Outlander discussion

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: " 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."

Right -- this is so interesting to me, because, to me, this made it more objectionable, not less. It was really awful, icky violence. Yes, it was making a point about the character, but..... yuck.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Claire was repeatedly dealing with issued pertaining to cultural relativism in Outlander and that scene was very effective in bringing that point home."

Yes, that's what I thought too! In fact, I thought this scene did a particularly good job of throwing that into relief; this is why it seemed an effective plot device, to me.

Another thing that I think is so interesting about this is that Claire is a "modern" woman -- but not our "modern." She left from a very different time than this one. She left from the 1940s. Even that much closer to our own time, women's situations were much different than now. Women had only been able to vote in the US for a couple of decades; they had just for the first time seen work outside the home in large numbers, and that because they were pressed by the needs of war -- in fact, they were then pressured & "encouraged" to return to their homes so that men could have "their" jobs back; legally, their situation was different then -- no real access to birth control, rape within marriage still not a legal possibility by and large, career options very limited... I just think it's interesting to think about how different Claire's perspective was not only from Jaimie's, but from my own, as well.

Jamie punished Claire according to what was considered acceptable for the time, and in all fairness to Jamie, he 'expected' Claire to comply. Just as he expected Claire to remain in the forest where he left her. It doesn't mean Claire was wrong or deserved to be punished, it's just that Jamie was living and acting according to 'his time'.

As for Claire's acceptance, aside from the fact that she had few, if any, choices, she came from a time period where women had few opportunities, still did as they were told and obeyed and were dependent on their husbands and fathers. Had Claire remained in her own time and not traveled back 200 years, she would have been dependent on and obeyed Frank. The independence women received during WWII in order to keep America running, was quickly taken away as soon as the war ended.

If I were watching or reading this series with a teenage girl, rather then condemn this scene, I would discuss with her how women's rights and opportunities have changed. I would tell her how fortunate she is to be living in a world where it is no longer necessary to be submissive to any man and that women can move forward in the world and become whomever 'they choose' to be. And, most importantly, if they ever find themselves in an abusive situation, they are not alone and there is help available.

History is often times disturbing but it's part of who we are as a people. History should be learned from and show us how far we have come.

It's important to not put 2015 values and rights in eras where they were unknown.

Exactly Sageta, this book was set in in time when these things were acceptable. They are not now, and by todays standards make this totally unacceptable. No one is saying it was a right thing for Jamie to do by todays standards, but when the book was set it was. End of!

Shara wrote: "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 statem..."

You are making a lot of assumptions about me, so let me clarify a few things. No this scene isn't problematic to me just because I thought I was reading a "traditional romance" and was surprised by DG's supposedly revolutionary writing, or because I was applying my personal beliefs to the story...or at least no more than any other human being reading a fictional story. Like any reader out there and here, I know how to understand a story, writing, characterization, plots and all. Mind you, I even studied a few things about this very subject in the university. I also happen to read a lot of different books and genres, and am a tv geek, so I know about tropes and types etc.

So no, my arguments aren't based on something that is wrong with ME, as your point is trying to make it looks like. I am not the problem. The writing and characterisation and the plot are the problem. That is what I want to discuss. I think it is a very cliched and problematic writing choice to use violence against a woman the way the author did. I "understand" why the author did it, I understand the rationale about such choice. So there is no need to try and explain me what is really a very common trope in this genre (and others). I just happen to disagree with this choice : I find it lazy and I think it undermines the story and both characters.

I also understand that other readers don't see it the way I do. There are many discussions here and everywhere on the internet where people praise the writing and refute any arguments about this very scene. I get it. I am not trying to argue that those people didn't understand the story just because I disagree with their views. My point is to try and discuss what I disagree with and some of the lines of arguments especially the one regarding "historical accuracy".

Why is it so difficult for some to accept the very idea that one can have as valid arguments against something as others who argues for the very thing? I have been explaining in different posts what I found problematic, and I have people replying to tell me that I am too dumb or too blinded by my own beliefs to understand a basic romance novel. Like TF?

By the way, a woman walking down the street in a bikini (even) in any western city has also many chances to get arrested for indecent exposure for there are law, not just in Islamic countries, that forbid people (and not just women) to be naked or half naked in public spaces. And just like in 18th Scotland or in today's western and eastern societies, there are exceptions to the laws, special customs, judiciary loopholes that permit people to have room of manoeuvers and to some level of freedom even when confronted with general or common laws of the land. One can choose to focus on just one aspect of a culture or take into account the very diverse and complex realities of societies of any time period. One can write a 18th male character beating his wife because he supposedly has the "right" (by common law or customs) or write about 18th character who will choose another way that doesn't include beating his wife to deal with a problematic situation because even 18th customs and laws can permit non violent ways of doing so.

And no, I decided not to watch the tv series after I read the book, which is a pity because the actors playing the characters looked very good.

Susan wrote: "Mary wrote: "Oh good grief! This book does not glorify or condone beatings! If you had any understanding of the book at all you would see that this scene was primarily about Claire and not about ..."

Thanks Susan for quoting the passages. In the beginning og the discussion I was called out for not quoting the book verbatim and I admit being too lazy and not caring enough about the book as a whole to go back and find the book descriptions of the scene. Re-reading the passages remind me why I disliked it so much. And yeah, even Jamie admitted he beat her "half dead", and some posters here tried and countered my arguments by saying it was a mere "spanking"...SMDH.

Red wrote: "Why is it so difficult for some to accept the very idea that one can have as valid arguments against something as others who argues for the very thing? I have been explaining in different posts what I found problematic, and I have people replying to tell me that I am too dumb or too blinded by my own beliefs to understand a basic romance novel."

I don't know how many times we've told you we "get it," but your back to play the victim. I for one, have never called you stupid or too dumb to understand the scene. I think you're rude and articulate your points in a negative manner which makes people react in a "cold" manner, but I don't have to like your behavior to understand your POV.

I said in post 422:
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.

It's not wrong. You're not "wrong" for feeling the way you do. As I've said over and over....understanding is not synonymos with acceptance. I understand the scene, I don't like Jamie's choice, but I understand it.

I just don't see this scene as damaging to today's society and standards. If anything, it's an excellent tool to show our daughters how far we've come. This is what our great-great-grandmothers fought for and what women fighting to be treated equally in the workforce continue to fight for. I don't see how the past can hurt us UNLESS we censor our pop culture and never speak of the mistakes that were made.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 w..."

Hmmmm...Mrsbooks, I started this discussion to talk about a very specific beating scene. I didn't want to go into other parts of the books that some have pointed out to be problematic. As anyone can see by reading the review I wrote about the book, I found a lot of other problematic things in the book, but wanted to focus on just that scene.

I also tried not to bring any personal stuff as arguments. I have never found them to be any useful or convincing in such discussion.

Now I understood that you disagreed with most of what I expressed regarding the beating scene. I can understand that. I can even respect that. But what I cannot is when you say, when the discussion has veered around discussing "rape" or "rape" allegations, that sometimes "no means yes" because of some personal things that you happened to have done yourself. This, I just canNOT. Like seriously, what kind of argument is THAT?! This isn't a personal private discussion, where people share what they like to do with their significant others. I, for one, am all for people enjoying any kind of sexual activities with anyone as along as they are consenting adults. For example, for me, "genuine" BDSM (as developped and performed by the BDSM community) is not abuse. And rough sex, which is different from BDSM, isn't either. Whatever your preference, go for it, treat y'o self !

But this discussion isn't about that. The beating isn't about that. And the rape allegations that some made aren't about that. When talking about such issues, NO MEANS NO. 'nough said.

Red wrote: "Why is it so difficult for some to accept the very idea that one can have as valid arguments against something as others who argues for the very thing?..."

I don't have any problem accepting this at all. But, you framed the title of the thread stating there was NO justification. That kind of goes against what you just wrote. People HAVE pointed out the justifications and they are valid arguments. You do not have to accept those arguments, just as we do not have to accept yours. The sticking point in this entire thread was any position other than your own was not valid.

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 ..."

Well, thanks. I just wanted to created a space when one could discuss what I think is still a very problematic scene and what are very bad lines of arguments. I know a lot of people disagree for different reason, but that shouldn't mean one cannot discuss it, or that one should try and dismiss a poster or attack their intelligence just to try and de-legitimate their argument. I am not too surprised by some of the negative reactions. I am even willing to discuss opposing arguments. What I dislike is some dismissive attitudes (like when someone replies to some of my arguments by stating tha i just don't "get" the book or what writing is or what history is, or what reading a story based in 18th century Scotland means, etc.)
But there has been a few good interesting exchanges here and there, so I think it wasn't totally useless. There is that.

Mrsbooks wrote: "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 ha..."

And what you keep ignoring are all the responses I made about those points. You may not have been convinced by them, but it is quite dishonest to act like I haven't already responded to those arguments.

Red wrote: "The writing and characterisation and the plot are the problem. That is what I want to discuss. I think it is a very cliched and problematic writing choice to use violence against a woman the way the author did. I "understand" why the author did it, I understand the rationale about such choice. ..."

And I disagree with you on this point. I think that there was no more effective way to demonstrate to Claire that she was "not in Kansas anymore" than having that scene take place. If I were to go back in time, the one thing that would shock my sensibilities more than anything would be the way women were treated.

Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "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..."

There are nearly 450 posts taking place over some time. Sometimes it is hard to remember who said what. I don't re-read the entire thread every time I post.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "*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 betw..."

For teh record, I have never "claimed" to be "enlightened on feminism". I am not the one who started to bring into the discussion some sort of feminist credential to support my arguments. I replied to the 1st poster who tried and use the F-word to gain the moral upper hand on what I was saying. And I repeatedly said that this post isn't about feminism or my feminist beliefs or any of that (By the way, I DO like to think of myself as being quite "enlightened" about feminism and other such issues, thanks). Nor is it about the scene others have pointed out for being "rape" scene. So if you want to discuss this subject, don't bring my name in this.

Sunda wrote: "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..."

I don't know if you're talking about my posts, but if you are, you must have misread or misunderstand my points. I never dismissed Claire's agency. I have been discussing the writing choices and the characterization. I don't fault the character for their choices, I fault the writer for her choices. But as a reader, I can also like or dislike a character, I can disagree with what the character is doing, even when I like them, I can criticize them, I can want them out of the story, etc. Just because Claire forgave Jamie, which she, as a character, has every right to do, that doesn't mean that I, as a reader, have to do the same. And just because the author framed the all situation so that the audience will be able to do the same, doesn't mean that I have to go along with it, accept the writing choice and move on.

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 started this discussion focusing specifically on that beating scene for reasons explained in earlier posts.

As I wrote in the review I posted about the book as a whole, I disliked a lot of other things, including the BJR character, not just because he is the obvious villain, and I am supposed to dislike him, but also because of the obviousness of it. I, for one, don't think the writing is that complex and ambiguous. I think it's pretty cliched, BJR being the very embodiment of that. So, no, I don't think BJR actions are "less objectionable". But yes, as I have argued earlier, I think the framing is different : you are clearly and un-ambiguously supposed to be disgusted by his actions, and there are no justifications, by any other characters or childhood back-story, that are made to try and lessen the evilness of the character. Not that it would change much for me : just because one can "understand" the motivations, doesn't mean one agrees or is ok with it. That is why I disliked adn disagreed so much with the way this scene was used as "character development" for both Claire and Jamie : I understand the rationale used by the author (the so called "historic accuracy" or "cultural accuracy") to explained and in fine "justify" Jamie's actions and make the "acceptable" for most readers (even those who disliked them). And yet, I still think it is not only wrong (the all "historical accuracy" thing) and manipulative but weak bad writing, because it IS a negative regressive cliche to use violence against women to move plots and characterization forward in most literature and especially in romance novels.

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 ..."

How very "feminist" of you to dismiss all of my arguments by accusing me of "pushing an agenda" and such. Like, I haven't try and explained in several post my different points, right? Like I am the one pushing and agenda but you're not? Like, you couldn't just disagree with my points, you have to paint me as being wrong in every intent, because I have some hidden (and obviously ill-intended" agenda while you and people who agree with you are all right and have no agenda and pure consciences and true convictions...Yeah, right...SMDH

Red wrote: "I disliked a lot of other things, including the BJR character, not just because he is the obvious villain, and I am supposed to dislike him, but also because of the obviousness of it. I, for one, don't think the writing is that complex and ambiguous. I think it's pretty cliched, BJR being the very embodiment of that...."

Except that BJR gets more complex as the books progress. Yes, he began as a caricature, but his character does evolve. But his character begins as a caricature for a reason IMO. He is the contrast to Frank. So I have no problem with an initial caricature villain when its purpose is for contrast. Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice is very much a caricature and never is that more evident that when he is put next to Mr. Darcy at the ball scene.

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, ..."

My original post is about the beating scene not about the rape allegations scenes. So I will not try and argue with you about how you perceived the sexual interactions between Jamie and Claire. I, for one, disliked the sex they had after the beating scene (yes, I know, it wasn't RIGHT after, but it was chronologically close after and not moths after"). And if I recall correctly, the memory of the beating was quite fresh for Claire because she threatened Jamie not to beat her again or something like that. As I said in earlier posts, I know some readers have criticized some of the sexual interactions Jamie had as being rape. I think some I read made some strong arguments. I understand this is another very discussed topic, and I don't want to get into it. I just wanted to point out, when you dismiss people who read those scenes as rape because you didn't, ins't it always the case when discussing rape ? There are always some who will say "this is not rape because...". Just because something didn't strike YOU as problematic doesn't mean it isn't, or at the very least, when others point out some problematic aspects, it can be useful to try and understand why and not just dismiss the argument by accusing people to be ill intended...

You said that the beating scene bugged you. And you weren't able to see Jamie the same way. It did the same for me and more. That is one of the reason why I started this discussion. To express what I thought and felt. That's all the agenda that is behind my actions. But really, the very fact that I have now to try and defend myself and my character, from such dismissive and derailing accusations, that tend to ignore all of the many posts I made explaining my points, and I am still being talked about as if I lacked basic intelligence to grasp the concept of romance novel writing, says more about other "hidden agendas" than so called mines.

Sageta wrote: "Jamie punished Claire according to what was considered acceptable for the time, and in all fairness to Jamie, he 'expected' Claire to comply. Just as he expected Claire to remain in the forest whe..."

And yet again, let me object to your point : this is NOT about so called "cultural accuracy". This is about writing choice. If the writer wanted to make a point about cultural clash, she could have used one and a million other historically accurate daily events that involved woman being legally submitted to their husband. And woman NOT being beaten by the husband also happened "back then". You can't just use "history" at will and then pretend that one thing is accurate and another thing isn't just because it suits a storyline. It's lazy writing, no matter how many details you put in the story to make it look "real" or "accurate".

Red wrote: "And yet again, let me object to your point : this is NOT about so called "cultural accuracy". This is about writing choice. If the writer wanted to make a point about cultural clash, she could have used one and a million other historically accurate daily events that involved woman being legally submitted to their husband. And woman NOT being beaten by the husband also happened "back then". .."

Except, Claire was born in 1918 and so much of what constitutes the change in women's rights occurred much later than that. In 1945, marital laws were not that different from 1745. There was still no legal concept of marital rape. No fault divorces did not come into being until the latter half of the 20th century. Laws against domestic violence did not come into being in the UK until the 1970s. Do you think Claire not being able to purchase property or sign a contract without the consent of her husband would have been as effective a device to drive the point home? I don't. I think this scene needed a bludgeon to make Claire understand her situation was real. I think the readers was supposed to be as outraged as Claire. So, it was a very effective scene IMO.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Red wrote: "Why is it so difficult for some to accept the very idea that one can have as valid arguments against something as others who argues for the very thing? I have been explaining in differ..."

And I told YOU many times that I "get" you points too, and still disagree with it. But I have not referred to you dismissively the way you and other keep doing when you write things like "what Red and xx don't understand...fail to understand...try to ignore..."

I replied to your post because you just did that. Talking about me, calling my name, as if I wasn't able to actually read what you said about me, as a person. Talking me down by invalidating my arguments not on their content but by targeting me or my way of writing or talking about my supposed level of understanding or trying and police me.

You or some other posters you agreed with even started saying I was "trolling" the very discussion I started ! Some have been making assumptions about what I think and who I am as a person. I was said, in so many words, to get out of the discussion so that supposedly well meaning and smart reader could discuss and argue against my points in peace! That is just as rude and cold and insulting as how YOU perceived my replies. And you are among the (many) ones in this discussion who started attacking me in passive aggressive ways like that. To which I reacted.

You are not convinced by my arguments, fine. I GET IT. Just like you "get my point". So you could leave it there. Or we could keep conversing even while disagreeing. I had some interesting exchanges with some posters who didn't attacked me even while disagreeing with my point. Because I like discussing things and enjoy the intellectual exercise even when disagreeing. What I don't like is being talked like I am stupid or being talked down which you did. So, no I am not just going to sit and read about you and others calling me names and talking me down, when I am trying to have a conversation about a topic that I started and that I feel like talking about.

I am willing to have an open conversation with every and anyone. But I won't be bullied into silence, tone policed or talked down without clapping back.

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "And yet again, let me object to your point : this is NOT about so called "cultural accuracy". This is about writing choice. If the writer wanted to make a point about cultural clash, sh..."

Women (and e few men) fighting for equality didn't happen just in the 20th century. As the blogger I quoted in my OP pointed out, even in the 18th century there were people who opposed the customs and laws that subjugated women (and others). And even 18th century marital laws didn't allow husband to do everything they wanted. Also, as with any laws and customs, there are always different ways to handle it.
But you made a good point at the end of your post : this beating is not so much about "historical accuracy" than about "driving the point home". Having Jamie beating Claire was seen by the author as the most "effective" way to make the character and the reader "understand her situation was real". In some ways, you're right : violence is almost always a very literally "effective" way to shock and grab people's attention. It was so effective, I, as a reader, was affected by it. So, yeah, in this sense it "worked". But from a writing point of view, I think it is a very lazy and cliched trick. And from a characterization point of view I think it is a weak move. And from an "historical" point of view I think it is a flawed simplistic portrayal.
So on many levels, I not only disliked the scene and the writing choices, but disagree with the arguments that tries and justify it.

Red wrote: "It was so effective, I, as a reader, was affected by it. So, yeah, in this sense it "worked". But from a writing point of view, I think it is a very lazy and cliched trick. And from a characterization point of view I think it is a weak move. And from an "historical" point of view I think it is a flawed simplistic portrayal.
So on many levels, I not only disliked the scene and the writing choices, but disagree with the arguments that tries and justify it.
..."

What other way do you think would have made as big an impact? Sometimes subtlety is called for and sometimes a big old hammer. Sometimes the harsh choice IS the correct choice. I happened to think that Claire "knowing" she was now in a VERY DIFFERENT TIME was not a time for nuance. The scene was supposed to be raw and shocking because Claire as a character NEEDED to be shocked. As a military nurse who just returned from one of the most brutal wars in history, it would take quite a bit to shock this character. As a child who traveled to foreign countries with her uncle and lived primitively before in her life, she was extremely adaptable. A subtle instrument would not have worked for this character.

Red wrote: "Women (and e few men) fighting for equality didn't happen just in the 20th century. As the blogger I quoted in my OP pointed out, even in the 18th century there were people who opposed the customs and laws that subjugated women (and others). And even 18th century marital laws didn't allow husband to do everything they wanted. Also, as with any laws and customs, there are always different ways to handle it..."

No it did not. We have A Vindication on the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft written in the 18th century, but rights for women still remained the minority view. Heck, we still have not passed the ERA and women still make less than men NOW. Why would an author who was trying to make a point about the differences in eras want to take the minority view?

Red wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "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 honestl..."

My point in bringing up a personal experience was to highlight what was happening in the scene in question. You may not want to talk about that scene and thats fine, my comment had not been directed towards you anyway. These threads keep evolving and i was responding to someone who brought it up and did want to talk about it.

Having said that, your original post, even if you didnt write it, did in fact bring it up. If you didnt want it to be discussed then it shouldnt be in there.

You said "I just wanted to point out, when you dismiss people who read those scenes as rape because you didn't, ins't it always the case when discussing rape ? There are always some who will say "this is not rape because...". Just because something didn't strike YOU as problematic doesn't mean it isn't, or at the very least, when others point out some problematic aspects, it can be useful to try and understand why and not just dismiss the argument by accusing people to be ill intended..."

I do not disagree with this at all. I quite agree. Except this is what i see those who are claiming this to be rape are in fact doing, except the opposite. Theyre saying this is rape because of this, that, and the other thing while completley ignoring the supposed victims feelings, responses and actual words about it.

And to respond to part of comment 435. You have not been called out for not quoting the book verbatim. Youve been called out for stating things that were not true. There is a difference between forgetting the exact way something was said and an entirely different thing to say (as an example) something like "Jamie witnessed his sister being raped.

Anyways please forgive the spelling errors and lack of proper punctuation. Im on a tablet.

Red wrote: "I am willing to have an open conversation with every and anyone. But I won't be bullied into silence, tone policed or talked down without clapping back."

I've had a delightful time with Sundra, MrsBooks, Mary, and many, many others. We don't all agree on things exactly the same way, but we're getting along just fine. It's called security in ones belief system and respecting the opinions of others. No one "called you out." I've just made an observation about your behavior towards others in this thread.

There are plenty of posts lately that are extremely insightful. There's been a lot of very fascinating discussion, a respectful sharing of ideas, regardless of which side of the issue we stand on. Where were you?

What are your thoughts about my posted opinion that many people dislike the scene because it shows a time when women had no power and were subjected to men? Did you think that was a slam? Because it wasn't a slam. To me that's a very understandable reason to throw the book against the wall and never pick it up again. I respect the right of anyone that is so disturbed by the scene that they make the choice to stop reading the book. I might've done the same thing in my 20's. Life has a way of coming full circle and giving us new perspectives.

What about that theory? Do you believe different life experiences and even ages will change how a person feels about the scene and the book as a whole?

Susan wrote: "Rape is still rape. And violence against women is still violence against women."

Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior, right? Isn't that what you're arguing about the scene? So when you posted:

Was the new girl not supposed to mess in the mean girls pool? Oops too bad"

I told you to grow up. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Bad behavior brings about a consequence. Just like Jamie had to deal with Claire's anger, hurt, and bitterness over his bad behavior, people who resort to childish insults and troll like behavior will get a negative response.

I don't care if Maggie was using your log in and it was her "young voice" that posted the passive aggressive remark. Age isn't an excuse. If she's old enough to discuss the scene, she should be able to do so in an appropriate manner.

So many wonderful comments...unfortunately I am feeling a bit lazy today. I can't always remember who said what and I don't feel like going back to page 9 to reply to some of the comments directly. If I were using my laptop today, I would have. So forgive me for my generic rambling all encompassing reply....

How does one write about domestic violence "palatably"? Is such a thing even possible? It's true that DG did not have to use an incident of domestic violence to stress the point that Claire was not initially understanding the magnitude of the fact that she was in a different time and amongst a different culture, but I don't understand why this choice is perceived as "lazy" or "bad". I'm not convinced that there is another choice that would have been equally or more effective.

Also, the things that are happening to her also end up mattering in future books. Like someone said, Claire's agency is very important in Outlander because despite how horrible those times were for women, Claire decides to remain in those times. In future books, (view spoiler)[ it shapes certain decisions that she makes when she does return to her time, such as the decision to go back to school and become a doctor...and the decisions on how best to use thed knowledge that she's acquired when she returns to Jamie's time again later. That was not the career path that she was originally on. I also think that it is safe to assume that given the times (end of WWII) she wasn't any particular career path other than being "a good wife". I put that in quotes because I think there is something to the fact of how vastly different that phrase is in Jamies time in comparison to Claire's time and even to our times. (hide spoiler)]

Fwiw, when Jamie and Claire refer to the beating in their conversations, I believe that they are using phrases rooted in hyperbole in some instances. I don't think it is meant to be taken quite so literally. Claire clearly was not literally "half dead". She has some bruising and a very sore bottom, but she is not half dead. She has no broken bones, no open wounds, no bleeding, no scarring and no internal injuries. She is able to talk and walk and stand and eat breakfast with the others the next morning. She even rides a horse. She's extremely sore, but she manages to do it. That is not "half dead" in the most literal sense. Jamie was actually flogged to that literal extreme in the story. However, Claire was not.

I can accept opposing and/or differing point of views. In fact, I welcome them. However, I also do admit that I have a hard time accepting them when the text is referenced or quoted in erroneous or misleading manners to support a point.

I believe it was Red who said that she hasn't watched the show because of her dislike of the books. That is certainly her choice, however, I think the show has depicted many of the things that we have been discussing quite well. I think the show was very true to book regarding the beating.

The word "justify" keeps coming up over and over again and I suspect that this word may mean different things to different people. Perhaps it is not even the right word to use for this discussion. Because from what I have seen, no one has actually "justified" the beating.

Speaking only for me and my point of view, the beating isn't and can't be justified. I started thinking about this again with all that has been happening in the (US) news lately. I was having a discussion with some people about the looting and rioting in Baltimore. I don't support it. I don't believe in it. I don't think it is right.....but I understand the circumstances that led up to it. I think that I understand how and why it happens. In my mind, understanding is not "justification", but some took it as such and we were at a very similar impasse of ideas. I'm still working through ways to overcome it. I don't know what else to say or whether there is anything else to say. Although, I will say that 100 years from now, if a writer wants to write a book and include rioting, I wouldn't say that it is wrong for the author to do so or call that writing choice "lazy". I've read a few time travel novels and to be honest, I've never seen one take this approach to domestic violence. Most of the books that I've read that include domestic violence involve dysfunctional marital/relationship issues. What happened between Jamie and Claire was not of that nature, imo.

Flipping back to modern times, most have probably seen that news video of the Mom in Baltimore who smacked her son in the head and dragged him home when she saw him on TV rioting.....she's been praised....but I also wonder....had she shown up at school angry with him over a bad report card and done the same thing, would the public's perceptions of her actions been the same? I'm not so sure. I've seen many a person call police on parents disciplining their children in public. On it's most fundamental of levels, is there really a difference in mindsets between that Mom and Jamie? I think the fact that Jamie and Claire is clouding the issue and some are failing to acknowledge that in those times, the husband was viewed as "the Mom" of his household. I'll take this one step further.....what if Adrian Peterson genuinely believed that he was doing the same for his son. (I think in his case, the boy was beaten because he did something potentially very dangerous involving another child. I don't remember the specifics, but I think he may have pushed another child off a bike or something...). {edited: I tried to google to confirm this but I found varying reports. Some say it was over a video game, others say it was over a bike. I'm not in the right frame of mind to believe media reports at the moment so I'll just cross it out.}

Don't get it twisted. I'm not defending Adrian Peterson. Given the boy's age and the marks that were left, I definitely think he went too far. However, he is only guilty of going much too far. I don't necessarily think he was wrong to spank his child, though. Vilify him for loosing it and going to far....but don't use this as a springboard for one's personal opinion that corporal punishment is wrong. This isn't fair to other parents who have a different pov and don't loose their cool and go too far. I don't know if I am making sense with all of the stream of conscious writing that I am doing at the moment, but I think my overall point is that circumstance and nuance matter. I don't think the beating in Outlander is a black and white matter and it seems as if some are analyzing it as if it is.

Great food for thought, Mochapresso! I agree that the beating can't be justified. Those like me, who are looking into the characters thoughts reflected on the page, understand (as much as one can) the "why and how" of what they are doing. It only gives us their perspective, though. So, I understand how Jamie got form Point A to Point B, but it's irrelevant to the act itself. It doesn't make it right.

I still loved the book though and especially all those little grey areas that forced me to wrestle with the issues. I think the TV series HAS done a great job with clarify certain things between the couple (especially when it comes to Frank's personality). But I can't ignore the conversation Jamie and Clare had in the woods after Jamie saved her from the witch trial. No, it doesn't "justify" what he did, but it shows me that he's not a cruel person who beats women just because it's "his right" *gags* or because he enjoys it.

Red wrote: "Shara wrote: "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 bl..."

We already clarified if I came off as rude then that was more in response to the blog post you referenced which was filled with inaccuracies, than the subject matter you brought up with this blog post.

I am not attacking you personally. I am talking about story.

You wrote; "The writing and characterisation and the plot are the problem. That is what I want to discuss. I think it is a very cliched and problematic writing choice to use violence against a woman the way the author did."

If we are talking about story then no, DG'S choice to use this historically accurate concept was poignant. This part of the story is very compelling which is why people have such a visceral reaction to this scene (positive or negative). So NO it was not a lazy choice.

You wrote: "So there is no need to try and explain me what is really a very common trope in this genre (and others). I just happen to disagree with this choice : I find it lazy and I think it undermines the story and both characters."

You keep saying you understand literature and historical context but your statements don't reflect this knowledge. Which is why multiple people keep trying to explain it to you. Your words do not show your grasp of the concept that an author makes choices based on setting.

I used analogies because it seems you have put up blinders when it comes to discussing this scene objectively. So another analogy.

In the first century AD a very common form of punishment was to be hung on a cross. Of course there were other forms of punishment but this particular form was inherent to that society. It was a a form of punishment performed by a specific group, the Romans.

As we all know, God allowed his son to be sacrificed on the cross for the salvation of mankind. ( DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to relate DG, Jamie or Claire to God or any thing like that.)

Your argument against DG's choice to use a spanking to demonstrate Claire's status/situation in 18th century Scotland, is like trying to argue that God should have come up with a different way to demonstrate Jesus' sacrifice and that some how his brutal death on the cross blankly promotes torture and violence in our current society.

As observers we can say that we can come up with different ways Jesus could have sacrificed himself but God's choice and Jesus' acceptance was the most compelling based on the phenomenal growth of the Christian faith. Not to mention it was a way to undermine the Roman's use of crucifixion to punish people who went against Roman law.

Sparring Jesus on the cross would absolutely change the meaning of Jesus' sacrifice.

Sparring Claire from Jamie's punishment absolutely changes the impact of this scene and the author's intent.

Spanking was an archaic form of punishment that the Highlanders used and DG's choice to use it in her story undermines this practice because of Claire's response and Jamie's eventual repentance for his actions. So it was a deliberate choice on her part to use spanking to question corporeal punishment in that society.


DG's novel is a worldwide success. This scene is stands out as major turning point for most readers. SO no it was not a lazy,cliche or gratuitous decision on DG's part. She didn't do it just to show violence against women. Based on the success of Outlander this was the most engaging way to propel this particular story forward and to get her point across.


If we are simply talking about the beating scene and why it is wrong to justify it historically and relating this scene to promoting domestic violence in our current society; then your point makes no sense and is just plain wrong.

You wrote: "Why is it so difficult for some to accept the very idea that one can have as valid arguments against something as others who argues for the very thing?"

It's because you are not making a valid point. Essentially your stance is non-nonsensical which is why people deduce that you either don't get it or you are just trolling.

Making antagonistic statements like the author is jut lazy or the historical setting of this story has no bearing on the scene does make it seem like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing without sincerely considering the subject.

No one is saying you have to like the scene but with all due respect you really need to think about what you are saying. For example, I referenced the blog post you cut\pasted and you didn't even seem familiar with what the person wrote, yet, you posted it as the best example for your argument. It just does not make sense what your saying which is why people are frustrated with your comments.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "*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...
...Claire was pissed at Jamie, but deep down she still trusted him with her life...."

This is so true Becky. Just because you love someone doesn't mean you always 'like' them.

My grandmother told me "argue if you must, but never go to bed mad. Don't sleep on your anger". It was 45 years ago and probably the best advice anyone ever gave me. I passed this on to my sons and just to my grand daughter who will be getting married in 6 weeks.

I recently read an article that said when couples argue or disagree it's actually a good thing. It shows they are secure and comfortable enough in their relationship to voice their opinion. But you need to remember there is a big difference between arguing and fighting...if abuse enters into the picture then it's an entirely different issue. But even abusive relationships can change if both people are willing to seek help, find the root of the problem, and work together.

Marriage is a work in progess. The physical part of the relationship is a perk, not the basis. A good marriage cannot survive on physical attraction alone, it requires lots of patience, respect, trust, and understanding.

Claire and Jamie had the physical attraction from the beginning, they needed to learn to respect and trust each other, which took patience and understanding. This scene was just one of many events that shaped their relationship and who they were as a couple.

Someone earlier mentioned how much they liked this scene in the show and how they handled it well. I couldn't disagree more. I was actually insulted that they made the scene more comical. I think that it a very important scene for the book whether I like it or not. The fact they they down graded it to make it funny really bothered me. Like they didn't want to upset anyone so let's make it less bad than it was in the book. After Claire forgave Jamie and it is all said and done there should be a feeling that their relationship has changed. However, at the end of that episode, I asked my husband what he thought and he said that he felt like the episode was sort of pointless and a filler episode. What did you guys think?

Maddie wrote: "Someone earlier mentioned how much they liked this scene in the show and how they handled it well. I couldn't disagree more. I was actually insulted that they made the scene more comical. I think ..."

I didn't see the scene in the show, but I had heard the same that it had more humor which I thought was odd. Like you, Maddie, I always felt this scene was a turning point in Jamie and Claire's relationship. I never quite got all the hype about it being unacceptable. It was part of the story, explained well, with a positive outcome. Would it be acceptable today, of course not, but in 1749 it was common, and Jamie was simply acting according to his time and custom, as was Claire rebelling because of her time and custom. Jamie wasn't an abuser, and Claire didn't accept it easily.

I saw no reason to throw the book in anguish...but then if a book upset me to that degree, I would simply close it, give it away, and move on. It wouldn't matter whether a million people loved the book, or not, because I read for my enjoyment, not others.

Ashleigh wrote: "The humour in the scene came from the way the rest of the clan reacted to hearing what was going on upstairs. I believe Murtagh or Angus commented on wondering who was punishing who - at least in ..."

You're right, the walls were thin, so Jamie's clansmen probably did hear Claire fighting back (just as they waited to hear them consummate their marriage) and since Jamie was young they most likely found the situation amusing and remarked on how 'they would handle her'.

Not only does Jamie not get violent with Claire every time he is angry, he never gets violent or hits her again. Which is why he can not be labeled an abuser.

As for Jamie's reaction to Claire telling him she was from the future...he did take it well, but he didn't really believe her until he took her to the stones and saw for himself what happened when she came near them.

I remember Sean Connery saying every once in awhile every woman needs a good slap. People went whew where did that come? Then quiet clearly everyone said he's a Scott thats where it comes from. Ignorant people smart people lawyers doctors thieves and liars beat their wives its foolish to even think its gone or unacceptable in our culture today. The greatest violent threat women face is men. The fact they still date men is a testimony to the spirit or stupidly of women. There were men in this era who would never hit a woman just like there are men who will never do that today. I think Diana Gabaldon characterization of Jamie is way off but then so is her characterization of Jack Randall. Jack is a homosexual sadist he is most definitely attracted to Jamie but so is every body else including Clair. I worked in a prison I know violent criminal behavior and Jack makes little sense especially now when he rapes Jamie but in a way that Jamie is aroused by come on no sexual sadist does stuff you like unless your both into pain. This author has gotten her men very mixed up so I fail to see how she could have gotten the woman right. I don't see this as a historical point of view I see it as a author with out a clue as to real behavior in men as I said some very famous men never hit or hurt the ones they loved long ago. The time frame does not matter its the nature of the men that does not ring true.

Dolores wrote: "I remember Sean Connery saying every once in awhile every woman needs a good slap. People went whew where did that come? Then quiet clearly everyone said he's a Scott thats where it comes from. Ign..."

Jack Randal is not a homosexual.

You're right Mrsbooks, BJR is a sadist...man, woman, or child, his intent is to dominate and cause pain, both physically and mentally.

Dolores wrote: "Jack makes little sense especially now when he rapes Jamie but in a way that Jamie is aroused ..."

Jamie was aroused because Randal talked about Claire in order to arouse him...Randal not only controlled Jamie's body but his mind which is the reason Jamie was so confused and mentally damaged afterwards.

Dolores wrote: "Jack is a homosexual sadist he is most definitely attracted to Jamie but so is every body else including Clair..."

The only people attracted to Jamie, other then Claire, were the Duke of Sandrigham, a homosexual attracted not necessarily to Jamie, but to young men in general, BJR, a sadist bent on controlling Jamie, and several women, which is normal when a man is young and attractive.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Jack Randal is not a homosexual.
"

Not only that, his rape of Jamie...and by extension the act of rape, in general, is usually not about sexual attraction. Randall was a sadist and wanted to humiliate and cause pain.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Not only that, his rape of Jamie...and by extension the act of rape, in general, is usually not about sexual attraction. Randall was a sadist ..."

Exactly. I describe him as a vicious sociopath, who gains pleasure from the suffering of others. He goes to unbelievable levels to feed his sadism, inflicting pain, humiliation, and control over his victims. Jamie is strong willed...very much so...and his goal was to "break" him. That's another reason he went to such lengths to torture Jamie without killing him. He WANTED Jamie to fight back and when he agreed not to (to save Claire), Randall had to go that much further to break him.

I'm not sure I'll be able to watch next week. This week's show was so well done it made me cringe.

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "I'm not sure I'll be able to watch next week. This week's show was so well done it made me cringe. "


There is no episode next week! There is an off week and the final episode for Season 1 is on May 30.

Reply to comment # 448 Red wrote: "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 reacti..."


"There are always some who will say "this is not rape because...". Just because something didn't strike YOU as problematic doesn't mean it isn't..."

This is entirely true. But the problem with it is that you're completely ignoring the supposed "victim's feelings about it and insinuating your own. If Claire were a real person and someone had over heard or some how seen what happened between her and Jamie and confronted her about it and tried to comfort her over being raped, how do you suppose she would react?

We are reading this, and reading Jamie's actions but we ca not ignore Claire's reaction. Claire does not feel raped. She is also a very strong personality. She was, as you just brought out, recently beaten with a sword belt by her husband and she fought him tooth and nail over it. She didn't cower. Had Jamie raped Claire do we think her reaction would have been any different?

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent.

How anyone could read through that scene and feel like Claire wasn't giving Jamie her consent, I'll never understand. If she hadn't been willing her reaction would have been very different. As well as her feelings afterward.

As a suggestion though... if you do not want to continue the discussion about this scene you might want to delete it from your first post. This will always keep coming up especially from new posters who read your initial post.

Mary wrote: "Red wrote: "Women (and e few men) fighting for equality didn't happen just in the 20th century. As the blogger I quoted in my OP pointed out, even in the 18th century there were people who opposed ..."

YES! Red keeps bringing up that not everyone felt that way about women. But it really wasn't many people who felt differently. If it was, the change for women to have rights wouldn't have taken 200 years!

Why is it so wrong to have written people's feelings about something that would have been quite common? I don't understand how this is considered lazy.

I don't understand the point of "she could have drove home the point another way." That very well may be true. But I just don't understand why it's so important that she should?

A sadist does not get off by talking like your girlfriend. A man being raped would not respond to a sadist with an erection just the opposite fear tends to interfere with sexual performance. Extreme fear often creates uncontrolled urination that is something a sadist would get off on. The clear lines about Jack Randal's personality don't exist because they are not realistic. This author is gravely mistaken about violence rape and sadism and its effects on a human being any human being. Placing it in another century does not make it more real.

Dolores wrote: "A sadist does not get off by talking like your girlfriend. A man being raped would not respond to a sadist with an erection just the opposite fear tends to interfere with sexual performance. Extrem..."

Not everyone fits into one particular label. It's one of those reasons I don't like labels very much.

To say that men wouldn't get an erection when they were being raped.... well that's simply not true. While your statement about fear tending to interfere with sexual performance is true it is not the way every persons body reacts. Women have even been known to orgasm during rape.

Dolores wrote: "A sadist does not get off by talking like your girlfriend. A man being raped would not respond to a sadist with an erection just the opposite fear tends to interfere with sexual performance. Extrem..."

I agree, Mrsbooks, and I think this point is really important -- men can and do sometimes respond to sexual stimulus with an erection. This does NOT mean anything at all about consent, and it can be a really difficult thing for men recovering from a sexual assault that their bodies responded in this way. The only thing the erection means is that their brain stems and vascular systems are intact, as this is a function of the 'lower' brain that regulates basic bodily function. Consent is a function of the 'higher order' brain that can perform abstract calculations and use language and planning. To confuse these things can be terrifically hurtful to survivors who are already struggling with enough.

Since your point was about erections, I've stayed there, but, for the record, women also sometimes experience confusing bodily reactions to violent sexual stimulus. It's so important: these reactions are NOT tantamount to consent and do not imply in any way that consent was given. As a courtesy to survivors, I beg you to be careful about these labels; they do matter.

These are not labels they are standards for abnormal sexual behavior. Author should have consulted a few Psychologist before writing. I really dislike misleading people about sadistic behavior. Yes one person may feel this or that but most human beings DO NOT respond well to sexual sadists and their are standards of behavior for a reason. Your abject terror not sexual excitement as well as your possible death looms large in a sadists thinking and actions. Which will scar you for life if you live.

Dolores wrote: "These are not labels they are standards for abnormal sexual behavior. Author should have consulted a few Psychologist before writing. I really dislike misleading people about sadistic behavior. Yes..."

Except not all of Randall's behavior was motivated by sadism. There was a weird sort of affection toward Jamie as well.

In sexual Sadism there are no attractions you are an object to be used for the gratification of the sadist. However they are often quite normal in other aspects of behavior work, money, going to the gym the visible exceptions are the inability to feel intimacy, empathy, compassion. Once Jamie was designated as an object for sadistic pleasure there is no going back. The only difference I can find is murder they fear being caught they hate prison and sometimes they let the victim live because of that fear sometimes someone sees something and the sadist is caught or stopped. Most sexual sadists escalate over time they need to create more pain for the victim until they finally kill them. Once you are dead they have no use for you unless they want to view their handiwork again. Never ever romanticize these monsters. Never think they feel love or longing for someone they don't and thats a trap they love to spring on a victim. If you look closely you can see it in their eyes when they have the upper hand in any situation in which they can hurt you or an animal or a child. Through the Centuries the sexual sadist is the same. We have no cure for them they only conform or mimic what you want to get what they want.

Dolores wrote: "A sadist does not get off by talking like your girlfriend. A man being raped would not respond to a sadist with an erection just the opposite fear tends to interfere with sexual performance. Extrem..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_rape