Outlander
discussion
*SPOILER* The beating scene and why it is just plain WRONG to try and justify it
If you could help me understand how I called you names, that would be delightful, because I really did not intend to and if I did, I've made a mistake I'd rather not! If indeed I have, I'd like to apologize specifically and know what I'm apologizing for.I'm given to understand that the BDSM community has taken much issue with 50 Shades because it portrays their community and its members in unrealistic, problematic ways and perpetuates problematic tropes which all sounds very reasonable, indeed, to me.
Susan wrote: "Claire is beaten, the men "chaff" her a bit all approving of blistered bum and the sounds of bloody murder they heard. And then love is declared and romance ensues. ..."I can understand people being irritated with this IF in fact Claire did fall in love with Jamie or decide to tell him she loved him just shortly after her pride and her rear-end took a beating. It wouldn't seem natural for one thing.
The quotes you posted from the book aren't meant to be Claire's declaration of love. I have customers at work who I would call my favorites and I've said numerous times that "I love them" because I find their personalities so amusing and friendly. That doesn't mean I actually do "love" them.
When Claire does finally tell Jamie she loves him it isn't until well after the beating. It's while they're staying with his sister, after she has decided to stay with him. And when she does tell him, it's after Jamie bringing up the fact that she *hasn't* said it yet. So even Jamie understood at the time that Claire saying she loved him after the beating wasn't a deceleration of her feelings.
(view spoiler)
We have had 8 pages of this discussion, so far... and it has been a roller coaster ride of opinions. And circular.Thank goodness this is just a fictional story. The Lochness monster even made an appearance.
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..."Oh good LORD!!! The context for "justification" of the beating was that readers could NEVER justify it to the original poster. The inference was that READERS glorified or condoned it. You are using selected text to somehow "prove" that the book justifies the beating. There is a large difference between UNDERSTANDING why a certain scene happens and condoning it. I don't think we were supposed to like what Jamie did. He, however felt like he had no choice. When he finally learns why Claire left the clearing, he mentally beats himself up over it and apologized to Claire. Would you not expect when people from two different cultures (and times in this case) come together there will not be cultural clashes? One of the things I like best about these books is the lack of sugar coating. Jamie ultimately does come to understand that he was wrong to beat Claire. Taking that one scene out of the context of the entire book(s) is disingenuous IMO.
Susan wrote: "Sunda wrote: "I appreciate that the scene upset you. Violence is upsetting, and if the context is, for you irrelevant, that's fine. It's good that there are people in the world who choose not to ..."I find it a bit hard to talk about these kinds of sex scenes because it's difficult to not bring up ones own sexual experiences and things that have helped shape our opinions that reflect how we feel about it.
When I read this book and these scenes from Jamie and Claire that some people feel is rape, it never came across that way to me.
The BDSM community is upset with 50 Shades because of how it portrays them. But labels can be irritating. (This isn't in defense of 50 Shades lol) You can't always fit into a label. You might enjoy getting a little roughed up when having sex. Obviously Claire does. When you read Claire and see her personality coming through the story she is not a woman who would accept being raped. She wouldn't laugh about it, she wouldn't shrug it off. That's not Claire's personality.
Are Jamie and Claire into BDSM? They don't seem like they are to me. But they like rough sex. That much is obvious.
Mary 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 ..."That is one thing I think people who can't tolerate this scene will never understand. And I'll ever understand why they can't see the difference.
Mrsbooks wrote: "That is one thing I think people who can't tolerate this scene will never understand. And I'll ever understand why they can't see the difference. .."I don't get it either. I don't particularly care for characters that are fully and morally self-actualized at the beginning of a novel. They are pretty boring IMO. I like to see growth over time and redemption for past mistakes.
Susan wrote: " It doesn't change the fact that this book portrays an abusive relationship...."No Susan. One act when enlightenment occurs later along with atonement and apology does not an abusive relationship make. He eventually understood that he was WRONG. I sometimes wonder if we are even reading the same book.
I think you still have to look at the mindset of that time. When Jamie agreed to take the beating for Lagohaire, it was not the physical beating her wanted to spare her, but the public humiliation. Justice was harsh and swift at the time. Lagohaire's father might still have beaten her in private and the clan would have said it was his right. Enlightenment does not typically come over night. It comes a little at a time and over time. Gay people were executed for their crimes in the 18th century. It has taken 250 years since then for attitudes to change and changing attitudes begin with one person saying to themselves: "No. I will not do this." Jamie made that decision to change.
Susan wrote: "It was still abuse. You can like a story with an abusive plot. It is still an abusive plot. .."Except it would not have been considered abuse during that time. Did you even read the entire first book? There are 850 pages in that novel and only a few of them deal with Claire's punishment. I like Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. Does that mean I like murder?
Since we are discussing the very scene that was portrayed on the TV series over the last two weeks (the spanking and the conversation where Jamie came full circle with what he'd done - this was after the whole witch trial/rescue thing) does anyone have a different perspective?Also...MrsBrooks....my husband and I watched the last two weeks together and I asked his opinion on the spanking. He said the same thing. It appears that they like rough sex and brought up their wedding night. He has not read the book, he just puts up with my critique of "that's not in the book" or "it didn't happen 'quite" like that" and of course, "they nailed that scene."
Um...that really isn't a pun...; )
"Susan wrote: "It was still abuse. You can like a story with an abusive plot. It is still an abusive plot. .."It's an abusive SCENE within a very far reaching and complex plot.
I think what bothers me about your posts, Susan, are all the "you" statements. That makes them judgmental statements. One can like a book as a whole without approving of certain behaviors. As Mary said, she likes Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, but that doesn't mean she likes or condones murder.
This is a fictional story, one with very realistic human behaviors that stir all sorts of feelings. As other have said, having perfect characters gets boring. I feel the need to add that this doesn't make me a fan of violence and brutality, it simply means that human behavior is fascinating to me. I want to see how people cope, change, grow, regress, love, fight, etc. The closer to real life, the better.
It's also been said over and over again that "understanding" is not synonymous with "approval" or "acceptance" for that matter.
I respect that you don't like this scene. I didn't like Jamie's behavior either, but with my personal life experiences, I was able to understand why Claire forgave Jamie for the spanking. However, I have always and will always stand by my opinion that Jamie did not rape Claire in this book.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: " I think what bothers me about your posts, Susan, are all the "you" statements. That makes them judgmental statements.."Yes. It comes across as: if you liked these books, then you must think domestic violence is OK.
Susan wrote: "If he broke her arm or cut off her breast as historically women were punished. That would have been abuse. If you throw acid in a woman's face because she refuses you, that is commonly ignored in..."Jamie is NOT REAL! He is a character in a book!!! Most of us seem to be able to differentiate between fiction and reality. I remember when right wing crazies were trying to ban Harry Potter because reading the books might turn kids into witches. The kids fully understood they could not make polyjuice potion or buy gillyweed. Trying to impute real life concerns from a fictional account is an exercise in nonsense. We are not time travelers who might have to go back to the 18th century and deal with 18th century mores. In REAL life, we use current mores to judge behavior. Reading about serial killers does not make me want to go out and murder someone. Or watching for that matter. In Dexter, the show's writers have taken on the arduous task of trying to make a serial killer sympathetic to the audience. I enjoy complex plots. That does not mean I want to live those plots in real life.
I'm a bit confused by Susan's post. Can someone who has read the books recently confirm the timeline between the beating and the sex scene that Susan is referencing, please? I don't think the sex scene that she is quoting happens hours after the beating as she is implying. I have to retread but I also think the quotes are completely out of context. They were having rough sex. Claire rakes her nails down his back and bites him also. "I felt his teeth then on my neck and dug my nails into his back. I raked him from nape to buttocks, spurring him to rear and scream in his turn. We savaged each other in desperate need, biting and clawing, trying to draw blood, trying each to pull the other into ourselves, tearing each other’s flesh in the consuming desire to be one. My cry mingled with his, and we lost ourselves finally in each other in that last moment of dissolution and completion."
Susan wrote: "Mary wrote: "I think what bothers me about your posts, Susan, are all the "you" statements. That makes them judgmental statements.."Really Susan??? Nuanced??? Nice dig there. How in the world can you take a part out of the whole without losing the whole picture? You do realize that you are coming across as accusing many posters (myself included) of condoning domestic violence because we understood what the author was trying to achieve with this scene. I did not like the scene. I have stated that before. I did not like what Jamie did even though I understood the thought process that went into it. I liked that Jamie learned from this experience and swore on his life never to do it again. I appreciated the WRITING. Good writing is provoking. It is not pablum served on a spoon.
Susan wrote: "Guilty conscience? I have said over and over... Love the scene, love the book, love whatever you want! If you believe depicting rape and violence against women is wrong then you would find fault ..."Susan you are full of it. Why would I have a guilty conscience? I am not sure why you are being so hostile to me, but I would remind you that there is a living breathing person sitting at this computer discussing these books with you. I see from your book lists you read the Sookie Stackhouse books. In the 3rd book, Bill attacks and rapes Sookie. Was that bad? Yes, but the writer redeems Bill somewhat by attributing it to a vampire who is nearly drained doing what vampires do.
Susan wrote: "Mary, enjoy whatever you want. Yes, the book is fiction. Still not engaging in the thread theme topic. ..."HOW am I not engaging in the thread theme topic since 90% of my posts have been on this scene? When I bring up other scenes, it is how they RELATE to this scene. It is called analysis. You should try it.
Susan wrote: "If you enjoy reading fictitious stories that portray historically acurate abuse and common notions about how woman ask for it. It is not abuse''Oh yes it is. Abuse is still abuse, no matter the reader's perception. Some people liked being spanked during sex. It's still abuse, but it's THEIR kink and has nothing to do with me. Are you trying to say that anyone who reads about abuse and enjoys those violent scenes has skewed thinking? If so, I'm included to agree, but what does that have to do with any of the people in this thread?
No one here has claimed that they "enjoyed" Jamie spanking Claire. From what I've seen, most of us are more concerned with how the characters got to this point and how they dealt with the aftermath. Oddly enough, I believe Claire was mortified more over the insult to her pride than the bruises on her ass. Even after they talked it out, it took her a long time to put the action behind her forgiveness. That's why I say this scene did not come full circle until after Jamie rescued her from the witch trial.
Susan wrote: "Mary, enjoy whatever you want. Yes, the book is fiction. Still not engaging in the thread theme topic. "
And that would be....??? Because your explicit descriptions of violence towards women are just a sad attempt at shock value. It's pointless to compare every act of violence to this scene.
As I've said before, I have yet to see ANYONE say they thought Jamie did the right thing by spanking Claire.
I have yet to see ANYONE defend his actions.
I've seen a lot of people looking at all of the details (including myself) that led up to the scene and the details after the scene, so we gain an understanding of what the characters are thinking, but no one is condoning the behavior. Jamie might've had a purpose and might've thought he was doing the correct thing based on what he was taught, but no one here is saying he made the RIGHT choice.
The spanking is a very small part of this particular section in the book. It was a plot device, but not THE plot. The author wrote what she wrote. In no way did she "glorify" the spanking scene or depict it as something "sexy" or something that women should "want." I cannot say the same about other books: Fifty Shades of Grey, Reapers Property, etc.
Again, I get that you don't like the scene, but neither did I. I loved how it resolved though and that Jamie and Claire BOTH grew tremendously from such an event. I can't say that it always turns out so well in real life.
Nice jump over the rest of that scene in Post 396, Susan. By the way, we can all read. Posting large section of the book is NOT discussion. This isn't relevant to the posted topic, either.Feel free to reference the page numbers in the future. It'll save me the time of scrolling though a bunch of text that I'm just going to re-read out of the book anyway.
Just to clarify, right after Jamie's last comment Susan provides in post 396, Claire sits up and give him what for.I rose to my knees, fists balled at my sides, and shouted back at him. The contained misery of the last hour had reached explosion point and I let him have it, point blank.
"I will be damned if I'll have you, you bullying swine! You think you can order me to your bed? Use me like a whore when you feel like it? Well, you can't you f**king bastard! Do that, and you're no better than your precious Captain Randall!"
He glared at me for a moment, then stood abruptly aside. "Leave then," he said, jerking his head toward the door. "If that's what ye think of me, go! I'll not hinder ye."
Yep...that's one mean SOB right there. That's the farthest thing from rape I've ever read.
Then he gives her pearls.
Susan wrote: " The thread is this beating scene. Yes, I have read many stories that include beatings rape and many other abuses of characters. I may even have had an issue with some of them, but it is not the fact that a character is raped, beaten or otherwise degraded I am finding fault with here. This is a theme that runs through the book, but which is being treated in detail here.Then this book isn't for you. Nothing wrong with that. Claire's character is smart, but in her anger she makes bad, if not naive choices, given the new environment she finds herself living in.
I might add...just because it was my experience...this is not a book that can be rushed through or skimmed. There is way too much material and every action, every scene, every choice has something to do with the overall plot and/or the relationship that developed between Jamie and Claire. When a person defends their position by taking statements out of context, there will be a negative response from those who know what the book actually says.
Why aren't you bringing up Black Randall's treatment of Claire? He held a knife to her and nearly raped her for the second time. That's abuse towards women, too. Why is Jamie so much worse even though he risked his life to save her?
I suppose you could say the men had a "choice" about the rescue, but I don't think it's a good argument to make if you won't say the same about Claire's "choice" to leave the safety of camp when British soldiers were actively searching the woods looking for all of them. She had her reasons, but it still failed. If she doesn't get a pass, neither should the men.
I don't see how this comes down to perpetuates the falsehood that women bring on themselves domestic violence. And no didn't mean no."
Since Jamie didn't rape Claire, but instead offered her the door, "no" obviously DID mean "no."
Susan wrote: "Mochaspresso asked for a refresh. I provided it. Was the new girl not supposed to mess in the mean girls pool? Oops too bad"Grow up.
Susan wrote: "Well I'll be sure to post whatever will make your ability to insult me easier. Have a nice day! "Oh, please don't go to any trouble. You're making a big enough fool of yourself as it is.
Goodnight, Everyone!
And the last sentence of the chapter you have quoted reads...."“I didna say I wanted an apology, did I? If I recall aright, what I said was ‘Bite me again.’ ”I dont see rape here. A Laughing and grinning rape victim?
This also doesn't happen a few hours after the beating. Again you left out what happens before the chapter you quoted. After the beating, they travel to bargrennan and it takes a few days to get there. They spend a lot of time talking along the way and Jamie tells Claire about his childhood and his father. Claire doesn't forgive him because he is "dreamy". She forgives him because after talking to him, she finally understands his upbringing and how that affected his pov and perceptions. They stay there for the night (no sex happens, btw) before continuing on to castle leoch. When they finally arrive and mrs fitz greets them, Claire is also black and blue because she is saddle sore. Not just from being beaten.
Susan wrote: "Red wrote: "A couple of month ago, after finishing to read this book, I posted a review of this book explaining why I dislike it. I ended up reading some of the discussion and decided to just stop ..."It's unpopular here because it didn't happen in the book in quite the way that you are implying. You are quoting outlander in the same way that some people misquote the bible. People used selective biblical quoting to justify all types of human atrocities,
Susan wrote: "I stumbled across this thread because my 16 year old baby sitter is a fan of the Outlander TV series, and googled the beating scene and it brought us here.My sixteen year old daughter wouldn't be watching Outlander, at least not with out me sitting right beside her so we can discuss what she's seeing. Sounds like a parenting issue to me, unless you expect DG to take responsibility for that life failure, too.
Mochaspresso wrote: "It's unpopular here because it didn't happen in the book in quite the way that you are implying. You are quoting outlander in the same way that some people misquote the bible. People used selective biblical quoting to justify all types of human atrocities, "Exactly...and they wonder why no one says, "Oh! You're SO right! I never thought of that!"
Susan wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "And the last sentence of the chapter you have quoted reads...."“I didna say I wanted an apology, did I? If I recall aright, what I said was ‘Bite me again.’ ”I dont see rape..."
I hate rush Limbaugh so I am going to respectfully refuse to click links pertaining to him. I won't aid in his gaining the sensationalist publicity that he is constantly seeking. He's worse than a kardashian in that regard. A complete media whore.
Regarding no means no....first, This book does not take place in modern times. The concept of marital rape did not even exist in this setting. He could have forced himself on her and he would not have been faulted for it in that society. Second, Claire has vehemently fought and defied Jamie on several occasions up to this point. When she doesn't want sex, she makes it loud and clear and they don't have sex. The end result is that Jamie get kicked to the curb. Jamie and Claire had been having sex all night. The "oh no you don't " that Claire says was lighted hearted pillow talk.
There is a difference between light hearted pillow talk between a married couple who have been getting it on all night and a drunken hookup at some frat house kegger. They aren't in the same league.
To my recollection his comments were pertaining to a rape case on a college campus. How does this pertain to married couple having consensual sex?
Claire laughingly acquiesced to being seduced by her husband. She was sober and a willing participant. Not only that. She got on top of him to do it again after the so called "rape "". Grinning and laughing her way there. Limbaugh was wrong to infer that this unique scenario arbitrarily applies in the rape case he was referencing.
We obviously have another troll.
Susan wrote: "Sometimes no means yes. Just like you all agree, she enjoyed it, pillow talk with her lover and all."This morning I woke up and read all theses comments and honestly, just wow. I would say there are no words but obviously there are. However I do doubt that there is a point in saying any of them.
But here we go...
You want me to say it Susan? You want me to say that NO can mean YES? Well here you go. NO CAN MEAN YES!
You want to know why I say that? (This is why I find it difficult to talk about this scene without getting into personal sexual experiences) I've said no to my husband and he continued. And Thank god for that or I would have missed my orgasm!!!!!!!!!!!!
He's said no to me and I didn't listen. Honestly, I had a lot of fun not listening too. And I'd not listen AGAIN!
Can you tell I'm a little mad? lol, sorry guys. Maybe it's first thing in the morning and I'm a little groggy and I shouldn't have read through these posts until I'm more with it but I've been stunned.
This isn't a one night stand. This isn't a couple who are unfamiliar with each other. If my husband thought I was serious when I said stop, even though technically, at the time, I am serious because, it's starting to hurt. Pain and pleasure can often become one. Anyways, he WOULD stop if he thought I was serious. And if I wasn't in doubt and really truly wanted him to stop, I'd tell him so. I wouldn't keep moaning and groaning and raking my nails down his back. Seriously! Can you not see the difference between rape and what happened here between a married couple who had already started trusting each other sexually?
That's what makes me sick about this discussion. Saying things are rape when they are clearly not undermines rape when it actually happens.
And although we've said it before with Red, Susan is completely ignoring that if Claire had been a man she would have gotten far worse. The only bearing Claire having been a woman on this scene has, is that she was considered her husbands responsibility and the lowest on the totem pole. Had she been a man she'd probably have been taken back to colm and and would have gotten much worse done in public.From their perspective, Claire ignored the chain of command. Any of them would have been held to the SAME standard.
And of course the men get over it and start teasing her and treating her better after she's been punished. Even in our time once someone has been sentenced for a crime and are let out many of us citizens feel they've paid their time and deserve to move on.
*high fives MrsBooks*I've been married for nearly 18 years now. My husband and I have had our fair share of disagreements and heated arguments. My mother told me once there was a fine line between love and hate. I believe it is the same situation with anger and passion between a married couple. If I really want my husband to back off and let me have my mad, he takes a drive and comes home an hour later. However, I'm not smiling at the time. He knows me well enough to understand when I'm blowing smoke and when I'm serious. It's a deep intimacy brought on by trust.
Claire was pissed at Jamie, but deep down she still trusted him with her life.
MrsBrooks wrote: "Saying things are rape when they are clearly not undermines rape when it actually happens.
ABSOLUTELY & AMEN to that! I don't understand how Susan (and Red for that matter) can claim to be so enlightened on feminism, yet get this so wrong. Jamie never raped Claire. Period.
I would add to Mochaspresso's list of important omissions from the intervening context the several instances where affirmative consent is requested and is enthusiastically granted (although the one she does include, 'I asked you to bite me' is awesome) and the several times when Claire says 'I realized Jaimie was right.' Personally, as a feminist, the affirmative consent scenes are important. And hot.I would also add to Mrsbooks's comments (in addition to my general agreement) that insisting that a woman doesn't really know what she experienced, its meaning, or how she should feel about it is the living embodiment of antifeminist rape culture. Likewise for insisting that women in general are too stupid to know what they really think, or really should think and -- if only better informed -- could reach a more correct a opinion.
In regards to that, I would also add to Mrsbooks's list of 'things that bug me about this conversation' the fact that Claire's agency, subject position, desires, opinions, choices, and complexity are consistently somehow dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant. Buh? How is that supportive of an argument from a feminist position? Claire's agency is important here! Her own choices and opinions are an important part of the facts here, IMO.
You know, I was thinking about this discussion and the ways in which the ad hominem attacks & factual discrepancies have distracted from what could be a valuable conversation. I went back and read over some earlier points, and can see how I was so frustrated by the factual inaccuracies that I didn't make a strong enough effort to read underneath them for the intent, so firstly, I apologize for that.Mostly, though, I got interested in the idea of -- strictly for the sake of conversation -- playing the devil's advocate position with you lovely people because I'd love to hear your thoughts & respect your opinions.
It's true that many folk (myself included) have tried to make the point that the scene is contextualized in ways that make it reasonable within the story line. However, simply for the sake of discussion, what of the following ideas?
One important part of the scene is the fact that Jaimie is trying to make the point that Claire 'is not used to having a man tell her what to do' but 'will have to get used to that.' We can see contextually what was meant by that, however, is it problematic in the larger sense that this may reflect some current cultural/gender reality that makes this idea appealing or sexy? IS it appealing or sexy, or is this a stop along the way of character development?
Also, at the end of the day, the book does use an act of violence against a woman as a significant pivot point in the plot & character development. (A couple of them, in fact, but the BJR scenes don't seem to be objected to here?) Putting aside the fact that it was an effective plot device, is it reasonable to do so? By which I mean, is it itself an oppressive act for an author to use this portrayal, or can that be achieved in a way that is supportive of women and their agency?
Are the BJR scenes less objectionable because they are less ambiguous in terms of the relationship between the characters? Do they cause less objection because it so clearly is the use of sexual violence but in a way that is framed within the plot as obviously distasteful?
Is it more "wrong" to use violence as a plot device when it is contextualized in a morally complicated way, or more "right" to use it as a plot device when the violence is contextualized in an unambiguously, straightforward frame of distastefulness or 'badness'?
I really am just curious to know if there are any thoughts..... :) As has been pointed out, the discussion has gone on for 8 pages (!) and, for my part, it's because I think there are some potentially interesting things to be said on the topic.
One last thought: for me, the scenes worked because they were layered on top of a relationship that felt, to me, at its most basic and fundamental, to be one of mutual respect and equality. In fact, if anything, Jamie was more perceptive and respectful of Claire's differences than vice versa, at least initially. It's true that they used objectionable practices, but to me these seemed to be used to highlight important differences and fundamental mutual respect -- not, as is too often the case -- the reverse. So I accepted them, because they a reflect an all-too real thing and because they contextualized them in a complicated way that supported the agency of the woman in question as pivotal and because they were born of sincere and not malicious intent.
I did a little rereading and I have to say that I am a bit disgusted by the misleading tactics that Susan employed in her posts last night. Just as Sunda mentioned, she selectively cut portions of the book that pertained to Claire's agency, consent, pleasure and enjoyment. She posted large chunks of text but they are out of sequence and many things were omitted,Things like.....
“Yes!” I cried. “Oh God, Jamie, yes!” He gripped my hair and forced my head back to meet his eyes, glowing with furious triumph. Page 280 48% kindle edition .
Sunda also raises a very good point about why what Claire feels is so easily dismissed by Susan and others in an effort to mislead those who haven't read the books into thinking and believing that he raped her.
This comes across to me as a willful and deliberate act to push an agenda. It's essentially the Rolling Stone magazine fiasco all over again and I think this does a disservice to rape victims in the long run.
I find it interesting that Susan seems to only be looking at this through a modern eye. It honestly feels a little demeaning. We cannot go through novels that were based on the past with a black magic marker and strike out all of the stuff that offends our modern sensibilities. It takes away all of the credit from the people who came before us and changed our way of thinking.The mere fact that many people are outraged by this scene shows how far we have come.
It reminds me of all of the library teachers that would go through To Kill A Mockingbird and scratch out the offensive words so the precious little children wouldn't have to read it.
(I swore to myself I was done with this thread but here I am again)
I really hated the beating scene. It made me really uncomfortable, and made me think less of Jamie (whom I was completely in love with up until then). I had a really strong reaction to that scene, threw the book across the room and wasn't intending to pick it up again, only did so because my bestie persuaded me (more like forced me, semi-jokingly saying we were no longer friends if I didn't finish it LOL). And if I'm being honest, I never really looked at Jamie the same way again. My good opinion once lost, is lost forever, I suppose. However, in spite of all these negative feelings about that part of the book (just to point out that I'm not one of those people who are in complete blind adoration of everything in the story), I honestly do not remember Jamie raping Claire. I'd like to think I would remember a thing like that, especially since I was in a frame of mind where I was inclined to dislike everything that happened after the beating and willing to believe the worst of Jamie. So yeah, I'd say someone is seeing things that didn't actually happen. Perhaps they genuinely believe a rape occurred (in which case I'd urge them to re-read the whole thing to gain some perspective, and maybe read between the lines, if the situation as described is too hard to decipher and they don't understand the subtle nuances), or maybe they're just trying to get people all riled up, in which case: mission accomplished.
Sunda wrote: "You know, I was thinking about this discussion and the ways in which the ad hominem attacks & factual discrepancies have distracted from what could be a valuable conversation. I went back and read ..."LOVE your post, Sundra. I had several thoughts as I read it. Let me see if I can get organized here.
... the book does use an act of violence against a woman as a significant pivot point in the plot & character development. Putting aside the fact that it was an effective plot device, is it reasonable to do so? By which I mean, is it itself an oppressive act for an author to use this portrayal, or can that be achieved in a way that is supportive of women and their agency?
As I read this section, I immediately thought of Iron Kissed written by Patricia Briggs. I'll use spoiler tags, just in case. (view spoiler)
Briggs gives us an exceptional portrayal of the long term emotional damage rape causes in women. In no way does the author make the act "sexy". I don't know if it's "reasonable" to use this as a plot device, but it most certainly supports women and their agency. I think it is a shout out to all rape victims and drives home just how much courage they have to go on after such a violation.
Now, compare my spoiler to what Susan is labeling "rape" between Jamie and Claire. It can't compare. Where is the emotional trauma? The fear? The self-hate and anxiety? Hmmm...
Sundra wrote: "Are the BJR scenes less objectionable because they are less ambiguous in terms of the relationship between the characters? Do they cause less objection because it so clearly is the use of sexual violence but in a way that is framed within the plot as obviously distasteful?"
I'd say you've hit the nail on the head with the last sentence. It is framed as an act of violence and clearly seen as brutality, Jamie clearly hated BJR for reasons too numerous to mention. I hated BJR. My heart was in my throat while Claire tended to Jamie's wounds and many of the scenes after. BJR is clearly a sick individual who "gets off" on brutality.
This is getting long, so I'll wrap it up.
I honestly believe that the big issue women like Red and Susan have with Outlander is the role Claire is forced into when she travels back in time. She's gone from an independent army nurse, with rights and freedoms, to live under 1743's rigid standards. Here women are considered powerless without a man. There best hope in life is to marry a decent husband. Even then, they own nothing, not even their own bodies. Not all men ruled over their wives like tyrants, but if they beat or spanked their wives, for discipline or just "because", there was no legal recourse for the women.
However, Jamie isn't a rapist or a tyrant just because women were oppressed in the past. I agree that he was pretty progressive for his time and learned as much from Claire as she did from him.
With so many other books out there portraying such disgusting rape culture, I can only assume people like Susan and Red are using Outlander's popularity to push their personal agenda. It's too bad they have to skew the facts and resort to troll-like behavior to be heard. They might actually do some good if they targeted the real offenders...and changed tactics...and learned how to communicate like adults.
Christina wrote: "I really hated the beating scene. It made me really uncomfortable, and made me think less of Jamie (whom I was completely in love with up until then). I had a really strong reaction to that scene, ..."Hi Christina! Thanks so much for your input. I can understand that the scene might've soured the book for you. We all have those hot-button issues that set us off. Mine is rape culture, the hopelessly TSTL heroine. Oh, and the hero who sleeps around. Crude "body" humor is a close fourth. ; )
There is at least one scene in each of the first three books (I haven't read book 4 yet) where I want to slap Jamie sideways. I call it DG weirdness. I don't always understand the behavior or like it, but usually it's a small enough part of the story that I can enjoy the rest of the book. Although, I was pretty ticked off with Jamie for several chapters in Voyager. It turned out to be my favorite book. Go figure!
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Sunda wrote: "You know, I was thinking about this discussion and the ways in which the ad hominem attacks & factual discrepancies have distracted from what could be a valuable conversation. I went ..."I applaud you madam for a well written post
Jeanine wrote: "I applaud you madam for a well written post"Thanks, Jeanine. Sandra's post was great inspiration!
Sunda wrote: "You know, I was thinking about this discussion and the ways in which the ad hominem attacks & factual discrepancies have distracted from what could be a valuable conversation. I went back and read ..."This is a very interesting question. I think it may be due to the fact that BJR is technically a very flat character in the first Outlander novel. He's presented to the reader from the very first introduction as a bad character and his actions repeated prove him to be one. He isn't given in a redeemable qualities or characteristics. This is not the case for Jamie. He's the hero but he isn't perfect. He is flawed....like most good people generally tend to be. His character also goes through an arc where he realizes it and evolves. An arc that BJR does not have.
I have been thinking about it and I don't think the beating scene could have been handled any other way. I'm glad Diana Gabaldon chose to include it. Claire was repeatedly dealing with issued pertaining to cultural relativism in Outlander and that scene was very effective in bringing that point home. Claire was transported back to a very harsh and brutal time in Scottish history. Not just for women, but for the entire highland clan way of life. I think DG portrayed this in a very honest and frank manner. It added grit and a believable dose of reality to the story. Some time travel romances are more sugary and this is fine but I'm glad Outlander is not that "sugary". Jamie is not a stereotypical perfect white knight hero. He's a highland warrior. In a way, he reminds me of a kinder and more refined Drogo from Game of Thrones. He's a barbarian warrior.. Some of the things that he does have to be gritty in order for his character to be dynamic and believable.
I also wonder if one's upbringing may impact how one perceives that scene. Also does it matter that I saw the beating as more so a clan issue rather than a marital one? If either Dougal or Collum whipped her publicly, would we even be having this discussion?
.
Sunda wrote: "You know, I was thinking about this discussion and the ways in which the ad hominem attacks & factual discrepancies have distracted from what could be a valuable conversation. I went back and read ..."I must say your post is a great way to get people to share opposing views without being negative so thank you for that.
What I love about this novel is that the story is very specific to Claire and Jamie and you have to get into who these people are in order to enjoy the story. My significant other (SO) can do the dumbest things but because I know him I am able to see past his superficial flaws. A lot of the nay-sayers propose that we excuse Jamie’s behavior because he is a sex symbol but I think because we feel close to the character and, his personality is realistic, we are able to get past his flawed actions. I think it is a credit to DG’s writing that she has given us so much insight into who Jamie is to carry us through this failing moment.
Claire is portrayed as an intelligent and strong minded character. I respect Claire, therefore, I see her capable of deciding if she was violated beyond all reason or not. The situation is complex, there is no right or wrong, and the way she responses is authentic.
I appreciate that DG writes Jamie as a real man. I appreciate men for their masculine qualities even though their behavior boggles my mind sometimes. It is a natural male thing to define who the “leader in the pack” no man will allow a man who he perceives as weaker than him to talk down to him or test him. I have to give credit to some modern men that they acquiescence so much to the prevailing attitude that woman can verbally and physically challenge them. If you take away that cultural restraint, you would see men asserting themselves a lot more. So Jamie asking for Claire to respect his word is appealing in that it portrays him as a man of his time. I don’t really get stimulated by reading about characters in the past behaving like modern day people, I think it is a cheat for authors.
Imo, the reason the BJR scenes are don’t cause as much outcry is that they are so far from reality in comparison to all the other scenes of violence and because we do not have any expectations of BJR. While I am interested in the character of BJR, even more so on the show, I feel that his portrayal is a caricature of sadism so we are desensitized in way. The possibility of rape or domestic violence is far more plausible than being tortured for hours in a prison cell. It is just so far from what we experience in realty we don’t get personally outraged. Yes, we get appropriately angry at the villain but we don’t take it personal. So Jamie’s act seems more violating in a way because the first half of the book presents him as the hero so we have high expectations of him. When he violates these expectations and, in such a too close to home for comfort way, it is difficult to grasps that he was never meant to be an idealized hero.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I also wonder if one's upbringing may impact how one perceives that scene. Also does it matter that I saw the beating as more so a clan issue rather than a marital one?"Yes! I think so! In fact, I believe it goes even deeper. Age is a factor, life experiences, personality, patience, all these things come into play. I'll even go so far as to say I probably wouldn't have enjoyed Outlander had I read it in my late teens/early twenties. I had no idea what it meant to be married and really wouldn't have appreciated all the talks between Claire and Jamie. That was boring adult stuff. Now it's a favorite part of the books because I can RELATE to it.
In short, I don't think I would've "got it." I might've even reached the spanking scene and never picked the book up again. I was spanked as a child (no, I don't hate my parents or believe I was abused), but the idea of a man spanking a grown women would've mortified me at that age. I wasn't a stupid girl by any means. However, I was YOUNG and INEXPERIENCED in life.
Brittain (Tara Belle Talking) wrote: "(I swore to myself I was done with this thread but here I am again) "(rueful snort) Yeah.... me too. Hi again! (waves happily) :)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Breath of Snow and Ashes (other topics)The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
I was offended by the insinuation (not so subtle) that I hold the opinions I do because I am incapable of thought beyond 'huh huh hot guy huh,' or that I am making excuses for anything, to wit: "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!"
I challenged you on this, and you doubled down on calling me stupid and ill-informed: "If you approve of Domestic Disipline and corporal punishment and the abusers enjoyment of such, fine. Work of fiction here, go get your kicks. If you do not approve, of such behavior my remark challenges you to look more closely at the scene as it is written and not how you perceived it."
Reasonable disagreement would have started with an assumption that I hold the opinions I hold for valid, well-informed, good reasons and might appreciate a different perspective. FWIW. Which I would, assuming they started from a place of respectful dialogue and not dismissive name-calling.