Outlander book 1 discussion

[wolfmaid7]

It is the year 1945. Claire Randall lived for the past six years as an army nurse while her husband, Frank, served in the war. She appears to be somewhat passive on the outside, with her deep brown, untamed hair and pale skin; but internally she is a woman who wants a family and wants to get to know her husband again after his 6 years away. She was left in the care of her uncle after her parents died when she was 5 years old.

Claire and Frank have been married for seven years. They enjoy their lives together in Scotland, living in a Bed and Breakfast. Frank has a deep interest in his Scottish roots and studies his past in the library. Other means of his revelations come from his historian friends. Together, Frank and Claire travel to the standing stones, near the outskirts of town, to secretly view the rituals that the town women perform together. The town refers to these women as witches.

This is where Claire enters the year 1743. After the visit to the standing stones with Frank, she returns alone to retrieve a plant she wanted. Claire so loved herbs and plants. Frank asked her to also look for traces of fire, for it was part of the witch's ritual. When Claire returns, she leans against one of the standing stones and is transported back in time to the brutal and raw Highlands of Scotland. At first she feels as if she's in some sort of movie filming and people are all in costume. She immediately gets caught up in a fight between two local clans of Scots and is whisked off on horseback to be questioned at a nearby castle. They question her attire and her English accent. She realizes very quickly that it really is 1743 and this is no movie. She must keep quiet and fight for her life.

First, Claire is attacked by Jonathan Randall, who is actually Frank's ancestor. He is a rude Captain and tries to force himself upon her. Jamie Fraser enters the picture as her rescuer from Jonathan Randall. In his accompaniment are his uncles, Colum and Dougal, who cautiously take Claire in. Jonathan Randall was one of their mortal enemies, but had a Captain's rank.. As the story unfolds, Claire is thought to be some sort of English traitor, because of her accent and attire. Colum takes her in at castle Leoch, but very cautiously, and tries to get her to talk. The members of the clan and the castle slowly take a liking to Claire.

Claire is consumed by thoughts of escaping and going back to the standing stones, so she can get back to her own time and to Frank. Events unfold that make it impossible for her to return. Jamie is a wanted man with a price on his head for a crime he did not commit. As it turns out, the crime was actually committed by Jonathan Randall. Jamie is on the run, because of these crimes and Claire doesn't help matters, due to her 1900's attitude and demeanor. She offends Jonathan, resulting in his jealousy and great hate for her. He has taken it upon himself to make Claire and Jamie suffer (each for their own crimes against him and Scotland). Dougal devises a plan to help both Claire and Jamie by marrying them. Jonathan cannot come after Claire if she is married to Jamie and taken in by his MacKenzie uncles.

At first, the marriage is against the will of both Claire's and Jamie, but slowly they come to not only look out for one another, but also to fall madly in love with each other. As they become closer, Claire finds it necessary to tell Jamie the truth of her past. He listens, but is torn because he is in love with her. He takes her to the standing stones and orders her back to her own time. Claire fights a battle of wills within herself, as it's been months since she left her own time and she has such loyalty to Jamie. She is not sure what to do, but chooses to stay with Jamie. After the choice is made, the two are inseparable. They vow to be together no matter what happens to them.

They return to Lallybroch (Jamie's home) where his sister, Jenny, and her husband, Ian. Welcome them. Jenny and Ian have since had a child together, which they named Jamie. They stay at Lallybroch as long as they can; but it is short lived, as the English are after Jamie for the crimes he's accused of. They escape together, only to have Jamie captured and put in Wentworth prison. Claire fights all odds and rescues him. She nurses him back to health after he is brutally raped and beaten at the hands of Jonathan Randall.

In the end Jamie and Claire end up in France at the Abbey. They accept the help of the monks, and Jamie slowly recovers. Their love for one another triumphs; and it is told to Jamie that Jonathan Randall died during his escape at Wentworth. Jonathan dies being trampled by cows. This is of no solace to Jamie; but he and Claire move on. In the last chapter Claire announces to Jamie that she is with child. This is a new beginning for them and a nice end to the book.

First i want to say welcome to the Outlander series discussion beginning with book one "Outlander." We will discuss the Lord John series as it appears in relation to the main series novels.Seeing as these books are very dense i'm choosing not to go chapter to chapter,instead opting to discuss the partculars in terms of the individual books.In the spoiler tag is just a summary of book one. It is my hope to discuss and analyze among other things the characters,their relationships and where do we think the story will go moving forward.So dive right in with your feelings about the book and any other musings.I will jump in when i get settled in myself.

Hope we have a verra fine discussion :cheers:

[Errant Bard]

Considering the title, are spoiler tags really necessary? Anyway:

Just a question, in your summary you don't even mention one of the biggest plot points in the book, that is: sexual violence. How Randall rapes Jamie, how Jamie rapes Claire (and beats her), and how Claire rapes Jamie back to sanity. This book is practically running on this. The heroine even find beatings justified (only she thinks he should not have done it to her, because love). So is there a reason you are not including it? Not sure, maybe to some readers it could feel meaningless details, even though it what stuck with me. The "gays are evil" vibes only hit afterwards.

[Darth Richard II]

Well. What you put under the tags there is a huge point of contention between the books supporters and detractors to the point where it gets uncivil. There have been some epic Amazon, uh, discussions on the matter. There was a discussion about it years ago here in a topic on rape on fiction and how a lot of romance aimed at( and written by) women is basically rape fantasies. My opinion on this book is I think well known by this point, but suffice to say I am emphatically not a fan and if people want to actually talk about the, uh, story and such I will leave them to it, but I always find discussions about certain scenes and the hand waving some people give it to be really interesting, when it stays civil.

[wolfmaid7]

Considering the title, are spoiler tags really necessary? Anyway:

Just a question, in your summary you don't even mention one of the biggest plot points in the book, that is: sexual violence. How Randall rapes Jamie, how Jamie rapes Claire (and beats her), and how Claire rapes Jamie back to sanity. This book is practically running on this. The heroine even find beatings justified (only she thinks he should not have done it to her, because love). So is there a reason you are not including it? Not sure, maybe to some readers it could feel meaningless details, even though it what stuck with me. The "gays are evil" vibes only hit afterwards.

No they are neccassary but it was done as a means to cut down on space on the summary.Actually i did mention the rape and torture done by BJR on Jaime it is a pivitol point and one that shapes Jaime a lot.As to Jaime raping Claire that never happened.He did beat her though when she put not only his life at risk but he rest of the Mckenzie men by running away.Now this has been a source of contention for many readers,but we have to rememeber and something Claire came to realize not only was it a different time with different social rules but that breaking of hese rules have consequences.

Claire's actions caused the group to not trust her but Jaime in order to restore a sense of balance had to act accordingly.There is a scene a lesson which i will post later but Jaime took her to off the path to see a pack of Wolves and how they dealth with insubordination.So i don't think its as black and white as Claire justifying but understanding of the time she was in and what was at stake.

Again i did include that BJR raped Jaime and have no quams talking about it as it is a very big part of how Jaime develops and how he interacts with John Grey.These are the things i wish to talk about more in detail,but for just summary purposes it was a skeletal rehash.If we all read the books we know how awful Jaime's rape was but also in my opinion things that were revealed about himself that John Grey makes him uncomfortable with.

Well. What you put under the tags there is a huge point of contention between the books supporters and detractors to the point where it gets uncivil. There have been some epic Amazon, uh, discussions on the matter. There was a discussion about it years ago here in a topic on rape on fiction and how a lot of romance aimed at( and written by) women is basically rape fantasies. My opinion on this book is I think well known by this point, but suffice to say I am emphatically not a fan and if people want to actually talk about the, uh, story and such I will leave them to it, but I always find discussions about certain scenes and the hand waving some people give it to be really interesting, when it stays civil.

I agree its tough to read and the story is not for everyone. I do't know if i'd call it rape fantasies for me the guys got it a bit worse in these books. BJR couldn't get it up against Jenny or Claire because they were strong and unwilling. Jenny actually laughed at him and Claire wasn't having any of it. But Alex McGregor and Jaime were made to submit by BJR which i saw as an interesting creaking of the thrope seeing the women withstand and overcome and seeing the males just buckle.I think the author touched on how the male psyche holds up to rape.

[Darth Richard II]

That's thw Cruz of one of the big arguments. If Jamie actually a rapes Claire or not. I'd go into more detail but I'm on the phone, but from what I understand is gas to do with consent.

[scotcat]

Yes, there is a lot of sexual violence, towards men and women, but pretending things like that never happened would be whitewashing things. Yes, it did make for an uncomfortable read at times, but again it all comes to the different moral/social rules of the time period. Consent is key.

One of the things I liked about the series was that the author showed how men and women could differ in their dealing with such an intimate violation.

For me, though, the blasé punishing of women for 'acting out' was just as hard. The 'spanking' scene was every bit as tough to get through. I can understand why Jamie felt it necessary to balance the scales for Claire's actions, but it was still unpleasant. Social standards again.

[Errant Bard]

Thank you for your answer, I will just comment on two points and I'm leaving you to discuss with like-minded people:

As to Jaime raping Claire that never happened.

I disagree, but the core my problem here is different: you know very well which scene I'm referring to, and if I, as a guy, read this scene, what do I get from it -knowing it's a book written by a woman for women, and considered to be titillating and stuff-? It's simple: what I get is when she says no, she does not mean no. It does not matter if I just beat her, among other things: if I can have my way with her, roughly if needs be, and even if she says no, she will like it and forgive me. And it will not be rape, of course.

I think the author touched on how the male psyche holds up to rape.

I think the author transposed the way women hold up to rape onto a male character, to make it better relatable. Jamie is hard to relate for me due to these kind of weird reactions (and oversensitivity and stuff) sometimes. The final scenes of the books made me laugh a bit, so ridiculous they felt, I admit.

Anyway, I was just curious, sorry for the interruption.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

bookmarking to discuss once I have a bit of time.

[wolfmaid7]

That's thw Cruz of one of the big arguments. If Jamie actually a rapes Claire or not. I'd go into more detail but I'm on the phone, but from what I understand is gas to do with consent.

Please do i'm looking forward to that.

Yes, there is a lot of sexual violence, towards men and women, but pretending things like that never happened would be whitewashing things. Yes, it did make for an uncomfortable read at times, but again it all comes to the different moral/social rules of the time period. Consent is key.

One of the things I liked about the series was that the author showed how men and women could differ in their dealing with such an intimate violation.

For me, though, the blasé punishing of women for 'acting out' was just as hard. The 'spanking' scene was every bit as tough to get through. I can understand why Jamie felt it necessary to balance the scales for Claire's actions, but it was still unpleasant. Social standards again.

Word so very true.The spanking scene though hard to watch i myself understood why it had to happen. Jaime told her if it was anyone else in the party that had done that they might have been killed.Hence the reason the scene with the wolves was so powerful and she realized in that moment that Jaime gave her "Justice"

Thank you for your answer, I will just comment on two points and I'm leaving you to discuss with like-minded people:I disagree, but the core my problem here is different: you know very well which scene I'm referring to, and if I, as a guy, read this scene, what do I get from it -knowing it's a book written by a woman for women, and considered to be titillating and stuff-? It's simple: what I get is when she says no, she does not mean no. It does not matter if I just beat her, among other things: if I can have my way with her, roughly if needs be, and even if she says no, she will like it and forgive me. And it will not be rape, of course.

I think the author transposed the way women hold up to rape onto a male character, to make it better relatable. Jamie is hard to relate for me due to these kind of weird reactions (and oversensitivity and stuff) sometimes. The final scenes of the books made me laugh a bit, so ridiculous they felt, I admit.

Anyway, I was just curious, sorry for the interruption.

Errant i certainly don't wan't you to leave the discussion,part of why i started this thread was because i wanted to have a discourse no matter how differently people may view scenes.I think everyone here is adult enough to have this.I'm not very into group-think hence your perceptions are most definitely welcomed beause hey someone may see something that i didn't or haven't consider.So the idea of like mindedness doesn't apply to seeing the books the same,but being able to discuss it respectfully.

I think i recall the scene in which you are speaking of, i'm only putting a pieces that i think you are getting at:

No! i gasped please stop your hurting me."........................"Aye beg me for mercy Sassanach ."Ye shallna have it though,not yet."

But i think the answer is in the arguement they had about Leoghrie just before ( i butchered the spelling i know).

Claire was basically telling Jaime that she (Claire) had no claim to him and that she knows he ad his own reasons for marrying her ( reasons which he told her later by the way).

Jaime: Have no claim to me and what do you think a wedding vow is lass?"............No claim he mutterd as though to himself .At liberty to behave as i wish and you'll just stand by?"He bent to pull of his boots........

"Well if you have no claim on me,i have one on you come here."

He went on to kiss her very hard and Jaime reassured and gave her the ring which is what he was about .I do understand what you are saying and when i read this scene at first the moment she said "No" i immediately said well he's raping her. I had to change my thought processes though and ask from Claire's point of view was it rape or was it rough sex and from her point of view it was just that...rough sex that she herself liked.

From Jaime's point of view look at the time in which he was living,women did not say no to their husbands.He made that plain to her when she made the comment about "him not being accuntable to her with respect to Loahrie.He then said if i can do what i want and take my pleasure where i want,if i do with you then what can you do about it." He was trying to prove a point that he is accuntable to her and he can't just do as he pleases nor can she.

As to the act itself the rough sex hey they are into that type of stuff.

As Jaime said " I'm a violent man and i kent that well."Claire knows that well and accepts that of him. As we move unto the other books we will see tis change a bit where Claire is provoking Jaime into rough sex and he won't .Stuff like this happened in that period and the author is just penning as aspect of male human relation that was real.

[sagewich]

Huh. I just reread Outlander. I cannot remember Jaime raping Claire. I have to agree that it is woman for women's book. I love the shirts with "Talk Jaime to Me"

It's a fun read, well, most of the time. Lots of violence and backstabbing. I think the author captured the turbulence and the wretchedness of the times.

I would like to see the series, but that will have to wait.

[Darth Richard II]

Thank you for your answer, I will just comment on two points and I'm leaving you to discuss with like-minded people:I disagree, but the core my problem here is different: you know very well which scene I'm referring to, and if I, as a guy, read this scene, what do I get from it -knowing it's a book written by a woman for women, and considered to be titillating and stuff-? It's simple: what I get is when she says no, she does not mean no. It does not matter if I just beat her, among other things: if I can have my way with her, roughly if needs be, and even if she says no, she will like it and forgive me. And it will not be rape, of course.

Yes, its the "I'll rape her til she likes it" trope. It is way more common in female written romance novels than it should be.(Hell it shouldn't be there at all). And trying to discuss it really goes nowhere because of the way people view the scene differently, as seen here. There's never going ot be any common ground I think between us and the fans.

[wolfmaid7]

Yes, its the "I'll rape her til she likes it" trope. It is way more common in female written romance novels than it should be.(Hell it shouldn't be there at all). And trying to discuss it really goes nowhere because of the way people view the scene differently, as seen here. There's never going ot be any common ground I think between us and the fans.

Darth Richard i actually agree with you that this thrope is there,but it is there across the board. The difference is Claire has chosen this type of partnership with Jaime as messed up as it is they "both" like it and we have seen Claire revel in this type of domination,this violence in bed that she and Jaime engages in.On the otherside we see this 'i'll rape you till you like it" done in the hands of BJR on Jaime with his " i'll caress you like my own sweet son" statement .We all agree that the series is pretty violent and sexual violence be it consenual or not is interwoven. While i am a fan of the series i'm an objective fan and see it for what it is. I also enjoy it in someways than others for what it is.

It is very common in female written novels i agree ,so what does that say about the females who read it and find the type of relationship between Claire and Jaime swoon worthy?You say it shouldn't be written in at all,but you must admit that there is a large portion of females who read this that like it.

The "if you rape me,i'll forgive you" theme is as plentyful in this series as " i don't care how many people you sleep with, i'll love you forever".All these are situational and choice has a lot to do with it.

[Darth Richard II]

It is very common in female written novels i agree ,so what does that say about the females who read it and find the type of relationship between Claire and Jaime swoon worthy?You say it shouldn't be written in at all,but you must admit that there is a large portion of females who read this that like it.

I don't know what it actually says or means. :/ I just know I find the whole thing disturbing. Probably says something about western culture and feminisms and whatnot.

[wolfmaid7]

I don't know what it actually says or means. :/ I just know I find the whole thing disturbing. Probably says something about western culture and feminisms and whatnot.

True, we live in a day where Fifty Shades Grey is a Valentine's Day worthy film :ack: but as far as this series go we not only get and older woman deflowering a dude but said woman who was probably sexually repressed talking about ' riding said dude like a Stallion'.In contrast we have her and Frank going on a second honeymoon to rekindle their relationship but Frank is consumed with finding out about BJR and Claire is looking at the local flora. In a sense it represents what some relationships suffer from ;the "gotten use to" phase.

[Zorral]

First of all, Claire serving as a field triage nurse is as much serving in the war as Frank's service, which was in intelligence. She saw far more blood and death than he did, and dealt with it past her elbows just about every gdded day, which he did not.

[Errant Bard]

It is very common in female written novels i agree ,so what does that say about the females who read it and find the type of relationship between Claire and Jaime swoon worthy?You say it shouldn't be written in at all,but you must admit that there is a large portion of females who read this that like it.

Just expanding on what I already posted, really:

I believe it's as swoon worthy for the intended audience than fantasies of the hot cheerleader falling for the nerd are for highschool nerds: it actually presents someone perfect, who can more or less read minds (do something you want without you taking the initiative of actually doing anything, or even more, force you through a natural/feigned reluctance) and also validate the main character's personality in the meantime.

It strongly requires you to identify with the main character and disregard any other point of view or angles into the story though. (You cannot have a reader wonder: "wait, what would it be like if I was that cheerleader and that creepy guy never even spoke to me / if I was that guy who forces that woman into sex even though she told him no? ...If I did not know what the main character thought, basically.)

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

I think that throughout the series their is a high level of sexual violence between Jaime and Claire. with more than one potentially iffy encounter. And I am ok with that being in the books it is realistic, I do not know a single woman irl who has not had at least one episode of sexual assault. And often people are assaulted by their partner, and continue in the relationship.

A lot of folk read these stories and want it to be a modern couple with modern values and beliefs transposed into the pretty 18th century landscape. I am glad it is not like that. I'm not reading these novels to sit day dreaming about some handsome highlander taking me forcefully because in real life I am too repressed by societies ideas about what women are supposed to want sexually.

Jamie is given to us as a virgin, a catholic, 18th century virgin. Claire is given to us as a married woman who has served as a combat nurse in the second world war, was raised travelling with her uncle after loosing both her parents, also catholic & has had sex before her marriage with men not Frank.

These are two people who are coming at sex and marriage and everything in very different ways. Jaime belongs to a world where he literally owns Claire. He only knows his own desires and the culture he lives in. He knows Claire is way different and he wants her. She is from the 1940's not the 1990's and people often expect her to be a real current modern day woman. In the 1940's women were very much repressed. Obviously not as much as in the 18th century. But I am astonished in fandoms when people speak of Claire as a modern woman. She was not, not by our standards, she is more so than perhaps your average 1940's wife as she is well travelled and educated, and has had a profession. But attitudes towards marriage and especially sex within a marriage were still very crappy back then. Marital rape was only legally outlawed in England in 1991!!! So Claire coming from the 1940's won't have been as sure about her right not to be had whenever he chose, as say a woman of today is.

What I like about Jamie and Claire is that he grows to see things from her side as their relationship develops, especially once she has come clean about where she is from.

Also we note as the story progresses that they both enjoy violent sex.

I like that the story shows the reality of what it was like in 18th century Britain for women. I doubt I'd have given much time to a series where 18th century men were remarkably respecting of women and behaved in a way which many 21st century men fail to. It would have been a joke! As it is I do find Claire a little too liberated for a 1940's lass, but I write it off as her having had such an unconventional upbringing with Uncle Lamb.

[Lyanna Stark]

It strongly requires you to identify with the main character and disregard any other point of view or angles into the story though. (You cannot have a reader wonder: "wait, what would it be like if I was that cheerleader and that creepy guy never even spoke to me / if I was that guy who forces that woman into sex even though she told him no? ...If I did not know what the main character thought, basically.)

Can I be your cheerleader? :lol:

Anyways, I am getting my popcorn.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

But what I do find Gabaldons careless description of primrose as having thorns unforgivable.

:bang:

[Errant Bard]

Can I be your cheerleader? :lol:

Always :)

But I forfeit the game today, the subject draws me in, but it is tiring and time consuming and nobody ever sees eye to eye. (Though I would have something to say about the idea that because it was done -not even OK- back then/there (it's often used about fictional worlds in general) then we should abdicate our morals and internalize it as OK when we read it.)