Outlander Series discussion
This topic is about
Outlander
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived
>
January Outlander Reread - See post 642 on page 13 for this weeks TOPIC!
message 201:
by
Diane
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 07, 2012 09:53AM
for me what bothers me about the beating is not the brutality it is the fact a wife(woman) was treated like a parent would treat a child. It is how a woman was "owned" and had no rights as an individual. It was 'expected" of Jamie to discipline his wife. In my opinion men usually need "disciplined" more than the woman. I understand the brutality of "learning your lesson" was a lot harsher back then for both men and women. I just do not like how it was assumed that he had to take care of his wife. Now Laoghaire was one that probably needed that discipline and Jamie taking it for her didn't do here any good considering her later actions.
reply
|
flag
oh i have forgotten how much I hated Leghair (laoghaire) in the first book.
Allen wrote: "oh i have forgotten how much I hated Leghair (laoghaire) in the first book."I don't like her in any book and though at times I felt a bit sorry for her I see it as you reep what you sew and if she responded diferently (with integrity) to her life situations she would not have gotten what she did out of life.
Laoghaire was very immature. Don't forget what Alec told Claire "Laoghaire will be a girl when she's fifty".I always thought she was just looking for a way out of the life she had at the castle and thought Jamie was the person to do that. Then Claire showed up and the green monster in Laoghaire reared it's ugly head.
In regards to the beating: It is more the self respect that is lost during every beating/spanking or whatever you want to call it. Claire is not a child and felt she had equal standing with her husband. At that moment she found out she did not.On the other hand, I work with men and if you are not given equal justice in there eyes, then they are slow to respect you again.
So once she was given a dose of justice in their eyes, all was well. There was no win-win in this situation.
That's the thing, the guys felt like she had wrong them. If the situation were reversed they would have received punishment and nobody would have been calling Jamie a brute if he was punishing Rupert. Think that she wouldn't just because she was a woman is just as unfair.
It's Sunday! I'm really happy with all the conversation this book has sparked and, agree or disagree, I love hearing all of your opinions.Today's topic conversation question:
What do you think the hardest part of the transition from present day to the 18th century would be?
My first thought(s) would be the culture of the people and just how different they would be (men vs. women thing) and the medical knowledge that was virtually non existent.But I think the most difficult thing for me to comprehend is just how hard the people work. The 20th century made us slightly complacent. Not so in the 18th century.
I'm sure there are other things, but this is what comes to mind first.
The daily work would have been something that I definitely struggled with. I work 40 hours, but in an office, it's not physical labor. But for me, I think my hardest part would be a version of the culture. It would be so hard tempering my mouth and my opinions and actions to women of the 18th century. I'm generally a shy person, but I'm stubborn and I have strong opinions. I'm sure I'd have been burnt at the stake, lmao.
Great question, Wendy! Honestly it would be my sense of freedom. I have opinions and I don't hold back. My only chance would be to find a 'Jamie' like man to defend me. Or I would burning at the stake right next to you Wendy. haha! Having to hold myself back would be like going agains myself. Not being my true self...This questions really makes me wonder (again) how did Claire do it? She never complained, well she wanted a hot shower/bath now and again.
She learned very quickly how to adapt. But then there are people who can do that and do it well. I'm not sure I could be one of them.Like the rest of you, I would have been burned at the stake so many times! I have no problem telling people what's on my mind.
I would definitely not make it in the 18th century. I think i'm too spoiled with my electronic gadgets and the ability to hop in a car and go where I want to go. Another thing I would find difficult is biting my tongue. It would be difficult to watch my words and not have the freedom to say whatever I want.
I'm not sure if anyone realizes this, but it's been less than 100 years since the women won the right to vote. Up until then, we were considered property of our husbands or fathers or whatever male figure was head of the household. They could basically tell us what to do and when to do it. We really do take a lot of our "freedoms" for granted today, don't you think?
No, I don't think I'd survive very long in the 18th century. My mouth would be my downfall.
LOL, it seems like we all willingly admit that our mouths would be our downfall.Allen, you're so right about the electronics too. I go into withdrawls without my computer, iphone and kindle, lmao. It took weeks and weeks just to communicate with someone outisde of your area. Now we just send an email. Plus the lack of cars. Going somewhere just 30 minutes away right now would take hours.
Toilet paper, feminine hygiene products, indoor plumbing, electricity, grocery stores, woman's fashion, travel in motor vehicles, communication, modern medicine and womens rights - we are so privileged in this day in age. We take so much for granted. No I would not like to go back and live my life in the past but I would be willing to spend a couple of months there to really gain an appreciation of what they went through and what I have.
Diane wrote: "Toilet paper, feminine hygiene products, indoor plumbing, electricity, grocery stores, woman's fashion, travel in motor vehicles, communication, modern medicine and womens rights - we are so privil..."What she said...
2 things... First, I missed last week, but I want to add that Jamie came to life for me when he carried Claire into the castle for the first time after they were married and had just returned from traveling. Second, I think the hardest transition would be traveling on horseback. I love horseback riding, but for leisure only!
If we went back though, it would be interesting to see if there was anything equally compelling in that time that we can't possibly know or see in this time. The beauty of the time and place would be incredible. Hospitality, work ethic, architecture, etc. would probably be amazing. And we could only hope Jamie would REALLY be there...
There are so many parts of the transition that would be hard! Just basic survival - even the small act of washing my hands would be dificult! Still though, I think the most rattling part for me would have to be being at the mercy of the men in that time period. I'm used to being independent, and even though Claire was, to some extent, she definitely came to depend on Jamie for survival. She is a survivor, true, but just the way society was structured made her very helpless in a lot of different situations. Hence, the marriage. It turned out well for her, but it easily could have gone the other way.
Everytime I read this, I am amazed at how Claire makes the transition.. truly, though I think she was uniquely trained for it, in growing up with her uncle, and being a field nurse.As for me, without a doubt, the physical labor would be the most difficult. I would also have trouble staying out of trouble or keeping my mouth shut. The last thing would be the time everything takes. We have definitely become too dependent on conveniences.
Right Dee, I didn't see it as Wife abuse or domestic dispute or anything like that. And I hate to say it, but I think Claire rather deserved it,and to learn from it. Also because that eased the tension with the other men afterwards who were not happy for what she did and what they had to go through to get her out of the mess she got in with Randall.
Wow, what a question! Claire was definitely suited to for survival - she adapted better than I ever could, but her life experience and her mental strength helped her to make that transition.For myself... I don't know that I could do it, because I don't know that I'd want to! I doubt I'd be blessed to stumble upon a Jamie. Or even if I did, I'd probably have lost it with Black Jack Randall, and he'd have killed me before Dougal or Jamie or anyone could have rescued me.
OR I'd have tried to escape on the night of The Gathering anyway, despite Jamie's warnings. I'd be so intent on trying to get back to the stones, I don't think I'd allow myself to become part of the people or the daily life. Which means I'd have faced who-knows-what fate for my stubbornness.
I forgot how claire grew up travelling different countries and landscapes with her uncle. When i was reading the later books i kept thinking about how physically hard it was to live an 18th century life in scotland. It makes more sense to understanding how claire was able to adapt so quickly, gabaldon did a goos job of showing us how claire's past enabled her to adapt to the hardships of the 18th century.Now on to this week's discussion question: i cannot imagine being able to deal with being sent to the past all alone. I am sure that i would have had a panic attack and a heart attack and died on the spot when murtagh and the rest of the men took me with them. The hardest part of living in the past would have been losing my peace of mind. The 18th century seemed so dangerous, so lawless, and so unregulated. Claire's ability to move forward shows the strength of her character.
Off topic, I'm reading (about 55% into it), and I keep coming across a line, or a paragraph that makes me chuckle or think. I'm going to post a few, just as food for thought, not so much as my favorite quotes... those will come later ;).First, Claire has asked Jamie what happened with Horrocks and after Jamie tells her she asks what he'll do next. If he'll go to France. And Jamie says at one point, "I've no great taste for politics, and less for princes..." I just found that really interesting, especially (view spoiler).
Then, going back to the conversation about Claire's punishment... I liked this paragraph:
As we walked, considering the stories he had told me, I couldn't help but admire the job he had done. Without one word of direct explanation or apology, he had given me the message he intended. I gave you justice, it said, as I was taught it. And I gave you mercy, too, so far as I could. While I could not spare you pain and humiliation, I make you a gift of my own pains and humiliations, that yours might be easier to bear.
'As I was taught it'... that's just so honest.
Third, lol sorry guys!, this made me stop and see the Claire and Frank in a new light. Claire narrates (talking about Jamie), "He leaned down and gently fitted his mouth over mine. I had kissed my share of men, particularly during the war years, when flirtation and instant romance were the light-minded companions of death and uncertainty." Perhaps Claire wasn't having sex, but she sure wasn't perfect during those 6 years of separation!
Hmmm, I think that's it. For now!
another thing that I would miss if I went into the past would be watching Downton Abbey. :)I was thinking earlier that I wouldn't even want to go back in time to the 1940's. Things were vastly different even then.
I always think of time travel and the book Timeline. Realistically, I think that going back into time would probably be very hazardous. We're all too much the product of our Era.
Wendy F., I had exactly the same thought about Claire when I re-read that part. If MY husband was kissing other women....crosses the line. Puts a new light on the earlier discussion. I've read this book over 12 times, how did I miss that??!!!Allen, ditto re: Downton Abbey and the 40's!
I would miss hot water, on demand. And heating and A/C. And NCIS. And talking to my kids who live far away anytime I want. Spoiled rotten, I admit it.
Hi Wendy, yes thanks for refreshing my memory about Claire when she spoke of the time she was separated from Frank during the war years. I had forgotten about that. She did say something about not letting the flirtations go too far, as far as I can recall. So she gave me the impression that she flirted with some men and kissed them but cut off the affair before it went too far... That's how I remember it but have to re read that part again.
Yeah, it was in a different section. She said that others let it go to far and occasionally it wound up in pregnancy or divorce. But that she had never let it go that far. Still, in my mind Kissing is an offense. Perhaps not as much as sleeping with someone, but still enough that she probably shouldn't have reacted so angrily to Frank when he tried to tell her that he'd understand if something did happen.
I'm not trying to age myself (I always tell people my kids are getting older, not me), but I do remember having a very small TV, only a few stations on the radio (no FM)and not having to lock our doors at night.You are right, Wendy, we are products of our era and such it would be very hard to adjust to life without all of the stuff we call neccesities. I also agree with the everyone that Claire lived a very "nomadic" life and such was used to not having all the modern conveniences.
Now getting back to Frank and Claire's "discretions". I think Claire thought about it, but in my opnion, Frank did it.
i don't remember the context of the flirting...was it like going out, or was it flirting with the soldiers in the hospital...in that case, if they were going to die and she was putting them at ease, I can totally understand...KWIM
She doesn't get into the context of her own flirting. It was just that one line, stating that she had kissed her share of men, especially during the war.And Carren, I do definitely agree that Frank probably did do it. And ultimately it was wrong, more wrong then Claire's kissing. I'm just saying that 6 years was a very long time to not spend time with your spouse and to go without, especially when you're in consistantly dire circumstances. And that Claire admits that she kissed other men. So maybe when Frank was trying to say that if she HAD had indescretions, he would forgive her. She could have just not blown up and gotten so angry. She obviously knows how easily it happens in those periods, and hadn't been perfect herself.
I found (view spoiler).
The hardest part of the 18th century for me would be adjusting to the speed of life. It took days to travel 10-20 miles, months to cross the Atlantic. When I read this series, I often have the thought if only they could just pick up the phone and call so-in-so to warn them. Or if only they had a 4G smartphone to google historical events and/or people for a headsup on their future :) Our world is sooo much smaller because of technology and we have so much instant information at our fingertips.I don't even think I could adjust to living 20 years earlier, not to mention 200+ years earlier! It would be much easier to leave the 1940s as opposed to 2012!We carry computers in our pockets for goodness sakes!
On another similar note, I chuckled when Claire was accusing Jamie of running off to sleep with Loaghaire when they got back to Leoch. Then she tries to tell him that if he wants to he can sleep with anyone he wants, because she has no true claim on him. And Jamie gets super angry... Which I think warranted it. I thought it was funny how Claire has the thought that Frank had handled this talk much more gracefully then she was managing. It was funny to me for two reasons, first because she could say now in hindsight that Frank had handled it as gracefully as he could. And also that this time she was in Franks shoes. She already had a husband that she was trying so hard to leave Jamie and get back to, and part of the reason she was trying to 'let him off the hook' was to alleviate her own guilt and spare his falling for her too much.
I would miss a varied diet. Good food in general and things like Ice cream! Practically it would be medicines and the frustration of knowing that something is curable but I can do nothing about it.
You are so right Leah! I think it would be a lot harder to go back NOW, compared to 1940's. Claire talks about the loss of hot water, which would suck. But I'd be more at a loss without my iphone and computer. I'm a major googler.
Hard to believe that something as simple as pennicillin wasn't even around until WWII. Look how we've progressed since then
I had almost forgotten about Claire saying that she did her share of kissing during the war. But I do remember her saying that she hadn't taken it any farther. I suppose in the uncertainty of war, kissing and other indiscretions didn't seem so wrong... who knew if you'd live out the day? Doesn't make it right, but I think it makes it human. And Claire could understand that. I suppose it's easy to be angry at Frank for his "supposed" indiscretions during the war. And I *totally* agree with your spoiler, Wendy - DITTO!And when I first read the book, I remember thinking to myself how wrong it was that Claire was enjoying marital relations with Jamie and falling for him. I was a bit shocked, actually! I had no idea where the story was going, but I'd fully expected her to return through the stones at the first opportunity. Black & white seem so much easier, don't they? I was definitely torn, as Claire is, by the thought of her being married and loving 2 men in 2 different times. (No, I won't type the song title that always comes to mind when I think of that - LOL!) I was truly grateful to Ms. G when she put in the dialog between Claire and the monk towards the end of the book for that very reason.
As to the QUESTION THIS WEEK: OK, so I took the easy way out yesterday. But the more I think about it and the more I read all of your answers, I see that I could probably get beyond the technology (although it would be tough)... but the physical labor (all they had to do do make and dye cloth, for example) and the lack of plumbing - THAT would get me! I'm not an outhouse kinda gal, never have been. In fact, I'm not much of a camping outdoors kinda gal, so all the living rough? I'd quickly become the "typical" female and go into hysterics or something.
I thought about Ann's comment about food, and I agree with that one, too, although I'd likely have been in Mrs. Fitz's kitchen trying to make some of my own updates - LOL. (view spoiler)
Chocolate, alone - like we know it now. That I would definitely have missed during PMS time!!!
Carren, Dee and Wendy I think you all make great points. I am not sure I could say things any better than you all just did. I have been crazy busy so I hadn't had time to Join in on the discussions while reading, I did make a couple of notes from the very beginning that I hadn't shared I hope it is ok that I go back a little. Just a couple of things that really jumped out at me.The House keeper Mrs. Graham read Claire's tea leaves & palm and says,"Sure you're not a bigamist, on the quiet, like? (From Outlander by Diana Galbaldon pg.23 or location 653 on kindle) I didn't really notice this in my first read, but boy did it POP out at me this time! One more, Claire speaking, "I was going to ask whether the deep lines across the base of my wrist meant anything (a potential for suicide?)" (From Outlander by Diana Gabaldon Pg.23 or location 660 on kindle)This made me think of (view spoiler)
I think one of the things I would miss most if I was able to go back in time is 'a telephone or cell phone'...and hot water baths...etc. among other things.As for Claire and frank..I do believe she may have flirted while separated from Frank but I too believe he did have affairs and was unfaithful.
I love how we have declared Frank a villian in the war time separation, based on his sublt query of Claire's fidelity....but now that we KNOW that Claire kissed on other guys.....we have all kinds of ways of softening that and "understanding". Just interesting.
LOL, I feel like I'm not expressing my point with the Claire/Frank thing very well... I promise I'm not saying that I don't think Frank was unfaithful. Or that it should have been okay because he was away at war.
Haha Carol! Wendy you have expressed your point very well! But I can see why Carol would say that we seem to be more forgiving if its Claire doing the cheating! But innocent kisses given out of loneliness, desparation, or just sheer fun of it, is different than full on affairs! I think we "think" Frank was probably all to willing to have a fling. Claire, was out of site out of mind maybe? for Frank. Affairs just seems to come easier for the male!
That's funny, I didn't even see Carol's post, I think she did that while I was typing mine up.I actually always felt forgiving of Frank in that moment. I think in Claire's situation I would have been hurt, but understanding. As I said before, I always thought Claire's burst of anger was unfair, and I felt it was MORE unfair when I reread that line recently about her kissing during the war. I think it makes her a little bit of a hypocrite (only in that moment, I love Claire, lmao).
I wouldn't say that kissing another man is different from having an affair. I think it is maybe a lighter offense, but I don't think it's different.
If I picture in my head a woman who has an affair, and a woman who goes out to the club and dances with and kisses on other men (regardless of whether she's lonely, desperate, or just trying to have fun)... well both are pretty sleazy in my eyes.
Call me old fashioned, but if you kiss someone you shouldn't be kissing, then what's next? I'm married 33 years and truly the only man I've kissed in those 33 years is my husband.Now having said that, I wasn't an army nurse, out in the fields during WWII, so I can't judge Claire's actions. I think both she and Frank were not be very truthful with each other. He may have had the affairs like we all suspect and she may have had some flirtations, as well.
Are they to blame or was it the war and seperation?
Who knows?
does anyone remember how long Frank and Claire had known each other before the war and getting married? I can't remember...just wondering if that contributed to why we are maybe ok with her actions during the war...did they get married because of the war, or were they going to get married anyway? KWIM
I got the impression they married soon after meeting because I understood her to meet and fall in love with Frank when she was 18 and and is how old she was when they married. Not sure how long they were together when they had to separate due to the war. I think maybe a year or less is my guess.
i guess my thinking...if you rush into marriage, which they may have potentially...going off to war, want to have that person there for you...and didn't really know each other, which not excusing it, that might have explained some of the actions of them both...sometimes you don't know how much you love or don't love someone until you are separated from them for a significant period of time...as an example, a college friend of mine got married right after graduation, she was the love of his life...until he went on his first deployment for the AF (about 3 years after they got married)...that 6 months that he was gone, changed everything...now make that the 6-7 years of WW2 that they were separated and...yeah
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Outlander Series
Books mentioned in this topic
Lover Avenged (other topics)Dragonfly in Amber (other topics)
Timeline (other topics)
The Outlandish Companion (other topics)
