I haven't watched the TV show but the spanking scene in the book was brilliant because it tugged your emotions every which way. You were completely disturbed and still understanding at the same time. When reading half of my mind thought, "Jaime how dare you." Half of my mind said, "Claire, stop resisting and just let him get it over with. Remember that you're not in the 1940s anymore." A truly great book twists your mind and makes you question things in a whole new way.
Unlike a lot of shows and movies, Outlander goes out of its way to explain exactly why violent or controversial scenes take place in the series. Jamie explained very clearly to Claire why he had to spank her, and that it wasn't out of anger or some kind of perverted titilation, like in the 50 shades of Grey book, it was simply in accordance with the time and place. And to do with the consequences of what Claire might of brought upon to him and his clan.
Nonsense. Hitting "in accordance with the time and place" would have been "fine" - in order to show what people did back then. However, the reader has to come away with the idea that hitting is WRONG. Always. In all centuries. The protagonist needs to come away with the idea that hitting is wrong (But after a while, Claire is fine with it!) If I read a book about slavery and slaves are being tortured, I can tell myself, "Well this is how things were back then." However, as a reader, I MUST think this is horrible. If I don't and I end up thinking it's funny, I'm either messed up or the author made a huge mistake. Jamie laughs about spanking her. He tells her he enjoys it. And thus, the viewer/reader is supposed to think, "Oh, he's laughing. So he can't be serious about it. It's all okay. The "time and place" argument doesn't work AT ALL. Reading a book about Hitler I need to come away with the thought that he's a horrible person, not a cool guy. I'm obviously not comparing Jamie with Hitler. But my point is this: If an author writes about the horrible things that happened in a different time and place, then the reader (or in this case the viewer) must understand that they are indeed horrible - not funny.
OMG! That is the craziest argument I have read on this thread. I don't read books to be preached at. It is not the author's responsibility to be the PC police. Because she includes a spanking scene in her book does not mean she condones it or that "It's all okay" in today's world. And yes, "time and place" do matter. If I'm reading a book about the 1700's, I don't want the characters to behave with modern sensibilities.
@@nula14 I didn’t get that Jamie thought it was funny in any way. I got he didn’t see why Claire didn’t understand and she called him a sadist. He didn’t even really know what that meant, that’s what I got from it and the fact that if a man had put them in danger he might have been killed for it so Claire maybe didn’t get same punishment.
I totally get why he had to spank Claire. As you said in accordance with time and place it was necessary. You cannot look at it with todays eyes. I am also thinking that is what is wrong with what os going on in the US. People taking down statues of great people in history because they are taking things out of context and looking with todays eyes which is ridiculous and not very intelligent.
I have never heard of anyone who read the books who had an issue with that scene. It is obvious throughout that that is a legitimate form of punishment in that time. Jamie gets taken out back at one point in book three, so it is an equal opportunity thing. Also, Jamie clearly knows the difference between justice and abuse because he gets so pissed at Rabbie's dad. His dad spanked him; he didn't beat him. I think the media is trying to make some sort of absurd correlation between this and that 50 Shades book, but it is just not there.
Bibliophile Lady Something about that scene made me giggle like crazy. I think it was the choice in music that made it seem like a much less serious moment than it could've been.
Bibliophile Lady Don't forget the second book where Jamie has Murtagh take the strap to him in front of his men because of his failings as far as the John Grey incident went. Don't forget who spanked Jamie in book 3 though, his own nephew, right after spanking him, and he even said that the first strap didn't count because it was too weak.
I've read the book. I've had an issue with that scene. And I know many others who do (just read the negative book reviews on Amazon). He's abusive. Full stop. I know fans like to whitewash his actions.
The series clearly shows that the men were subject to flogging when they did something that was not acceptable to the clan or something that put the rest of the men in jeopardy. I felt like Jamie was sparing Claire the actual flogging that the men would get and if she was smart she would take the lesser punishment and be thankful that she was not tied up and flogged. Do I agree with that type of punishment over all? No. But in the context of the story, it made sense.
The spanking Scene is interesting. Jamie could have been a lot rougher with Claire, instead he only did what he was expected to do as a new husbund. Jamie could have been far more violent with Claire, feeling he had to assert his authority, especially as the other men were listening.
I think that Jamie did what the others expected to do, to spank his wife. Everyone (Dougal, Murtagh) told him to do his "duty". He thought that this was the right thing to do.. besides, it is 1973!! This action shows the difference between two words and periods..I don't agree with spanking, but it was usual in that time for a new husband. But, after that, he told that he must find a different way with her and he apologized and when he learned the truth he apologized again. So, that works for me. After this, he was a gentleman!!! 😄😄😄
Don't see why anyone would be offended by Jamie's action to spank Claire, in that time period is how it was; not only that, but why isn't anyone offended when Claire seems to be very free with her hands (slapping Jamie on several occasions)
However, she is too full of herself. I have no desire to listen to her, makes my hair stand up in the back of my neck. She thinks she is God's gift to ........
It’s part of the culture of 1700s Scotland Highlands. I like it in the story because it shows how far we’ve come while seeing what women endured in those times. Jamie had a lot of emotional issues surrounding Claire’s abduction by Randall’s men and subsequent abuse. He felt a bit guilty about the glade. His pride was hurt. He and the other rescuers were put in a dangerous situation…big time stress. He felt a need to show the other men he was now a husband in charge of his wife. Lots of stuff going on there. Jamie repented. And I’m glad it’s in the story.
The spanking scene, though perhaps disturbing from a modern perspective, served an important purpose, in that it advanced Jamie and Claire’s relationship in a subsequent scene. He realizes that Clair is unique and that their relationship might have to be more progressive than how most men’s attitudes were in his time. He then promised never to raise his hand against her again. Then they had blazing hot “make up” sex!
Wow I don't understand all the fuss over this spanking scene. Has everyone forgotten the spanking scene of when John Wayne put a spanking on Maureen O'Hara?? I think it was done in a respectable way as to not look like it was a form of abuse.
+Kathy Keach Also, the girl John Wayne spanked in Donovan's Reef and the little blonde snot Elvis spanked in Blue Hawaii. You have to put things into context.
@A Cool Million the past is a different country. good luck imposing 21 st century values. but thanks for the patronising comment. maybe you would benefit by studying some history
I understand both the pro and con arguments relative to the controversial "spanking" scene. I am personally repelled by it and I found it difficult to watch. Yes, Jamie is an 18th-century guy, yes, this was done in punishment for what Claire had done, yes, had he not "administered" justice, Dougal and the others would probably have taken matters into their own hands and Claire would definitely have been the worse for it. But the fact of the matter remains that this is a show aimed at a 21st-century audience, not an 18th-century one, or even a WWII one. To refer to this act of spousal violence as "gentlemanly" is distasteful and irresponsible. Predicating a beautiful, aspirational love story on an act of domestic violence is a very dangerous thing to do in terms of the message it conveys to both men and women today: your partner can beat you "within an inch of your life" (Claire's expression in the book) but that's ok because he had a good reason for it and you deserved it :O The problem is not that such a clash of cultures could not have occurred (it's entirely believable), the problem is how this violence was approached in both the book and the show: 1) in the film the scene was rendered "light" by use of an upbeat soundtrack and also by interspersing it with the Highlanders' jokes about it, i.e. it came across as a Benny Hill or Punch and Judy sort of episode; 2) only Jamie's perspective and justifications were presented to the audience, while Claire is completely silenced, apart from her screaming in pain and fury; 3) it is not clear what exactly the two have learnt from this episode because there is no actual exchange of views between them about what happened, immediately after, or at least after she reveals to him she is from the future (hence she wanted to get back home, didn't just go for a walk on the day she disobeyed his order). So basically they made a joke out of an episode of wife battering, they completely removed the victim's perspective and only offered the perpetrator's rationale, and they failed to provide a believable reconciliation between the two.
Book readers are usually of a higher caliber, which is what she had for years. They were able to follow her viewpoints exactly wherever she led them. However, ever since the release of the series, pedestrian consumers could also partake in the storytelling. Some of them aren’t necessarily inclined to use their critical thinking and intelligence faculties appropriately in order to grasp Outlander’s in-depth projections.
I find it bothering how many people justify it by the time period... Because it was common at the time doesn't make it right, the same way saying Jews were hiding on your neighbour's basement was common at a time and still not okay. She's old, she has the mentality of the person from another century, and it shows, not just in that perspective.
Classic straw man argument. False comparison. Murders and rapes were common too. Taking a body part as a punishment or witch burning were also common. No one is saying those were okay, just because they were common during those time periods. It’s NOT just about it being‘common’.
Are you also calling Claire on abuse all the times she slaps Jamie? She's hits him, holds a knife to his neck etc. He is from another time.. A time when Claire's Behavior could easily get someone killed. It's nothing like it is now. And then there's clear who lives a lot closer to our time and she is quite physical in her outrage to him. If he's held to account she needs to be held to account but the fact is that's the time we live in now is very very different. We don't live our everyday lives in life or death situations.
