|
|
Post by Doppelgänger on Oct 8, 2014 11:34:22 GMT -5
Soooo....I didn't want to post any spoilers for this show in the regular thread and I probably don't want to know too much about the upcoming episodes and/or what may happen BUT I wanted to talk about this next episode and what may be in it. While I was watching an interview a 'spanking' was mentioned as coming up in the show and doing some looking around it seems it is labeled a 'beating' in the books, where Jamie apparently uses his sword belt to spank Claire and reading people's reactions to that. I'm not stranger to historical fiction and spankings in this context in fiction. This would not be a controversy for most of history, in fact. I haven't read the books at all so I don't know exactly how it is portrayed but from the snippets I have read she seems quite put off by it. I think THAT is probably more inaccurate than the idea itself and I'll tell you why. Spanking your wife was perfectly acceptable in 1945, too! and that is the era that she comes from. Now of course the writer does not come from that time and chooses to make it a controversy between them but really if she were going for historical accuracy Claire would have most likely accepted the punishment as somewhat normal...weirdly enough to us in the 21st century.
She would most likely not be so quick to be outraged about it, even if she wanted it to not be a part of her marriage and instead would have tried to sway him in another direction not threaten to kill him if he did it again...lol So I don't think that is too accurate for her time either! I just thought I'd mention that! But perhaps the writer wanted to make Claire even more forward thinking than her time. I'm glad the writer didn't avoid the subject albeit extremely controversial and in other books it has made many a woman close the book never to pick it back up again but it IS historically accurate for him to feel he had a right to do it. As repugnant as women of our time feel it is, it would be inaccurate had the writer not gone there only because we would find it so and I feel she did still compromise on it a bit by making Claire so strongly against it.
Having said all that, of course I hate the very idea of it and I am glad that in our time this is totally unacceptable but this story isn't about our time! But it sounds like in the end Jamie is the one who learns a new approach to dealing with stuff like this and that's really the lesson here I'd say is that he is willing to compromise for her because he loves her and if she's not OK with it, he's not OK with it. His friends would be disgusted with him but he doesn't care because it's her opinion of him that holds the most sway for him. So as controversial as it was, that is what it teaches me about Jamie, not that he's a barbarian who beats his wife.
Now a little evidence that in 1945 it was still perfectly acceptable to spank your wife. These Lucy episodes were from the 1950's! This would never have been on prime time television if it weren't an accurate depiction of a husband and wife relationship at the time:
|
|
|
|
Post by missmystic on Oct 8, 2014 11:45:55 GMT -5
Ok, so I have been wanting to talk about this, and I am happy to get into it, but how much do you want to know or not know?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doppelgänger on Oct 8, 2014 11:49:20 GMT -5
Ok, so I have been wanting to talk about this, and I am happy to get into it, but how much do you want to know or not know? You can talk about the 'incident' itself cause I've read some of it in excerpts but haven't read the actual writing itself. |
|
|
|
Post by missmystic on Oct 8, 2014 12:09:38 GMT -5
Ok, so here goes. Yes, after this situation at the end of the last episode with Randal, there is a spanking/beating situation. The reason for this stems from the fact that because Claire ran off and got caught by the red coats, Jamie and the other men were put in mortal danger coming to rescue her. She nearly got them all killed because of that, and everyone is really angry with her. Jamie was also terrified about what Randal would do to her, and he has a history with Randal that is even more complex than has been explored quite yet. Also, as you pointed out, this is a period in history where things like this are the norm, and it is expected. A lot of women have taken this scene hard and are really angry about it, but I am not one of them. I totally understand where Jamie is coming from, and I don't think he had another choice in that moment.
I think Claire reacts the way she does because, for one thing, even for her own time she was a feminist in a lot of ways. But for another, as we just recently discussed, she is alone in a dangerous world, and Jamie was the only rock she had. When he punishes her, I think she feels like she doesn't have anyone anymore, and that she can't count on him. She feels betrayed, and put down, and forced to face a harsh reality of the way this new world she's in view women. She knew before, but she didn't really know, you know what I mean? And she thought Jamie was different. Which he is, because he's a product of his culture and his time, but even with that he's able to see things from her point of view and learn and grow and feel regret about what happened. And later on in the story he will come to a much stronger realization of that moment that really puts things into perspective for him, so it is really important to the story and the character growth for these people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doppelgänger on Oct 8, 2014 12:16:27 GMT -5
Oh and one more thing I have to say on the subject. Even today in the South of the US where I happen to live, domestic violence is hardly ever prosecuted. First, the woman is likely not to be believed by the authorities unless there is physical evidence of it, marks, bruises, welts, etc, so significant force has to be used and the police do NOT want to get involved in these cases if they can avoid it even if the woman is asking for prosecution. The courts tend to dismiss these claims with the idea that a woman is lying to somehow gain favor in the legal system for a divorce.
Most cases are thrown out without real tangible physical evidence, as mentioned above. Whereas, it is not necessary in any other type of assault but if a man assaults his wife it is treated differently here. So a man can assault his wife and get away with it, essentially. He can push her, hold her down, knock her off her feet, not allow her to escape him and even hit her so long as it isn't hard enough to actually leave a permanent mark and get away with it here where I live. There is no law against it. Well I can't say there isn't, but I can say it is hardly ever enforced! It is near impossible to get a restraining order as well. I've sadly had first hand experience of this shocking truth. As a legal student I've done some volunteer work with victims of domestic violence so I know this subject all too well.
So...we still have a long way to go ladies and it's certainly an important topic of our time so I don't want to make it sound like it is unimportant or this subject is not an issue, but in context of this story, and this time frame in history it would not have been looked at the same way as it is now in SOME places. Jamie would not be considered a 'bad man' for what he did. He felt it was his duty even, as a husband of that time and that's the context one has to read it in.
It's like when we look at TVD and they are vampires and they kill people. That's obviously illegal to us and heinous but in the context of these stories it isn't. I hate when people pick and choose what they want to be outraged about in fiction instead of trying to put themselves in that place or time and instead try to put the story into their own place and time. You just can't do it! |
|
|
|
Post by Doppelgänger on Oct 8, 2014 12:23:11 GMT -5
Ok, so here goes. Yes, after this situation at the end of the last episode with Randal, there is a spanking/beating situation. The reason for this stems from the fact that because Claire ran off and got caught by the red coats, Jamie and the other men were put in mortal danger coming to rescue her. She nearly got them all killed because of that, and everyone is really angry with her. Jamie was also terrified about what Randal would do to her, and he has a history with Randal that is even more complex than has been explored quite yet. Also, as you pointed out, this is a period in history where things like this are the norm, and it is expected. A lot of women have taken this scene hard and are really angry about it, but I am not one of them. I totally understand where Jamie is coming from, and I don't think he had another choice in that moment. I think Claire reacts the way she does because, for one thing, even for her own time she was a feminist in a lot of ways. But for another, as we just recently discussed, she is alone in a dangerous world, and Jamie was the only rock she had. When he punishes her, I think she feels like she doesn't have anyone anymore, and that she can't count on him. She feels betrayed, and put down, and forced to face a harsh reality of the way this new world she's in view women. She knew before, but she didn't really know, you know what I mean? And she thought Jamie was different. Which he is, because he's a product of his culture and his time, but even with that he's able to see things from her point of view and learn and grow and feel regret about what happened. And later on in the story he will come to a much stronger realization of that moment that really puts things into perspective for him, so it is really important to the story and the character growth for these people. Yeah that's what I got...I also read that he was told he had to do it or someone else would do it so in the end he wanted to be the one and also to bring her back into the fold after her 'transgression' so in a way it protected her by making things right with the rest of them. |
|
|
|
Post by missmystic on Oct 8, 2014 12:45:40 GMT -5
Oh and one more thing I have to say on the subject. Even today in the South of the US where I happen to live, domestic violence is hardly ever prosecuted. First, the woman is likely not to be believed by the authorities unless there is physical evidence of it, marks, bruises, welts, etc, so significant force has to be used and the police do NOT want to get involved in these cases if they can avoid it even if the woman is asking for prosecution. The courts tend to dismiss these claims with the idea that a woman is lying to somehow gain favor in the legal system for a divorce. Most cases are thrown out without real tangible physical evidence, as mentioned above. Whereas, it is not necessary in any other type of assault but if a man assaults his wife it is treated differently here. So a man can assault his wife and get away with it, essentially. He can push her, hold her down, knock her off her feet, not allow her to escape him and even hit her so long as it isn't hard enough to actually leave a permanent mark and get away with it here where I live. There is no law against it. I've sadly had first hand experience of this shocking truth. As a legal student I've done some volunteer work with victims of domestic violence so I know this subject all too well. So...we still have a long way to go ladies and it's certainly an important topic of our time so I don't want to make it sound like it is unimportant or this subject is not an issue, but in context of this story, and this time frame in history it would not have been looked at the same way as it is now in SOME places. Jamie would not be considered a 'bad man' for what he did. He felt it was his duty even, as a husband of that time and that's the context one has to read it in. Yes, this is all very true. And yes, of course, its not a good thing that these things still occur today, nor was it a good thing that they occurred back then or any other time for that matter. But we can't pretend it didn't happen. And as wonderful as Jamie is, it would be less compelling of a story if he were perfect in every way right from the get go. He has to learn and grow, just like she does. And there are some heavy catalysts for that growth, which is what gives the story so much emotion. And as we said before, Claire made a rash decision (she had really good reasons, but Jamie doesn't know that, and neither does anyone else, and she can't exactly explain the truth), but because of that rash act she put all these people's lives in danger, and they need her to answer for that. For them, it was a matter of life and death. And she broke her word. |
|
|
|
Post by Doppelgänger on Oct 8, 2014 12:50:31 GMT -5
Oh and one more thing I have to say on the subject. Even today in the South of the US where I happen to live, domestic violence is hardly ever prosecuted. First, the woman is likely not to be believed by the authorities unless there is physical evidence of it, marks, bruises, welts, etc, so significant force has to be used and the police do NOT want to get involved in these cases if they can avoid it even if the woman is asking for prosecution. The courts tend to dismiss these claims with the idea that a woman is lying to somehow gain favor in the legal system for a divorce. Most cases are thrown out without real tangible physical evidence, as mentioned above. Whereas, it is not necessary in any other type of assault but if a man assaults his wife it is treated differently here. So a man can assault his wife and get away with it, essentially. He can push her, hold her down, knock her off her feet, not allow her to escape him and even hit her so long as it isn't hard enough to actually leave a permanent mark and get away with it here where I live. There is no law against it. I've sadly had first hand experience of this shocking truth. As a legal student I've done some volunteer work with victims of domestic violence so I know this subject all too well. So...we still have a long way to go ladies and it's certainly an important topic of our time so I don't want to make it sound like it is unimportant or this subject is not an issue, but in context of this story, and this time frame in history it would not have been looked at the same way as it is now in SOME places. Jamie would not be considered a 'bad man' for what he did. He felt it was his duty even, as a husband of that time and that's the context one has to read it in. Yes, this is all very true. And yes, of course, its not a good thing that these things still occur today, nor was it a good thing that they occurred back then or any other time for that matter. But we can't pretend it didn't happen. And as wonderful as Jamie is, it would be less compelling of a story if he were perfect in every way right from the get go. He has to learn and grow, just like she does. And there are some heavy catalysts for that growth, which is what gives the story so much emotion. And as we said before, Claire made a rash decision (she had really good reasons, but Jamie doesn't know that, and neither does anyone else, and she can't exactly explain the truth), but because of that rash act she put all these people's lives in danger, and they need her to answer for that. For them, it was a matter of life and death. And she broke her word. Yeah exactly and when you look at it from the beginning of the series and how they would have treated it then to now it is still worlds better. She was an enemy in the beginning and now she's a part of their 'family' ad expected to toe the line or be punished for it if she disobeys just like the rest of them. If any of the men had done something to get them in that sort of danger they'd have paid for it too. |
|
|
|
Post by Doppelgänger on Oct 8, 2014 13:08:51 GMT -5
I found this on Amazon where the controversy rages in the book remarks. I totally agree with this assessment of the situation. It's almost verbatim what I was trying to say:
L.Sea says:
In many respects, Claire is more like a woman from the 21st Century than the 20th. One glaring example:
She becomes a surgeon in the 1960's. Which was almost unheard of... (we are only talking about 50 years ago).
Jamie's Mother and Sister were strong, independent women (for their time), but they also knew there was a limit to what they could do or say. One such example is when Ian Senior is "chewing-out" Ian jr. ... and when Jenny attempts to inject her opinion, it only takes a stern glare from her husband to silence her.
Claire's "type" of brazen independence (and disobedience) in the 1700's was far from "normal" female behavior.
Jamie is from the 1700's. His "society" expects (even demands) him to beat his wife for brazen disobedience.
This can't be ignored (or omitted from the Novel) simply because "today" it is considered heinous and sickening. The story would not have "rung-true" if Jamie simply "verbally scolded" Claire for almost getting herself and everyone else killed. Combine this with Jamie's frustration and confusion (as to why Claire is behaving so disobediently), And the terror he felt at almost loosing this woman that he deeply loves, the situation became a lit-fuse, just waiting to explode.... the beating was inevitable.... And I expected nothing less of a knowledgeable author.
These books are not for the overly sensitive and squeamish. They are brutal and honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweetluv4DE on Oct 8, 2014 13:10:51 GMT -5
Interesting. Yes I get what both of you are saying and I'm not going to put the book down for something that is historically accurate. I hate the idea of spanking for punishment. Now for pleasure.... Why not. But beating someone out of anger is not ok in my book. It will hurt to read it or see Jamie doing this but because of the time it's to be expected. And if Claire is upset I totally understand her view point. She is not a woman to be triffled with. She was a war nurse. She demands respect. So I'd totally understand her anger but most of all.... Humiliation.
But I just hope they do it tastefully and don't linger on it for too long as if this is what jamie and Claire are about. Jamie is still young and he is still learning. He doesn't know how to give a woman what she wants just yet. Body? Yes but soul maybe not so much. Once he and Claire work it out it sounds like they come to a good place so as long as he knows next time... There won't be one and why, then I'm understanding. Especially when this was taken place at a time when punching your wife and giving her a bloody nose was ok! Geeeeee glad I didn't live in such a barbaric time but like I said it's understandable but I don't agree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doppelgänger on Oct 8, 2014 13:16:40 GMT -5
Interesting. Yes I get what both of you are saying and I'm not going to put the book down for something that is historically accurate. I hate the idea if spa mining for punishment. Now for pleasure.... Why not. But beating someone out of anger is not ok in my book. It will hurt to read it see Jamie doing this but because if the time it's to be expected. And if Claire is upset I totally understand her view point. She is not a woman to be triffled with. She was a war nurse. She demand respect. So I'd totally understand her anger but most of all.... Humiliation. But I just hope they do it tastefully and don't linger on it for too long as if this is what jamie and Claire are about. Jamie is still young and he is still learning. He doesn't know how to give a woman what she wants just yet. Body? Yes but soul maybe not so much. Once he and Claire work it out it sounds like they come to a good place so as long as he knows next time... There won't be one and why then I'm understanding. Especially when this was taken place at a time when punching your wife and giving her a bloody nose was ok! Geeeeee glad I didn't live in such a barbaric time but like I said it's understandable but I don't agree with it. Yup I'm glad I live in this time too! The opportunities for women were so limited then and you basically had to live your life under some man's rule maybe even a man you didn't even like, bear his children cause you had no choice, there was no birth control and tend to his home. You couldn't own property so if he died you were SOL. There was no opportunity to do something for work you might love to do...none. When I read back in my family tree I see women bearing a dozen kids and then dying in childbirth at some point. That was common! What a horror! So I do count my lucky stars every day even if things are still imperfect today.
For what it's worth from what I have read they do handle it as well as they could have and it turned into more of a lesson for Jamie then for Claire in the end because they touch on it down the road in the books a few times as well. Not at first, because he thought he was perfectly right to do it, but later she teaches him to see it more from her perspective and the damage it did to her trust in him.
|
|
|
|
Post by iansfan on Oct 8, 2014 17:00:14 GMT -5
Jamie doesn't spank Claire because he is angry or wants to degrade her in anyway. Because she endangered herself and the others it was expected of Jamie to punish her. I read somewhere that they may even have a scenario where Dougal says if you don't do it I will. To give into more of the modern day sensibilities and to let Dougal kind of be the bad guy.
I always say you can't rewrite history. There even are places in the book where Jamie has someone beat him because he left them unprotected. He believes what he is doing is for the better good.
|
|
|
|
Post by iansfan on Oct 8, 2014 17:04:45 GMT -5
As long as we are allowed spoilers here...can we talk about BJR and Wentworth? I don't know what is wrong with me but I really can't wait to see that. I think they'll do it like the wedding where it will Jamie telling Claire what happened. It is going to be brutal, not so much the actions of BJR but the aftermath and how it almost breaks Jamie entirely.
I had a really hard time recovering from that read and I just said "no, no, no" over and over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by missmystic on Oct 9, 2014 9:04:53 GMT -5
Ok, so here goes. Yes, after this situation at the end of the last episode with Randal, there is a spanking/beating situation. The reason for this stems from the fact that because Claire ran off and got caught by the red coats, Jamie and the other men were put in mortal danger coming to rescue her. She nearly got them all killed because of that, and everyone is really angry with her. Jamie was also terrified about what Randal would do to her, and he has a history with Randal that is even more complex than has been explored quite yet. Also, as you pointed out, this is a period in history where things like this are the norm, and it is expected. A lot of women have taken this scene hard and are really angry about it, but I am not one of them. I totally understand where Jamie is coming from, and I don't think he had another choice in that moment. I think Claire reacts the way she does because, for one thing, even for her own time she was a feminist in a lot of ways. But for another, as we just recently discussed, she is alone in a dangerous world, and Jamie was the only rock she had. When he punishes her, I think she feels like she doesn't have anyone anymore, and that she can't count on him. She feels betrayed, and put down, and forced to face a harsh reality of the way this new world she's in view women. She knew before, but she didn't really know, you know what I mean? And she thought Jamie was different. Which he is, because he's a product of his culture and his time, but even with that he's able to see things from her point of view and learn and grow and feel regret about what happened. And later on in the story he will come to a much stronger realization of that moment that really puts things into perspective for him, so it is really important to the story and the character growth for these people. Yeah that's what I got...I also read that he was told he had to do it or someone else would do it so in the end he wanted to be the one and also to bring her back into the fold after her 'transgression' so in a way it protected her by making things right with the rest of them. Yes, this is also true. Obviously if one of the other men were to do it they would have hurt her far worse, and there was no way he was going to allow that. He also wasn't going to allow them to harbor resentment towards her, and there was no other way to make things right with them after what she did (in their eyes). From his point of view he absolutely WAS protecting her. |
|
|
|
Post by missmystic on Oct 9, 2014 9:07:26 GMT -5
Yes, this is all very true. And yes, of course, its not a good thing that these things still occur today, nor was it a good thing that they occurred back then or any other time for that matter. But we can't pretend it didn't happen. And as wonderful as Jamie is, it would be less compelling of a story if he were perfect in every way right from the get go. He has to learn and grow, just like she does. And there are some heavy catalysts for that growth, which is what gives the story so much emotion. And as we said before, Claire made a rash decision (she had really good reasons, but Jamie doesn't know that, and neither does anyone else, and she can't exactly explain the truth), but because of that rash act she put all these people's lives in danger, and they need her to answer for that. For them, it was a matter of life and death. And she broke her word. Yeah exactly and when you look at it from the beginning of the series and how they would have treated it then to now it is still worlds better. She was an enemy in the beginning and now she's a part of their 'family' ad expected to toe the line or be punished for it if she disobeys just like the rest of them. If any of the men had done something to get them in that sort of danger they'd have paid for it too. Yep! They ALL have to be able to trust each other. They are living in a world where so many decisions are life and death, and they have to be able to count on each other. If Jamie or Rupert or Angus or anyone else and dome something reckless and put everyone's lives in danger, they would have had the crap kicked out of them for it. |
|
