Is The New 'Bachelorette' Engaged?
'In Fantasy Land, We Teach Our Kids Abstinence -- And They Listen'
Welcome back to the "Outlander" discussion of Lemondrop's Book Club. (Click here if you happened to miss the earlier questions.) As always, we've got juicy discussion topics for you whether or not you've read the book. Everyone who comments in the book club between now and October 1 is eligible to win a copy of "An Echo in the Bone," the latest in the "Outlander" series. And sign up for our Book Club mailing list for more exclusive offers.
Now on to the discussion:
* As a contemporary woman, how do you feel about the scene where Jamie beats Claire with his leather belt?
*Claire has to choose between her loyalty and love of her two husbands -- Jamie in the 1700s, and Frank in the 1900s. How do you feel about her choice? What are your other favorite love triangles in literature, film, television, news, etc.?
*After her first encounter with Jamie, Claire describes feeling like she's been beaten with a "blunt object" -- and then sees said blunt object when she returns to the bed. What are some other memorable euphemisms for a the male anatomy from romance novels?
*Compare and contrast witchcraft in "Outlander" with examples in modern-day pop culture, such as Rebecca Romijn's new series "Eastwick."
Comments:
Add a comment
Monday 28 September
By Carolyn Crane
OMG, the notorious belt scene! Obviously no woman should ever stand for that sort of thing, ever!
But it was certainly a fact of the 1700s, so I'm glad for the realism, even if I think it's awful. I get that Jamie was a man of his time, and that Clair had entered a world where women are far less safe in many ways.
I like to read about historical times, and I don't like my reading whitewashed.
Thanks for this Outlander blowout - I'm really enjoying the discussions!
Reply
Monday 28 September
By Beatrice
I asked the question about the belt because my aunt(who was working at a domestic violence shelter at the time) read Outlander, she was really upset about that scene and wouldn't read any more of the books in the series.
I know that if I went back in time now, I wouldn't be able to deal with that aspect of relationships. If I grew up during that time, I don't know how I would feel. I liked that authenticity to the book as well. It WAS like that. Gabaldon didn't gloss over it because she felt like it might alienate readers. That's a good thing!
Reply
Tuesday 29 September
By Kaetrin
I agree. It wouldn't be acceptable to me in a contemporary novel but in context, I didn't get all bent out of shape about it. I didn't love the fact that he hit her with a belt but it felt contextual to me. I wouldn't have coped well if he'd slapped her across the face (which is strange because a leather belt would have hurt much more, but there you go...).
In the context of the book, Jamie was just doing what had been done to him many times as he was growing up and what he acknowledged helped him to do so. It was a much more brutal time then and what was acceptable was vastly different to now.
The other thing is that if it had been a man who had caused the men to have to run and hide and risk arrest and death, then he would certainly have suffered a worse fate than a beating with a leather belt. So, again in context, it could be said that she got of lightly.
I guess any feminist bent I had would be torn between "don't hit a woman" and "treat a woman equal to a man". Not that I'm that much of a feminist actually.
And, utlimately, I get so gooey about Jamie Fraser, there's much I forgive him!!
Reply
Friday 02 October
By Jill Sorenson
I haven't read any of these books, but I doubt a belt spanking scene would bother me. Some of the same readers who say "never!!" to such caveman antics--even in a fiction romance fantasy--will accept it as part of sex play in a BDSM erotic romance.
Reply
Friday 02 October
By GoodMan101
My Wife loves these books and I know they get her going, now a little role play gets me almost everywhere! ; )~ Keep up the good work!
Reply
Friday 02 October
By Sister Boo
I thought the spanking scene was hot! It's true that there were very different standards in place at the time, and Outlander does a pretty good job depicting a modern woman's difficulty adjusting to that. If you read the book, you know that Jamie is not an abusive husband.
As far as choosing between Jamie and the 18th century, and Frank and the comfort and convenience of the 20th, I never quite got a sense of the love between Claire and Frank. We're given many opportunities to understand what lies between Claire and Jamie. Frank isn't presented as especially sympathetic, especially in later books.
Reply
Friday 02 October
By Elise
I am a little late to the party here.
Reply
Friday 02 October
By Beatrice
Your comments are welcome, Elise! Have you read the book? Even if not, please chime in on the discussion. The questions are general enough that you don't have to have read the book.
Friday 02 October
By Beatrice
Sister Boo: If the spanking had been in another context, I would have found it hot, too! It wasn't meant to be arousing, but rather punishing.
I totally agree that Gabaldon portrayed adjustment to a different time period well. As accurately as I imagine it can be done! I agree that Jamie was totally not an abusive husband either.
Reply
Monday 12 October
By Cat Woman
I fell in love when Outlander first came out. It was the first book I've read that I ran out and bought the hardback copy, and of course all the others since. I am so ridiculously tired of political correct-ness. When Jamie spanked Claire it was in perfect context for the times. In fact, when he tells her of his whuppin's later on - she forgives him completely. In those times (in general) oxen were treated better than women. Period. Jamie (especially) for the times, was unusual. That woman who refused to read any of the books was shortsighted. She missed out on some of the most beautiful prose ever written. Hmmm, I wonder if she refused to read the bible. Women were very much 2nd class citizens in the bible also.
Reply
Tuesday 13 October
By Kaetrin
Who won the book?
Reply
Saturday 17 October
By Kriston Smith
I have read the book so many times that I'm not bothered by that scene if I ever was.
I don't think a man should ever beat a woman however, I realize that it was a different time then compared to now and that it is only a scene in a book. I might not have felt that way the first time I read it but that was almost 10yrs. ago.
Reply
Wednesday 28 October
By Carol
I think the spanking scene has been over analyzed... I think when Jamie spanked Claire it may not have been meant for anyone to feel that this scene
should seem erotic but it did come across that way as Claire had said that Jamie didnt have to appear to have enjoyed it so much. I grew up in a family where some of my brothers thought it to be ok to beat their wives. Now these guys would punch their wives for simple things their wives didnt leave them not that I am saying that they shouldnt have, I think their wives should have ...and it wasnt that they were afraid of them either but my point is this.. in the book Jamie didnt punch claire yeh he gave her a spanking and being a woman myself I actually thought it was pretty funny and no my husband has never spanked me but I bet you any money that if I put him in danger he would just so he could have a laugh at me... and not that he would deliberately want to hurt me either.
Reply
Sunday 03 January
By Sue Robinson
I've just begun the 2nd book in the Outlander series. I'm pretty familiar with the characters by now. I have to say that I was rooting for Jamie after the first book, but, that could be because of the dark side of Frank's family. Looking at both sides of life and culture, I understand the lure of the romantic and utilitarian needs that Claire enjoyed back in time with Jamie. She still maintains a strong respect, however, for her marriage to Frank. I was a bit angered at the beating Claire endured by Jamie, but, she does accept it as the best of two bad options for them both, and we must also accept Claire's decision to take the subordinate role this one time. I think it sets the stage for a greater love and respect on Jamie's part.
Any thoughts?
Reply
Sunday 01 November
By thspn1995
I love theses books have read them all more than once, in fact my friend has to remind me they are not real. I was upset the first time I read the belt scene but after reading Jamie's explanation and Claire's forgiveness it didn't bother me any longer. Jamie is not a mean or evil man so for him to do something of that nature it had a reason. Also it is in another time and things were quite different then.
As for Claire's choice of Jamie over Frank I think she'd be dumb had she gone back to Frank. I am a big believer in fate and there be someone destined for each of us, we might not always come across them but they are out there. This is a perfect example of Claire meeting the one meant for her. Jamie is her soul mate. I know she never felt that way of Frank, so her thoughts of going back were more out of loyalty and honor than anything else.
Reply
Sunday 20 December
By Dean
Seems to me she deserved it. Besides, a spanking never killed anyone. Be nice if society could shake off this weakness we've found ourselves mired in, and get back to the days of good old-fashion discipline.
Reply
Thursday 04 November
By DaintyDeb
1) Love the series!!...... At first the belt scene made me angry. But then in the 1700's Claire had no idea of the dangers she faced. Jamie needed to get her attention. She broke an unwritten law and needed to be punished for it. It could have been worse for the time period. Flogging, stoneing etc. :)
2) Between Frank and Jamie... she followed her heart. Even knowing that her decision would not be the easy way out, And living in the 1700's was not going to be easy. (Glad she picked Jamie cause I did not like Frank.) My favorite tri-ship would be Elaina, Stefen, and Damion in Vampire diaries.
3) Blunt-object.... I'm a 50 yo and I love romance novels... but honestly I usually skip over 'those' parts, cause Honey I have been there and done that. (G)
4) Witchcraft.... In the 1700's was anything science that was misunderstood or unexplained. It scared people. Today it is unlocking the powers in nature, and in ourselves . (We are not talking about satanic worship. That is different too.)
Reply
Monday 08 November
By maledominationnotokay
I refused to read the series after this scene. Unacceptable. I don't care how 'historically accurate' it is. The most unacceptable thing is Claire's reaction. She should have fought harder. After the beating, which is the way in which one 'partner' asserts domination through humiliation and the use of superior physical strength, Claire needed to react more harshly. For me to accept Jamie as the male 'hero,' he needed to be informed and made to understand just what he had done: betrayed her trust in the worst possible way that a man ever can. But, he is let off the hook. Claire smiles and goes along with it. That's what made me hate this book. I was sorry that I read so far into, only to come to this scene and be disappointed and angered by it. It was a bad move by the author; there were other ways to get across what she had intended--whatever that could possibly be other than that men of the 1700's were thugs.
Forever now after this, I refer to the series at the 'wife-beater series.'
And not one of her books will ever be read by me again.
Reply
Wednesday 01 December
By Miriam
I was otherwise loving Outlander and Jamie until I got to this part. I am not sure that I can finish reading any of it. I am furious and feel as degraded as she did. I don't know if I can finish it because, deserve it or not, I could never love and respect a man who would thrash me with a belt. It makes it hard for me to identify with her character now. Not to mention that she's married to someone she supposedly loves and jumps into bed with another man about a month after being lost to another time. Give me a break! If you're married, you don't sleep with anyone else...period.
Reply