Outlander
discussion
The rape reenactment scene
message 1:
by
Christina
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mar 29, 2014 05:44AM
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 did when he raped and tortured Jamie, which makes Jamie chase her around the room, and then... what? What exactly is going on? And why? I understand that Claire is doing it to help Jamie get the trauma out of his system and help him get better, but the whole thing just seems very very weird to me. I hope some of y'all can shed some light on this?
reply
|
flag
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 had to make him relive it so he could purge that association. I can barely remember that scene, so let me know if I'm completely wrong:-)
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 had to make him relive it so he could purge that association. I can barely remember that scene, so let me know if I'm completely wrong:-)
Having just read this scene last night it is very fresh in my mind. Jamie was dying. He lost his will to live. He had a green pallor probably from his body starting to shut down and building toxins in his system. Most of all he lost his will to live. He could not live with himself for his lack of not only not fighting back, but in some respect enjoying some of what went on with Randall. Remember, Randall made him feel good and bad. Claire had to make him fight his abuser or his demon. It was only when he realized ( remember he was on opium) that he was touching a women,whom he thought was his mom. Claire spoke the words his mother said, " Jamie Love. Come then lay your head man." This let Jamie think he was a child and allow himself to cry and grieve for himself.
All the answers are correct. But I remember feeling a little like Julie in that Clare didn't seem to show as much emotion about the whole thing as I imagine I would show if I were in her shoes.
What Clare went through makes it all the more likely that she would show more emotion. Or break down as you suggested. It doesn't have much to do with how helpful she would have been. When you go through a lot of really bad things, they show on you. I didn't feel like they showed enough in Clare. That lacked a bit of realisim for me. Don't get me wrong, I love that Clare is a strong woman. She's definitely remarkable. However she's sometimes too remarkable for me to identify with.
I felt like she was giving him a chance to fight back.
Living in that century would be unbelievably stressful; Claire had to be a doctor and a psychologist. This particular scene for me was so brutal it was difficult to read and I had to put it aside for a few days. The author very realistically described the trauma symptoms. I think one of the reasons readers enjoy such tales of brutality is the subsequent healing tells them no matter what happens, it can be survived. We want to hear we can make it through anything and true love is forever.
Teresa wrote: "Living in that century would be unbelievably stressful; Claire had to be a doctor and a psychologist. This particular scene for me was so brutal it was difficult to read and I had to put it aside f..."Amen! Well said.
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..."Yes I found this a bit weird myself! I didn't really understand how this was going to help Jamie!
I thought she was being cruel. Made me wonder if she was getting even for when he beats her up earlier in the book. Anyway it was just another disturbing scene in a sick book. For my money the most overrated book of all time. But what do I know these books sell like hot cakes
gertt wrote: "Clair didn't show enough emotion??? Let's see...Randall sent her to a pit that contained not only garbage but decaying bodies, she fought off a wolf, helped rescue Jamie from the prison dungeon..."
This is one of the enduring troubles I have with Claire's character. An emotionally strong person is not the same as an emotionally closed-off first person narrator. She's not real - she's our narrator - and as such we have to be able to feel her somehow. She needs to be strong and also fully revealed to us as readers. A hard task. I agree with those readers who feel like she is analytical. Even in intimate moments, she's not feeling her connection with Jamie but describing it and even joking about it. I just don't feel her as much as I wish, because I love these books dearly and think that Jamie is an incredibly well developed character.
Larissa wrote: "gertt wrote: "Clair didn't show enough emotion??? Let's see...Randall sent her to a pit that contained not only garbage but decaying bodies, she fought off a wolf, helped rescue Jamie from the ..."
I feel that way too, its like we're lost in her narrative and we don't get to learn how she felt or her emotions, very often. I think she would be a more likeable character if we understood how she felt about all of the situations she finds herself in, not what Jamie's bag looks like when he bends over and his body is aglow from the cracking,kindling fire. Lol. (As I recall a scene in FC.)
The thing is, just because she's also the narrator doesn't mean Diana couldn't include those things, so I don't know why she doesn't.Claire just seems detached from what she's talking about, like a narrator should, but it doesn't work well when your narrator is a main character that needs to show those feelings.
I never thought Claire was trying to get even with Jamie for beating her during that scene though. Even though we're talking about a lack of "feeling" in the narration, her getting even would have been a "fact" that she simply would have stated had she been doing that.
And when I say this about Claire, I don't feel it ALL the time. It's just its often enough to be noticeable.
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 ever speaks of. Claire is Claire. I'm not sure what kind of reaction people expect. What I love is that she did not give up or look at him any different. I think she allowed him to speak his feelings when he was able. She did not pry or ask questions. That makes her so much stronger to me.
gertt wrote: "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 ..."I agree with this assessment. It was the only way to exorcise his demons
gertt wrote: "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, h..."If he is dead before he marries and has a child does this mean there isn't a Frank in the future?
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..."Jamie asked Randall to release Claire in exchange for himself, because Randall already had proposed earlier, when he was whipped and Jamie was well aware that he wanted. In return, Jamie not resist. When Claire manages to be rescued, the rape was over and unfortunately Jamie had marks that suggested what happened, especially when they notice that brings a special smell and notice that it's a kind of cream.
It was horrible that profoundly influenced Jamie and it shows in the following books, but not by the fact of being raped by Jack Randall, but because Jamie feel some pleasure, which made him feel disgusted with himself in addition to having to listen to everything he whispered Randall, what is torture. I think that's why is was a very shocking moment for Claire and having to show a strength, almost to the point of appearing a coldness that for many may seem indifferent, but I think Claire does double duty as a physician and psychologist, which shouldn't be easy in the case of her husband, especially when Jamie is emotionally destroyed.
The scene where Jamie chases in the room, I see it as a kind of therapy, where the events in a way to overcome confronted, Claire acting like Randall and Jamie acted as facing him in his mind, only to become in Ellen, the mother of Jamie and comfort, because Jamie told Claire, he always felt safe when Ellen hugging him and protected him.
gertt wrote: "Natàilia wrote: "it shows in the following books, but not my the fact of being raped by BJR, but because Jamie feels some pleasure..."I have seen this mentioned by other reviewers, but don't reme..."
It says in the book when Jamie tells Claire about what made him Jack Randall.
gertt wrote: "I didn't think Jamie said he felt pleasure, but that he said his body responded....which isn't necessarily the same thing."Sorry, Jamie said Randall not only hurt him, used him, made love, but also hurt him, made him aroused and it was the first time very careful applying oils in parts.
I think Jamie feared that it *was* pleasure, and that mortified him and was a big part of his pain, and his questioning of who he was. I still think, though, that the whole rape and Claire's recap of it stuck out weirdly in this book.
Larissa wrote: "I think Jamie feared that it *was* pleasure, and that mortified him and was a big part of his pain, and his questioning of who he was. I still think, though, that the whole rape and Claire's recap ..."I think you nailed it. I think Jamie was scared because his body had responded to BJR and it made him question himself as a man. That was his biggest pain because he questioned who he was as a man.
Vanessa Eden wrote: "Larissa wrote: "I think Jamie feared that it *was* pleasure, and that mortified him and was a big part of his pain, and his questioning of who he was. I still think, though, that the whole rape and..."Exactly!!!!
I read the book a long time ago but I also think Randall made Jamie associate Claire and any kind of physical arousal with him and of the rape. Which is why he didn't want to sleep with Claire after the rape.
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 happened with BJR but his body did. And he hated that! No wonder he felt so confused afterwards. He felt betrayed by his body and BJR tried to make that happen. He pushed for that very outcome.
kate wrote: "I thought she was being cruel. Made me wonder if she was getting even for when he beats her up earlier in the book. Anyway it was just another disturbing scene in a sick book. For my money the m..."Oh I agree with you there Kate. After Jamie beats Claire up (whatever the reason given) and near rapes her (even if she enjoys it in the end... creepy), I found their entire relationship too unbelievable. How can someone remain so in love with an abuser is beyond me, and especially when her previous husband was so loving and she is from an era when husbands don't routinely physically punish their wives.
As much as I disliked the first book (and won't be reading any more) I am enjoying the TV series. The acting and script writing help to overcome many of the flaws of the book.
I have mixed feelings about this book in general (so keep that in mind when reading my post) but this scene was probably the scene that I had the biggest problem with. I think though that has to do with my bias and me working in the field of therapy. I imagine a historian would have issues with the way some of the historical bits were told. or another writer might have critiques about how they would have written something differently. so everyone, depending on their profession or passion, would have something to say. i just really don't know if it would realistically happen that way, whether she was trying to be therapeutic or not. I agree with the others, her response was off and unrealistic (strong or not nobody goes through all that and has that little emotional response. and actually her being honest about her emotions would have been a sign of strength). And not that people don't re-enact trauma in therapy as a way to get past it. but...the opium...the re-enactment...him first thinking she was randall and then thinking she was his mother. then him coming out of it and just being able to be intimate with her that soon after. yeah...not realistic at all. so in that sense i wish she would have researched that more or had a better sense of how re-enactment of trauma really goes before writing it that way. i understand she cant be an expert on everything and i also understand that she couldnt write about 14 sessions of EMDR therapy or anything but the way she wrote it...it just kinda made it seem like hypnotic, drug induced nonsense in my opinion instead of an actual therapeutic intervention.
Moarbooxpls wrote: "I felt like she was giving him a chance to fight back."Yes me too. She showed him that he would have fought back if he honorably could have, and he got to do so in a situation where he thought it was happening again, which showed him that he hadn't consented to the first time either.
I think people feel that Claire "cured" him during this scene. And I will admit, it does appear to be so. Claire does help him get over connecting her with Randal, but that's about it. The rest of the journey is Jamie's and there is one that expands other books. And I understand where Blair is coming from. If the writer ended that plot then and there like that, I would be pretty put out. I'm not even a therapist and it would have annoyed me.
I thought that Claire dealt with the situation a little oddly. Especially with the opium. But Jamie is sort of a big guy and wouldn't have let her do anything or try to help him, which he basically said so.
As Gertt brings out, Claire is not a therapist and she's also from the 30's/40's. I think she did the best with what she had and what she knew.
I understand. My issue is not with what claire did. I wasnt expecting her to be a therapist. Shes not. My issue is more with what happened next. Fantasy novel or not, if the author was trying to have realistic undertones (which she was I think, hence her inclusion of historical facts and somewhat realistic portrayals of other things) then I felt that scene should have been more realistic. Or else it just makes ppl think that's how things work. And they don't. therapy is such a misunderstood science, which stigma and stereotypes (just like anything else I guess) and its my thing so of course I have an opinion about every book regarding how its portrayed (which I think is a pretty reasonable reaction). and therefore I appreciate when things are more accurate. so from a therapists perspective I think she could have done a better job. but with that said, from a readers perspective I understand that its fantasy. that the author isnt a therapist either. and everything can't be so realistic because it might take away from other parts of the book or for the sake of time, etc. I just simply have an opinion about it. didnt really affect how I felt about the book as a whole though. it was one scene in a million pages. and also I do appreciate that in the rest of the books it keeps coming up because that is more realistic. also if it makes anyone feel better I am currently reading the unbecoming of mara dyer and I am the same critical of therapy scenes in that book too. so its not just this one.
Etsu10 wrote: "kate wrote: "I thought she was being cruel. Made me wonder if she was getting even for when he beats her up earlier in the book. Anyway it was just another disturbing scene in a sick book. For m..."Thank you for responding. Everyone seems to gloss over the fact that he beats her up. This is a hero? This week a major league football player lost his contract over this issue. Can't imagine how she could accept abuse like that.
Plus I suspect her "therapy" would have caused a total breakdown not a cure. Never got the popularity of this book. But what do I know? It sold like hotcakes.
"beats her up" - she got spanked - with an open palm - why do people make it seem like her beat her black and blueyes, beating up on a woman in today's society is not accepted in the 1700's it was - he was expected to punish her for what she did
Yes a spanking is not beating. People remember the time this takes place. What is not exceptable now was commonplace then.
Dee wrote: ""beats her up" - she got spanked - with an open palm - why do people make it seem like her beat her black and blueyes, beating up on a woman in today's society is not accepted in the 1700's it wa..."
Its actually with a sword belt.
Still no t a beat up. He tried to go as easy as he could. So can we just get over it
kate wrote: "Etsu10 wrote: "kate wrote: "I thought she was being cruel. Made me wonder if she was getting even for when he beats her up earlier in the book. Anyway it was just another disturbing scene in a si..."Jamie is actually appalled when Claire tells him that a man in her time, that had done what he did would be likend to a man who uses his fists on his wife. It's not something he understands that someone could compare the two.
For good reason, its his culture.
I just don't understand people who read older stories and expect politically correct characters for our time when that is not when the story is set.
Jeanine wrote: "Still no t a beat up. He tried to go as easy as he could. So can we just get over it"People often misuse the term beat. Technically speaking, Jamie did beat Claire. Its just most of us think of throwing punches and kicks when we use the word.
However Jamie and Claire both refer to it as a beating.
Definition of the word beating:
A punishment or assault in which the victim is hit repeatedly.
I'm just jumping into the conversation but when I first read outlander, I was appalled by the scene when Jamie beat her bottom for not listening to him. After rereading the book (for the TV show) I tried looking at it from a cultural point of view. It makes sense for the time. Besides, Jamie did apologize for it at least twice later on in the book. I would never want my husband to do anything like that to me today. However the situation in the book is more understandable.
I do not believe for one minute there was ever a century where women shrugged off being hit, spanked, beaten or otherwise abused. Granted they may not of had legal recourse. They may have had to submit. But Claire was from the 1940's. She had a nice husband. How could she like a man that raised his hand to her.Even today there are cultures and societies where it's ok to beat your wife for burning the dinner. I hardly think these poor downtrodden women think it makes the man macho or romantic.
I agree. definitely a culture thing. and a time thing. you cant really look at it from the perspective of how we see it now. its the same thing as spanking kids now. now its seen as a terrible thing. but im sure lots of ppl have parents who spanked them, including me, and dont think their parents are monsters. im not a proponent of spanking but im just saying...that's what they did then whether it was wrong or not. history is full of things ppl use to think were right and later found out werent. so even though ignorance is no excuse, it also doesnt automatically condemn ppl either. im sure we all culturally do stuff now that later someone will figure its not right or just, etc. also I think jamie was as lenient as he could be. not only did he apologize several times, the night he did it he slept on the floor, he didnt force himself on her afterward and gave her time to get past it, he didnt get pissed that she was pissed, he explained why he did it. even if it seems barbaric, during that time he didnt have to do any of that. he tried to make it as bearable as possible when he didnt have to because ultimately men reigned supreme then. I think he should get credit for that. also claire did put them in danger by disobeying. she might not have deserved a beating but she deserved some kind of kick in the butt (not literally) to show her she couldn't behave like that because it was a different century then she was use to. he told her several times before and she didnt listen. And if Jamie didnt punish her and the clan found out, someone else would have and they wouldnt have been as merciful. so I think we should blame the time. not the character.
and I disagree. I think there were definitely centuries where women shrugged off being hit. they didnt have the mindset we have now. they accepted it as the norm. also abuse victims do shrug it off. that's one of the reasons they stay. they think they deserve it. or its normal. they generally have distorted thoughts about how relationships should be which helps keep them trapped in relationship. I don't think that applies to claire and jamie but that kinda is how it works.
kate wrote: "I do not believe for one minute there was ever a century where women shrugged off being hit, spanked, beaten or otherwise abused. Granted they may not of had legal recourse. They may have had to ..."I agree with Blaire who said there are definitely women who shrugged off getting hit throughout the centuries because it was presented as normal. Having said that, Claire isn't from that century so I understand where we question what the hell she was thinking.
But when you think about it, if you were to put yourself in her shoes, what do you think you would do? Claire was unique in that she understood exactly the kind of situation she was in, having married a historian who frequently talked about this time period. She also grew up on her uncle lambs dig sites in Egypt. This probably helped her be more sympathetic to the time she found herself in and different cultures in general.
Either way, Claire was not stupid. What other option did she have but to accept the beating happened and to "get over it"?
I have a feeling if it were me I would have kicked up a huge stink about it and made sure Jamie rued the day he ever took a belt to me. Which honestly, would have been a very stupid thing to do.
Claire recognized this. She also is a better person than me in this instance because she allowed herself to move on. I would have been far to prideful to do that, that quickly.
It shows strength of character that she could exactly that.
exactly! it showed she was empathetic and forgiving. I also think that if she forgave him who am I to tell her shes wrong. I might not understand it but she did what she felt she had to do.
I do think it's worth mentioning that this was a turning point in Jamie's recovery. Was he miraculously cured? Absolutely not. That's made perfectly clear in the series.I must admit, as much as I enjoy Outlander, this scene was one of those "WTH?" moments for me. By the time I got that far in I was invested in the characters. The violence was difficult to read and caused me to protectively curl my fingers, but I think the author captured the psycho predator character in spades. That kind of violence SHOULD bother me. I kept reading because I wanted to see the characters succeed. I wasn't disappointed.
Not everyone will feel the same and that's okay. No book is perfect, although this one is a favorite of mine.
Well said Becky the bookworm
Dee wrote: ""beats her up" - she got spanked - with an open palm - why do people make it seem like her beat her black and blueyes, beating up on a woman in today's society is not accepted in the 1700's it wa..."
He did beat her black and blue. She couldn't sit for days and had to stand to eat. What bothers me the most is that the author thought it perfectly acceptable for the heroine to fall in love with a man who beats her. Aside from being unrealistic, it just promotes tolerance towards violence against women. An there was the almost rape sex they had soon after. It reminded me of a spaghetti western I saw (possibly Dirty Harry) where the hero rapes someone and the woman ends up enjoying. Just creepy.
Anyway it will be interesting to see if they include this in the tv series and if so how non-die hard fans react to it.
Mrsbooks wrote: "kate wrote: "Etsu10 wrote: "kate wrote: "I thought she was being cruel. Made me wonder if she was getting even for when he beats her up earlier in the book. Anyway it was just another disturbing ..."MrsBooks, it's not about political correctness, and this story is hardly historically nor culturally accurate.
I know Jamie's reasoning and that he is from the 18th century, but regardless, he ceased to be my idea of a romantic hero after that scene. Seeing as a major part of this book (as a romance) is to fall in love with his character, this was a big turn off.
Aside from that, Claire's ability to accept it and fall in love Jamie is so unrealistic. She is a strong, emotionally stable woman from the 20th century (where wife beating obviously isn't socially acceptable) and was married to Frank who was kind and gentle. No woman like that would realistically fall in love with someone who gave them a good hiding and humiliated them.
Anyway this is a big flaw (one of many) in the storyline. I just don't understand why the book appeals to so many.
Etsu10 wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "kate wrote: "Etsu10 wrote: "kate wrote: "I thought she was being cruel. Made me wonder if she was getting even for when he beats her up earlier in the book. Anyway it was just an..."I am not a historian but from the research I had done I was under the impression that this novel is well researched and considered historically accurate. It's given a lot of praise over that.
It's a shame you were unable to accept that scene. I wonder if you would have liked Jamie otherwise? He is truly one of my favorite male leads.
One of my favorite things about this novel is the historical accuracy. But even without that, I can use my imagination and accept the writers "world" she has made up.
Jamie says to Claire just before the beating:
"Do ye realize, Claire, that all of us came close to bein killed this afternoon? Do ye know that if a man among us had done such a thing, to put the rest in danger, he would ha'likely had his ears cropped, or been flogged, if not killed outright?"
You're not the only person I've heard that has a hard time dealing with Jamie after this. But it was a mans job to punish or discipline his wife. Not anyone else's. I wonder if people would have liked Jamie more, had he turned Claire over to Column, just like Laoghair's Father had done to her to get a public whipping instead of a private one. Both would have been acceptable in this time period.
"There's such a thing as justice,, Claire You've done wrong to them all, and you'll have to suffer for it."
I thought that line summed everything up because it was so true. There weren't many options available to either of them and Claire saw that quite quickly and understood it. Which was why she was able to get past the beating after it happened.
I've said before if I had have been in her shoes I probably would have understood it as well but my pride would not have allowed me to accept the situation anywhere near as quickly as Claire did which would have got me nowhere fast.
Some people like to say that Jamie didn't have much of a choice, it was punish Claire or have him and Claire be ostracized. What man would want either of them in their presence, or their wives for that matter after such a crime was allowed to go unpunished? Personally I feel this is a moot point because Jamie's own sense of honor and justice wouldn't allow him to let it go. He felt, just as much as his men did, that Claire needed to be punished. A balance of the scales of justice.
The only thing I found unrealistic about this whole thing was that Jamie gave up his right to punish Claire in that way again. I thought that was just insane! He definitely trusted her to have learned from the whole experience because I'd be thinking "What if my wife does something this stupid again?" Nope, if I were a man, I would not have given that promise so freely as Jamie had and I probably wouldn't have given it ever.
So was it abuse? Or was it a form of their archaic law and punishment? It's true Claire didn't break any actual laws. But the scales of honor and justice were definitely out of balance and needed to be rectified for those Highlanders to feel vindicated. And because she was a woman, she got off light.
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 would fall in love with him after being in love with someone like frank. honestly it makes me question her love for frank. I personally think she wanted a man like jamie for a while and settled for frank. after all she does choose jamie over him even if that means staying in a dangerous time she doesnt know very well.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Etsu10 wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "kate wrote: "Etsu10 wrote: "kate wrote: "I thought she was being cruel. Made me wonder if she was getting even for when he beats her up earlier in the book. Anyway..."Well my take on it is that this is, first and foremost, a romance novel. So why bother with the physical abuse parts between Jamie and Claire in the first place? This relates to both the beating and the rape. It isn't necessary to include these bits to create authenticity or anything like that and it sure doesn't add anything critical to the storyline.
Think about other historical romances including the likes of the Jane Austen novels, Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre(these are effectively romances even if there is no steamy hot sex). There is no hero beating his woman in any of these novels - it's just a non-event even though that's what happened in those times.
I find it weird that the author thought to include it in the first place. What does that say about Gabaldon and her take on domestic violence and rape within a marriage?
Honestly, if this book was written by a guy it wouldn't have been well received by so many women.
On top of that Claire's reaction to it all is just too silly. Consider this, she abandons her comparatively safe modern world and loving first husband for a stud muffin who beat her and insisted she have sex with him when she said no (aka rape). It's just bizarre.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
