Outlander discussion

I like that Jaime is doing the voice overs too

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 b..."

I get what you're saying, I think, @MrsBooks -- that perhaps Red & like minded folk object to an ex post facto argument about the spanking -- an argument that what happened is OK because what happened afterward made it OK. I appreciate the line of reasoning, but ultimately, I am with you -- I still disagree with it as not especially sound.

Even if you stop the narrative just as the spanking concludes, there's just nothing about it that is "wrong" or in need of "justification." Disturbing? Yes, potentially -- as is often the case in stories of any verisimilitude, since life itself often is. But "wrong"? No -- it was the way the author chose for the story to unfold, and well within the bounds of credibility given historical and social context.

Is it wrong to beat one's wife? IMO, yes, unequivocally. Is it wrong state honestly that sometimes -- both in the past and in the present -- people beat their wives? No. On the contrary, to acknowledge this truth is very important in situating our own current social, historical and political reality. On the contrary, I think it wrong to be disingenuous about his facet of history; whitewashing does nobody any favors.

Yes, the way this plotline unfolds, Jaime spanks Claire. Completely disregarding anything that comes afterward, is it unsavory? Yes. Is it "wrong"? No -- it's not ultimately 'wrong' in any sense of the word for fiction to reflect reality in important -- if unsavory -- ways.

Sunda wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "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. T..."

I think you get me.

But I will clarify for everyone in case.

Basically, and perhaps more simply put... what happened afterwards just didn't matter. It was all moot. It wouldn't have mattered if Jamie was an asshole about it. It wouldn't have mattered if Jamie was as sweet as pie. (Although it definitely would have mattered to Claire) but as a reader what followed had nothing to do with WHY the beating was given in the first place.

For me, when Red or others say that the writer wrote this in a way for us to forgive Jamie by having him bond with Claire afterwards, her requiring a "wake up" call to realize the time she was living in, how it helps Jamie learn and grow as a character, etc... All those things never mattered to me when it came to this scene.

I'll admit, I am perhaps *ignoring* the framing of this scene *before hand*. I can't honestly ignore history. I really can't. I mean that I really really really can't lol. This didn't need to be written this way but the author did and it was realistic to the times.

I guess in a nutshell I'm simply (perhaps not so simply) trying to say that those *good* things that followed the beating do not affect how I viewed the scene. It didn't change why it was given. It wouldn't have mattered if good came from it or bad. None of that would have changed anything.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Sunda wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "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 ..."

I totally see where you are coming. For me the problem with the scene was not that something good came out of it. I have absolutely no problem with the history aspect of it (in fact I love that part. I can't ignore history and a History Major myself I just can't.) My problem with the scene was the fact that in every way Claire was seen as at fault. I think the realization that happens later with Jamie after he knows about Frank happened too far away for it to make me feel better. I would even argue that Claire eventually sees herself as the person in the wrong at one point. This even causes readers to blame her and say it was her own fault. (I know several of the people on this thread have talked about how they were projecting the the other side. I get that I do it too all the time! :) But those people are not my point. I have talked to several people that beyond the "look at it through Jamie's perspective" say that what Claire did she deserved, brought on herself, and was wrong) That is my problem with the scene.
The fact that something good came out of it doesn't matter to me. The framing that matters to me is the way that Claire is seen to be at fault. And like I said before there is not really a way to change this since my problem is also partly just Claire's character.

Maddie wrote: "totally see where you are coming. For me the problem with the scene was not that something good came out of it. I have absolutely no problem with the history aspect of it (in fact I love that part. I can't ignore history and a History Major myself I just can't.) My problem with the scene was the fact that in every way Claire was seen as at fault. ..."

I disagree. From Jamie's perspective (which is how we look at justifying the scene), she is wrong for deliberately disregarding an order and putting everyone in danger AT THE TIME. However, later in the book when Claire tells Jamie that she is from the future, he is very sorry and feels guilty for keeping her from going back to Frank. That is why he makes the unselfish decision to take her to the stones and let her go. When all is revealed, Jamie realizes that Claire was not at fault. That is why it is necessary not to take one scene and isolate it.

Well said mary

Well said mary

Well said mary

Well said mary

Well said mary

Mary wrote: "Maddie wrote: "totally see where you are coming. For me the problem with the scene was not that something good came out of it. I have absolutely no problem with the history aspect of it (in fact I ..."



I understand where you are coming from about the later scene. I even mentioned it in my post maybe you missed it. It was really short and I sort of rambled. I said that the later scene was too far away to work for me. I also said that I totally understand the justification from Jamie's perspective, I said that I do it all the time. I think it is wrong to blame Claire or Jamie at all.
I agree that you should not isolate a scene. I don't feel I am. I am taking Claire's overall character into account. I appreciate the scene for what it gives to Claire and Jamie's relationship. I don't think that the blaming of Claire (or Jamie) is necessary.

I understand what MrsBooks is saying, I really do. What was done was done, but it takes the fun out of reading for me if I don't dig into those actions and characters to find out how they came to make their decisions...good or bad. It's not to justify the spanking. It's simply to understand how the characters "got there" in the first place. To me what matters is the big picture.

Claire's choice to try to get back to the stones wasn't wrong.

Claire leaving camp and putting the men in danger, turned out to be the wrong choice, only because she got caught. Had she been successful, the story would've be much shorter.

Jamie also wasn't wrong for telling her to stay put, but he didn't know about her strong desire to return to her own time. Not anyone's fault.

Jamie was wrong for lifting a hand to his wife, no matter what the era, the expectations of the men, etc. It was morally incorrect to strike a woman, then and now.

It being acceptable for the era, or "what was done" when he was little, or to other women, is irrelevant, but it does help me to see why HE thought it was acceptable. It was still wrong though.



Claire didn't trust Jamie enough to tell him she was from the future. That wasn't anyone's fault. It just "was."

Jamie didn't know any other way to deal with the situation. That's not his fault either. It just "was." Do I think he's a malicious, abusive husband who wants to rule over his wife like an evil master? No. I don't see that as the case.

I did like that the characters resolved this full circle, even if took a long time to get there. It was complicated and messy, a major misunderstanding, due to stubbornness and lack of information. It's so true to real life that I can't help but enjoy the rest of the series, even if I was weirded out by a few pages here and there.

I totally agree with everything you just said Becky!

Becky I loved the series too and waiting patiently for the next book. I read to enjoy not to really nit pick the book. If it interests me fine, if it doesn't I don't read it or any book in a series if i Don't.

Maddie wrote: "Mary wrote: "I understand where you are coming from about the later scene. I even mentioned it in my post maybe you missed it. It was really short and I sort of rambled. I said that the later scene was too far away to work for me. I also said that I totally understand the justification from Jamie's perspective, I said that I do it all the time. I think it is wrong to blame Claire or Jamie at all.
I agree that you should not isolate a scene. I don't feel I am. I am taking Claire's overall character into account. I appreciate the scene for what it gives to Claire and Jamie's relationship. I don't think that the blaming of Claire (or Jamie) is necessary..."

Except for the fact that while Jamie did not know that Claire was trying to get back to Frank, the READER did. We knew at the precise moment she chooses to take that chance, so there was really no long lag between the time Jamie punishes her and her revealing her motives for the READER. Understanding Jamie's POV is not the same thing as blaming Claire. We know her POV because the story is told in first person. She tells us as it is happening.

Mary wrote: "Maddie wrote: "Mary wrote: "I understand where you are coming from about the later scene. I even mentioned it in my post maybe you missed it. It was really short and I sort of rambled. I said that ..."

I understand that understanding Jamie's perspective is not the same as blaming Claire. That is why I do not blame him or Claire. I mentioned that as well. I don't think that understanding his perspective is the same at all. I obviously didn't get my point accross. I was not talking about the people that understand his perspective at all. I am talking about the people the actually blame Claire. and yes they do exist.
I also understand that he didn't know about Frank. I was saying that even though we know the reason for her running away, for me Jamie's revelation and understanding the Claire did nothing wrong was too far away from the actual event.
I don't blame Jamie or what he did because I think it is important to understand the history, especially his history. HE did nothing wrong because that is what he was taught to do in that situation. I don't blame Claire because she was trying to get back to her own time. Neither of them did anything wrong.

Maddie wrote: "Neither of them did anything wrong. ."

On this we can agree. :0)

Maddie wrote: "I was not talking about the people that understand his perspective at all. I am talking about the people the actually blame Claire. and yes they do exist. ...."

Just as there are people who exist who blame Jamie. ;0)

Jeanine wrote: "Becky I loved the series too and waiting patiently for the next book. I read to enjoy not to really nit pick the book. If it interests me fine, if it doesn't I don't read it or any book in a series..."

You're way ahead of me! I'm hoping to tackle Drums of Autumn this summer. It's kind of nice not to have to wait three years for the next book! I'm in a bunch of challenges right now and I don't like to rush through the Outlander books. I want to sit back and enjoy the adventure!

Oh...this is off-topic as it falls under the "What was he/she thinking!?" category, but I have to share this. I will never understand why some people don't think ahead. There's no nudity in the video, it's a news report from the local TV station.

Parents upset after KFC restaurant tunes into Outlander during dinner.

The gym I used to go to used to show True Blood. It's odd, but no one ever complained to my knowledge. I also don't think it was actually the gym per se. I'm pretty certain it was the employees doing it while the owner/mgr was not around.

Mary wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I was not talking about the people that understand his perspective at all. I am talking about the people the actually blame Claire. and yes they do exist. ...."

Just as there are pe..."

Exactly! Not you, but there are people (many people in my experience) that blame Claire in this instance. I think that that is wrong. And the problem that I have with the scene. :)

Becky I guess bc I am through with all the books in the series that I can't understand the hoopla behind this scene. Their story and what happens after is why I'm hooked

I can understand, Jeanine. My favorite book is Voyager...at least so far.

Response to comment 327 Maddie wrote: "Mary wrote: "Maddie wrote: "Mary wrote: "I understand where you are coming from about the later scene. I even mentioned it in my post maybe you missed it. It was really short and I sort of rambled...."


I DO feel Claire got what she deserved. She disobeyed Jamie's direct order. By her not listening she caused Jamie to have to kill someone and put the lives of the rest of the men in jeopardy.

Those statements are true. The only thing I didn't add is I'm viewing it from the men and Jamie's perspective. I've probably argued this line of reasoning multiple times and never specified given the times, it was from the men's perspective. If I'm trying to argue why someone did a particular thing I would do so from the perspective of those doing it. So I would naturally assume people would already know I was doing that.

I'm not saying that those people don't exist who feel Claire is truly to blame. I'm saying the number is probably quite minuscule. We just don't always remember to add from who's perspective we're trying to convey because it seems natural (for me anyways) for people to have already done that.

But even if there are a lot of people who do feel that way, is that because of the writing style or because of who the people are themselves? I don't find the way the writing is that it blames Claire at all. So I wouldn't say it was the framing of the scene but rather certain people who don't understand what they're reading.

I don't think Claire ever blames herself though. She was not wrong for trying to escape. However she certainly feels empathy. Wouldn't you feel that way if you were in her shoes with the follow up that happened? Jamie having to kill someone, the men being hunted afterwards and riding hard. No where does Claire ever feel that the beating was alright though. But I do think it's natural for her to feel emotionally the results of what happened. We all would. When bad things come from our decisions we all feel a little guilt. It doesn't mean we were ever wrong in the first place though.

As the saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "I understand what MrsBooks is saying, I really do. What was done was done, but it takes the fun out of reading for me if I don't dig into those actions and characters to find out how they came to ..."

I agree with this. But I thought that most everything was already presented before the beating. We've already gotten a clear picture of the culture. We already have a clear picture of the sort of man Jamie is. And we already understand how the chain of command works.

I would have assumed from the get go that Jamie had been beaten growing up. Given what we already knew, without him needing to talk about it and explain it to Claire, I think it would have been a natural assumption. I would have already assumed this behavior was engraved in him through some means, culturally or through familial means. So I didn't need that bonding time to make things make sense. It didn't change why the beating was given.

If I were in Claire's shoes, I would have needed it. But as a reader, nothing that happened afterwards made the beating scene make *more* sense than it already had given the times, culture and perspectives.

Claire using this instance as to what makes her come out of her dream state, is good that she was able to take something positive out of it. But still moot.

Mrsbooks wrote: "But even if there are a lot of people who do feel that way, is that because of the writing style or because of who the people are themselves? I don't find the way the writing is that it blames Claire at all. So I wouldn't say it was the framing of the scene but rather certain people who don't understand what they're reading."

There are going to be those who don't understand, but there are so many factors that affect how we respond to a scene. Age, life experience, cultural differences, and even our distinct personalities. I've read a few books that are clearly written for younger people or college age adults. They have rave reviews, but I just don't get the humor. I understand it, I just don't find it funny because it's too crass for my taste.

I also think this scene is exploited by people who are using Outlander's fame to draw attention to their cause. We all know there are worse books out there, with pushy, abusive Alpha males. They just aren't as popular.

I agree with this. But I thought that most everything was already presented before the beating. We've already gotten a clear picture of the culture. We already have a clear picture of the sort of man Jamie is. And we already understand how the chain of command works.

Yes, I agree as well. Strictly speaking of the spanking scene, that's all we need. After the deed is done, it's all about repairing the riff and learning new ways to communicate. When a guy messes up this big, I'm watching closely to see what changes he makes in the future.

BDSM

I totally get what you guys are saying. I think that the way it is written does partially blame Clarie, and I always felt like she did see herself in the wrong partially, more than just feeling guilty. But that goes into my whole issue with Claire just letting stuff go after hearing his side of the story which I mention before. It is not as prevalent in this case as others but it does happen here. I think my true problem with the scene is that this is the first instance of it. But that is a totally different issue that a beating itself. I think that it was absolutely necessary to the storyline and the characters. It needed to be in the book 100%.

Jeanine wrote: "BSDM"

???

Mary wrote: "Jeanine wrote: "BSDM"

???"

Big Stupid Domineering Male?
Bad Strategy During Marriage?
Because Someone Didn't Mind?
But She Didn't Mean-it!?

Okay...I'll stop the snark now..

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Big Stupid Domineering Male?
Bad Strategy During Marriage?
Because Someone Didn't Mind?
But She Didn't Mean-it!?

Okay...I'll stop the snark now.. >>

LOL! No, I meant did Jeanine think this spanking was sexual in nature. I sure did not read it that way.

Mary wrote: "LOL! No, I meant..."

I couldn't resist. I feared the moment would pass and never present itself again, leaving me to forever carry the heaven burden of regret. ; )

I thought she was responding to my statement that there are other books that have far worse Alpha-male behavior.

Yes I was responding about other books people raved about.
I guess I should have used the old term of S & M

Jeanine wrote: "Yes I was responding about other books people raved about.
I guess I should have used the old term of S & M"

Threads get confusing after a while. :0)

Shara wrote: "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 on..."

Hmmmm...excuse you? Where did I ever wrote Jamie was like that Randall guy? like TF?!!! Like, seriously, people, it's ok to disagree with what I argued, no need to completely falsify what I wrote to get your point. And no need to throw some nasty passive-aggressive name calling : just because I interepreted the scene differently than others doesn't mean that I am not as "intelligent" as anyone.

Shara wrote: "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 ot..."

I am not exagerating the scene, I explained how and why I readit the way I did and why I disliked the beating. So, yeah, I am apssionate abou that issue. That doesn't mean I am not truthful. Also i think I explaied in many ofthe post the how and the why. The qutoe you highligted specificallys tated that I disliked the scene, and disagreed with the arguments made to justify it. So the firts part is about my reception of that scene and its context and its framing, the second part is about the conversation about it and the arguments trying to justify it. Those are two different things/POV. And I lengthly explained both.

Shara wrote: "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 ..."

I know it's been some time now, but, again, I never wrote what you listed. Obviously, that's what YOU understood of my posts, which is a pity for I thought I had made myself clear. I don't know what to say, after the numerous post I wrote to make my points clearer. At least, some other posters seem to have understood what I meant better.

But just for the record, I did read the book and, as I consider myself intelligent enough to understand basic romance literature, I think I understood the book fairly well. So, no my problem with the book isn't that I didn't "understand" it, because I was too dumb to grasp the subtelty of that writing, thank you very well. It's just that I disagreed with the writing choices made by the author. And I disagreed aslo with the way some readers tried and justified those writing choices. I understand that others lliked, even loived the book and weren't too bothered by that beating scene. They received it differently than I did : it made sense to them, or at the very least, what happened after the beating somehow helped correct the wrongness of the beating, etc. I did not. I tried and explained that, and at the same time replied to other arguments.

Shara wrote: "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 auth..."

Well, you are commenting about my posts, so I don't think it's too much to ask that you actually have read them. Cause if you had, you would know that I not only did read the beating scene, I read the whole damn book and even reviewed it here. So, yeah, I didn't read it 10 000 times, nor did I memorized every single scene to the point to be able to quote it verbatim. But I did read it. And even liked it ok up to that scene.

Red wrote: Hmmmm...excuse you? Where did I ever wrote Jamie was like that Randall guy? ..."

You are the OP, right?

The following is a quote directly from message one if you started to this post then this is what your wrote...

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? What’s the difference between them if they both exhibit the same behavior? Jamie admits to enjoying the beating (or at least the thought of it, I can’t really determine which), and Captain Randall literally gets off on screaming rape victims. Is it “ok” for Jamie because he’s hot?

Red wrote: "Shara wrote: "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 genuinely confused by you now. I literally copied and pasted some of the statements you made in your original post and responded to them. So I don't get how you think I am putting words in your mouth so to speak. Maybe I use the quote thing wrong...?

Shara wrote: "Red wrote: Hmmmm...excuse you? Where did I ever wrote Jamie was like that Randall guy? ..."

You are the OP, right?

The following is a quote directly from message one if you started to this post t..."

Yes, it's from my original post, but no, I didn't write it : this is from the article by Medieval Muse that I refered to and copied right after my own original message 'cause I agreed with most of that blogger's arguments about the "historical accuracy" line of justification. I explained it before copying the post :

I am not going to develop with my own words. I will let someone else explains way better than I could why this scene was and still is problematic and shouldn't be justify using some pseudo "historical accuracy" argument. It's from a very good tumblr blogger who happens to actually love the tv show : http://mediaeval-muse.tumblr.com/post....

I realize now that I may have not clearly edited my original post to help distinguish my words form MedievalMuse's. My bad, I apologize for the confusion it created.

Anyway, as I stated, I mostly agreed with the the blogger about the use of "historical accuracy" as a way to justify the scene. I tried and explained in later posts what in the writing and the conversation around that scene bugged me.

I realize now that I may have not clearly edited my original post to help distinguish my words form MedievalMuse's. My bad, I apologize for the confusion it created

okay but that blogger's statements are really misleading which is why I think some people are being a little short with you.

But essentially no one thinks that scene is something to live by, no one is trying to justify domestic violence if the guy is attractive. That is just an odd assumption on your part. When people debate the scene they are just interpreting a piece of literature based on the authors intention.

What Claire did is the equivalent of an American woman walking down the street in a bikini in a Islamic Fundamentalist country. If I heard she got stoned to death, I would be disturbed by it but not shocked or surprised. When in Rome, the Middle East or 18th century Scotland do as they do. The time period and place are essential to this scene.

The author added this spanking scene because stuff like this happened back then and judging by your outrage over the scene it was a good ploy to force a modern woman to realize that this is reality not a romance fairy tale.

This is just my opinion and I mean no offense but I think that the scene is problematic because you thought you were reading a traditional romance story but as DG has stated this is not a romance novel. And the break from a cliched portrayal of the male hero is what is at odds here. Maybe Jamie could have did what Jesus did and said him without sins swing the first blow but Jamie is not Jesus. He is not perfect he failed in this scene but I don't hate him for being wrong.

When people "accept" what Jamie did in this scene they are saying this is a real portrayal of a flawed man. the fact that he was able to go against the tide of social pressures that would allow him to treat Claire this way does show character growth and change. So we are talking about story while you arguing for your own personal belief on a troubling issue in our society, domestic abuse, however the author is not trying to make any statement about this.

Did you see the scene on the show that aired last week? How do you think it differed from the books?

I totally agree with you Susan. IMO Jamie is a dick on many occasions! Woman are abused a lot in this series, as are many men and children. That is not the reason that I like it however. I like it because it is realistic (not the time travel part but the characters). All of them have faults. Some of them have major faults. I also think that most people have a main character that they really do not like because of these faults. I think that is fantastic in a book. I really do not like Jamie (sorry ladies that love him) but I think his faults have never outweighed his virtues. But he is perfect for Claire. That is why I like the book. Not for the romances at all but for the realism of the characters and the intricacy of the story.

I do think that many women choose to ignore the bad things that Jamie does. I have heard so many women say that he is the perfect man and that they don't make them like that anymore. My response to those women is thank god! I think he treats his son in law horribly, in many occasions his daughter horribly, and as you have illustrated his wife as such too.

Many people on here have pointed out that it was not unusual to beat someone at this time. However, I think that a small difference should be made about this. It was not unusual to have corporeal punishment for your wife but beating your wife was different. Not that it makes much of a difference but it is a difference.

Susan wrote: "I am in complete agreement with Red's assessment of Jamie's beating of Claire in Outlander. He states he will enjoy beating her, and said "I want to break your arm, or feed ye naught but bread and..."

Well, in all fairness, you did some EXTREMELY selective quoting here. Tons was left out. You basically picked the ugliest moments of a huge, drawn out row between a husband and wife. This isn't ALL that was said or what happened between them. I'd hate for someone to record isolated snippets of any heated disagreement that I have with my husband and use that as a testament to either of our true characters or our overall relationship and marriage. This isn't fair to the novel because it doesn't tell the whole story.

btw, it's not that people are choosing to ignore the bad things that Jamie does because he is dreamy. Not one person in this thread has said that what he did was right. Not one person has justified his actions. The "he's so dreamy" hyperbolic sarcasm was a disservice to the participants of this thread,IMO. I will speak for myself and say that I am choosing to understand that he is human and has flaws. He is also a product of his time and environment. I like when characters are dynamic and have flaws. I can't stand perfect romances where the two main characters are perfect in every way and always say and do the right things at all times. (It's taking me months to get through this Robyn Carr novel that I am reading for this very reason. It's not bad, but it's overly sweet and sugary and whitewashed. It's basically a grown up version of a Sweet Valley novel.) I would never have made it through the five 1000+ page Outlander books that I have read so far had Jamie and Claire been perfect in every single way. I would have been bored out of my skull.

Susan wrote: "(You) love the book and make any and all excuses for violence against women and the women taking it because rape and violence is what time traveling women with 2 husbands deserve. Hey! He is sooo dreamy! ..."

Just out of curiosity, if we were chatting in person, would you say this to me? Because it feels snide, dismissive and disrespectful -- and it feels like that's intentional. So, would you say this to me IRL, if we were comparing our opinions of Outlander over coffee? Or is it only OK to speak to people thusly when the internet has disembodied us?

FWIW, the people taking the time to respond to these messages and share their thoughts are just that-- people. I don't recall anybody attacking you or dismissing you as stupid, vapid, or not worth basic respect. Why do we deserve differently?

Nicely said, Sundra!

I agree with mochaspresso. Thank you for that. I was beginning to think I lost my mind. I knew there was more to the scene than those snippets.

Susan wrote: "Sunda wrote: "Susan wrote: "(You) love the book and make any and all excuses for violence against women and the women taking it because rape and violence is what time traveling women with 2 husband..."

Interesting take.

Here are some other interesting things:

--I served in a volunteer capacity for several years at a rape crisis center supporting survivors of domestic and sexual violence
--I left there to take a professional position as a victim advocate, doing likewise, which I did for several years
--I left there to attend graduate school, where I studied the psychology of trauma & survivors
--I hold a degree in women's studies from a top university
--I also hold a PhD, which I obtained, in part, via a track record of feminist scholarship
--to this day, I train victim advocates in working with survivors -- as a volunteer, because it's important to me

I have a number of other credentials, as well, but the bottom line is: to say that I "approve of" domestic violence or am any way "blind" to the reality of it is.... substantively off base.

And yet, here we are, disagreeing. Perhaps, then, it is reasonable to say that I am in fact not stupid, misinformed, blinded, vapid, or otherwise illegitimately informed. Perhaps, reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

Or, perhaps not.

Sunda wrote: "Susan wrote: "Sunda wrote: "Susan wrote: "(You) love the book and make any and all excuses for violence against women and the women taking it because rape and violence is what time traveling women ..."

I think it just comes down to a difference of opinion of the characters flaws and whether or not you can forgive them and move on. Obviously Red and Susan cannot. I forgave Jamie but because of that and other actions I have never been able to get past his flaws.

Maybe also it comes down to whether his background can help that forgiveness happen. Once you take the 20th century woman out of your mind and realize that a 18th century person is talking, keeping in mind what the women are like around him and what he expects, maybe there is forgiveness for his actions there. That doesn't mean that they are justified it just gives you a frame of reference to start forgiving him. For some people they can find that and some they cannot no matter the argument.

Everyone has something that if someone did it to them they could never forgive them for it. This was not one for Claire. Claire found the idea of losing Jamie worse than forgiving him for doing something that was his idea of punishment.