Rape in Diana Gabaldon's Outlander

Parametric said:

Thread title is a little, um, sensational...

Click to expand...

No kidding. Certainly got my attention.

Raped Into Next Tuesday! Coming this fall on Fox!

I was just gonna say... Rape isn't funny, but damn this title. I'm a person with a curse: all you say, I see. My mind's eye is seeing it happening with the motion thrusting all of the involved forward across a calendar, all the way to the square that says TUE. Can we talk about puppies please?

Sort of off topic, but I saw something elsewhere about Outlander and it made me think of this thread.

Something worth noting with this topic is that if the roles had been reversed, and Claire had been the one to make the deal with her own body instead of it being Jamie saving her, then one of the main debates would be whether it was rape at all. It's the catch-22 of someone raped by coercion that if they "agree" to the act, even under duress, then they've "consented" as far a certain part of society is concerned.

(Also, the sheer number of times Claire is assaulted, plus the number of times rape is referenced in Outlander is beyond disturbing. I won't speak to the accuracy of such a number, but it's disturbing, which I'm sure is the idea.)

Cyia said:

(Also, the sheer number of times Claire is assaulted, plus the number of times rape is referenced in Outlander is beyond disturbing. I won't speak to the accuracy of such a number, but it's disturbing, which I'm sure is the idea.)

Click to expand...

That was frankly what turned me off the series. I read a few of the early ones, but I remember there being a scene in the first one where it's apparently A-OK for Jamie to beat the s**t out of Claire, and that made me really uncomfortable. Later books seemed to have more and more rape in them, and I was out.

The prevalence of rape/near-rape is why I never finished the first Outlander book, but what some people avoid others do not avoid or are attracted by.

Parametric said:

Thread title is a little, um, sensational...

Click to expand...

nighttimer said:

No kidding. Certainly got my attention.

Raped Into Next Tuesday! Coming this fall on Fox!

Click to expand...

Title confused me - I thought it referred somehow to the "Tuesday Next" fantasy series by Jasper Fford. Then I realized it's the "Thursday Next" series, not Tuesday.

Either way, yeah, thread title could be more descriptive of question, less of !!!!!!!

There have been numerous threads in AW over the past year or so about the ubiquity of rape as a plot device in various genres, particularly as a trauma or stressor or "comeuppance" for female characters. I don't think this is anything new.

My personal preference is that authors be mindful about how they use rape and question why they seem to default to it so often, particularly for female characters. As if there aren't a thousand other ways to show how evil someone is, or there can't be a thousand reasons for a person to be wounded or ashamed of something in their past. And if rape is included, I want it to have weight and consequences. But I'd never tell someone what they can or can't write. I can only decide what I want to read and what I'll say about my reactions to a book in critiques or reviews.

I couldn't read past the first beating in Outlander. That kind of thing is just too upsetting to me (especially since romance developed between these characters, and it wasn't exactly portrayed as dysfunctional), and being told that I'm stupid for reacting that way, because this is simply how men were in the olden days, doesn't exactly make me want to lose myself in that setting or relate to people living in that that time period. I'll stick with more unrealistic histories and secondary world fantasy, thank you very much.

I may be in a minority here, but I feel the thread title trivializes rape. I don't object to a discussion of whether or not rape is appropriate in fiction, and the ramifications of all that, but the thread title is something that makes me wince every time I come across it. If it could be reworded in a more straightforward manner that would make a huge difference. As it is, well, the whole phrase diminishes the nature of the experience and kind of makes it sound "cute" or at least, acceptable.

Not my room here, so I'll say no more.

Cobalt Jade said:

Okay, I don't know a lot about the Outlander series, save it's a popular, action adventure/romance set in 18th century Scotland. So it came as quite a surprise to me that when, reading some reviews of the first book (and first-season television series) that the heroine is raped, or nearly raped, or threatened with rape an inordinate number of times, and that SPOILER!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
The hero is also raped, quite brutally and sadistically, as a titillating plot point. Which came as a surprise to me, as I thought that in the romance genre heroes are generally NOT raped. I know that in many, many fanfic stories there's rape and brutalism a-plenty, but not that it's crept in to a mainstream book. Am I just naive? Or is this a new trend? Or should I just read more?

Click to expand...

I've changed the title of this thread to one that's less sensational and that better reflects the actual discussion.

I'm not a fan of Outlander personally, but I don't think the references to rape were intended to be titillating

Regarding the prevalence of rape historically, it was quite common. We have a surprising amount of primary source data in the form of court cases. Chaucer was charged with rape; Malory served time for rape, and rape in the medieval era was both a matter of serious legal import, it's a topic with a fair amount of scholarly scrutiny in terms of both law and literature.

That said, the era in which Outlander is set provides even more evidence regarding the prevalence of rape, including court cases which were dismissed because the victim was of a lower social class, and the assertion that husbands could not rape their wives because marriage meant consent, and even obligation.

Historically, if you look at actual cases as well as philosophical and legal treatises, you'll find victim blaming is not unique to this era.

Hell, I mean, I'm only 2 episodes in, but if you can ask the court to beat up your daughter for having a life, I don't think rape is a far cry from that ethically. Sick people in a sick time do and accept sick things.

Maybe I'm blocking out the memory, but I remember the "action" (as it were) happening off screen in the novel.

In the show they really went for it, but aside from the problems inherent in having the one homosexual sex act be a rape (despite how the author vows that the rapist is just an equal opportunity sadist who's obsessed with the character who is raped), I thought the actors really did the scene, such as it was, justice. The rapist meant to break the character who is raped and ruin his relationship with his wife, and he succeeded for a little while.

I don't feel like the scene in the show was meant to be titillating. At least, I didn't find it to be. The other rape attempts against the MC felt more "run of the mill" (OMG, rape is so prevalent in our entertainment that it has its own tropes *SMH*), but even though I'm sure that type of obsessive rape between two men has happened in the course of history, it doesn't often happen in entertainment. At least, not set in men's prison. (Thanks, OZ) But it's funny how much the internet exploded over the outrage of the man getting raped in this series whilst simultaneously complaining that the MC's big time traveling mouth didn't get her raped MORE. Because that would be historically accurate.

I'm not really sure what the original question was, but that's my two cents on the issue.

TereLiz said:

Maybe I'm blocking out the memory, but I remember the "action" (as it were) happening off screen in the novel.

Click to expand...

Which one of them? I just saw an on-screen rape in episode 8 in dramatic and poorly done, tacky and ridiculous slow motion. It was far from titillating, and Claire lost me. She is always so smug, overconfident, and downright arrogant towards people less modern than herself, grins through every challenge, doesn't scream when frightened, so her falling into shock and needing to be carried the ONE time nobody saves her, is not credible by a long shot.

This scene confirmed a feeling I've had since episode 1. Her smug narration about her great plans and schemings and adjustment is redundant and when you watch the action, she may take decisions, but hardly any are ever implemented. She wants to do a lot of things, but so far, she has only been dragged around and sexualised by the patriarchy, smugly telling herself that she's "working on it". While doing nothing. Unless she's meant to be this Damsell in Distress in a wolfskin, she has been poorly written.

Not downplaying rape here. There are victims who, for their personality or background, are credible to respond the way Claire did. But Claire, with her Bear Grills attitude? No.

Good article on my thoughts:
http://www.pajiba.com/tv_reviews/dear-outlander-please-stop-with-all-the-raping-nsfw.php

I had similar issues with her character and had to give up on the series after limping through Book 3.

FWIW, Gabaldon said in an interview that she only went with Outlander as a romance novel when her agent told her how much better romances sell than general fiction/time-travel fiction.

Also, hi. I'm new here.

Personally, I was somewhat glad that the rape was in there. Male rape is not something people hear of commonly, but that is because it happens quite a bit and it is even less reported that female rape. And I am certainly glad that no one is calling it "gay rape" because that term is almost bull. Rape has little to do with sexual orientation. It has to do with someone wanting to rape someone else. Anyway, If we go back to literature from the time, look at Tess of the Dubervilles, where the woman, Tess, is raped. It is not graphic or anything, but there is no doubt that the event took place, due to the fact that she then became pregnant. She then finds a man that she loves and wants to spend her life with, but for some reason goes back to her rapist/abuser and continues on in their destructive relationship as his mistress. If we look at the case of the goddess Persephone, who was dragged by Hades into the underworld to be his bride. There are thousands of examples from past literature. I can't think of any M/M ones right now, but they are out there. Then again, there is an interesting Japanese film called Gohatto where the young character is caught between two very aggressive men that want to have him, despite that fact that he doesn't want them. Shameless plug here, but I write about it in my book "Loyalty and Justice in Samurai Film". There is a long history in Japan of male relationships among samurai. Not all of them were necessarily consensual. Even today there is a lot of rape out there in Japanese fiction including Hentai and Yaoi fiction. Rape should never be used as a theme in erotica for the purposes of arousal nor for shock value. It is okay to have rape, but only if it is portrayed as the violent and traumatizing act that it is. I am glad the rape is in this book, and in the show because it raises awareness to the fact the men rape men. Anyone can rape anyone. A man can rape a woman, another man, a child. These things are real, dso portraying them in fiction is alright, but only for the right purposes. Okay, I guess I am done. Just thought I would weigh in.

Also, consider the character Anders Johnson from The Almighty Johnsons a New Zealand show. As the mortal incarnation of Bragi, the god of poetry, he has a chance to convince anyone he wants to sleep with him through mere suggestion, whether it's a woman at her bachelorette party, or a woman who has sworn to save herself for marriage. He can whisper into their ears that they want to have sex with him, and they do, though they don't understand what has happened to them afterwards. Anyway, that's all, haha.

Personally, the beatings of the heroine by the man she fell in love with eventually bothered me far more, to the point I had to stop reading. I can handle pathos and grittiness and realistic portrayals of Stockholm syndrome and power inequalities in patriarchal societies, but if battery is being portrayed as justified or (shudder) romantic, I just can't handle it.

I'm clearly in the minority, though, because the book is a runaway bestseller, and it's very popular with women, so *shrug*

I agree with some others that rape is often a cheap and overused plot device levied against female characters for all the wrong reasons, but male rape (which happens in war and other situations when men want to humiliate and control other men) is often ignored completely in fantasy and historical fiction that purports to be gritty and realistic.

True. I don't find violence against women interesting at all. I don't find violence against anyone interesting, but the conflict obviously has to be there in fiction or else no one would pick it up...LOL... Things that bring realistic acts to the forefront is alright, if it doesn't degrade into something that's just trying to attract your attention by portraying violence...If that makes sense at all.

Not all fiction needs to contain this level of violence in order to have "conflict"... (It's fine if it fits the story, like this one, but not every work of fiction needs these kinds of constant violence or rape, etc.)

I have no problem with violence in fiction. Violence is something people do, and sometimes it even has a purpose, though I don't like seeing it glorified or presented as being without consequence or as the best solution to most problems. But I particularly hate it when domestic violence, violence between two people who are falling in love, is portrayed as justified or non-pathological. I have personal reasons that make this particularly hard to deal with, but from a strictly academic standpoint, I also worry at the message it sends in a world where domestic violence is still a thing many cope with.

He hits you because it's for your own good, and if you'd just behave yourself, the beatings will stop and he'll love you.

Now to be fair, I didn't read through the rest of the book to find out if the beatings had consequences later in the story, or if they created some kind of residual trauma in the protagonist, or if her falling in love with him was later revealed to be a kind of Stockholm thing, rife with pathos. It was billed as a romance, so I assumed it would end with a happy, optimistic ending, not with her sticking a knife in his throat and escaping back to the 1940s.

Really, DG has said over and over and over again that she never considered the Outlander books to be Romances (big R). If there is some evidence she's publicly caved on this position, I'd love to see a citation.

Every single Diana Gabaldon interview that mentions Outlander as Romance that I've ever read or heard (I've seen her speak in person) has her denying that she wrote a Romance. She considers it HF. How booksellers and others categorize it is beyond her control, but if we're discussing the author's inclusion of certain situations and claiming she meant them to be part of a Romance Arc, I haven't seen any evidence of that being Gabaldon's intent. At all.

I'm bothered that the TV show seems to be highlighting these aspects of the books as "Romance" elements. It's very like GoT, and strikes me as the worst sort of pandering. I really don't understand what's to be gained by it.

Roxxsmom said:

Personally, the beatings of the heroine by the man she fell in love with eventually bothered me far more, to the point I had to stop reading. I can handle pathos and grittiness and realistic portrayals of Stockholm syndrome and power inequalities in patriarchal societies, but if battery is being portrayed as justified or (shudder) romantic, I just can't handle it.

Click to expand...

I'm only watching the show, but this boy - that's what Jamie is - commanding his wife to let him beat her instead of just talking to her about the trouble she's caused, truly was ridiculous. What made it worse, was the way they showed it. They made it comical. WTF. Hell, he was right to be mad and had he hit her in anger, I would have said, well that's understandable, because her selfishness put everyone's life at stake and she hardly showed any remorse, and that's part of why I hate her. "I'm a damsel in distress, save me but don't you dare crit me, because I'm modern". But to sit down and calmly announce "And now I'm gonna beat you and you have to let me"? Hell no.

As for the male rape, I haven't gotten there yet, but that's not the rape problem I have with the story. My problem with it is that there's an (attempted) rape in each episode, on average, and this woman does not even change through it. It's just a tidbit of weakening drama of little to no consequence. Now every time she's about to get into such a situation, I just roll my eyes and groan.

Selfish bitch or no, a man doesn't have the right to beat a woman as punishment for her behavior (and punishment never convinced a single human soul that what they were doing was wrong anyway). Now if a woman is threatening someone, or is about to do something that would put everyone in danger, then I'd say a guy has the same right (even obligation) to use necessary force to stop her from doing it at the time, the same way he would a man. But beating after the fact? That just feels wrong.

Now if the culture is sexist, and that's how people think, then it may be realistic. Or maybe they'd flog or beat a man for doing the same thing. But FFS, don't say it's a romantic story. Women fall in love with abusers sometimes, especially when they're isolated from other forms of emotional support. But it's pathological, not romantic.

And justifying it by making her selfish and immature sends a terrible message to all the women who are abused by romantic partners who claim they deserve it, that if they weren't so bitchy and selfish, if they didn't screech and nag, if they remembered to do the chores, if they didn't spend too much money, if they didn't burn dinner, if they just showed more respect or forget who the boss was, if they didn't insist on having opinions, if they didn't breathe so loud, the guys wouldn't "have to" hit them.

Blerg.

Note--if Outlander isn't a romance, then someone needs to tell the folks who market it as one and refer to it as one, not to mention the folks who toss it out as a an example of a time-travel romance, or a historical romance. But regardless of whether it's a genre romance with a HEA at the end of the entire series, it is a love story, it's thought of as a romantic story, as in she falls in love with her abuser (and he with her), and this is overall not a Bad, Dysfunctional Thing.

Roxxsmom said:

Selfish bitch or no, a man doesn't have the right to beat a woman as punishment for her behavior (and punishment never convinced a single human soul that what they were doing was wrong anyway). Now if a woman is threatening someone, or is about to do something that would put everyone in danger, then I'd say a guy has the same right (even obligation) to use necessary force to stop her from doing it at the time, the same way he would a man. But beating after the fact? That just feels wrong.

Now if the culture is sexist, and that's how people think, then it may be realistic. Or maybe they'd flog or beat a man for doing the same thing. But FFS, don't say it's a romantic story. Women fall in love with abusers sometimes, especially when they're isolated from other forms of emotional support. But it's pathological, not romantic.

And justifying it by making her selfish and immature sends a terrible message to all the women who are abused by romantic partners who claim they deserve it, that if they weren't so bitchy and selfish, if they didn't screech and nag, if they remembered to do the chores, if they didn't spend too much money, if they didn't burn dinner, if they just showed more respect or forget who the boss was, if they didn't insist on having opinions, if they didn't breathe so loud, the guys wouldn't "have to" hit them.

Blerg.

Click to expand...

I didn't justify anything. On the contrary, his calm, premeditated decision to beat her was ludicrous. I think a man beating a woman in the heat of the moment is no worse than man on man, woman on man, or woman on woman, but that is not something you get up and plan to do, it happens like it happens to me to kick the nearest object or scream abuse at someone who's acutely and currently pushing my buttons, like when Claire slapped Leerie. Had Claire told Leerie to come, bend over, and take a spanking, that would be just as sick as Jamie announcing to Claire that she's about to get "punished".

And there isn't a romantic bone in that story's body.

True enough. Premeditated violence is not cool because you have made a conscious decision to hurt someone. The question is, why would one make that decision? What makes that alright, and what kind of person does that make you? It is indeed not justifiable. It's just sad and disgusting.

Now having finished the entire first season of the TV series, I have to say it's not as bad as it sounded. If I recall correctly, there were several attempted rapes, but only one that went through.

And while I commend her rescue attempt - which ended in Jamie having to offer himself to Randall, thanks a lot Claire - this woman never changed. There is zero character development. Whatever bad thing happens to her, she hyperventilates, collapses, and needs carrying. Or throws up. She never gets it together. Never. Sobbing and fainting is all she does. Towards the end, she literally beats some sense into her man, but beyond that - a whiner. A perpetual whiner. This is the grownup version of Fushigi Yugi, except Miaka grows.