Outlander
discussion
The rape reenactment scene
Blair wrote: "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! .."I just re-read this book about a month ago (and have read this book about 5-6 times). In the scene where she re-creates Jamie's rape, Jamie is near death. The priests have come to give him his last rites. She sees medical signs of his imminent death. While I do think the scene is a bit strange, the way I read it is Claire was at the end of her rope. She had tried everything she had in her medical arsenal. She did not know what else to do and I think she intuitively knew she had to get SOME kind of reaction from him. Since he was dying, if she failed, then she would really have done him little harm. So while I personally would probably never dreamed up that scenario in a million years, I don't really have a problem with how she wrote it.
Mochaspresso wrote: "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 violentl..."The rape in this book is no more erotic than the depiction of Jamie being flogged TWICE to the extent his back is scarred for life. To even suggest this is the theme of the book is idiotic.
I believe as the movie catches up to the more controversial scenes in the book, we'll be seeing more and more outrageous declarations of pique...i.e., Trolls. While I respect a difference of opinion and live for the free exchange and debate of varying ideals, I respect a person's position far more when it's based on fact and rational thought. Anything less becomes a useless, ineffectual rant.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "I believe as the movie catches up to the more controversial scenes in the book, we'll be seeing more and more outrageous declarations of pique...i.e., Trolls. While I respect a difference of opi..."
Oh, I cannot wait to see the reaction of what happens when Jamie is in prison...
Tim wrote: "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". .."I TOTALLY disagree. The purpose of SOME good books is to edify, etc., but many, many good books became great books BECAUSE they were controversial. Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale," D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover," Maya Angelou's "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men," etc. Life is not all lollipops and sugarplums. Life is gritty and violent and sexual and to deny its existence is to pretty much close ones self in a room and wall themselves off from life.
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 just have to disagree. There are several authors that write about rape and the likes to give insight into the character's psyche, to give the story movement and several other reasons. By example, the book "A Time to Kill" by John Grisham; in the beginning of the book the author, graphically, describes the rape and beating of a *young female child*, this fuels the entire story. So, to make a blanket statement that an author should not write about such things is ridiculous.
Now, to say that this particular subject does not appeal to you or your sense of what makes a good book; hey more power to you ... really, that is what make us all unique. There are subjects I don't like to read about ... Horror books do NOT do it for me ... so, those I don't read.
I feel it should not be left unsaid, though there are scenes that describe rape, abuse, sodomy, etc ... these are only a few and used to build the character who carries on in several more books to come.
Tim wrote: "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."Clearly you want stir things up. Congratulations, you succeeded! There are a lot of things I could say about your post, but I agree with most of the comments that already responded. All I will say is be careful about how you judge a book series. Don't base it off of one TV episode or one forum. Also don't apologize for something you really are not sorry for.
Laurel wrote: "Tim wrote: "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 whi..."I am sure he is just a troll who decided to sign up for goodreads just to trash a book he has not read.
Mary wrote: "I am sure he is just a troll who decided to sign up for goodreads just to trash a book he has not read."His profile supports that theory. Also, I've run across more internet trolls named Tim than I can count, hence the acronym: This Is Maddness...
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Mary wrote: "I am sure he is just a troll who decided to sign up for goodreads just to trash a book he has not read."His profile supports that theory. Also, I've run across more internet trolls ..."
LOL!
Mary wrote: "Laurel wrote: "Tim wrote: "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..."Trolls lead sad lives...
Brittain wrote: "Trolls lead sad lives... .."They also seem to "protest too much." "I am not a prude but..."
Mary wrote: "Brittain wrote: "Trolls lead sad lives... .."They also seem to "protest too much." "I am not a prude but...""
People who begin sentences with "I am not a _____ but..." are about to be an asshole
Brittain wrote: "Mary wrote: "Brittain wrote: "Trolls lead sad lives... .."They also seem to "protest too much." "I am not a prude but...""
People who begin sentences with "I am not a _____ but..." are about to..."
Brittan: I just saw you were from my neck of the woods.
Mary wrote: "Brittain wrote: "Mary wrote: "Brittain wrote: "Trolls lead sad lives... .."They also seem to "protest too much." "I am not a prude but...""
People who begin sentences with "I am not a _____ but..."
Sweet Home Alabama?
Brittain wrote: "Mary wrote: "Brittain wrote: "Mary wrote: "Brittain wrote: "Trolls lead sad lives... .."They also seem to "protest too much." "I am not a prude but...""
People who begin sentences with "I am no..."
Yep!
Clearly, Tim vacated the premises.
I also wanted to go back to the "spanking/beating" issue after Claire was captured and sent to be interrogated by Randall. Jamie tells Claire that for some reason she just does not understand the danger she is in or the danger she has placed others in. I think up until that point, she was still kind of in a "dreamlike" state. Her circumstances were real, but they weren't real at the same time. I think this scene marks the point that Claire REALLY understands she is in the 18th century. It comes home to her in a way she did not get before. To discipline is the to teach. I read hundreds of books when my children were young about child development and discipline. One book stuck with me - "How to Make Your Children Mind Without Losing Yours." Now I KNOW Claire is not a child. However, one of the chapters was titled: "Sometimes You Just Have to Pull the Rug Out from Under the Little Buzzards." The thrust of the chapter was sometimes you need a little shock value to get your children's attention. I don't think Jamie fully had Claire's attention before this. I certainly would not condone this type of behavior in our current society, but 18th century Scotland was a brutal land. I don't think we can judge people as good or bad based on our current standards. My mother spanked me. She even used a switch from time to time. I decided not to use corporal punishment for two reasons. If we want to teach children not to hit someone as adults, we should not send a mixed message by hitting them as children. Spanking is also the least effective form of discipline. Having said that, I do not think less of my mother nor love her less because she used corporal punishment on me. That was the norm during my childhood just as it was the norm in the 18th century. Once Jamie understood just how appalled Claire was, he gave her his word to never do it again. For an 18th century man, that was a large concession.
Mary wrote: "I also wanted to go back to the "spanking/beating" issue after Claire was captured and sent to be interrogated by Randall. Jamie tells Claire that for some reason she just does not understand the ..."Very well articulated, Mary!
Shawn wrote: "Mary wrote: "I also wanted to go back to the "spanking/beating" issue after Claire was captured and sent to be interrogated by Randall. Jamie tells Claire that for some reason she just does not un..."If I were to write a historical fiction book about another century, one of the main ideas I would want to get across was the differences between then and now. As a woman, I most certainly would want to deal with how women were treated in the past and the laws/church that protected that mistreatment. Characters that do not grow and evolve during the course of a story are flat characters. A growth arc is necessary IMO for a story to be successful. Part of Jamie's growth as a character was his realization that he could not treat Claire the way most men treated their wives if he wanted a happy marriage. A perfect Jamie would be a boring Jamie...again IMO.
Mary wrote: "I also wanted to go back to the "spanking/beating" issue after Claire was captured and sent to be interrogated by Randall. Jamie tells Claire that for some reason she just does not understand the ..."I always thought it was quite remarkable that he gave up that concession. If I were a man with his beliefs, I wouldn't have lol.
I sometimes wonder if those who are more understanding of this situation believe or are at least tolorent of corporal punishment?
I do disagree that spanking is the least effective form of disciple though. I think every child is different. Everyone is not the same. For some it works great and others not at all.
"If we want to teach children not to hit someone as adults, we should not send a mixed message by hitting them as children." - I also don't agree with this statement. It confuses the line between hitting and spanking. They are 2 distinctly different things. Also parents do things all the time that children shouldn't be allowed to do. To base parenting with only using behaviors that would be acceptable for a child to replicate would be to throw out parenting all together and act like a child. Parents always do things, and always will do things that their children are not allowed to do. That comes with being an adult and a parent.
But alas, Claire is no child. I know people look at it like we're trying to excuse Jamie's behavior but I juast don't understand how people can't see that back in time women were largely treated like children! Claire made a mistake and she was punished just like other wives/children were back then.
Mary wrote: "I also wanted to go back to the "spanking/beating" issue after Claire was captured and sent to be interrogated by Randall. Jamie tells Claire that for some reason she just does not understand the ..."I may have to read that book, Mary! The chapter title had me snickering. I've raised three boys and believe me, it was NOT an easy task. I grew up in the spare the rod spoil the child era as well and firmly believe getting my butt tanned kept me out of trouble more than once. My parents never struck us in anger. It was done in a very controlled, calm manner, AFTER we'd sat in our room for an hour thinking about what we could do differently in the future.
That being said, Jamie didn't strike Claire in anger either. It was a form of discipline, albeit another WTHeck moment for me. By the time I was ten, corporal punishment was no longer used in my home, so it was a bit of a shocker to see Jamie uses it on his wife. That's where 1743 and the standards of the time factor in. I was able to understand the logic, even if I didn't "like" it. I agree that his promise never to do it again was a big deal. The whole experience became a turning point in their relationship.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Mary wrote: "I also wanted to go back to the "spanking/beating" issue after Claire was captured and sent to be interrogated by Randall. Jamie tells Claire that for some reason she just does not un..."Spanking IS the least effective form of discipline: http://www.nasponline.org/publication...
A study by the American Pediatrics Assn stated that children who are spanked are 50% more likely to exhibit hostile tendencies by age 5. Children who are spanked are also at greater risk of depression. We can charge people with cruelty to animals if they hit a dog, but say it is OK to hit children? Logical consequences is the best form of discipline along with the "teachable moment."
Mary wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Mary wrote: "I also wanted to go back to the "spanking/beating" issue after Claire was captured and sent to be interrogated by Randall. Jamie tells Claire that for some reason she..."I have to say, with regard to corporal punishment, I stand some where in the middle. While I received corporal punishment in the home (quite frequently) and school, I used it,sparingly, with my children. I always tried other options before spanking, but I raised three children alone, two of which were boys, and I believed and still believe they had to know who was and is the ruler of the kingdom. Sometimes I couldn't get it to sink in and a good old fashioned butt whoopin was in order.
My two eldest have grown into happy well adjusted adults. The youngest is only 14, and well, the jury is still out. :)
I do agree, Jamie saw how it affected Claire. I think it was, absolutely, the pivotal point in their relationship, as well as a moment of clarity for Claire. Jamie already loved her and he was not going to do anything or let anything happen to her that he didn't think their relationship couldn't survive. Claire was still in survival mode and wasn't there yet, so I think that, alone, speaks volumes in how profanely, altered in her reality she became; once, of course, she was over being, royally, ticked off.
Jeanine wrote: "If he is dead before he marries and has a child does this mean there isn't a Frank in the future? "
BJR wasn't Frank's GGGrandfather, it was BJR's brother who was. He married the girl his brother got pregnant. His brother asked him to do that when he was dying. Claire didn't know that however when the fighting in France was going on between Jamie and BJR. It wasn't until later in the series that all came out.
gertt wrote: "Pleasure is a feeling of joy or happiness. Jamie was aroused or stimulated by BJ's action, he didn't find pleasure (joy or happiness) in what happened. If I remember correctly, Claire told Jamie ..."I think it wasn't so much he was pleasured by it, it was that he was now associating sexual arousal with his rape and not with Claire. Claire realized this, which is why she regressed him to the point of a child (thinking of his mother) and then brought him back to her by fooling him into arousal, and then having sex with him. (Or at least that's how I viewed the whole scene at the abbey). DG doesn't shy away or write mild stuff, both the Jamie BJR rape and Claire's resurrection of Jamie were powerful and horrific chapters. I cringed at some of the stuff, I can't imagine how they are going to do those scenes on the TV.
Jamie even said that if a man had done what she had done (putting all their lives in danger) he would have been even more severely punished or even executed. This was the reality of the time. I mean, in 1945 if Frank told her to wait for him at the corner pub, and she blew him off, no one was going to die. In the world of 1745 she is living in with Jamie, life is more brutal and deadly. Punishments fit the time period and culture in the book. In Jamie's world, a wife's disobedience that put lives in danger required he beat her. That being said, the story also makes a distinction between punishment and violent mistreatment. Jamie makes it clear he has no desire to beat his wife into some type of submission in all things. Later in the book, Jamie and Claire take in the young boy who was being severely beaten and mistreated by his father. Jamie points out the difference in his own father's punishments (beatings) of him and how it was done in a way that did not break his spirit or his respect and love of his father--unlike the young boy who was clearly demoralized and afraid of his father.
gertt wrote: "Julie wrote: "The nice thing about these threads is getting all the different perspectives. Reading is such a subjective experience and also one of the reasons that movies and TV shows can be wond..."I agree. Also, i just finished the book and came to this site because i was confused about the scene with the opium and Claire trying to help Jamie gain back his will to live and fight. Reading other people's views helped me sort it out for myself, so thanks everyone!
oh my god cannot believe some of the negative comments. this book series has at least a 20 year following and if you make it a book about rape you know nothing about the characters or the author. Please refrain from making negative comments if you have not read all the books and if you have not had a chance to dissect it piece by piece. It's a beautiful story. we live in the United States of America you have a choice not to read the books.
Girl, I love your post and I love you for saying that. Right on!
gertt wrote: "Thank you Veronica for saying what I wish I had.It's so simple, if someone doesn't like a book, donate it to the library and move on."
Exactly
Veronica wrote: "I'm re reading the whole series(It's been over 20 years for me) I must say Outlander to me was the best one, The rape scene was HORRIBLE, but it says alot of what kinds of things happen and no one ..."I agree with you Veronica and want add to others - really , do you have to understand everything - Claire tray help Jamie,(She love him and she don't wanna lose him) she did - what she was thinking will be the best and how she can do it in that time. This not medical book , this is fiction . I read and re-read again this book for me it is and will be the best romance book ever.
Regards to all of you.
Maria
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..."Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "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!"
Tim's definition of great literature is severely narrow minded and subjective. By his definition, I guess we need to dump books like Huckleberry Finn, Night, Catcher In The Rye....the list goes on and on. All highly controversial, all about difficult and brutal topics. Some great books inspire and uplift us because the subject matter is inspiring and uplifting, other great literature, by definition can and must inspire us despite the often brutal world they create. In the Outlander books I have read so far, I have found nothing brutal that was done for titillation or to be gratuitously erotic. There are things in these books that are difficult to read and process. The great thing about literature like this is that we can be inspired and uplifted by vicariously experiencing the journey of the characters and find joy in their ability to persevere through tremendous suffering, without having to actually experience that suffering ourselves. Tim should stick to less emotionally challenging reading if that is what he enjoys.
Someone recommended Outlander to me last year. I tried to read it, but put it aside. I did not understand Jamie. I Googled critiques of the character and found an MA thesis. I was surprised that someone had used the book to write a thesis for a degree. I did agree with the writer of the thesis that Jamie can be looked at three ways: As a man in the 18th Century, as a man seen by Claire through her mid-20th century eyes, and a man seen through the eyes of those of us who are reading about him in the first years of the 21st Century. I didn't want to tell my friend that I still did not want to finish the book. Then I saw the trailer for the TV series, and I watched the first episode. The writers of the series and Sam Heughan made Jamie more than just watchable. He and Caitriona Balfe and Tobias Menzies were intriguing, beautiful characters in an amazingly good series. I finished the book. I used it as a reference now. I read the second one. I like that she started it in the 1940s and that she does not tell the story in a strictly linear way. I like her dialogue. I started the third book and then stopped. I won't read another one. I know the books are fantasy, but Jamie and Claire and other characters are too real now for much of the impossible plot(s). I will watch the series for years to come if it continues beyond Season 2, because Ron Moore and the writers will edit it and improve it and the actors will give it life.
Ginger S. Bate wrote: "Someone recommended Outlander to me last year. I tried to read it, but put it aside. I did not understand Jamie. I Googled critiques of the character and found an MA thesis. I was surprised tha..."don't give up on the books! I totally respect your choice, but even though there is a lot of crazy plot elements and fantasy, the bigger themes that are real and universal more than rise to the surface as you continue reading...I am so glad I have read all the books now and feel I can truly enjoy the movie series version so much more having read the books
I can not wait for the next book after MOBY
I realize this is an older discussion but I just finished reading Outlander for the first time, after seeing the first 8 eps of the TV show. I found the book good until the second half, when the author suddenly seemed intent on destroying her best character, Jamie. He is beaten again, stabbed and raped and then nearly dies of guilt. Somehow, Claire "saves" him by reenacting the most terrible moments of his life. None of this made any sense to me. Thank you all for your enlightenments on the subject of how the "hero" in this book is more or less "cured" by all that, but it still makes no sense to me and seems like an experiment by the author to see how horribly she can treat a character. And I don't see how any of it helps the story move forward since Jamie seems doomed to me anyway (with the war coming up).The second half of the book greatly bothered me, nearly everything that happened. It was like two different people in the 2nd half. And the beating scene where he really does beat Claire with a belt so that she can't sit for a long time, he must have really seriously hurt her for her to have suffered like that. I can tell you I would have hated any man who beat me like that, but the truth is, she was in lust with Jamie and she had already married him, so I suppose, what choice did she have, in the book?
The part of the book where I felt the shark was truly jumped was when Claire killed a wolf with her bare hands. That was just too much. Then everything got very Shakesperian and it wasn't until the last scenes where I felt they were relatable people again.
Very disappointing. I'm reading the next book in the series and it's already better, so I hope the weirdness is over and no more raping will occur. I can't think of any book where a brutal rape of a beloved main character helps the story move forward.
While I do think the scene is a bit strange, the way I read it is Claire was at the end of her rope. She had tried everything she had in her medical arsenal...But when that scene started, I thought WTF because Claire had *not* tried everything. She hadn't tried hardly anything at all to get Jamie out of his head. She hadn't talked to him at length because she's big on not commenting much (nearly strangling herself not to speak). Why? I would have been talking, begging, pleading, ordering, shouting for him to eat and get better and snap out of it. Claire mostly sat around and hung out in the chapel and thought about stuff. She did not spend much time with Jamie actually trying to get him out of his mental situation. She left when he said leave. Then she dreams up the bizarre opium plot which made zero sense to me, ..... considering her lack of efforts up until that point. She was almost neglectful of him, in fact.
Shelly wrote: " While I do think the scene is a bit strange, the way I read it is Claire was at the end of her rope. She had tried everything she had in her medical arsenal...But when that scene started, I thou..."
Jamie didn't want to talk about it. But at the same time, later when he finally does decide to do so, Claire doesn't want to hear it. So I see what you're saying. I can't remember if he had pulled through enough that he didn't want to die at that point or not, which may have made the difference to her and her willingness to listen. Either way, I think it's kind of selfish. If he managed to go through all that for her, the least she could do is listen to it. Yet I understand why she didn't want to. At the same time, I'd have shut my trap and listened lol.
I think the major premise behind what Claire did, is really physiological. Even today, when a victim is raped, sometimes afterwards they are actually turned on by reenacting a rape scene and thoroughly enjoy doing so. I really don't have a clue but I feel like it was too advanced for Claire's time.
But that's how I looked at what she did. She may not have understood the physiological aspect of it, but the plain and simple, helping him get over his fear by reliving it, seemed reasonable enough to me.
To be honest, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of that scene either. I chalked it up to Claire being completely out of her depth, not knowing what else to do and basically desperate to try anything at that point. It's not like she had access to therapists or could research support groups for him to attend.
I also see it similar to turning into a slide when you are driving on ice. You are sliding in a direction you do not want to go in and have no control of the car. The way to gain control is to steer in the direction you are sliding in order to gain control, then guide yourself out of it. You have to accept the slide, accept you have no control, give up the fight to the slide and take control back. Jamie was sliding out of control mentally and emotionally because he was never able to properly process what had happened. He never really dealt with it. If Claire tried to fight that he would have stayed out of control. It would have been a loosing battle for both of them because he is the one who had to accept what had happened and then process what had happened. She steered him right smack dab into the middle of his rape. He had to accept what happened, experiencing it again through his drug induced fugue. He was then able to gain some self control back, deal with it and pull himself out of it.
I didn't particularly like that scene but thinking about it in those terms helps me to understand it and move on with the story.
Diane wrote: "I also see it similar to turning into a slide when you are driving on ice. You are sliding in a direction you do not want to go in and have no control of the car. The way to gain control is to stee..."The car on ice is a wonderful analogy to help make sense of this scene. Every once in a while these books go off the rails a bit (this scene is a good example)It does not affect my love for these books as a whole. I felt like she was channeling a bit of Giellis Duncan. She had to go into the darkness to pull him back.
I think it is also time to point out that this is a work of Fiction. It is not "The Public's Guide to a Successful Relationship", or "How to Treat Your Spouse"... it is as much fiction as Alice in Wonderland or The Shining! In The Shining, Jack not only hits his son but loses his mind and hunts his family down with an axe, and it is perfectly acceptable to the storyline because it is not real. Nobody of sound mind is going to read that book and think it's a good idea, just as no mentally stable, evolved individual is going to suddenly believe it's ok to spank or rape their wife because they read about it in the Outlander. Society is becoming a little too quick to find the 'hidden message' in every single thing...sometimes, you just have to take it at face value and believe that it is intended to entertain, not educate.
Tammi wrote: "sometimes you just have to take it at face value and believe it is intended to entertain, not educate..."Well said, Tammy. If someone is offended by an author's writing, then read something else.
I know I'm super late to this discussion, but.....I've actually laughed out lout because:
1.) Tim managed to troll his way to Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies IN A SINGLE POST. Wow. Kudos on the strong trolling. And,
2.) Tara Belle's comment about ...."is about to be an asshole" was spot on and funny. :)
Also (and not to get all 'back to the original topic' or anything...), I don't think anybody's mentioned it so I thought I'd briefly mention a discussion from a later book about this odd rape re-enactment scene. Please forgive me, I've read all eight books and don't recall off the top which of the later ones it occurs in (anybody?) but Claire and Jaimie do discuss this event. What I recall of that discussion is that, in addition to some of things mentioned here (regressing him, fighting back), (view spoiler)
I would also add that I saw a couple of therapists who spoke up and wanted to add a perspective: it's true that her methods were not the way we approach things in our time and with some standardized practice (and were explosive, to say the least), but it's also true that, in essence, one of the things she accomplished was prolonged exposure with response prevention. Something to think about.
Judy wrote: "When I talk with my old relatives and their friends, I always leave thinking they are so behind the times. I wonder if I was talking with people from 200 years ago if I would not feel somewhat deta..."Perhaps if you didn't think of your relatives and their friends as 'old' and listened to what they had to say, you wouldn't come away thinking they were behind the times, but would realize they once faced the same challenges in life as you and there is a lot to be learned from their experiences.
This is what Claire had the grace to realize. People from the 1700's were facing the same emotional and psychological challenges in life as those in the modern world. A mother dealing with her feelings after losing a child was no different in 1749 then in 1949, or today for that matter.
Claire realized that in order for Jamie to heal psychologically, he would have to face his demons, so she found a way to help him. The remedy may be different in more modern times, but the challenge was the same, and just as today, people used the knowledge and means that were available, usually passed down from past (older) generations. Claire used what she knew to heal Jamie.
The modern world is built on lessons learned from the past. Never overlook or disrespect the knowledge of those who are older then you, who have lived a full life and may have a lot to offer. Afterall, even our modern world will one day soon be 'behind the times'.
Christina wrote: "This is probably some failing on my part, but I never really understood what this scene was about exactly. Claire makes sure she smells like Randall and touches Jamie the way she imagines Randall d..."Hi IN THE BOOK this was an EXORCISM and it was INTENSE in the book and they have Sex...hard and tough intense horrific sex...as part of his dark space he was in and his messed up mind, body and emotions after the Black Jack Rape in prison
A.D. wrote: "I read this book a long time ago, but this is what I remember. Basically, Jamie could no longer connect to Claire sexually because Randall made him associate the rape with Claire. So I think she ha..."Hi You are RIGHT...the lavender oil was part of how Black Jack worked his dark deed... so for the EXORCISM Claire had to bring him into that dark place he was left in and she had to trigger that and push him for sexual intimacy too, to help free him. He agreed to be submissive and he thought he was going to die when it was done by being killed. So he sexually did engage with the male to male rape sex and the vision of Claire via the oil and the hair thing Jack did.? interesting... in the BOOK the exorcism was pages and so was some violent sex working out his anger of the rape and his manhood part by having sex with Claire up against the wall. This was all part of helping him to trigger his deep repressed experience. So she could help him connect again and to his soul and to become himself Again to Her.
Mrsbooks wrote: "The definition of the word pleasure is also used in reference to sex. "Give sexual enjoyment or satisfaction." Emotionally Jamie obviously didn't get any enjoyment or satisfaction from what happe..."How could any straight young man get pleasure from being forcibly inseminated against his will.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Outlander is the farthest thing from rape erotica. It isn't put on a pedestal and made glorious. It is horrific and the characters have to cope.
If you want to see what a real rape culture is, go to a college campus where the chief of police tells a girl who was just assaulted that she "shouldn't have been wearing that skirt and drinking at that fraternity".