumptions and inaccurate claims even adding a couple of rapes that didn't happen to prove your point. Which doesn't make for a good argument. But anyways to address your points;



1.)Abuse and rape in modern media belittles victims.

No, not necessarily it depends on how it is depicted. It seems like you are saying the subject can't be addressed without being demeaning to SURVIVORS of rape and that is just not true. You say Claire did nothing to assert herself but she threatened Jamie and made him swear an oath never to do it again. Submissive is the absolute opposite of who Claire is in this case and going forward. After this she never becomes some cowering victim waiting for the next blow to drop she continues to be extremely defiant and puts her self in further dangerous situations by not taking Jamie's advice about how a woman of this age should behave.

2.) It sends a negative message that it’s ok if your lover hits you as long as he feels bad about it or claims to love you.

This is about how this specific couple dealt with the issue and it is clear that this was not the intended message. Again, the final outcome is Jamie swearing to never spank her again. Claire has a voice of her own and she explains how she feels about the act before and after and she doesn't find it acceptable at all even though she can understand Jamie's reasoning.

About the author saying she is looking forward to the rape and torture scenes what she meant and has explained is she is looking forward to these very talented actors depicting the scene. It is a tough subject matter and the actors have also said they look forward to tackling these very difficult scenes and doing it in a way that is respectful and meaningful. Kind of like when actors say they enjoy playing the villain doesn't mean they are depraved individuals promoting evil. It is challenging playing the hard scenes and being the bad guy so actors and writers like to write about it.


3) These behaviors blur the line between Jamie and Captain Randall. If Captain Randall is condemned as a villain for raping women and beating Scots, why is Jamie lauded as a hero and lover for doing the same?

Um you are being a little extreme. Some parents feel it is okay to spank their children some people abuse their children. There is a difference. What happened in this case was not pure, sadistic torture as is the case with Randall. If you can't understand the difference I think you are being unrealistic.


4)Turning Jamie into an abuser is not consistent with his character. Jamie had a rough childhood, to say the least, and as an adult, he was beaten multiple times, flogged, and forced to witness the rape of his sister. (<----- Jamie is never forced to witness his sister's rape. Also, absolutely did not rape Claire the next day.)

Jamie is a young newlywed and he is constantly being tested and improved by Claire. In the era it was acceptable behavior, maybe not all men did it but it was an acceptable act like how some parents chose to spank their children in our day and age. I was spanked when I was little and honestly I didn't like it but I did learn from it and it wasn't harmful (mentally or physically). When I had children it was expected of me to discipline my children this way. I choose not to spank my children the way I was spanked but it was not a decision I came to immediately. I lived it and learned from it.

Jamie did what he thought was right but afterwards he was conflicted which is why he tells Claire how he was beaten as a child. Like you said Jamie has been beaten all his life by his loving father, uncles, and teachers. This is a valid form of punishment in his mind something he has been subject to himself and a form of punishment that has not broken him down. Disciplining his wife this way is expected of him but the fact that he struggles with this and tries to be considerate of her feelings to a certain extent is most certainly in character. By discussing it with Claire he comes to understand how much it effects her beyond just the physical pain and he vows to never do it again and he never does. So he learned and matured from this scene. Calling him an abuser is a very far stretch.


5)Saying domestic violence is just a characteristic of the time period does a disservice to the era. Not everyone in 18th century Scotland beat their wives.

No, but is a common enough practice during that time period. No one from that era would feel entitled to be outraged whether they agreed with it or not. I don't know how far you have read but Claire ends up in a lot of bad situations because she is not taking the customs of the time period seriously. When people bring this up they are not trying to justify abuse they are just pointing out that Claire is learning to survive in an era different from her own so she does have to adjust her opinions and reactions. Some of her modern political and religious views also put her in danger like in the episode when she is fighting with the priest about the boy who is supposedly possessed. Voicing a heretical view of religion could be the death of you during this time so putting the actions into the context of the time is important. It's like watching a historical movie during the slavery era in America and complaining about the use of the n-ward and hangings. Not everyone held slaves during that time but slavery was most definitely an overwhelming aspect during that time period and to not address it is a little too PC and historically inaccurate.

Overall the story is about how a marriage develops over time and how they come to respect each other and outline the structure of their matrimony. They clash often because of their different culture and upbringing and this is just one of many cases. It is not okay to just dismiss who Jamie is in favor of a more pleasing feminist portrayal of him.

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?),..."

The author has explained her writing process she didn't choose this scene this is what happened in the story. If you are familiar with the creative process then you should be aware it is highly absurd to suggest someone should change their art because it makes you uncomfortable. I'm sure a lot of rape survivors would choose not to have rape as a part of their life story but it happened and sharing the story helps others talk about it.

To ask the creator to change or take elements out of the story is not being critical it's being controlling. A valid critic would be that Jamie's decision to make a vow to not spank her again makes him a little too perfect. Jamie is singular in that he even considers her opinion and vows to not do it again. Yeah she could have made him this super perfect guy who would automatically bulk at an accepted custom but that's not who he is. To Jamie this type of punishment is absolutely normal and he does not apologize for it but he does adjust to respect her wishes. This makes the story and characters much more dynamic hence this debate. If the author had made another choice it would not be debated as much. So score one for DG taking on a difficult scene and using it to humanize, for modern folks, a pretty standard historical custom. Women were the property of their fathers and husbands and we usually dismiss this idea or think of the women as weak victims but this scene illustrated that it was more complex than that.

I think it is unrealistic to expect him to immediately say I won't do it considering everything that is as risk here. He would have been disgraced in front of his clansmen, they would have hated Claire because she didn't feel like she owed them an apology for running off and putting their lives at risk. Also he doesn't know Claire is from the future so her running away from the protection of the clan probably seemed board line insane to him considering they are outlaws but when he finds out why she ran he does regret his actions.

There are many more complex elements going on in this story than what you have laid out here and to suggest you could come up with a better solution than the author is laughable. In your opinion what should have happened?

If you continued the series you would see Claire continues to put his life and the life of others in danger even when he tries to explain to her in a rational way the dangers of her modern ways. Yet, she still defies him which usually ends up bad and they have to get out of yet another dangerous situation.

"If we were to be a bit "realistic" regarding some parts of Jaimie's fictional personal story, the guy should have been at least seriously crippled after all that happened to him."

Jamie has a permanent scar on the back of his head, hideous disfiguring scars on his back, he nearly dies at the end, his hand is maimed and let's not even get into his mental and psychological trauma. I think the author does a great job of keeping to realistic details.

Bree wrote: "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 R..."

Also her running away was the cause of this as well. Jamie paid a much bigger cost and got more than a tender arse for her actions.

Red wrote: "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 derogatr..."

You are just being stubborn at this point. The author has stated it was not "ok", Claire has stated it was not "ok" and Jamie vowed to never do it again because he realized that it was not "ok." In later books they also talk about it and Claire again asserts that it was not "ok" Jaime admits that he was wrong because he did not have all the information. So no they did not quickly dismiss the subject or make it seem okay.

Well said Shara.

Nobody needs to justify anything, least of all the author. It's the author's choice to write the story as they see it, the reader then has the choice of continuing to read, or not. If a reader finds a book disturbing or lacking, they can always close it and move on to something else.

It's fine to say you don't care for a book, scene, writing style, etc. but to imply the author should have written the book differently is futile.

Shara wrote: "Bree wrote: "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 s..."

Ha! Tender Arse:) Thank you Shara! Claire made a mistake. Jamie made a mistake. There has to be forgiveness, and there was. The reader may have a different opinion, but in the book they moved on:)

Shara wrote: "Obviously this topic is important to talk about so I appreciate your view. Your main point is that we are trying to justify the act because of the time period but we are dissecting the story and u..."

I am not sure who you're replying to, seeing as I never said anything you listed.

If you're indeed referring to my original post and subsequents replies to other posters, I am afraid you totally misread what I have been trying to explain.

Shara wrote: "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 k..."

I was replying to another poster who asked about "alternative" writing choices. If you've actually read my posts, you'll see that's not even part of my main arguments. The only reason why I replied that particular point is to counter the argument that there were absolutely no other choice, as if this developement was like...fate or something. My point was there are always different ways a story can go, depending on what the writer want to do. So there are always different options. At the end of the day, this is the version that made the cut, so this is the scene I am criticizing.

And it has also nothing to do with understanding creative process or not. Is tudied litterature, so yeah, I understand that. And creative licence too. And context, and historicity, and more. That doesn't mean one can't criticize a writing choice, even while understanding the process that lead to that choice.

Shara wrote: "Red wrote: "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 t..."

Let's say that I am not convinced by the posters argument, sahll we? No need to be dismissive about it. As I stated before, I, for one, think the framing put Claire on the wrong. Some other posters also did (I guess they're are "stubborn", too?). You obviously didn't. Well, good for you, I guess.

Red wrote: Let's say that I am not convinced by the posters argument, sahll we? No need to be dismissive about it. As I stated before, I, for one, think the framing put Claire on the wrong. Some other posters also did (I guess they're are "stubborn", too?). You obviously didn't. Well, good for you, I guess.

No you said that you felt as if they were trying to make it seem as if the spanking scene was okay with Claire but I was saying you were being stubborn to not acknowledge that the characters and the author took the time to explain how they didn't feel the situation was okay. Other posters like Christina (see message 240 ) were able to say why they didn't like the scene while also being truthful. Many of the posters here are not exactly taking issue with the fact that you didn't like the scene but with the fact you seem to exaggerate or misinterpret the scene to fit your negative opinion of it.

No one thinks the spanking was okay. The scene does not promote domestic violence.

This was your original stance....
I couldn't NOT reply on this thread. I did, and I also decided to make a specific topic on this 'cause I think there should be more voices out here trying to...I don't know...put this conversation on the map, especially seeing how "opular" the book is and seeing how so many horrible argument are being made to justify time and time again domestic violence. Because this issue is way too important to just let it slide.

Your response is like if I watched 12 Years A Slave and came and posted how I just had to speak up about the whipping scene because it promotes racial violence. Your argument just seems a little elementary to me.

Red wrote: "The only reason why I replied that particular point is to counter the argument that there were absolutely no other choice, as if this developement was like...fate or something

The author has stated that she does not cherry pick scenes to put in the book. The scenes happen and she writes. For example when she first wrote it she did not intend for Claire to be from the future but as she was writing Claire spoke with a modern voice so the time traveling element happened because the story stemmed from this image that popped up. Even though it didn't make sense at the time but her choice to continue with the story has made all the difference. So maybe that is the same thing that happened here she didn't intend for it to be a spanking scene but it happened because this was a common punishment for women during this time and she just wrote how her characters' responded.


On a side note I find it extremely funny that you expect me to read all your posts when you haven't even read the text we are debating about.

This is all so silly...it's not that anyone 'liked' the spanking scene, the point is most people were able to accept the scene for what it was, part of the story.

Red wrote: "I am not sure who you're replying to, seeing as I never said anything you listed.

If you're indeed referring to my original post and subsequents replies to other posters, I am afraid you totally misread what I have been trying to explain.."

If you posted message one. I listed the 6 points you were trying to make and I gave a reply to each one. I am not sure where the confusion is coming from maybe the post was not clear. I have read the original post and your other replies I was just trying to speak directly to what you originally said.

Basically you are upset that people are using the historical setting to justify domestic abuse. Is that correct?

You also said you dislike the characterization of Jamie's as an abuser. You went to so far as to compare his actions to Black Jack Randell's torture scenes. Do you believe that Jamie and BJR behave the same when it comes to violence against women?

The author and the people who understand the scene don't see it as a case of domestic abuse per se. It was a low point for both the characters they responded the way they did because of many factors within the story.


Is your view of violence so extreme that you view a person who spanks their children as a child abuser? Are male and female siblings who fight each other destined to be life long abusers?

I am just trying to understand your assessment of the scene.

Mrsbooks wrote: I feel they get blurred because, well, for me, it's so easy to put myself into that time period. I've always found it rather easy to walk in someone else's shoes, so to speak. So I can easily put myself into the mindset of those men. And when I do, I feel the scene is justified - because I am those men and I am Jamie. And I can also easily put myself into Claire's shoes and I see things the opposite. Then I'm the innocent by stander with my modern sensibilities who's reading these happenings and I'm appalled. I can go through it all and depending on who's eyes I'm looking at the situation through at the time. That reflects my feelings on the scene. "

That is just a perfect statement this is how I feel when I read a good story. It's not about me taking it personally, or measuring the story against my own morals/values but trying to understand the characters actions and how it drives the story.

Shara wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: I feel they get blurred because, well, for me, it's so easy to put myself into that time period. I've always found it rather easy to walk in someone else's shoes, so to speak. So I ..."

I think this is why Red, and others sometimes think we are justifying the situation. While we are attempting to explain context, story, etc we argue from the other character's perspective and often do not say so during the the conversation. Most of us assume the people reading understand that.

So there is a reason I haven't been able to let this conversation go to bed. At times I really wanted to but something kept pulling me back in and I finally realized what it was. There has always been something in the back of my mind but just so fleeting I hadn't been able to pin point my hang up. I did actually bring it up in one of my last few comments but even at the time I wrote it, I didn't realize how much my thoughts about that affect how I view this whole scene.

Red (and a few others) have brought up numerous times how the "framing" of the event really bothered them. Basically how the writer wrote about a domestic abuse scene and then wrote story line afterwards that made us more willing to accept what had happened. (How it suited Claire as a wake up call and to realize her life isn't a dream, how it ended up drawing her and Jamie closer, etc).

And I never understood this argument. But I think now, I might. Sort of. Maybe... lol

Many of us have been explaining on numerous posts how the scene played out, explaining how we view it, how we think those in the past would have felt, how they viewed it themselves. And I imagine, because we felt Red or others didn't quite understand the context we have been explaining the situation afterwards. If there were a like button here on Goodreads, I would have "liked" numerous of these comments because I agreed with them and thought what was written was accurate.


Red has mostly had a dismissive attitude towards many of these comments and I understand why. Because.... it doesn't matter. At times I think it's appeared (note: I say appeared) we've been trying to justify what happened because of the out come. But the out come, doesn't make everything alright. I don't believe anyone has said differently but because we try to explain the context to someone who doesn't (or at least appears) to not understand it, they feel we're using it to justify it. Because again, it simply doesn't matter what happened afterwards. Why use something to argue a point, if it doesn't matter?

I don't know if I've confused you yet, my thoughts are still kind of jumbled.

Here is my point I guess:

If the framing afterwards doesn't or shouldn't matter in relation to justifying the beating, then.... why does it still matter? It can't be both ways. We can't claim the framing only matters as long as it sways you to one direction of thinking.

And that is the bottom line for me.

I'll be honest. Many of the comments explaining the situation were really good and called for because it seemed like Red didn't understand the plot or the story.

But I kinda always wondered what the point was to it all was.
If it doesn't actually carry any relevance to the beating then why is it getting talked about?

Would my *understanding* of the beating be any different if Jamie had been cold and distant afterwards? Or if Claire didn't forgive him and they hadn't bonded over Jamie telling her about his childhood? What if Claire hadn't fought during the beating? Would any of that actually change my opinion of the beating?

No, it actually wouldn't.

By my understanding of the time period and the culture my feelings about the situation would be no different.

Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way, I'm not sure.

But this has been my hang up when talking about the framing of the scene. I couldn't understand why what happened afterwards could bother someone so much because to me, it had nothing to do with the beating.

Mrsbooks wrote: "If the framing afterwards doesn't or shouldn't matter in relation to justifying the beating, then.... why does it still matter? It can't be both ways. We can't claim the framing only matters as long as it sways you to one direction of thinking.
..."

Yeah, I am a little confused but let me see if I am understanding you. You are saying that you understand Red's point that the author purposely wrote the fall out after the spanking so we would not be offended by it. However, people like Red refuse to swallow that explanation or making light of the situation.

If that is your point I still do not agree with Red's point of view. It is unrealistic to isolate the spanking without putting it into context. If a woman says my husband spanked me I think the natural response is to express sympathy and then to ask what would lead him do such a thing. It is a shocking thing to read about a husband spanking his wife so I think an explanation has to be given. It would be unwise to be immediately outraged and demand that the man be punished or take the full blame although I am sure this is what happens in most cases.

This is a difficult thing to talk about so let me tread carefully. Let's just say if a man hits a woman he is in a relationship with it is a very complex and confusing thing for every one involved. Sometimes the guy is just a sick individual and in rare cases the guy is provoked beyond reason. I don't think it is fair to put every case into the same category.

Now because the author has given an alternative view of this I do not think she is blankly advocating all cases of domestic violence. For this particular cases things happening as they did I think it is irresponsible to not look at the situation critically and to just slap the label of abuser on Jamie.

Like many have said there are some people who spank their children to discipline them and there are people who abuse their children. Any intelligent mind should be able to understand the difference. Likewise, what Jamie did was wrong but I do not equate him with a sick individual like Black Jack as Red has done. Also the authors focus is on the relationship of Jaime and Claire and how this particular incident was viewed by them and their reactions to it.

I agree Shara, the spanking scene encompassed the before, the punishment, and the coming to terms after. Jamie didn't approach Claire in a rage or spank her to be abusive, he thought it was justified, and he truly believed Claire would comply.

As you said, the author was not advocating domestic violence, nor did she ever imply that Jamie was right. IMO, the spanking was part of the story because it was accepted, just as whipping a man for disobeying and putting their group in danger would be accepted...that doesn't mean it is justified or right, it simply means it was accepted at that period in time.

Was it necessary to the story...probably not, but then many scenes/things are not necessary...but necessary or not, they certainly make the story interesting.

Mrs Books wrote: "I don't know if I've confused you yet, my thoughts are still kind of jumbled."

I sorta get where you're coming from, but I'm not 100% sure. I really do want to understand and I've read your post several times, but it's just not sinking in...at least not yet. Allow me to share my thoughts and you can tell me if I'm close or if I've missed the whole shebang.

The beating/spanking really can't be and doesn't need to be justified. It was wrong by today's standards and it was wrong in the 1700's, regardless of the behavior being more openly accepted in the past. I do think it matters, though. The scene provides a crisis, serving as a transitional writing tool to advance the relationship. If I care where the couple is going and want to understand how they feel, what they think, why the did x, y, or z, then the beating/spanking matters very much. I hope that makes some sort of sense.

I suppose I'd be pretty dismissive, too, if I wasn't looking beyond the actual beating/spanking. Not being snarky there, just trying to explain my thoughts and I'm lacking the right words. : )

The scene we have been discussing should be on tomorrow night for the premiere of the 2nd half of Outlander. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Mary wrote: "The scene we have been discussing should be on tomorrow night for the premiere of the 2nd half of Outlander. Will be interesting to see how it plays out."

My DVR is set! It's like a train wreck...I can't "not" watch it. I've loved the TV series so far, even though the last episode was really tough to watch. I don't expect the midseason premier to be any easier. Regardless of my discomfort, I want to know how they pull it off.

They ended the season with Jamie coming thru the door but starting the new with Jamie coming thru the window

I wonder if the depiction of that scene on TV will cause the same types of negative reaction as the book...

Most likely

I thought it was well done
I even chuckled a few times watching it

"Done"

I was disappointed with the scenes before and after. I wanted more. It's like the crunched together the two scenes Jamie and Claire had on the trail (the one immediately after her rescue and the one the next day). It felt rushed. The scene itself was well done.

I know they only have an hour to get everything in, but hey, that's why I'll always pick up a book instead of the remote to the television.

On a side note, I like that Jamie is doing the voice overs. That did give us some insight that he knew he had to handle things differently.