The Books vs. The Show: Comparisons, Speculation, and Snark

[bluebonnet]

Maybe in the show, Dougal will know something of the time traveling rocks.  Geillis has been at the castle more in the show than she was in the books and her conversations with Claire does seem to be a lot more pointed from the start. Dougal suggested the visit to Geillis differently in the show as well.  iirc, in the books, Dougal said he was taking her because she'd mentioned to Colum that she needed more medicinals, while in the show it's all seemingly Dougal's idea, of course with a little help from Geillis.  It would be an interesting twist and wouldn't change much of the story, save perhaps the conversation leading up to Jaime killing Dougal.  

[NoNeinNyet]

The book itself is contradictory--Dougal says he would have married Claire if he'd not been married vs. Jamie saying Dougal picked Jamie to undermine him.

 

But Dougal needed Claire married at that time in order to make her Scottish to protect her from Randall. Sure, he'd have some of the same problem of Jamie if he married a sassenach but Dougal doesn't have the price on his head as an additional disadvantage plus war chieftain and brother of the current laird and son of the previous one probably outranks a nephew of the current laird/grandson who came from the previous laird's daughter and another laird's bastard. He might have been able to overcome marrying Claire more than Jamie could.

[maraleia]

Based on what we know about the next two episodes when do we think the wedding ceremony and Jamie spanking/strapping Claire scenes will take place? Although I haven't read the books I have done a little digging online to find out what's coming up and I can't wait to see how Ron, Maril and company pull this off.

[nodorothyparker]

Episode 107 is titled The Wedding, so I think we can safely assume that's where it is.  Episode 109 after the midseason break is supposedly titled The Reckoning, which is also the title of chapter where the strapping occurs.

[Guest]

But Dougal needed Claire married at that time in order to make her Scottish to protect her from Randall. Sure, he'd have some of the same problem of Jamie if he married a sassenach but Dougal doesn't have the price on his head as an additional disadvantage plus war chieftain and brother of the current laird and son of the previous one probably outranks a nephew of the current laird/grandson who came from the previous laird's daughter and another laird's bastard. He might have been able to overcome marrying Claire more than Jamie could.

That's true, but Dougal also needs Jamie to get married. The whole is so confusing I'm just going to quote the book

He grinned, stroking his neck. “No, I’m a pretty problem to the brothers MacKenzie. On the one hand, if I’m a threat to young Hamish’s chieftainship, they want me safely dead. On the other, if I’m not, they want me—and my property—securely on their side if it comes to war—not wi’ the Frasers. That’s why they’re willing to help me wi’ Horrocks, ye see. I canna do that much wi’ Lallybroch while I’m outlawed, even though the land’s still mine.”

I rolled up the blankets, shaking my head in bewilderment over the intricate—and dangerous—circumstances through which Jamie seemed to move so nonchalantly. And it struck me suddenly that not only Jamie was involved now. I looked up. “You said that if you died before wedding, the land would go back to the Frasers,” I said. “But you’re married now. So who—”

“That’s right,” he said, nodding at me with a lopsided grin. The morning sun lit his hair with flames of gold and copper. “If I’m killed now, Sassenach, Lallybroch is yours.

Having Jamie marry Claire solved a lot of problems for Dougal and Colum.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Guest

[mybabyaidan]

Yeah, I figured they will break the season when Jamie rescues Claire from Ft William.  Just enough of a cliff hanger to lead into the break.  So the strapping should occur the next episode.

 

I am concerned about the pacing between Jamie/Claire being married and the strapping though.  Either way, it was a brutal part of the book, but at least up until then we were able to see Jamie and Claire growing even closer.  I am not sure how the tv viewers/non book readers will handle that.   Will they ease up on a bit on how bad it was on the actual show?  I am really curious to see how they pull it off without totally pissing Jamie-fans off.   I think it's one thing to read about it, but to see it....That'll be iffy.   

[nodorothyparker]

Having Jamie marry Claire solved a lot of problems for Dougal and Colum.

 

Very good point and why as much as it might be fun to think about I can't realistically see them throwing Dougal into the mix of eligible bridegrooms with any seriousness unless they're prepared to completely rewrite all the motivations here.  The brothers Mackenzie wanted to neutralize Jamie as much as possible without giving up anything they might be able to use, like Lollybroch.  Marrying him less than advantageously was really the only way to do that.

[bluebonnet]

I am concerned about the pacing between Jamie/Claire being married and the strapping though.  Either way, it was a brutal part of the book, but at least up until then we were able to see Jamie and Claire growing even closer.  I am not sure how the tv viewers/non book readers will handle that.   Will they ease up on a bit on how bad it was on the actual show?  I am really curious to see how they pull it off without totally pissing Jamie-fans off.   I think it's one thing to read about it, but to see it....That'll be iffy.   

Me too.  And also the rape scene.  I want to reread both of those scenes because I'm still not sure what I feel about them.  I've only just finished reading the books so I haven't had the time to go back a lot and see what certain passages were trying to convey.  When I first read the strapping and the aftermath, it was sort of confusing.  I knew logically that Jamie thought he was doing the right thing given his time, but I was still furious for Claire.  When I read it, I didn't find the dialogue in the aftermath satisfying enough to let me know that Jamie really did get that his behavior was unacceptable and let me know why Claire could forgive it.  Again, intellectually I understand, but there was just something missing that I hope is incorporated in the show.

 

Additionally, I need to reread that one sex scene because I was never sure if it was rape or not.  At first I just thought it was typical rough sex with a bit of mutual rape fantasy incorporated.  But then there was the panicked voice of Claire telling him to stop that seemed to go well beyond some consensual sex play.  Without having reread it, I still don't know what I feel about it.  On screen, they have to be really careful about it.  It could come off like Asha and Qarl in ASOIAF books, or it could come off like Jaime and Cersei in GoT show.  

 

The show has just been really good so far with the heroine addressing inappropriate and cruel behavior.  I'd really hate it if they misstep greatly on these two sensitive scenes.  

[CatMack]

I am concerned about the pacing between Jamie/Claire being married and the strapping though.  Either way, it was a brutal part of the book, but at least up until then we were able to see Jamie and Claire growing even closer.  I am not sure how the tv viewers/non book readers will handle that.   Will they ease up on a bit on how bad it was on the actual show?  I am really curious to see how they pull it off without totally pissing Jamie-fans off.   I think it's one thing to read about it, but to see it....That'll be iffy.   

 

My main problem with the strapping in the book was Jamie's attitude afterwards, so I hope that's one place the show can improve upon.  Like Claire, I can logic through why Jamie did it, and understand the way it helped get the other men back on their side so they'd help protect her.  And the fact that Claire only "forgives" him after telling him in no uncertain terms that she'll kill him if he ever raises a hand against her again.  She's not a passive victim.  But what never sat right with me, and still doesn't to this day when I'm 3 books past it and know all the things Jamie will go through for her, is how amused he is by it.  And flat out it's out of character IMO.  We see him strap other people later on in the story, and it's always something he takes seriously, a duty he feels he has to perform.  It's never something he enjoys.  Except when he beats his wife.  And he continues to tease her about it even after she's tried to make clear just how furious and upset she is, even after she's threatened to kill him.  He only ever feels regret for it when he finds out why she really left the clearing, and at that point it feels hollow.  I really need the show to have Jamie actually understanding just how hurt Claire was, not just physically but emotionally, because even after he swears an oath to never hurt her again he still treats the whole thing so flippantly that it's clear he doesn't have a clue, and that just never seemed right to me given how well he can read her at every other point in the book.  Every other time we see him strap someone he takes care of them afterwards emotionally, sometimes more directly than others but it's always there.  But he literally laughs in Claire's face, and no matter what else he goes through later in the stories I will never read that and not be furious with him. 

 

As for the rough sex/rape scene when they get back to Leoch - I don't consider it a rape scene but I won't argue too hard with those who do, because I think it's subjective and likely influenced by a person's experiences in life.  There are a lot of really horrible tropes and cliches about women saying no but really meaning yes, so Claire telling Jamie no in the middle of sex and then climaxing is definitely problematic.  But to me, well - I have a lot of friends in the BDSM community.  I'm sort of in it peripherally myself.  To me they read like a couple who's into at least light BDSM, but who don't have any of the modern language the community uses today to help keep people safe.  They need a safeword, but I doubt either of them have heard of the concept before (the internet is not providing me with anything resembling a reliable source as to the time period where safewords became a common theme, but most of what I saw suggested somewhere in the 1970s-1980s).  So the fact that they both seem to enjoy a little dom/sub/pain every now and then is going to be tricky because it would be out of place for either of them to have the yellow means slow down red means stop discussion.   

Edited September 2, 2014 by CatMack

[Freckles101]

Somewhat shamefully, it never occurred to me that that scene could be considered rape when I first read Outlander. (Maybe because I sped through it - I honestly read it in like one sitting, maybe because I didn't have the Game of Thrones mess in my head at the time.) But over the past month or so as more people have been reading the books, I have seen that assertion quite a bit, and while I don't necessarily agree, I can understand where people are coming from.

 

Clearly, it wasn't meant to be rape (not that that is an excuse! Because the author's intention should not be privileged above everything else when the actual text is saying something different) as Jamie and Claire specifically talk about rape earlier in that scene, he makes sure to get her consent before they start, and there are lines about Claire saying something like "Yes, Jamie" after the part where she tells him to stop. At the same time...she does tell him to stop and he doesn't, which is problematic. Personally, I'm just REALLY hoping they leave that part out of the show, because the beating scene is going to cause enough controversy as it is and making that sex scene undeniably consensual is nothing but a good thing.

 

I also definitely agree that I hope they change Jamie's attitude about the beating. The fact that he "enjoyed" it...for someone who later admits that he loved Claire pretty much from the day they met, I definitely consider that OOC. Especially seeing how Sam is playing Jamie, with the lovey eyes and things like his concern in the past episode about just calling Claire sassenach, the idea that he'd take pleasure in causing SO much pain to Claire is gonna be really hard to buy. (Also, I know this show is just from Claire's POV, but I wonder if they're gonna include the scene from The Exile where Dougal basically tells him Jamie has to punish her or he will do it himself?)

[WatchrTina]

 

At the same time...she does tell him to stop and he doesn't, which is problematic.

Hmmmm.  I don't remember this scene at all.  What I do recall (because I just re-read it) is that on their wedding night Jamie tells Claire that it's okay if she wants him to stop, that is right up until they are "joined".  He warns her that he does not think he could stop after that point.  And of course something like that happens when he deflowers William's mother.  She ultimately does tell him to stop (after blackmailing him into her bed) and he says "No!" and completes the deed.  And I don't blame him a bit.  I'll have to wait a bit on re-reading the scene you are all discussing to see if there is something of the same gone-beyond-the-point-of-no-return in that encounter.  I've called a halt to my re-reading of book 1 right after the wedding.  I hate the spanking scene so I think I'll wait and see how it is carried off on the show without having the book too fresh in my head.

[Guest]

Hmmmm. I don't remember this scene at all. What I do recall (because I just re-read it) is that on their wedding night Jamie tells Claire that it's okay if she wants him to stop, that is right up until they are "joined". He warns her that he does not think he could stop after that point. And of course something like that happens when he deflowers William's mother. She ultimately does tell him to stop (after blackmailing him into her bed) and he says "No!" and completes the deed. And I don't blame him a bit. I'll have to wait a bit on re-reading the scene you are all discussing to see if there is something of the same gone-beyond-the-point-of-no-return in that encounter. I've called a halt to my re-reading of book 1 right after the wedding. I hate the spanking scene so I think I'll wait and see how it is carried off on the show without having the book too fresh in my head.

It's just after he gives Claire the wedding ring and it's after they're "joined". I didn't read it as rape, but it is a uncomfortable scene to read and I really don't want to watch it. I think it's really skirting the line because she says yes before and after she says stop. I really hope they change it and the one with William's mother. I drives me crazy that so many authors write these scenes where the women says no but it's okay to ignore them because they are just angry or overwhelmed so it doesn't really count.

[Coconuts]

Yeah, I figured they will break the season when Jamie rescues Claire from Ft William.  Just enough of a cliff hanger to lead into the break.  So the strapping should occur the next episode.

 

I am concerned about the pacing between Jamie/Claire being married and the strapping though.  Either way, it was a brutal part of the book, but at least up until then we were able to see Jamie and Claire growing even closer.  I am not sure how the tv viewers/non book readers will handle that.   Will they ease up on a bit on how bad it was on the actual show?  I am really curious to see how they pull it off without totally pissing Jamie-fans off.   I think it's one thing to read about it, but to see it....That'll be iffy.   

I think Dougal will be the one to do it instead of Jamie. That sidesteps most of the domestic violence aspect (while still generating outrage), the out of character-ness of Jaime liking it (he can still enjoy watching it), but keeps the outcome and drama, with the bonus of making Dougal that much more of an ass to both of them. Claire will still be mad that Jamie didn't stop it, plus jealous that he stepped up for Laoghaire, but not for her (but we can see him offer and Dougal refuse). And it avoids the "If he didn't want to do it, why didn't he just wail on a bag or his hand or something so it sounded like he did it?" questions. 

[WatchrTina]

 

I think Dougal will be the one to do it instead of Jamie. That sidesteps most of the domestic violence aspect (while still generating outrage), the out of character-ness of Jaime liking it (he can still enjoy watching it), but keeps the outcome and drama, with the bonus of making Dougal that much more of an ass to both of them. Claire will still be mad that Jamie didn't stop it, plus jealous that he stepped up for Laoghaire, but not for her (but we can see him offer and Dougal refuse). And it avoids the "If he didn't want to do it, why didn't he just wail on a bag or his hand or something so it sounded like he did it?" questions.

I don't think this will happen.  I do think that Dougal will want to deliver the beating because that happens in the graphic novel "The Exile", which retells the first 3rd of Book 1 from a different perspective.  Jamie says no, it's his duty as husband.  I cannot imagine Jamie letting someone else discipline his wife -- not ever but certainly not while he's in the throes of newlywed bliss, lust and possessiveness coupled with being REALLY pissed off that she not only disobeyed him and got herself and everyone else in danger,  she ran away from HIM.  No, I'm quite sure that Jamie will deliver the beating.  I do hope Dougal tries to claim the right because that will help the viewers understand that Jamie has no choice.  As for Jamie enjoying it -- I cannot imagine the viewers forgiving Jamie for enjoying seeing Dougal beat Claire.  I could not forgive it.  But knowing how hurt and angry and betrayed he feels at her having run away from HIM lets me cut him just a wee bit of slack at his enjoying her outrage.  I don't think he enjoys spanking her, I think he enjoys seeing her feel the same shock at his "betrayal" that he felt when he learned she ran away.  I hope they play up that emotional aspect in the show.  I will, however, be VERY disappointed if Jamie doesn't come out of that room scratched, bruised and bloodied.  Claire needs to give him hell in return.

Edited September 3, 2014 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

I agree, Jamie will be the one to do it. I don't think that they will back away from it. Have you seen the meme where they say the internet will break after the wedding? I don't think that will compare to after the strapping.

I hope it won't turn to many people off. Hopefully they found a way to make the circumstances more clear. Maybe they will have Claire get a turn to strap Jamie after because he feels he deserves one as well for leaving her, thus putting the events in motion. It would be in character as he has done that later.

Edited September 3, 2014 by peacefrog

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, I know from what I read, that Jamie spanking/strapping Claire didn't turn me away from the book OR from Jamie, because I had stated in the speculation thread before the show even premiered, I read the few books that I did through the lens of 18th century reader, and not as a contemporary 20th century person. I even gave an example of another book from Johanna Lindsay as an analogy.

 

Now unless Jamie is laughing and guffawing when he does spank Claire, or that he  beats her with his fists, I'm sure I won't have a problem with this.

 

ETA: I fucking hate the auto correct on IE10!

Edited September 3, 2014 by GHScorpiosRule

[absnow54]

I think the strapping scene and the rougher bedroom scenes will be a fine line for the show runners to skate around. This show has been celebrated for its treatment of women, and when Claire's presented with the opportunity to go home to Frank, who respects and adores her, it's not going to send the best message that all a strong willed woman really needs is a big, strong man to fuck her into her place. Jamie short circuits for a bit and is all about marking his territory (he's an 18th century formerly converted-non-virgin so it's ingrained in him) but at the end of that dubious consent scene in Castle Leoch he comes to the understanding that he can't own her without her owning him and they sort of regain that intimacy as equals thing. I think that's going to be hard to display without some controversy, but so far, the show has done a good job at presenting 18th century lifestyle, while at the same time preserving Claire's modern day values with every relationship she's developed.

[nodorothyparker]

Haven't they already said they intend to go full steam ahead with the strapping?  I know we all love Jamie, but he's still an 18 century man with 18th century beliefs and values.  He can be pretty enlightened some times, but some times he just isn't.

 

I'm another one who tries very hard to remember that I'm a contemporary American woman with all that goes with it and that characters from another time or culture are not obligated to share my value system or perspectives.  I don't see the rough sex scene as rape as much as rough sex between two people who are into that but probably really could have benefited from having a safe word, if such a concept would have even existed at this time.  The strapping is as much about the value system of the people whose protection she enjoys as much as anything else and it does set Jamie to considering that value system, which he may not have ever otherwise done.

 

Up to this point in the book, Claire really hadn't been taking the whole stuck in the 18th century thing with any proper seriousness.  She also wasn't taking Jamie all that seriously either.  Sure, she really enjoyed him as a person and having sex with him but she was sticking to the internal narrative that she'd be out of there at any moment and he'd get over it just fine pretty quickly, maybe with Laoghaire.  The whole sequence of the strapping and the reasoning for it, the fight where her choice was to either go if she wanted to go or accept his ring and honor the reality that she was in fact in a real marriage, and even the sex reads to me like Jamie and life where she was suddenly becoming a real contender instead of something she was just trying to get through until she could get back home.

Edited September 3, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[bluebonnet]

I've gone back to reread the rough sex scene and it definitely looks a lot different now.  I previously focused too much on Claire's moment of "no, stop" and didn't notice how the scene was set up or what happened after.  The scene feels a lot more...steamy... on second reading.  lol

 

My biggest problem with the strapping wasn't so much that it happened.  It was how Jamie acted after.  Like how he never really 'got it'.  He was gutted over strapping Fergus but continued to joke around with Claire about her strapping that left her unable to sit properly for days.  It's that he continued to find pleasure in a memory that was nothing at all like what he described went on between Jenny and Ian.  I think on screen it would work out because we'd see Sam's facial expressions (that's assuming they make sure he's appearing torn up over this rather than in the delights of near orgasm) and a slight adjustment to some of the dialogue would help.  Claire's relationship with Frank has been much more explored in the show and she'll have her moment of anti-heroine when her physical relationship with Jamie moves forward.  It would be good if Jamie also has an anti-hero moment during the strapping.  

[nodorothyparker]

In all fairness to Jamie, all of his contemporaries made light of it too.  That doesn't make it right, but it does put in context why he initially didn't get what the problem was.  If you take the book as a whole, these were people who accepted physical punishment as the answer for pretty much any offense.  I don't think until she made it clear that she'd gut him if he ever did it again that he really understood that it was more than just a matter of a sore behind and something they'd laugh about later like all the other various stories of beatings are told.

Edited September 3, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[dustoffmom]

Well, here goes.  I am a lurker/reader and very infrequent poster.  I have been reading now for several days the many, many posts and opinions here on the infamous strapping scene.  If I may...I am a 62 year old Gammy who has read this opening book at a minimum 12 times.  And ladies (and gentlemen) I never gave a single thought to that scene!!  It was deserved, she disobeyed, and he did what he had to do.  End of scene.  (donning fire retardant suit now)  As someone born in perhaps a decidedly different era from many of you, allow me to assure you I was spanked on a regular basis.  Not BEATEN, spanked and there is a difference.  Not only by my parents, but by neighbors, their friends, my grandparents, teachers, you name it.  If any adult thought I needed a good swat....no hesitation to give it!!  ouch!  However, I sure learned what was acceptable and permissible quite clearly.  And, even more shocking.......(get ready now), I SPANKED MY OWN CHILDREN on a regular basis!!!  I see many of you swooning now.  Sorry to shock your system like this, but trust me, anyone born in the 50's, 60's or even 70's got their butt walloped on a regular basis! This grand horror at spanking/smacking is a somewhat new idea.  Those of us of a certain age may think differently.  Now, I'll admit if my own husband had decided to 'spank' me I would likely have objected...forecefully!  But nonetheless, the idea of what occurred here left no huge impression on me, in multiple readings.  He needed to punish her for her dangerous actions but much more he needed to IMPRESS on her the danger she put them all in by her actions.  I found it totally in character, most acceptable and I hope they have filmed it exactly as DG wrote it.  Turn on Jaime.....for this?  Of course not!

[springbarb]

I was spanked myself as a child, but what happens to Claire isn't a mere swatting or spanking--he truly does beat her. A light spanking as you describe doesn't immobilize the spankee for days afterward. I'm not saying that I disagree with Jamie's actions, but this wasn't a few taps on the rump.

[NoNeinNyet]

Well, here goes.  I am a lurker/reader and very infrequent poster.  I have been reading now for several days the many, many posts and opinions here on the infamous strapping scene.  If I may...I am a 62 year old Gammy who has read this opening book at a minimum 12 times.  And ladies (and gentlemen) I never gave a single thought to that scene!!  It was deserved, she disobeyed, and he did what he had to do.  End of scene.  (donning fire retardant suit now)  As someone born in perhaps a decidedly different era from many of you, allow me to assure you I was spanked on a regular basis.  Not BEATEN, spanked and there is a difference.  Not only by my parents, but by neighbors, their friends, my grandparents, teachers, you name it.  If any adult thought I needed a good swat....no hesitation to give it!!  ouch!  However, I sure learned what was acceptable and permissible quite clearly.  And, even more shocking.......(get ready now), I SPANKED MY OWN CHILDREN on a regular basis!!!  I see many of you swooning now.  Sorry to shock your system like this, but trust me, anyone born in the 50's, 60's or even 70's got their butt walloped on a regular basis! This grand horror at spanking/smacking is a somewhat new idea.  Those of us of a certain age may think differently.  Now, I'll admit if my own husband had decided to 'spank' me I would likely have objected...forecefully!  But nonetheless, the idea of what occurred here left no huge impression on me, in multiple readings.  He needed to punish her for her dangerous actions but much more he needed to IMPRESS on her the danger she put them all in by her actions.  I found it totally in character, most acceptable and I hope they have filmed it exactly as DG wrote it.  Turn on Jaime.....for this?  Of course not!

 

Spanking a child is a lot different than spanking a grown woman, though. I'm 30. I was spanked as a child and should I have children of my own, I might spank them depending on what my spouse and I agree on for discipline. I understand why Jamie spanked her in that situation but the joy that he took from it still seems out of character for me and I hope that they downplay or leave that part out.

[thingamajig]

"Not surprisingly, it left me half smothered in the greasy quilts with a knee in my back, being beaten within an inch of my life."  That's not a spanking.  I get why he did it and I'm OK with how things play out (only because he agrees to never do it again), but IMO it's definitely not just a spanking like you'd give a naughty child.

Edited September 3, 2014 by thingamajig

[Glaze Crazy]

Now I'm curious how the uninitiated will interpret the spanking scene or the rough sex scene once they are on the screen.  Most of us have had some time to consider the meanings/intentions in light of the entire series or at least the first book.  I'm inpressed reading each POV here.

 

I agree with those who see it as an indication of the era and how punishiments were handed out.  It's not just women who were subjected to it either.  In future books Jamie doles out other strappings and recieves his own at times, so that appears to show that it was acceptable and an expected punishment for disobedience or failure to do some important task that was assigned, like the men who were supposed to be on guard but let young William John Grey enter the camp and try to kill Jamie in DiA.  I always felt it was a way to make sure someone understands the gravity of the mistake they made.  Jamie says as much after a couple of the scenes.  The only places where it is clearly done for either pleasure or evil, as far as I can see, are when Black Jack is involved.  I also think Jamie deriving any "pleasure" out of his punishment of Claire is that she fought him as much as she could.  I think that action showed him that she was no pushover or a subservient partner in their marriage.  I also think that colors the rest of their marriage.  She emphasized that by teilling him later she'd cut his heart out if he did it again.  He always seems to trust her to both have his back and be a strong partner to him, someone who isn't going to shrink away from the more difficult times they go through.

 

This book does a good job taking what could have been as simple love story and occasionally switching the roles, making the woman both strong and a hero a few times, while making her a formidable match for the warrior character, both on her terms and in his world.  He is the only one who really recognizes this completely though. 

 

I also hope they keep the Wentworth scene and the aftermath as close to the book as possible.  That whole story was the best example of why Claire and Jamie are meant to be together and had such a deep bond over the centuries.

[Petunia846]

I also think Jamie deriving any "pleasure" out of his punishment of Claire is that she fought him as much as she could.  I think that action showed him that she was no pushover or a subservient partner in their marriage.  I also think that colors the rest of their marriage.  She emphasized that by teilling him later she'd cut his heart out if he did it again.  He always seems to trust her to both have his back and be a strong partner to him, someone who isn't going to shrink away from the more difficult times they go through.

Okay, I really like that interpretation of his amusement, because I agree with everyone else who said that the hard part to stomach in the scene was the way he kept laughing about it and didn't take her protests seriously. In the aftermath of that scene in the book, with their long conversation while walking the horses, I felt like Claire got an understanding of what life was like where she was now and where Jamie was coming from, but I never felt like Jamie got an understanding of or appreciation for where Claire was coming from. I always feel like Claire forgives him too easily, and that's why, I still don't feel like he gets it. But at least with this that's something I can see him being happy about, so that makes me feel a bit better.

 

It would be really interesting, I think, to have a conversation about this between Jamie and Roger or even with Claire and Bree there too. Maybe with the three of them there from the future he could really understand where Claire was coming from when she got so upset. It's obviously ancient history by now, but it would have been fun back when Bree and Roger first showed up.

[Glaze Crazy]

Okay, I really like that interpretation of his amusement, because I agree with everyone else who said that the hard part to stomach in the scene was the way he kept laughing about it and didn't take her protests seriously. In the aftermath of that scene in the book, with their long conversation while walking the horses, I felt like Claire got an understanding of what life was like where she was now and where Jamie was coming from, but I never felt like Jamie got an understanding of or appreciation for where Claire was coming from. I always feel like Claire forgives him too easily, and that's why, I still don't feel like he gets it. But at least with this that's something I can see him being happy about, so that makes me feel a bit better.

 

To continue this idea, I would say that Jamie might not fully understand Claire's POV until he learns she is from a different era.  So, even though at the time of the "incident" he has some appreciation of her reaction from what he knows about her at that moment, once he's aware that her POV is a product of her era, he completely understands that their relationship has a different basis, especially since she chooses to stay with him once she is given the opportunity to go back through the stones.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Glaze Crazy

[CatMack]

My best friend/roommate teaches literature at a University.  She's been watching Outlander with me, but out of concern for her liver I've told her to steer clear of a lot of fandom discussions, because there aren't many things that drive her to drink faster than the "you can't judge historical fiction by modern standards" argument.  Fiction is not anthropology.  You are not a passive observer who's not supposed to form judgements.  That's what literary analysis and criticism is.  You can't divorce your own value system from it, and you're not supposed to.  A lot of really horrible things were common in history (and still are today for that matter) and authors shouldn't shy away from portraying that accurately, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to shrug our shoulder and thinks it's all OK.  It takes a lot more thought and a deeper understanding of human nature to be able to say "Jamie is pretty progressive for his time and overall a really good person but he's also really fucked up about some things and does some really stupid shit over the course of his life" than "eh, everyone else was doing it too so it's cool".

 

I will never buy that argument.  Ever.  I'm not wired to consume fiction that passively.

 

Well, here goes.  I am a lurker/reader and very infrequent poster.  I have been reading now for several days the many, many posts and opinions here on the infamous strapping scene.  If I may...I am a 62 year old Gammy who has read this opening book at a minimum 12 times.  And ladies (and gentlemen) I never gave a single thought to that scene!!  It was deserved, she disobeyed, and he did what he had to do.  End of scene.  (donning fire retardant suit now)  As someone born in perhaps a decidedly different era from many of you, allow me to assure you I was spanked on a regular basis.  Not BEATEN, spanked and there is a difference.  Not only by my parents, but by neighbors, their friends, my grandparents, teachers, you name it.  If any adult thought I needed a good swat....no hesitation to give it!!  ouch!  However, I sure learned what was acceptable and permissible quite clearly.  And, even more shocking.......(get ready now), I SPANKED MY OWN CHILDREN on a regular basis!!!  I see many of you swooning now.  Sorry to shock your system like this, but trust me, anyone born in the 50's, 60's or even 70's got their butt walloped on a regular basis! This grand horror at spanking/smacking is a somewhat new idea.  Those of us of a certain age may think differently.  Now, I'll admit if my own husband had decided to 'spank' me I would likely have objected...forecefully!  But nonetheless, the idea of what occurred here left no huge impression on me, in multiple readings.  He needed to punish her for her dangerous actions but much more he needed to IMPRESS on her the danger she put them all in by her actions.  I found it totally in character, most acceptable and I hope they have filmed it exactly as DG wrote it.  Turn on Jaime.....for this?  Of course not!

 

 I've known plenty of people who were spanked and are fine.  And I know plenty of people who were spanked and have really fucked up relationships with their parents because of it.  You are entitled to your opinion, but I think the way you phrased parts of this post was needlessly rude and incredibly disrespectful.  I already had an anxiety attack this morning, for completely non related reasons, but this post just about triggered another attack.  I think I'm gonna have to take a few days off this board. 

[bluebonnet]

Well, here goes.  I am a lurker/reader and very infrequent poster.  I have been reading now for several days the many, many posts and opinions here on the infamous strapping scene.  If I may...I am a 62 year old Gammy who has read this opening book at a minimum 12 times.  And ladies (and gentlemen) I never gave a single thought to that scene!!  It was deserved, she disobeyed, and he did what he had to do.  End of scene.  (donning fire retardant suit now)  As someone born in perhaps a decidedly different era from many of you, allow me to assure you I was spanked on a regular basis.  Not BEATEN, spanked and there is a difference.  Not only by my parents, but by neighbors, their friends, my grandparents, teachers, you name it.  If any adult thought I needed a good swat....no hesitation to give it!!  ouch!  However, I sure learned what was acceptable and permissible quite clearly.  And, even more shocking.......(get ready now), I SPANKED MY OWN CHILDREN on a regular basis!!!  I see many of you swooning now.  Sorry to shock your system like this, but trust me, anyone born in the 50's, 60's or even 70's got their butt walloped on a regular basis! This grand horror at spanking/smacking is a somewhat new idea.  Those of us of a certain age may think differently.  Now, I'll admit if my own husband had decided to 'spank' me I would likely have objected...forecefully!  But nonetheless, the idea of what occurred here left no huge impression on me, in multiple readings.  He needed to punish her for her dangerous actions but much more he needed to IMPRESS on her the danger she put them all in by her actions.  I found it totally in character, most acceptable and I hope they have filmed it exactly as DG wrote it.  Turn on Jaime.....for this?  Of course not!

Well, Gammy, the strapping didn't make me turn on Jamie, either. It would be strange for a reader to have continued the books if the beating was enough for them to become disgusted with a character who is heavily featured.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that spankings in themselves are completely shocking.  No one is remarking on the many spankings Ian and Jamie reminisce about, nor expressing anger that Jamie spanked Fergus.  I personally also grew up with spankings (I'm 30)and they don't bother me one bit as a form of punishment.  I delivered a spanking to my nephew just this past weekend, though it certainly hurt me more than it did him.

 

Yet, there's a wide difference between a spanking and a beating.  Jamie beat Claire.  I think readers understand that Jamie is a product of his times.  This doesn't mean that we readers are also a product of his times.  We can intellectually understand that "it's just the way it was", but that doesn't mean we need to accept it.  I think the most criticism being given here is that Jamie laughs about it, for years.  It's completely out of character when we witness him giving other strappings where he's shown to be quite upset about it.  More, we're really curious how this will play out on screen.  Things can appear different on screen than they do on page, it's different watching something than it is reading.  It's a fairly sensitive topic for showrunners to work with, especially if they are attempting to balance horrible acts committed by a protagonist.  If they film it exactly as DG wrote it, I think it would be a disaster on screen.  It likely wouldn't immediately turn viewers away, but it would be a black spot on the series.  It matters a lot how this scene is written, directed and discussed by TPTB.  

[absnow54]

On another, slightly related note, I always found it super contrived that Claire was left alone to hide in the gully in the first place. She and Jamie had just been attacked in a place where they thought they were safe and then, suddenly, the entire group had to go off to talk to Jamie's mole... for reasons. I know he sends Murtagh back to check on her eventually, but the whole setup seemed kind of ridiculous.

[peacefrog]

I understand and even agree with most everyone's view on the spanking here, both sides. Excellent points. I've written somewhere else what I have thought prior to the show. I've always felt Jamie was in his mind treating her equally. That is giving her a punishment that he would get or give to another man. That is why I thought maybe they might have him get strapped by her after in the show to "make it even". I did however seem to forget how he does laugh about it afterwards.

To me in the book at this point I was thinking that Jamie's character was reaching a point where he was basically sainted and I needed to see him mess up somewhere. This did it. I do feel like he's been called out a bit in subsequent books by her over it so I am glad it is still a sore point.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have no idea how they are going to handle this and quite frankly I am a bit worried. It still bothers loyal book readers after all these years, I can't imagine what ammunition this will give to critics and viewers who have been waiting to skewer the show.

[Nidratime]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have no idea how they are going to handle this and quite frankly I am a bit worried. It still bothers loyal book readers after all these years, I can't imagine what ammunition this will give to critics and viewers who have been waiting to skewer the show.

 

 

Maybe they'll love it since "the critics" on the net seem to think it's too feminine, i.e., too geared towards the ladies and romanticized. (And, I put the critics in quotes for a reason.)

[mybabyaidan]

On another, slightly related note, I always found it super contrived that Claire was left alone to hide in the gully in the first place. She and Jamie had just been attacked in a place where they thought they were safe and then, suddenly, the entire group had to go off to talk to Jamie's mole... for reasons. I know he sends Murtagh back to check on her eventually, but the whole setup seemed kind of ridiculous.

 

I know!   This bothered me too, especially since she was almost raped like a DAY before (I forget the exact timing) I kept wondering what the hell he was thinking.  And after, when she is caught by the Redcoats, I always wondered why she didn't lie to the Highlanders and tell them she was found in her hiding spot.  I know Murtagh sees her with the Redcoats, but he didn't actually SEE when she was captured as far as I can remember.   Never made sense to me.

 

As for the strapping stuff, I like what Ron and co have done so far, so I'll trust that they will handle it in a way that makes sense for the TV series as well as staying somewhat "true" to the books.

 

ETA: I was re reading a bit of the end of the 1st book, and I actually really love the subtle things Ron and co are doing with Rupert.  With him looking conflicted over the beating in episode 2, and then during the Gathering he got a lot of reaction shots with Jamie's speech, which I didn't notice much before.  But upon re reading, it makes sense since Rupert is one of the clan McKenzie's to voluntarily go with Claire to rescue Jamie.  I like that they are seemingly setting that up to make sense (if they are indeed doing that on purpose).  Just a random thought I had, needed to share.

Edited September 4, 2014 by mybabyaidan

[sosmitten]

I'm not sure if information from interviews is considered spoilery, but just in case:

 

I thought I remembered Diana saying that the strapping scene was one of the ones used for the auditions for Jamie (and then I went to check and I was right). This is an excerpt from her facebook post about Sam's audition:

 

"And then…the scene in which Jamie explains to Claire exactly why he intends to punish her for disobeying his orders to stay hidden, thus nearly getting them all killed.

OK. This is arguably _the_ most controversial scene in all the books. And I’m not about to go into the scene itself—not the point here. The point is that that’s one heck of a complex scene, emotionally, and _could_ be read/performed in a lot of different ways. Now, I happen to _know_ <g> exactly how Jamie acted and spoke during that scene…and that’s…exactly what Sam _did_. Thoughtfulness, intimacy, fair-mindedness, annoyance, firmness—and quite a lot of humor. One of Jamie’s hallmarks is the ability to be threatening and funny at the same time—and Sam pulled that off."

 

I think this rules out the possibility of someone other than Jamie doing the strapping.

 

I'm in the camp that felt uncomfortable during the strapping scene (as I expect I was 'supposed' to) but I think that the talk they had the next day helped me see it from his perspective.  I think they were both trying to understand something that was outside of their experience and we were reading the scene from her point of view.  We didn't get to see his processing the same way we got to see Claire's (and we're probably likely to sympathize with her anyway, being from relatively similar times in history).  That might that makes him look more insensitive.  Just a thought.

 

I also went back and forth on the scene back at Leoch, but I like the idea of it being rough sex without the vocabulary of safe words.  It is a weird scene though.

Edited September 4, 2014 by sosmitten

[WatchrTina]

Someone posted this in the episode thread.

 

 

After this episode, I hope they let the "Claire Almost Gets Raped" trope lie for awhile.  How many times can Claire be put in peril of being raped?

 

I laughed.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

My best friend/roommate teaches literature at a University.  She's been watching Outlander with me, but out of concern for her liver I've told her to steer clear of a lot of fandom discussions, because there aren't many things that drive her to drink faster than the "you can't judge historical fiction by modern standards" argument.  Fiction is not anthropology.  You are not a passive observer who's not supposed to form judgements.  That's what literary analysis and criticism is.  You can't divorce your own value system from it, and you're not supposed to.  A lot of really horrible things were common in history (and still are today for that matter) and authors shouldn't shy away from portraying that accurately, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to shrug our shoulder and thinks it's all OK.  It takes a lot more thought and a deeper understanding of human nature to be able to say "Jamie is pretty progressive for his time and overall a really good person but he's also really fucked up about some things and does some really stupid shit over the course of his life" than "eh, everyone else was doing it too so it's cool".

 

I will never buy that argument.  Ever. 

 

Well, not to argue this point (and this will be my last post on this topic, as it seems to have gotten heated), but I am not, nor do I think, just because spankings/strappings, etc, happened in this era, means that I think it's "cool" because I didn't have a problem with Jamie strapping Claire. I don't consider myself a passive reader, either. Using your argument, I will go ahead and say, because it's fiction, I don't feel guilty because I'm not outraged or offended by what Jaime did.  Now, if he had beaten her black and blue within an inch of her life for "her own good" and by that I mean, using his fists on her face, other parts of her body, other than her butt, I would have been outraged, and probably would have stopped reading the book and not read another single book after Outlander.

 

And there are plenty of things I get pissed/outraged/angry/offended over when reading other books, and I don't hand wave it away because it's fiction. Both historical and contemporary.

[Pestilentia]

 

My best friend/roommate teaches literature at a University.  She's been watching Outlander with me, but out of concern for her liver I've told her to steer clear of a lot of fandom discussions, because there aren't many things that drive her to drink faster than the "you can't judge historical fiction by modern standards" argument.  Fiction is not anthropology.

Fiction, no.

Historical fiction, when well written, IMO can be.

 

I had no problem with the spanking, mostly because I read for entertainment and if something pissed me off that badly I would stop. But then I think that judging people from different cultures by our own standards is presumptuous in the extreme.

 

We are ALL products of the geographical area and era in which we were born.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Pestilentia

[annlaw78]

 

 

After this episode, I hope they let the "Claire Almost Gets Raped" trope lie for awhile.  How many times can Claire be put in peril of being raped?

I laughed.

 

 

That's why I pretty much quit reading the first book.  I got sick of the "Perils of Claire" narrative (as I perceived it).  I (respectfully) think for the show to continue to have appeal outside the "romance" genre, it would do well to tone down some of that.   Having Claire backed against a wall/floor/hedge by men four times within the space of 10-minutes of episode-time is just... too much.  

[Tif]

 

Now, if he had beaten her black and blue within an inch of her life for "her own good" and by that I mean, using his fists on her face, other parts of her body, other than her butt, I would have been outraged, and probably would have stopped reading the book and not read another single book after Outlander.

THIS!!!  I could not agree more with you about this.  In Outlander, it is from Claire's POV and of course she says she's beaten to an inch of her life, but she wasn't.  She was pissed that she was spanked.  Was it right?  In 18th Century standards, I'd agree.  With my 21st century sensibilities, I'd say no.  

In the context of the time, he did not beat her.  

ETA another thought...

I have to say I was more surprised when I was reading the series that Claire wasn't been smacked around given her attitude.  Not that I want her to be, but that would not be out of the realm of possibility of the time.  

Edited September 4, 2014 by Tif

[Kat From Jersey]

 

In future books Jamie doles out other strappings and recieves his own at times, so that appears to show that it was acceptable and an expected punishment for disobedience or failure to do some important task that was assigned, like the men who were supposed to be on guard but let young William John Grey enter the camp and try to kill Jamie in DiA.

 

Definitely, and I get why they were deserved; for example, Roger having to take the strap to Jem after he left the chicken coop open and all Mrs. Bug's chickens were killed by a fox (the chickens were part of their livelihood, and needed to help sustain the whole Ridge through the winter) or when Ian Sr. made Jamie strap young Ian for running off to Edinburgh (he was 14, and who knows what evil people he could have run into, as we later see). Although, to be fair, Jamie then lets young Ian strap him in turn, bless him.

 

But, if there's one thing this series does, it's give us a realistic view of how violent things were back then, how justice or revenge was meted out (whether deservedly or undeservedly) by physical violence, and how times have changed in 200+ years.  Even in the 1940's, a man beating his wife for disobedience would have been practically unheard of.  Today, it's absolutely shocking.

 

I do agree that it was a product of the times they were in.  But, I also think that Jamie enjoying it so much was really out of character.  Though, to be fair, I don't think he enjoyed beating her as much as he enjoyed how much she fought back, and how disheveled and (to his mind) beautiful she looked during and afterwards.  I love Jamie's character a lot, but I'm really more of a young Ian/John Grey/Roger gal, myself.

 

 

but I never felt like Jamie got an understanding of or appreciation for where Claire was coming from. I always feel like Claire forgives him too easily, and that's why, I still don't feel like he gets it

 

THIS, to the nth degree.  I know all of our Travelers are in Jamie's time, and not vice-versa, but I never got the idea that he truly gets what a product of their times both Claire and Bree are.  Especially down the road, shortly after Bree first meets him, and tells him she's not getting married!  No matter how much Claire tells him that, in their day, women didn't have to ever get married if they didn't want to.  Educated he may be, but it's just not in his grey matter to understand the implications of this.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Kat From Jersey

[MedievalGirl]

Someone posted this in the episode thread.

 

After this episode, I hope they let the "Claire Almost Gets Raped" trope lie for awhile.  How many times can Claire be put in peril of being raped?

 

I laughed.  

 

I did too. It isn't just rape though. Any scene that begins with Claire walking through a forest will not end well for her. Sometimes it is just a bear or wolf though. If the books were not so damn long it could almost be a drinking game. 

 

[mybabyaidan]

That's why Jamie and Claire are meant to be.  They are both magnets for hailstorms of shit.   Seriously, these 2 can't even have a full day without something truly shitty happening to one or both of them.

[MedievalGirl]

And poor Roger. LOL

[Petunia846]

That's why Jamie and Claire are meant to be.  They are both magnets for hailstorms of shit.   Seriously, these 2 can't even have a full day without something truly shitty happening to one or both of them.

For real, like the begining of Fiery Cross which is just one long insane day for like 2 or 3 hundred pages.

[bluebonnet]

Voyager was the book that almost made me stop reading the series.  The hailstorms of shit that occurred just as Claire reunited with Jamie felt so contrived.  

[WatchrTina]

 

The hailstorms of shit that occurred just as Claire reunited with Jamie felt so contrived.

Ah weel, I think Herself just loves that sort of thing.  Look at Claire's arrival in 1743.  She wakes up in the middle of a freaking fire-fight between Highlanders and Redcoats.  I think the show captured it beautifully because Claire wanders around in silence (no background music, just sounds of nature) then a gunshot startles the crap about of everyone, then another, then someone fires directly at Claire -- cue the bagpipes! -- and it's like someone stomps on the accelerator.  I actually kind of loved that.

 

It's very similar in Voyager -- quiet, lovely moments upstairs in the print shop with Claire and Jamie looking at photos of Bree and Jamie "going quietly to pieces" and then --  stomp on the gas -- it's time to meet Mr. Willoughby, and some excise agents, and a madam, and a bunch of whores, and Fergus!, and someone who is tracking Jamie by the taste of his brandy and is clearly up to no good who ultimately causes wee Ian to set the press on fire.  Yeah, it's exhausting.  But I'm pretty sure Diana gets a large charge out of creating that sudden acceleration in the plot.

 

And on a completely different point -- someone posted in the "Media" thread the news of an Irish hottie who has been cast as "Horrocks".  Well, isn't THAT interesting?  Because, of course, we never see him in the book.  So this shows that the series isn't going to slavishly follow the books or limit itself to Claire's point of view.  Unless, of course, the conversation with Horrocks is presented as a flashback with Jamie telling Claire what happened, which is pretty much what happens in the book.  Oh.  Never mind.  Carry on.  Nothing to see here.

Edited September 5, 2014 by WatchrTina

[mybabyaidan]

Maybe they decided to do more of the "flashbacks" (ala Jamie's first encounter with Randall) to give Caitriona a BIT of a break.  Girl is in every scene.  I can see where that would be a little handy.

 

ETA:  I haven't heard anything either way, just a bit more speculation.

Edited September 5, 2014 by mybabyaidan

[Pestilentia]

When I saw that casting announcement I couldn't even remember who Horrocks was- had to go look it up.

[Nidratime]

I couldn't remember him either. Even after reading about who he was, I couldn't remember him. Hmm.

[peacefrog]

I'm glad you guys are talking about Horracks. I saw that link and started to talk about it but saw the spoiler thread is not for book talk! I too was scratching my head wondering about him. Interesting that they released a casting article about it. I'm assuming the actor is somewhat known? I guess it will be a flashback of Jamie's. Claire would not have a scene with him as he is the reason Jamie leaves her alone.