Outlander
discussion
The rape reenactment scene
Blair wrote: "I have argued that what jamie was did was normal in the context of his time and he shouldn't be looked at as a terrible male lead because of it but I do understand how its confusing how Claire woul..."I sort of agree. I do believe Claire loved Frank. I also think she would have been perfectly happy with him for the rest of her life had she not met Jamie. You can love someone but love someone else more. Jamie was "it" for Claire. I think he woke desires in her that she didn't even know she had. She really did give up a lot to stay in the 18th century to be with him. But at times Claire talks about the simplicity of life and I wonder if she actually likes living in the past more than the future.
did you ever think that "her not being able to sit for several days" was just a phrase? I don't know about you guys, but my parents were very willing to spank me as a kid - my mom with the wooden spoon or a plastic spatula and my father with the belt and you know, looking back, I rightly deserved every spanking that I got - it made me into a better person and willing to accept the consequences of my actions - maybe that is why I don't see any issue with what Jamie did
Well of course rapes and what not happened back then, that is not the point of what I wrote. What I am saying is that it was not essential to the storyline in any way shape of form. I think perhaps that this is a fantasy some women have, a pushy handsome guy, the woman says no, he does it anyway and she loves it. It's just not my cup of tea.That aside, this is just a book. Nothing profound and nothing to get concerned about by any means. I did find the concepts promoted a rape and abuse culture that I am not comfortable with. I also found there were too many holes in the plot and it was long and slow and repetitive etc. which lead to an unenjoyable read. Does it really matter? Not one bit.
Etsu10 wrote: "Well of course rapes and what not happened back then, that is not the point of what I wrote. What I am saying is that it was not essential to the storyline in any way shape of form. I think perhaps..."Very slow and lots of detail in which I think some could have been edited out. Having said that though, there are seemingly unimportant details in the books that might pop up a few thousand pages later in the series becoming a major plot. Same as with the seeming "holes". Outlander is incomplete. Although it can be read on it's own there are thing left unresolved so I get where you're coming from.
But I personally don't believe that the book promotes rape and/or an abusive culture. After I read it, I felt the same as I've always had, that both are positively disgusting. Probably more so.
Just because I can put myself in another culture and "understand" the how's and why's of something terrible doesn't mean that I agree with it either. But I don't want to get upset at someone for not knowing how to do math, when they weren't taught math. Those people did the best with what they knew. When you know better, you do better.
I also sometimes feel like our current culture promotes rape and minimizes rape by in fact calling what isn't rape, rape. This does a huge disservice to those who are truly victims as well as the men being accused who aren't attackers. Gone with the Wind is a perfect example of our society calling something rape that isn't. As well as this novel.
gertt wrote: "Dee wrote: "did you ever think that "her not being able to sit for several days" was just a phrase? I don't know about you guys, but my parents were very willing to spank me as a kid - my mom with..."Totally agree. She had wounded pride more than anything and rightfully so. I would have died of mortification.
gertt wrote: "Etsu10 wrote "my take is this is first and foremost a romance novel..."I believe you will find this series in the Literature section of the bookstore or Library, not the Romance section. If this..."
*sigh* grett, I was saying that just because it is based in an era where domestic abuse is the norm, it does not mean that it needed to be included. Further, as stated, it added NOTHING critical to the storyline. I was using these other historical romances (or "romances") as examples of other books based in an era where domestic violence was tolerated but where it was not added to the plot simply for the sake of it.
Geeze louise, I thought this unremarkable book stunk, I rated it 2 stars. Surely you can come to grips with the fact that not everyone on who read it liked it and that it is perfectly acceptable for people to criticise it.
Etsu10 wrote: "gertt wrote: "Etsu10 wrote "my take is this is first and foremost a romance novel..."I believe you will find this series in the Literature section of the bookstore or Library, not the Romance sec..."
I get what you're saying as far as other historical romances not including "domestic abuse". Except Wuthering Heights, that had it. Anyways... the storyline was so different. We're talking about approaching a war, we've got rebels fighting. These characters aren't lazying around a parlor, knitting and gossiping, going to balls, etc.
Maybe if Elizabeth had have done something as stupid as Claire did (almost getting a group of people murdered and causing someone else's death), maybe Austen would have thrown in a beating? lol
Further grett, the reason why I referred to Jane Austen, Wuthering Heights etc. is that I couldn't think of any other historically based books that place a big emphasis on a romance (however bizarre and twisted).
Mrsbooks wrote: "Etsu10 wrote: "gertt wrote: "Etsu10 wrote "my take is this is first and foremost a romance novel..."I believe you will find this series in the Literature section of the bookstore or Library, not ..."
You're right about Wuthering Heights, there is a bit of abuse going on, albeit quite different to Outlander. That said I didn't care much for that book, mainly because it was too bleak for my taste.
Has anyone considered that perhaps some of these issues were written to show that the characters were flawed? In other words, human? To me it made them even more realistic, despite the fact that I didn't necessarily like the choices they made.Historical fiction with a romantic edge is full of flawed characters. Scarlett and Rhett were two of the most selfish protagonists written, but I still loved the book.
Mr. Rochester lied to Jane Eyre about his wife. He had the woman hidden in the attic, was still legally married to her when he had Jane before the priest, about to make her an unknowing participant in polygamy. I know I wouldn't have set foot in his presence again, but it was the bigger picture, the story as a whole, that made the book a success.
I won't even start in on Wuthering Heights. I could rail on those characters for months. ; )
The truth is this: Life is messy and people do awful things to each other between their moments of kindness. It makes sense that our fictional characters would reflect the same behavior.
It's that simple and that complex. Just because I like a book, doesn't mean I condone ever action taken.
As for the comment about Outlander being "incomplete" as a book. Yes. It is. It's the beginning of a series, Book #1, and without reading the rest there will be things that seem unnecessary.
Claire did try to refuse the beating, but then gave in because she realized she had no choice in the matter. The author made it clear that it was apart of the culture and Claire's resistance at first shows modern thinking. Someone else mentioned the almost rape scene with Jamie and Claire. If that was referring to the part after they returned to Castle Leoch, then what I remember is Claire downright refusing. They had sex after they calmed down from their argument.
@Etsu... I bought all of my Outlander novels at Joseph Beth Book Store and they were in fact located in the romance section.
I always got the impression that Jamie was reluctant to spank her but he did it because if he did not, Dougal was going to.Also, in ABoSaA , old Ian was spanking Jenny to get his rocks off. It's odd to me everyone mentions when Jamie spanked Claire once and reluctantly so to keep from someone else doing it: mind you she had almost gotten everyone killed which was why she was being punished ( if someone put my life in danger they would wish all I had done was spank them); and yet Ian never gets any flack for what he did.
gertt wrote: "Etsu10 wrote: "I don't understand why the author finds it perfectly acceptable for the Herione to fall in love with a man who beats her ..."First of all, Jamie does not beat Claire, and the autho..."
I did not say she never loved Frank. I question whether she loved him as much as she thought she did. I honestly think she thought she loved him a great deal but I don't think so. I think she thought she loved him so much and then when something better came along its clear (to me) that she didn't. You can settle for someone and still love them but yes I agree she loved Jamie more. Which is what I meant by that if I didn't make myself clear enough. And I don't agree that you can love two completely different people with different characteristics or who are polar opposites the same way at the same time. Not truly anyway. In Claire's case I don't think she wanted to admit for a long time she was head over heels for Jamie because she still was loyal to Frank. Not in love, loyal. Sucks to think you can travel back in time and find someone who youve known for a few months and love them more than your husband of years. That probably unraveled a lot of things she thought were "supposed to be." But she couldn't deny it for long and then when he tried to send her back there she was staring at the decision in the face and she finally had to admit it when it was probably clear to all of us all along. So nope, don't think she loved Frank all that much. I think she was as loyal to him as she could be while staring love straight in the eyes. Which didn't last very long.
Dee wrote: "did you ever think that "her not being able to sit for several days" was just a phrase? I don't know about you guys, but my parents were very willing to spank me as a kid - my mom with the wooden ..."Completely agree. I didn't even flinch when I read that. Maybe because I did get spanked. Maybe because Im empathetic to the culture. Maybe because she needed to get punished some way. Idk why. But Its definitely not because I am an advocate of rape and abuse. I work with people on a daily basis that face these things and some of their stories are heart wrenching. This was not a comparable situation in my opinion.
I'm a mental health therapist and I would NEVER recommend this course of treatment for PTSD. Would you do that for a returning vet, fire a rifle near his head? Or a female rape survivor, re-enact the garlic BO of the rapist and all he did? No. HELL NO. You'd work to create safety, and break down the associations using desensitization (which is what I believe she was trying to do) but in a controlled way.That said, Gabaldon is writing fiction and the characters were in a different time. Sometimes in therapy, we do want to create a container to "hold" the trauma and re-experience it (not physically, but mentally/emotionally) in a safe setting, thus reducing the containment stress of the victim. So while this idea is a stretch for her to try, and could have damaged both of them further, it's fiction. Gabaldon gets some licence. I found it a gut wrenching scene and I bought it that it brought them closer. Frontier medicine: crude but effective. Meanwhile, I thought the spanking was kinda sexy and frankly, made sense to me and that brought them closer too.
But hey, maybe that's just me?
And the two scenes were not at all the same....
gertt wrote: "Etsu10 wrote: "gertt wrote: "Etsu10 wrote "my take is this is first and foremost a romance novel..."I believe you will find this series in the Literature section of the bookstore or Library, not ..."
*sigh* Grett I accept that you like it. It doesn't bother me one bit. I can sigh as much as I darn well please, if you get offended don't read my posts.
I think it amusing that you get so upset when people criticise the book. I'm not the first person whose made negative remarks about the book that you've gotten upset with. I can't believe how seriously some people are taking this! It's a book, try and keep some perspective. You loved it... great. I didn't... great. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to stop loving the book. Further it's not personal when I say I didn't like the book or Jamie for that matter.
Blair wrote: "I did not say she never loved Frank. I question whether she loved him as much as she thought she did. I honestly think she thought she loved him a great deal..."When I read the first chapters, I picked up an uncomfortable vibe between Claire and Frank. There was an awkwardness about them. I first noticed it when Frank was studying his family history with the minister, but it's most prevalent in the scene where he asks Claire if she knew many Scottish soldiers. (Remember the hatpin comment?) Their time apart during the war had created a distance between them. At least, that's just how it came across to me.
The TV show has done a lot to remove that awkwardness though.
Becky you did again. You said it wonderfully
Jeanine wrote: "Becky you did again. You said it wonderfully"Thanks. : ) There is certainly a lot to contemplate when it comes to this book. No doubt about it!
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Blair wrote: "I did not say she never loved Frank. I question whether she loved him as much as she thought she did. I honestly think she thought she loved him a great deal..."When I read the fir..."
Yes! Im glad Im not the only one that noticed it. And yes you are right, I feel like Frank is way more appealing and its less awkward in the tv show. They probably picked up on it too and were like, "yeah we can't have all this weirdness in the series on tv."
Toby wrote: "I'm a mental health therapist and I would NEVER recommend this course of treatment for PTSD. Would you do that for a returning vet, fire a rifle near his head? Or a female rape survivor, re-enact t..."Definitely agreed. That was my original point and problem with this scene. As I read it I was just like "yeah right! that would have totally not gone like that." But other people have brought up the point that claire was doing the best she could think of. Yeah im sure but still. it was a crazy weird slightly annoying scene from a therapists point of view since we know how unethical and insane that would be to do in real life. but hey it is fiction. and definitely not a book about ethics. and yeah they did do crude weird medicine back then. leeches on the eye. yuck!
Etsu10 wrote: "gertt wrote: "Etsu10 wrote: "gertt wrote: "Etsu10 wrote "my take is this is first and foremost a romance novel..."I believe you will find this series in the Literature section of the bookstore or..."
i generally go back and forth between being for things in this book and being against them. but i do agree some people can get kinda crazy about it (not saying anybody in here in particular but just saying). its one thing to be a die hard fan and a completely other thing to seriously throw down about a book and not be able to accept or listen to other ppls opinions. ive loved many books in my life but i really dont think ive ever loved any book that much. and i dont think ive ever seen anyone love a book the way ppl love this book. its honestly fascinating. im not even joking. but im also a ppl watcher; hence my love of psychology :)
I guess I have to disagree with the majority of the comments about Frank. It's interesting because I thought the way they've described him and his interactions with Claire on the show are pretty spot on. Maybe you have to have a knack for dry humor or something to pick it up in the book? I don't know, but I do know that I'm in the minority. When I read the books I always liked Frank. I thought they had a couple of hick ups but nothing beyond what Claire herself explained was because of their long separation. I always thought they were cute together.
I'm thinking it might have a bit to do with my own personality. There are times during the period before Claire goes back in time that people feel Frank is being a "fuddy duddy". But I always thought they were having a bit of fun with each other.
I like Frank, too. I like him MORE in the TV show. Did someone say they felt Frank was a fuddy-duddy? If they did, I missed it. I have quite a bit of dry humor (it's my favorite kind) and I still caught the awkwardness. It had very little to do with their teasing and tender moments. It was his attitude in the ministers study and Claire's reaction as well as the tension after he all but asked if any of her patients had taken a fancy to her. It's all perfectly normal husband/wife stuff. In no way were they on rough times. I believe they did love each other very much.
What I sensed were minor hiccups caused by a long separation during the war, as Claire stated. I believe she even said that sex was the one thing they could share where the truly connected and all the chaos and time apart ceased to be a chasm between them. That's very roughly paraphrased, I'd have to re-read that particular section.
I'm of the opinion the awkwardness was written that way so the readers would be more reception to Jamie. If Frank was THE love of Claire's life, the whole book would've been different.
Etsu10 wrote: "gertt wrote: "Etsu10 wrote "my take is this is first and foremost a romance novel..."I believe you will find this series in the Literature section of the bookstore or Library, not the Romance sec..."
I sooo feel you on this ... Outlander is still my all time favorite book ... I am not a fanatic ... but I do love the series more than any other's I have read so far. However, I have recommended the series to others and some have loved it, hated it and been quite lukewarm about it ... My sister can't stand the great detail Gabaldon includes in her books and skims through a lot, I on the other hand love the details. If everyone liked the same things, what a boring world this would be!!
As for the spanking and rape ... I can't say it shocked me, offended me or turned me off of the story line. I have to agree with Becky's comment regarding how messy life is and how it makes sense for fiction to reflect real life. Additionally, I think that authors include the good and the bad because it enriches the character and gives us more to consider when reading ... after all here we are have a huge discussion about it.
Very well said, Shawn. I could read this book over and over and pick up new things to discuss every time.
Theres definitely a lot to discuss from this book. But good books are generally controversial. They are supposed to generate conservation.Anyway I never liked Frank but that's because he is so far from my preference in mate so I think that might have something to do with my attitude towards him. In the show though hes way more entertaining and attractive.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Very well said, Shawn. I could read this book over and over and pick up new things to discuss every time."I know, right? I have read all of the Outlander Series and of the 8 this is the only one I have read 5 times ... I find something new to love about it each time .. Not to mention, this was a story she was just writing for fun ... and 23 years later it is still sparking passionate conversation.
Blair wrote: "Theres definitely a lot to discuss from this book. But good books are generally controversial. They are supposed to generate conservation.Anyway I never liked Frank but that's because he is so fa..."
I agree, Blair ... I never, really, cared for Frank either ... I didn't consider my own taste .. that is good food for thought ... I had a hard time separating Jack and Frank .. I'm reading and I know they are two separate people in two separate eras ... but the feel I had ... just couldn't get to a place where I could like him.
Shawn wrote: "I have read all of the Outlander Series and of the 8 this is the only one I have read 5 times ... I find something new to love about it each time ..."I'm almost finished with the second book and I'm eager to get to the next one, but unlike the other books I read, I can't blaze through them. I have to savor them like a fine wine, even if it takes me forever. I dabble in writing, too, and the details usually mean something. It's like looking for Easter eggs.
I bet it's been very rewarding for the author, too. No matter how much you work on a book, once you announce it "finished" there is always something you find that could be changed, built on, or clarified in some way.
Having the TV series allows her some leeway. I believe the way the relationship with Frank was portrayed on TV is an excellent example. It's enhanced my sympathy for Claire during the separation and made the scene at the garrison with BJR even more powerful.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Shawn wrote: "I have read all of the Outlander Series and of the 8 this is the only one I have read 5 times ... I find something new to love about it each time ..."I'm almost finished with the se..."
It took me forever to get through DIA ... It was a bit slow for me ... I still loved it and gave it 5 stars .. Though, I have to say after having read all of them I can appreciate each book more because I take the series in as a whole.
I haven't watched the TV series .. Frankly, I'm afraid to watch it ... I have these images and ideas about the characters in my head and I have an affinity for each of them ... I don't want someone else's ideas and perception to cloud mine ... I'm thinking after the final book is written, the series will still be available on dvd or online, then I'll watch it. I am very impressed with the comments others have made about the TV series; I've heard that they have taken great care to be true to the book.
I'm finding DIA a bit slower pace, too. Especially early on in Paris, but I do like all the history. Like you, I still love it."I don't want someone else's ideas and perception to cloud mine"
Exactly! I had trouble adjusting to audiobooks for that very reason! In my mind, I see and hear the characters. If the sights and sounds don't match, it kinda messes with me. Initially, I was worried about that when the Outlander shows began, but they really have done a great job with it. Claire's too tall compared to my image of her and it makes Jamie look "not big enough", but the other details are so well done that it doesn't bother me.
I'll always prefer books to screen productions (no matter what the book may be). It's just not possible to translate all that emotion and inner thought to screen. I'm just going to make sure I read the book first. ; )
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "I'm finding DIA a bit slower pace, too. Especially early on in Paris, but I do like all the history. Like you, I still love it."I don't want someone else's ideas and perception to cloud mine"
..."
Oh, I know, I started DIA with audio ... I disliked it so much (and I am a penny pincher; audio books aren't cheap) that I ditched it and bought the ebook.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "I like Frank, too. I like him MORE in the TV show. Did someone say they felt Frank was a fuddy-duddy? If they did, I missed it. I have quite a bit of dry humor (it's my favorite kind) and I stil..."I believe Frank was the love of her life at that time 1940's
Yes you are right she did mention that sex was the only thing they shared for them to be connected, etc etc. Becky you have a good grasp on these two relationships. She felt she would never come back to this time so she felt she could fall in love again.
Jeanine wrote: "She felt she would never come back to this time so she felt she could fall in love again."That's exactly what I was thinking. I've been blowing my nose for the last hour as I finish up DIA. I had to take a break for a dose of ice cream to lift my spirits. LOL! Talk about gut wrenching and I still have fifty some pages to go. The second book certainly puts some of these thoughts about Frank/Claire-Jamie/Claire into perspective.
gertt wrote: "I have recommended this book to several friends and family, and like Shawn said, some have loved it and others didn't care to continue for various reasons, the size, the detail, or they just didn't..."Me too gertt, I love the history. Every time she moves the story into another point in history, I start digging into references to learn more.
I know this is a little off topic but I have seen where some of you said you like Frank and some of you were less than enthused. I have to say that in the tv show I have found him alluring . That scene where she was shaving him....so sexy and so sweet. They have done great with frank in the series so far.
I don't know, he just seems more charming to me. I guess I just sensed the trouble in their marriage in the book and missed the love they had. It just seemed more compelling to me in the show. I was pretty taken with the ghost watching Claire and I just knew that the ghost was her true love and I kinda blew frank off.
Julie wrote: "One of the more horrific scenes in a book. But, here has often been my issue with it much as I love love the book. We get a clear picture of Jamie's torture and psychological pain, however I would..."Excellent point
After watching two rape scenes in a single episode of the series based on these books that included a sharp blade pressed into a woman's bare nipple, I concluded this is not a story I care to follow anymore, and I came to the internet to find others of equal sensibility and outrage. Imagine my confusion when I stumbled across an S&M discussion group posing as consumers of literature interested in comparing notes and dissecting the minutest meaning out of the inner lives of fictitious characters during spankings, whippings, sodomy and rape with the apparent comfort and ease of exchanging recopies. I am no prude and I assure you my intention is not to shame, but I am left wondering which of you have ever been raped or sodomized and why these horrific events real or imagined would hold such tremendous interest for you.
I am certain of few things in this life, but it is clear that this lauded series of books is neither literature nor romance, but simple rape erotica and should be labeled as such to protect those who do not wish to expose themselves to its toxic desensitizing recurrent themes of violence against women and humanity.
Perhaps a volume or two of mostly naked vampires who lived through the inquisition and Nazi Germany would make for a good follow up. Any "author" would be on solid historical ground to explore the many ways to torture, dismember, maim and ever so slowly kill babies, children, old women, dogs and cats and puppies and kittens. Just because one can write about anything doesn't mean one should, and just because one can discuss anything doesn't mean one should.
The purpose of a good book is not to be controversial, but to edify, inspire, elevate the soul, and hopefully move society forward not backward hence the characterization of "good". The purpose of trash novels and porn is to be titillate, arouse passions and create controversy in order to boost sales and there by enrich the author, publisher and production company, society be damned.
Again, my intention is not to offend, and I would like to apologize for interrupting the free flow of conversation about how someone who never really existed in the first place felt while being violated in the most horrific manner repeatedly, because once was apparently not enough.
There is nothing wrong or bad about this book or your scholarly discussion, the only wrong is the dishonesty in labeling. Let's call it what it is so others are not misdirected or deceived into reading or viewing what many will find more than a little offensive for their taste. You are all certainly welcome to yours.
Please carry on and by all means enjoy.
Tim wrote: "After watching two rape scenes in a single episode of the series based on these books that included a sharp blade pressed into a woman's bare nipple, I concluded this is not a story I care to follo..."In order for something to be labeled "rape erotica", wouldn't it have to occur more times than it actually does in this 863-page book, or at least be the main theme of the book?
Tim wrote: "After watching two rape scenes in a single episode of the series based on these books that included a sharp blade pressed into a woman's bare nipple, I concluded this is not a story I care to follo..."I will admit to not having watched this weeks recent episode yet so in reality, I have no idea what I'm talking about lol - in relation to the episode. All I can say is that I agree with most of what you said. Having said that, I dont feel it applies to Outlander. Not that there are exceptions but that in Outlander (the book), where there is rape, it is anything but erotica.
If a reader finds it titillating the fault is on the reader and not the writer. It is not written that way at all.
Where there is controversy in Outlander the basis is usually founded in people not accepting history. Did someone HAVE to be raped in Outlander? Does someone get raped, beat, whipped in every historical book ever written? Of course not!
Because of the setting and the timeline Outlander is set in and the writers desire for authenticity you will find everything in Outlander. The good, the bad and the ugly :) I can understand how not everyone would want to read about some of these horrible things that have happened to people throughout history. This is not a book for everyone. Having said that there is so much more to Outlander then bad things happening to people. The bad fills few pages compared to the over all story.
Outlander is not rape erotica. I will repeat that if people find it so, that is because of a persons personal tastes and desires. It is not written that way at all.
gertt wrote: "I found the assaults on Claire in episode 8 difficult to watch because they were not portrayed the same as in the books, so I wasn't prepared. [spoilers removed].I have enjoyed the movie, howeve..."
Gertt we think alike
gertt wrote: "But then, I would have enjoyed the movie just as much without any of the nudity or graphic brutality because there is so much more to the story..."Yes, yes and YES!
The mere inclusion of a rape scene doesn't automatically make a work "rape erotica". Have you read/seen "12 Year's a Slave"? Rape is depicted in the movie version of that story much more violently, brutally and horrifically. I didn't view the attempted attack on Claire as "erotic" or "titillating". I thought it was a realistic and honest portrayal of how women were often mistreated during those times.
Tim, you should read the book because your speaking about things you don't understand and you know the old saying...never ASSume.
Tim wrote: " "I came to the internet to find others of equal sensibility and outrage."Sorry, but I spewed Dr. Pepper across the room when I read this particular line. You expected sanity from an S&M internet forum?Next time call a like-minded friend instead of exposing your mind to such things.
"...this lauded series of books is neither literature nor romance, but simple rape erotica and should be labeled as such.
I strongly disagree. Definition of rape culture: "More often than not, it’s situations in which sexual assault, rape, and general violence are ignored, trivialized, normalized, or made into jokes.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Just because Austen or Bronte didn't write about sex, rape, beatings, murder, etc doesn't mean they didn't happen. .."How many beatings did Heathcliff take? "Helen" in Anne Bronte's "Tenant of Wildfell Hall" is fleeing a cruel and alcoholic husband. Jane Eyre was heavily abused as a child, both in her aunt's house and at Lowell School. Mansfield Park has some rather unsavory aspects (slavery, adultery, child cruelty, etc.). Rape is an issue in Sense and Sensibility (or at least seduction of an unwed girl).
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
First off, I have to discard your comment about Jamie raping Claire. I do not see that written anywhere. They are a couple who enjoy rough dominate sex which you see periodically throughout the whole series. I will leave it at that.
Again, Claire didn't feel Jamie was being abusive because his behavior was almost like the "law" of the times. He was fulfilling a necessary evil. I can not explain any clearer than I already have that this was not abuse. A person does have to take into account the setting, the country, the culture, etc.
You can not hold someone back then to the same accountability as today with an entirely different culture. It doesn't make sense. I feel like those who claim it was abuse are totally ignoring everything that was happening around it and the time period.
Romance novels like what Jane Austen or the Bronte sisters write can not be compared with Outlander. If she wanted to write a novel like one of those she would have.
Just because Austen or Bronte didn't write about sex, rape, beatings, murder, etc doesn't mean they didn't happen.
I also don't understand the need to catagorize Outlander a as a romance novel. It's actually not. It has so much more in it. But even classifying it as a romance why can't it have those things in it? I love how the novel follows their culture and every day living.
I actually really hope they don't take out the beating scene in the show. I think it was an important scene and a game changer for the characters. It has a lot of significance in how Jamie and Claire see each other.