Jamie Fraser: Dreamboat or Douchebag?
Outlander has been in the Top 15 of AAR’s Top 100 Romances since we began doing them in 1998. It has a DIK review here. In 1991 it won the RITA award for Best Romance Novel. I think it is pretty safe to say this novel is a beloved romance for many, many people.
Hero Jamie Fraser tends to be a fan favorite. He was No. 2 in our Top Ten Heroes Poll done in 2009. Claire and Jamie ranked third in our Top Ten Couples Poll. So could a guy this popular ever rate as a douchebag?
For some the answer is a resounding yes. And it all revolves around a handful of scenes.
The Background: We are all familiar with Stonehenge. What some don’t realize is that, while nowhere near as magnificent, there are other ancient circles of rock all over the British Isles. Thanks to a standing stone from one of those Claire Randall travels back in time from 1945 to 1743.Through a long series of events she winds up married to Jamie Fraser, a popular young warrior. The only problem is back/forward in 1945 Claire already has a husband. She wants to go home but being truly a stranger in a strange land has no idea how to even do that. She is forced to follow Jamie around. One day, this includes being left in a copse of trees with a warning.
If you leave that copse before I come for ye, I’ll tan your bare arse with my sword belt. Ye wouldna enjoy walking all the way to Bargrennan. Remember,” he said, pinching my cheeks gently, “I dinna make idle threats.” He didn’t either.
But Claire makes a discovery of her own while wandering around the area.
I had been so intent on arguing with Jamie that it had not until this minute dawned on me that the situation I had been vainly trying to bring about for two months had finally occurred. I was alone and I knew where I was. . . . no more than seven miles from that bloody hill and its accursed stone circle. Seven miles – perhaps – from home. From Frank.
She seizes the opportunity and heads for the stones. Unfortunately, on the way there she is captured by the English who have an amazingly bad relationship with the Scots. Jamie rescues her at considerable risk to himself and others. He is not happy. His men are not happy. And since he doesn’t make idle threats –
All right, now I will have to punish you, and for two reasons: first, so that you will know.” He smiled suddenly. “I can tell ye from my own experience that a good hiding makes ye consider things in a more serious light.” I took a tighter hold on the bedpost.
“The other reason,” he went on, “is because of the other men. Ye’ll have noticed how they were tonight?” I had; it had been so uncomfortable at dinner that I was glad to escape to the room.
“There’s such a thing as justice, Claire. You’ve done wrong to them all and you have to suffer for it.” He took a deep breath. “I’m your husband: it’s my duty to attend to it, and I mean to do it.”
Claire feels quite differently about the situation.
I had strong objections to this proposal on several levels. Whatever the justice of the situation – and I had to admit that at least some of it lay on his side – my sense of amour-propre was deeply offended at the thought of being beaten, by whomever and for whatever reason.
I felt deeply betrayed that the man I depended on as friend, protector, and lover intended to do such a thing to me. And my sense of self-preservation was quietly terrified at the thought of submitting myself to the mercies of someone who handled a fifteen-pound claymore as though it were a flywhisk.
“I will not allow you to beat me,” I said firmly.
In spite of some struggles from Claire, the event does take place.
It had been a most unpleasant night. My reluctant acquiescence had lasted precisely as far as the first searing crack of leather on flesh. This was followed by a short, violent struggle, which left Jamie with a bloody nose, three lovely gouges down one cheek, and a deeply bitten wrist. 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.
First, a side note. Claire eats breakfast, walks about the camp and rides a horse the following day. Yes, her bottom is sore but she can sit and ride. She was clearly not beaten to within an inch of her life, regardless of her feelings on the issue.
What damns Jamie in further in many minds is that he somehow managed to enjoy beating her.
“Enjoyed it! Sassenach,” he said, gasping, “you don’t know just how much I enjoyed it. You were so . . . God you looked lovely. I was so angry, and you fought me so fierce. I hated to hurt you, but I wanted to do it at the same time . . . Jesus,” he said, breaking off and wiping his nose, “yes. Yes I did enjoy it.”
“Though come to that,” he said, “you might give me some credit for exercising restraint.”
I was getting rather angry again. I could feel my cheeks flushing hotly against the cool dawn air.
“Restraint, was it? I was under the impression that what you were exercising was your good left arm. You almost crippled me, you arrogant Scottish bastard!”
“Did I want to cripple ye, Sassenach, you’d know it,” he answered dryly. “I meant afterward. I slept on the floor, if ye recall.”
I eyed him narrowly, breathing through my nose. “Oh, so that was restraint was it?”
“Well, I didna think it right to roger you in that state, however fierce I wanted to. And I did want to,” he added laughing again. “Terrible strain on my natural instincts.”
There is one more moment that seemingly condemns Jamie.
“Oh, no, you don’t,” I said, pulling back. “I can’t possibly; I’m too sore.”
James Fraser was not a man to take no for an answer.
“I’ll be verra gentle,” he wheedled dragging me inexorably under the quilt. And he was gentle, as only big men can be, cradling me like a quail’s egg, paying me court with a humble patience that I recognized as reparation – and a gentle insistence that I knew was a continuation of the lesson so brutally begun the night before. Gentle he would be, denied he would not.
These three moments are what serve as evidence to his nasty nature to some. Brynn Donovan in Persephone Magazine calls him a wife beater. Leah of Talking Reckless says, “This was a story about love, and there is something very twisted about slipping rape fantasies into a romance and passing it off as love.” Moxie on The Well-Trained Mind forums said:
Based on the reviews here and on several other boards, I began reading Outlander last week. I really liked it and thought Jamie was just perfect. Protective, gentle, just a perfect romance novel character. Then I hit chapter 22 “Reckonings”. I had to put the book down I was so disturbed and really shocked. I’m not sure I want to finish a book in which a man so happily beats his wife. I’m so surprised that in all of the glowing reviews I’ve read, I’ve never once seen any warning about violence.
I have to wonder what this says about women (I’m not attacking anyone here, just thinking about women in general). This is a really popular book and women everywhere *swoon* over Jamie. Do women secretly want to be dominated like that?
Kate Nagy gives a good defense of the issues on Heroes and Heartbreakers. But ultimately it comes down to individual readers as to whether or not the above actions place Jamie in douchebag territory.
For my part, while the fact that beating his wife caused a spike in his libido gave me a twinge, I ultimately still find Jamie to fall in dreamboat territory. A far worse punishment would have been not rescuing her. She might have a sore bum but he risked his life to save her from a situation where she was about to get far worse. In the 1700’s the idea of marital rape would not have existed so that doesn’t impact my opinion of him much either.
Now I will put the question to AAR Staffers – Jamie Frasier, dreamboat or douchebag?
Mary: Oh, definitely dreamboat for me. I just don’t understand how readers judge a 23 year old young man in his first committed relationship, doing what his culture has taught him to do and not look at the larger picture. First, when he had to rescue her, he put both his and the lives of his companions at grave risk. He had to confront the man who lashed him within an inch of his life (the witnessing of which caused his father to suffer a heart attack and die) who was also a sexual predator and in the process of attempting to rape his wife when he found her. That might just make any one of us a little angry. Dougal already does not trust her, nor do any of the other MacKenzies on that trip. So something had to be done to make things right. While I certainly do not believe that husbands should beat their wives, that was the culture back then and Jamie was just doing what his culture had taught him to do.
I also think that scene had less to do with Jamie’s character and more to do with Claire’s frame of mind. I do not think until that moment she truly understood the precarious situation she was in – that up until that point it was not totally real to her – almost like playing a game of make believe. This event brought it home to her in a very real and brutal way. It is a scene that forces her to choose and until later on in the book when she is accused of witchcraft, we no longer see Claire trying to get home. She resigns herself to life in the 18th century and a life with Jamie.
But…back to Jamie. What 23 year old guy has much sense? Especially one who has never been in a relationship before? If Jamie were perfect from the get go, he would have been a boring character. Over the course of their relationship, Jamie grows up and grows as a character. He does make a solemn vow never to strike Claire again and he keeps that vow. He LISTENS to her and takes her feelings and opinions seriously. By the time we are several books into their relationship, Jamie and Claire are on more egalitarian terms than Claire had been with Frank, in my opinion.
Caz: You took the words right out of my mouth. I really don’t think Claire had quite understood the severity of her situation and the fallout her actions could cause. There are many times early in the book when, while we can admire her for her ballsy stance and the way she stands up to the men around her in a way a woman of the time would probably not have done, but there’s a niggle at the back of my mind saying that she needs to be more circumspect. Jamie sums it up perfectly at one point when she starts to criticise something saying “where I come from – “ and he interrupts and points out “you’re here now”. Or words to that effect. She doesn’t have a great deal of respect for their ways and culture, possibly because at that point she’s still focused on getting back to the 20th century and Frank, so 18th century Scotland is still like a bad dream for her.
But her wandering off and then getting captured puts everyone in danger – especially Jamie who, until that point, has been lying low.
I’m not defending his actions but what else was he going to do? Sure, he could have sat her down and explained it thoroughly and perhaps Claire would have understood. But there’s also the fact that Jamie would have lost a lot of respect amongst the clan if he’d been seen to do nothing, and that if he hadn’t inflicted the punishment, then someone else would have, and would probably have done it publicly (much as would have happened to Leoghaire (sp?) had Jamie not stepped in).
As for the part where he admits to having enjoyed beating her… squick. But I don’t think it was the beating he enjoyed so much as it was the fact that she was riled up and fighting back.
As for the final example… I don’t see it as rape, marital or otherwise. He’s lusty and demanding, she’s knackered and a bit sore. It’s not the ideal combination, but there are times in a marriage when one partner will compromise to suit the other, and that happens in bed as well as out of it.
A lot of the time, Jamie is almost TOO good to be true. Even without comparing him to the men around him, he’s almost perfect – open minded, willing to learn, and from a woman, no less, honourable, kind and all those other things we love him for. To an extent, Jamie NEEDS to have some flaws, otherwise, he’d be bland and uninteresting. Would I have chosen those flaws to be that he straps his wife and has sex with her when she’s tired and uncomfortable? Perhaps not. But as far as I’m concerned, he’s still Dreamboat material.
Jenna: I thoroughly agree with Caz on all of this.
I read Outlander decades ago, when it first came out, and can’t remember much of it. I only just caught up with the miniseries, which inspired me to reread the book. I haven’t yet gotten to the scenes under discussion, but my initial thoughts about Jamie are that he’s almost too good to be true. He takes the beating for that young girl (name is completely beyond me!), he’s sweet and respectful and still a tough warrior, all with a good sense of humor. I think he falls firmly into the dreamboat camp.
As for the beating, again, haven’t read it in context yet, but given the times and the severity of what Claire did – the level of danger she exposed them to – I can understand Jamie’s reaction. She can be offended by what he did, and it certainly wouldn’t fly in today’s world, but I can see why it happened when put in the proper context of history and situation. I can’t hate him for doing it, the way I hated Clayton for spanking Whitney in Whitney, My Love. Even though that was also an historical, his beating of her was based on stupid misunderstandings and clearly an instance of power and domination.
Caroline: I think the spanking itself has been pretty well covered by the other ladies commenting here, so I’ll address mostly the arousal.
I think Caz is right that Jamie’s excitement comes more from having fought with Claire than from the act of beating her. I can’t really fault him for that. Erections in men can be a biological response to conflict and the hormones and adrenaline that come from an intense situation. Men get erections when their teams win tight football games, but that doesn’t mean they’re aroused by Peyton Manning.
Even if Jamie specifically had a spanking/beating fetish, I still wouldn’t let that alone put him in the “douchebag” camp. Why? Because what arouses people is typically outside their control (we wouldn’t call a BDSM hero a douchebag merely for getting turned on by spanking). It’s what a guy does with that arousal that matters to me. He recognizes that Claire doesn’t share his excitement, and so he doesn’t pursue sex. What’s wrong with that?
So it would seem that AAR Staff is firmly of the belief that Jamie is a dreamboat. Sure he has his problems but those are what keep him interesting. Now it’s your turn – In your opinion is Jamie a dreamboat or a douchebag?
I know I am late to the party on this discussion, but I just started reading Outlander and am on Chapter 24. The part of this discussion that is rubbing me raw is the cultural excuse. I understand that this was the 1800’s when women were property and men could do with them as they liked. But is that ok? NO! That is why things have changed because we fought to change the ill treatment of women. Why do we continue to excuse it just because that was the way of things back then? It was still wrong then as it is wrong now. Obviously people did think it was wrong then otherwise things would never have changed and we women would still be property and be beaten by our husbands without recourse. I am tired of hearing the “culture” excuse. Cultures change and for good reason. Beating someone, your wife for example, is not ok no matter the time period. Stop using the excuse of “That is all he knew”. He could have stopped and thought of another way around it. If by last resort, he could have pretended to beat her to help her save face with the clansmen. No one was in the room with them and no one made her pull her skirts up to show that she was beaten. They could have acted it out in the room and she could have pretended to be sore. Anyway, that is my two cents.
I agree, Leah, and I think if this novel were written today, Gabaldon go in a different direction than she did in the late 80s and early 90s. Culture does change in response to values and it is very jarring for me as a reader today to find the construction of Jaime’s character as heroic given the violence against his wife.
I just finished watching the Outlander series (I binged watched S1 and 2). I am now reading the first book in the series. Immediately I found the novel a bit lame and felt Claire was a “Mary Sue”. I felt she was always shouting and it just seemed weird that she was overly occupied with helping Jamie fix his arm in the beginning rather than focusing on her “kidnapping.” But I digress, this is about Jamie being a douchebag or a dreamboat, right?
I thought it was odd that he liked it when he “beat” her just because she was obviously upset about it. How his character was portrayed before that made it seem that Jamie would never want to see her in pain, let alone CAUSE her pain. I can imagine her fire is what did turn him on, but maybe not her pain or fear of him. I know later in the book when he saw her flinch when he touched his belt, he regretted what he did. He also promised to not beat her again (he left with a lot of bruises as well).
I understand why he did it due to the history and the expectations of society, and Claire’s lack of “obedience” which was always getting them both into trouble at every turn. I do not think this makes Jamie a douchebag at all. I think it is poor writing on the author’s part to throw in her sexual fantasies rather than stick to who Jamie is as a character. I imagine Jamie to be more of a “this will hurt me more than it hurts you” kinda guy. Beating her out of necessity of the time and circumstance and less because he got off on it. Nothing else I’ve seen in the show (or read so far) has indicated that Jamie has a sadistic nature and it seemed more of a one time kind of thing and now everyone has their lesson learned.
I also definitely do not view Jamie as raping Claire. I think regardless of the situation, Claire was into it and I think Jamie would know it if Claire was not into it. I think she has no problem voicing her opinions or making her feelings known.
So, all in all, Jamie is still a dreamboat.
I think Outlander overall suffers from the serious need of a harsh editor. It has a strong story line and is actually really interesting, but Gabaldon veers in so many out of the way directions (wolf attack anyone?) that it is fatiguing. The spanking was one of these moments. I started to question what a lot of this content actually brought to the book besides word count.
Am I the only one who ever HAS been ‘spanked’ with a leather belt? It was my father, and I was a child. I had been seriously disobedient. It wasn’t until sometime well
into the NINETEENTH century, that a law was adopted in England which made it illegal for a man to beat his wife with a rod larger around than his own thumb. What Jamie did to Claire is not what I would consider a beating. It was a pretty harsh spanking, but, it was done once, and with good reason. It was customary. As he pointed out in the book, if he had wanted to starve her, break her arm – well, at that time, she was his, totally, as much as livestock on a farm. And, I cannot fault him for enjoying the sight of her bare bottom, and becoming aroused by the action of the activity. No, he still is the king of men!
Just a friendly note, the nineteenth century is the 1800’s, you probably meant the twentieth century if you’re referring to the 1900’s.
This is just MHO and really doesn’t mean a darn thing, but I could NEVER get into the Outlander series. I tried a couple of times and it simply left me cold. I never even got as far as “”Reckonings””. I’m one of those people who thing time travel romance is dumb – again just MHO. I know a LOT of women who LOVE Jamie (my hairstylist being one of them) and he appears to be the ultimate DRB and not a DOB for many. He doesn’t do a thing for me. I read this blog because I was mildly interested in hearing from others who follow the novels. Thanks for allowing me to state my opinion!
I cannot wait to hear what people say.
I agree with you Eliza. I did not see this as rape either.
I am curious about how many readers who did not like Jamie’s character kept on reading the books or even finished the first book. I kind of started this series backwards. I picked up A Breath of Snow and Ashes at the bookstore and was a few chapters in before I realized I was in a series. I liked the book as a stand-alone fine and wanted to know the rest of the story. Then I went out and bought all of the previous books after finishing the 5th book. So, the initial impression I had of Jamie was a more egalitarian husband and saw their relationship as fully developed. I do not know if my impression of the books would have been different if I had read Outlander first.
For me, I rarely view fiction in stark terms and so the dichotomy of hero/anti-hero or right/wrong doesn’t generally work unless the writing itself is that simplistic. Jaime is, to Gabaldon’s credit, a complicated character. I do view his physical manhandling of his wife with a skeptical eye and there are quasi- non-consensual sexual moments in the first _Outlander_ that were troubling. But I found by the third book in the series that he and Claire had evolved into a more egalitarian couple. I think by the fourth book though I recall feeling that Jaime was becoming a bit of a caricature in his role as a father, and I lost interest in the series over time for that and other reasons.
Jamie, not Jaime!!
LOL!
The 5th book (I “”mis-typed”” in my last post – A Breath of Snow and Ashes was the 6th book and I read it first) was my least favorite and if I had not already read the 6th and knew it would get better, I might have lost interest too. The Fiery Cross just did not seem to have the same umph as the other books. I actually go back and read the books I like and leave out the one(s) I don’t care for as much. I will re-read Outlander and then skip A Dragonfly in Amber and go to Voyager instead. I have never re-read The Fiery Cross. The storyline with Roger was boring to me.
Yes, I can see why debating heroic traits of well-loved books and characters would be popular. I’ve objected only to what I perceive as some derogatory language to describe literary characters. But otherwise, I think the series is a good one and it does promote plenty of debate, which is a good thing. And I do agree also that the more controversial the characters and books, the stronger and more passionate and hopefully more interesting the debates will be.
As someone who majored in history and is probably the biggest feminist in a family of 4 daughters – I would have to say that I am not really disturbed over this situation with Jamie and Claire. When women were “”chattel”” – they really “”belonged”” to their husbands to do what they wanted to do with them and as many have already pointed out Claire’s naive behavior puts them all in danger – herself especially since the political/societal situation between the Scots and Brits at the time was not good. I think Ms. Gabaldon did a good job including these types of scenes in her books – it makes it more authentic. Also regarding the comments about him beating her – yeah…if she could walk the next day and had no problems getting on a horse – he didn’t really beat her – again she’s describing what’s going on with her modern sensibilities. I certainly will not hold it against the author.
Well said. Thank you.
Beats woman he “”loves””; gets off on it; rapes her. Yep – he’s a douchebag.
What part of Claire’s thought, “”cradling me like a quail’s egg, paying me court with a humble patience that I recognized as reparation,”” did you not get?
We can agree to disagree. You see it one way and I don’t.
I haven’t read Jo Beverly since the “”hero”” of An Unwilling Bride backhanded his wife. We all have thresholds of what we can and cannot accept in our reading. I’m not going to apologize for mine.
That’s completely fair. The point of these columns is to discuss heroes who do evoke varying responses from readers. I hope everyone in our comment thread feels comfortable asserting what works for them. No one should feel the need to apologize.
Then I won’t apologize for saying that reading what Jamie did as a rape is plainly an incorrect reading of the text.
I kept quiet on the last segment when everyone went round and round about the first man of my dreams, Rhett Butler. Now, with Jamie Frasier, I think we are beating the same dead horse. This series seems a bit manufactured to me and along with the douchbag term, I’d like to see it dropped. I can already see a future segment on Christian and The Book That Shall Not Be Named (FSOG)- oh, no, not THAT again! ;-)
You are right regarding the future segment about FSoG. I’m sorry if you are not enjoying this series of blogs but based on the number of responses this does seem to be a subject that others enjoy discussing. I thought it was relevant to do this particular novel because Outlander is a number one bestseller again. Sure, a lot of us read it back in the day but the show has introduced it to a whole new audience and we figured they might want to discuss it.
I know I’ve enjoyed these discussions because it has been years since I’ve read the books we looked at (with the exception of P&P. I read that regularly) and it has been interesting to see them through more mature eyes. My life experience impacts my reading and when first I read Rebecca and GWTW I wasn’t married. Now I have been married many years and I view the relationships in a whole new light.
Again, sorry you’re not liking it but as Dabney pointed out, we can’t please everyone all the time. If you have suggestions about blogs you think you’d enjoy more, please let us know about them. We’re always looking for fresh ideas.
Ouch! “”Beating the same dead horse.””
I am sorry this series isn’t working for you. It is one of our most popular. I hope we’ve written other blogs that you find more your taste. We are read by thousands of people a day–it’s likely that your sentiments are shared by some and not by others. Ultimately we strive to offer a varied take on romance and I am content we are doing just that.
Wow, this blog series is popular? That’s really depressing to hear. I thought other posters use of the words “”juvenile”” and “”manufactured”” appropriate and could probably add a few more of my own.
As for the reason for posting Jamie now because of the series, the spanking episode hasn’t aired yet and won’t for more than three months so of course we’re beating the same dead horse again for the same text.
I rather appreciate the variety of posting and columns on site. I don’t agree with plenty. That’s fine. I read the columns and reviews and posts and messages on boards which are of interest to me, and just leave the other alone.
So far I’ve not been a fan of any heroes discussed. BUT if you host a discussion about Christian de Rivers – I’ll be all over it. Crème de la Dreamboat! LOL. I hope you keep this feature running.
I only read the first book in the series, but I really disliked both Jamie and Claire. Jamie – not for beating Claire, but for getting turned on by it. That’s just disgusting. And Claire is an adulteress. She falls in love with Jamie even though she was in a (reasonably) happy relationship with her husband before the time travel.
I think too that perhaps just as troubling, or maybe more so, is that Claire seems turned on by Jaime’s physical domination of her. Despite her protests and their negotiations of how he could or could not treat her after the beating episode, in the end, his sexual attractiveness seems partially defined in terms of his rights over her body and her submission to him – at least in the first couple of books. As the series develops, I do think a more egalitarian relationship evolves.
I am not into pain or domination, but some people are. I do not think they are disgusting if that is what they want to do. Different strokes. I also do not consider Claire an adulteress (even though Frank told her that he would not have been upset if she had found comfort with one of her patients during WWII – implying that he HAD found comfort during the years they were apart). To me…it was if Frank were dead to her. There literally was no way to make her attraction to Jamie right. She could not get a divorce from Frank, nor could she go back to him. She either turned martyr to a marriage she might never return to, or she gave into the love she developed for Jamie.
Am I making a judgment on Jamie’s desire to dominate Claire sexually or Claire’s excitement about being dominated? Perhaps, in the sense of responding to a blog post about *heroic* qualities in a romance novel. In that case, yes, domination and pain are not generally qualities I would put into the hero category. When _Outlander_ first came out many years ago, many readers might have been more receptive to those depictions of heterosexual romances though. Will Cable TV try to downplay these issues for a 21st cent. audience? I’m curious!
Also, I never had a problem with Claire’s infidelity because of the time travel literary device. That always seemed Gabaldon’s way of finessing that issue.
Like I said before, I don’t have much problem with anything that happened in the first book, because I did not read it first. I already knew where their relationship was going before I read Outlander. I was already engaged with the characters before I knew their beginning. I also did not read it as domination/submission as such for the same reason. I saw how their relationship had evolved before I read those parts. I try not to judge anyone on their reading or how they interpret a book. I am just glad there are other readers out there to discuss books with. I enjoy a good debate (and I confess…sometimes even play devil’s advocate to get the discussion going). ;0)
I can definitely see where reading them out of order could change one’s perception of Jamie and Claire’s relationship. After the spanking scene and the subsequent ambiguous rough sex scene that some view as rape and that gets so much discussion, I did have trouble getting those images out of my head and trying to imagine them as a successful couple. I don’t think I managed until well into the second book!
I may have missed it somewhere in these posts, but one of the key reasons Jamie does what he does to Claire is for her own future and for protection with the other Scots where she was in danger as well as with the English. DG makes that clear. I don’t have the book here or I’d cite the passage.
i’m exactly on the same page as MAGGIE B when she said, “” I was surprised though to hear this scene talked about with vehemence by some. I had barely remembered it (compared to the violence of Captain Jack which left me with nightmares and trauma.”” I just don’t understand more uproar about a spanking (which used to occur in the past of my own lifetime) than the physical and mental torture, and soul destroying of Jamie by BJR.
I’ve also been wanting to say for some time what LESLIE voiced here, “”Really…..this is a grown-up blog written by women, must you continue to use juvenile terms like “douchbag”? It’s a little offensive IMO.”” Hear, hear.
Okay, I gave in and got the book out for chapter 22, “”Reckonings.””
Jamie: “”…ye dinna take things as serious as they are. Ye come from a place where thing are easier…. “”Tis not a matter of life or death where ye come from….At worst, ye might cause some one discomfort, or a bit of a nuisance, but it isn’t likely to get someone killed.””
And: “”The other reason…is because of the other men. Ye’ll have noticed how they were tonight””,…””There’s such a thing as justice. You’ve done wrong to them all, and you’ll have to suffer for it….I’m your husband; it’s my duty to attend to it, and I mean to do it.””
The next day, from Claire: “”There was a bit more good-natured chaffing during the day, and each of the men made some excuse to pat my rump in mock empathy. On the whole it was bearable, and I begrudgingly began to consider that Jamie might have been right….””
And of course on the trip home, the men treat her kindly, taking more breaks than usual for her to get off the horse, and this was after the prior anger that her actions had put all of their lives in danger.
Now can we finally just move on for cryin’ out loud? Our modern practices and sensibilities with this scene are out of context with what’s in the novel. Of course everyone is entitled to her own reactions, but hasn’t this scene been beat to death yet? (pun not intended)
Can we now just move past this single scene from a horrendous time in Scottish history, especially in comparison with Jamie’s various tortures and the unbridled massacre at Culloden?
Really…..this is a grown-up blog written by women, must you continue to use juvenile terms like “”douchbag””? It’s a little offensive IMO.
Thank you! I’ve said the same a number of times and wish that for what I consider a respectable and professional site, there could be a bit more elevated language here, especially when discussing fiction!
I hadn’t even thought about the origin of the term until some people complained about it on this blog. So I looked it up and I rather like this post where the writer describes douchbags as the tools of the patriarchy which makes it totally OK to use the term about anti-women men. http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/09/04/on-douchebags/
Plus I like the alliterative dichotomy.
We have discussed our use of the term quite a bit and do feel it represents what we want it to. That said, it’s always enlightening to see the perspective of others. We are currently pondering the title for a similar series for heroines. I feel sure our choice there won’t work for everyone either!
There’s no shortage of nasty words out there to describe women, that’s for sure! I’m almost afraid now to see the title.
“”We have discussed our use of the term quite a bit and do feel it represents what we want it to.””
Which is what? This statement is unclear to me as to what does AAR want this series to represent. So perhaps you can refresh my memory? Explain again the purpose of this series?
But while I am posting I will add, when I read a historical, I read it in context with the mores of that time-period. My “”modern”” sensibilities aren’t offended, if scenes like what is being discussed happen, but I do roll my eyes because, imo, it is the modern author who is responsible for character’s actions.
And I do salute the author who can write a historical hero/heroin who DOES NOT follow convention of the times. (I think AAR reviewed a book, which I cannot remember the title, but it involved the hero having to whip the heroine because it was expected, but behind closed doors, the hero told the heroine to scream as he hit the wall or table– clan was satisfied that heroine was duly punished for her alleged transgression.) To me, that is a great hero/heroine, and a author who I will read again.
As to title series, I happen to agree with others, I don’t care for it, and I cringe to think what title AAR has thought of for heroines.
So Why not call the series “”True Hero or Anti-Hero?”” (True Heroine or Anti-Heroine) or some such thing that is not “”hate-evoking.””
I think enough of that is happening in the real world, do we really need to discuss in the fiction we read, or choose not to read? And I read to escape, at least for a few hours, the real world.
Me too.
The simple fact that keeps me grounded is that Jamie Fraser is written by a woman so there is no bias there! Right? ;) As far as it becoming a series…so thrilled and Sam H. along with Cartriona B. have brought a so loved story to actual life and I for couldn’t be happier!
Ooops, forgot the word ONE!
I have a hard time seeing Jamie as someone who beats women. He hit Claire one time that I recall. (I quite reading after book two.)
I haven’t read Outlander in years. The first time I attempted the story I wasn’t that impressed, but I gave it a second try and enjoyed it. But then again there were many romance stories that I enjoyed back then that now I consider politically incorrect.
I understand the cultural significance of the time period but I doubt that I could re-read the book now with an open mind. I am just too programed now to think that men who beat women are douchebags.
I think Outlander was a great story when it first was introduced, but for me, I have no desire to revisit it. Part of the reason is the succeeding sequels lacked focus and the above passages you’ve quoted
Outlander isn’t really a favorite for me either. I’ve read it, attempted the sequels and decided the saga just wasn’t for me. I was surprised though to hear this scene talked about with vehemence by some. I had barely remembered it (compared to the violence of Captain Jack which left me with nightmares and trauma :-) I did re-read for this column but I still think compared to the overwhelming violence in the rest of the book this is a basically mild scene. I was more icked that he enjoyed it. I thought of it as a disciplinary measure and his enjoyment turned it into something sort of icky. Didn’t make him evil, just sort of squiggy.
I am completely with you on the Captain Jack thing. To me, Outlander is 4/5 DIK and 1/5 “”WHAT HAS BEEN SEEN CANNOT BE UNSEEN.”” I still keep the book; I just stop reading around Jenny’s delivery at Lallybroch.
In that photo, he’s a dreamboat. :)
LOL :-)
So much yes.
This discussion is so time appropriate. We’re going to see this scene in the next episode of the series. I’ve been kind of holding my breath to hear what the collective opinion of the viewers will be. We are, after all, more sophisticated watchers, having had a more extensive understanding of the time period mores (I always thought that was spelled like the eel, but apparently not). Many people watching the series will be blindsided by this scene, and I can already hear the fallout.
I’m very much on the dreamboat team, Jamie has long been my perfect man, in spite of, or maybe due to his imperfections. Because of that, I’m a bit protective of the characters and the author, and happy as I am about the wider audience; I worry about the internet vigilantes. I was absolutely disgusted by the internet response to Charlaine Harris when she didn’t write HER story the way some people thought it should be written. There’s no excuse for that kind of reaction, personal attacks and actual threats. I hope Ms. Gabaldon can handle it; she seems capable enough.
Well, I can see the anger with the Charlaine Harris books (just kidding!) I hope fans react appropriately to the event. If you don’t like it, don’t watch anymore. No need to threaten the author.
One thing that wasn’t mentioned in this blog is the historical factor. I remember when I first read “”Outlander”” and came across this scene, my friends and I discussed whether Jamie beating Claire really diminished the attraction his character had for us. As we were all former history majors, we were aware of the differences in what was acceptable treatment of women by men in the eighteenth century, as opposed to contemporary times.
So the bottom line is that while I don’t like the fact that Jamie beat Claire, as an eighteenth-century Scot, he was behaving in a manner that was no doubt very common and acceptable in the eighteenth century. Therefore, he’s definitely not a douche bag! :)
I think just this all the time about historical fiction. When I was in college, a friend wrote a paper showing how “”Taming of the Shrew”” was actually a feminist piece–when taken in the proper context of the time. Jamie is, for his time, a man deeply respectful of Claire.
The response I’ve seen to the accuracy issue is that we are dealing with a time travel romance, which sort of shoots down the idea of realism. But I see your point.
The hero may be from the past but the author isn’t. This is a fictional work and I am disturbed that she chose to have one of the good characters be a wife beater. And yest it is only one time but it was still a beating. To me, he is definitely not a dreamboat.
Exactly! As a reader I’m not judging Jamie. He’s not a real person. I’m judging Gabaldon’s *writing* of her male character, who could have been represented in any number of ways. Gabaldon chose what I would roughly consider a school-girl’s spanking fantasy to represent her hero as strong and sexually powerful and in charge over his woman. I really like _Outlander_ but the beating scene and a couple of others in the book have always left me squeamish and a little giggly too, to be honest, over how silly they are.
“”Men get erections when their teams win tight football games, but that doesn’t mean they’re aroused by Peyton Manning.””
Now I am going to be staring at my husband next time his team wins! This is a phenomenon I’ve never noticed….
I did unscientifically poll a few guys over for my husband’s bookclub and got a general consensus that this was possible. It is not, however, a guarantee! In case of overtime lasting more than four hours, consult a physician.
LOL, Caroline! Maybe it depends on who is playing, also? Peyton for us older folks, Tony Romo or Colin Kaepernick for the younger set? Some would say Tom Brady but not me.