Rape in Diana Gabaldon's Outlander

Ravioli said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think you're being a bit harsh on Claire. It's not Claire's fault Jamie was brutally raped by a sadist. Blaming her is a bit much.

Viridian said:

I think you're being a bit harsh on Claire. It's not Claire's fault Jamie was brutally raped by a sadist. Blaming her is a bit much.

Click to expand...

Well, okay, so perhaps she couldn't have known Randall got to Jamie by the time she found him. And yeah, Randall does what Randall does and nobody can stop him (other than a herd of Scottish Highlands). But I still feel like 2/3 of the drama in this series could have been avoided had this woman half as much common sense as she has nursing skills. She did very few productive things that weren't about fixing her own mistakes.
All she basically came to do in that medieval world, was get people hurt. Her attempts to get back? A joke. No, let's stay and be a burden to people who aren't sure they want you.
Like Miaka in Fushigi Yuugi - cool adventure sis, and now you're spending those three wishes on cleaning up your own mess rather than saving the Empire after all those men died for you, yes? K.

I've only seen and read bits and pieces, but from those bits, it seems that Geillis and Claire are each half of one really strong character.

And then Geillis gets taken out of the equasion without Claire doing anything about it, and Claire is left to sigh, moan, scream, cry, puke, collapse, and sulk on her own.

I must say that I just saw the series, and I did not much like it at all. I enjoyed the look of it, the people in it, but the approach to rape, especially at the end, rather disgusted me. While I do not mind talking about rape in a story, it is not right if one merely uses it as a plot device, which is what she seems to have done. In some ways it is almost disrespectful to victims to address it in such a manner. Also this is slightly unrealistic to the reality of rape, and it adds nothing to the conversation about rape whether it be male or female. Anyway, major turn off, and I will not be revisiting that series. And yes I waited until they offered it for free to actually watch it. Figured it was something I probably wouldn't revisit, so why pay for it, right?

I keep feeling a little defensive in my DG fangirl heart over this subject. The TV show Outlander is not the book Outlander. Like Game of Thrones, what's going on on the TV show has some extreme license being taken. Certainly, the books have some content that can be questioned, no doubt about it. The TV show...well, I don't know what they're thinking because I refuse to watch it. All I can say is so much of what I hear is very different from the books, and it seems to be catering to a "women are weak and stupid" mindset, which is dumb, because most of the watchers are women. And yet, they are watching. Claire in the book made some questionable decisions based on living her 20th century sensibilities in 18th century Scotland, but she was anything but weak and stupid. I hate that the books and TV show have become conflated.

I can understand that. I mean, I have pretty much sworn off of GoT forever due to the fact that I think it's soulless. I don't believe that Outlander is, but it is one of those things that could be so much more, and I think some of the action was very mis-handled now that I have actually seen it. I appreciate broaching the subject of male rape, however it was not handled in a way that was true to the traumatic effects of the crime of rape. As I said, once it becomes a plot device rather than a crime perpetrated upon another person, that is when I sort of get offended with it. I have not read the books, and it could be portrayed in a completely different matter. But the fact that the rapist was trying to make his victim feel pleasure as a part of psychological torture. That was just vile. But I know what you mean about creative license between book and film. Enough people have used it. Like Peter Jackson with The Hobbit...*rolls eyes at the thought of dwarves and elves falling in love*

I have to say the beating of the FMC by the MMC (and the way it was presented as kind of sexy too, and followed by something I'd call rape also) bothered me more than the rape of the MMC. Jamie's rape was clearly unsympathetic, even if the psychological baggage wasn't handled as well as it should have been. Beatings should be presented in the same light, and I don't care when or where the story takes place, or what the FMC did or didn't do (unless she's threatening the life of the MMC and he has to use force to beat her off him). The fact that some readers seem to think that it's okay, even erotic, to beat women who do "stupid" things, well, that suggests to me that narratives like this do a lot of harm in society (most men who beat their partners think it's justified, after all, because they feel she's a bitch, or stupid, or dissing him).

Beatings that are portrayed as sexy by the author, and/or as justified acts by a sympathetic character, or where the victim falls for their assailant and it's not presented as Stockholm syndrome or something dysfunctional are real deal breakers for me. Maybe I'm sensitive, because I was in an abusive relationship once long ago, and I know how much it screws with your mind and self perception.

Not having watched the show, I'm not sure if you're talking about the book or the show, Roxxsmom. In the book, the beating wasn't portrayed as sexy, and Claire was outraged by it to the point where she refused to speak to or interact with Jamie for quite a while after. IIRC, he apologized before they "made up." I agree the sort of scene you describe should not be romanticized in any casual way. (And maybe it was in the book and I just don't remember it correctly. I think it probably did skirt the boundary if not cross it.) The "it was a violent, brutal world" excuse is so entrenched. (I'm guilty of writing it myself, thank you betas for bailing me out before it was too late.) It's such an easy/lazy/thoughtless fall-back area of conflict to resort to. It's happening much less in books, but it's distressingly prominent on certain TV shows. I keep thinking about Vikings on History Channel, those notorious "pillagers and rapists" who somehow haven't been shown to rape one person that I can think of the entire 3 seasons. Again, my memory may be off, but I don't think they've resorted to it. Plenty of pillaging and violent death, though.

As for the male rape, Jamie's rape wasn't shown in the book. After Randall nails Jamie's hand to the table, the rest was referred to in bits only after-the-fact, when Jamie was trying to come to grips with what had happened. It was very much a PTSD reaction, and the book focused on the after-effect it had on both Jamie and Claire.

ElaineA said:

Not having watched the show, I'm not sure if you're talking about the book or the show, Roxxsmom. In the book, the beating wasn't portrayed as sexy, and Claire was outraged by it to the point where she refused to speak to or interact with Jamie for quite a while after.

Click to expand...

"As for my pleasure ..." His lip twitched. "I said I would have to punish you. I did not say I wasna going to enjoy it."

Click to expand...

Sounds "sexy" to me.

I'd also argue that a man of his strength, beating a woman with a belt buckle until he was tired would probably leave her with broken bones, scars, and possibly internal injuries.

I haven't watched the TV show. I understand that there's a scene where he rapes Claire later in the book. I'm taking that on faith, though, since I didn't read past the beating scene.

Ah, see, I was angry reading that scene so I didn't read "sexy." Probably why I don't remember it that way, but I totally see where you're coming from.

I wouldn't be surprised if some rape scenes were seen as "sexy" by some readers (for various reasons), regardless, lol.

I mean, there were (and still are) actual (m/f) Romance (and Erotica) genre books out there that have the Hero abusing and/or raping the heroine and other dark stuff like that, so.... *shrugs*

I'm glad to learn about rape content before I thought of getting into this book/tv show franchise. I can't stand rape. >_<;; (It's why I can't get into most adult and some teen stuff, especially the dark stuff. I'll stick to fluffy adult and fluffy MG/YA/kids stuff, thank you very much.)

Yeah, I know I've mentioned before that the beating really turned me off, and the use of torture porn made me quit the series a long time ago. I read the first couple (three?) back in the day, but the beating stayed in the back of my head as such a turnoff that I couldn't enjoy it and I bailed. I brought it up recently in a reading group I'm in, and got the "well, that's how things were back then" response from a fan, and just didn't bother discussing further.

Agreed. A man who hits a woman is not a man. And never should it be seen as erotic. A man who hits anyone is not cool in my book depending on the circumstances. It is alright to hit when one is defending one's self. It is not alright to hit if one is merely trying to inflict pain without reason. Anyone who says that they are going to enjoy hitting someone is obviously an arse. As for rape, it is alright to have rape, or to address the subject, but only in the right context. If one tries to make it erotic, sexy, or anything other than the crime that it is, that's not cool. At first it was like, "oh yeah, sort of glad she brought it up because male rape is not something that society likes to address." When I actually saw it, it was more like, "What the hell is wrong with these people. This is beyond sick and pathetic." So, as I said, as much as it is pretty to look at and what have you, it is probably something I will not revisit.