Why can't I like TV Claire like I do book Claire??? So annoyed at myself. It interferes with me liking the show. TV Claire is such a spoiled brat in season 1 & 2. I'm watching season 2 again and her whole attitude is just such a snot. Gah!
shareWhy can't I like TV Claire like I do book Claire??? So annoyed at myself. It interferes with me liking the show.I never really cared for book Claire, but TV Claire is even ruining the book for me at this point. I can't stand her nasty attitude toward Jamie. I think they are trying to make her look like a strong woman, but instead are just making her look like a "real b*tch". I hope they make her more loving and campassionate toward Jamie this season [Of course, I'm referring to the times when she is not in bed with him.] When she's in bed with him, she is all over him: out of bed, she a real b*tch. Just the view from where I sit, I know there are others who see it differently. She is definitely not a favorite character for me.
I'm the same way in preferring book Claire to show Claire. Granted I've only read up to & including The Fiery Cross, so something might happen later on to turn me off book Claire completely.
The only theories I can come up with is either the way they write show Claire, the acting on her part, or a combo of both.
Thank you guys! From all of the gushing and praise I read by fans about how great TV Claire is, I thought I must be overlooking something. I just find book Claire less bratty and more mature. I know there will always be discrepencies between the book character vs. the TV character. It just seems Claire is written for the show as more harsh in general. Or is it Caitriona's portrayal that makes it more harsh? What fo you think?
shareIt just seems Claire is written for the show as more harsh in general. Or is it Caitriona's portrayal that makes it more harsh? What fo you think?You know, sometimes I think it's a little bit of both. But, I hate to think it was the fact that Cait grew up in an environment where people were rude and ugly to each other and she's modeling that behavior. However, it could just be the writers view of a strong woman; God forbid.
Well, after seeing Caitriona in that video on youtube making fun of Nicole Kidman's face, it's obvious she learned meanness from somewhere and can infuse her characters with it if called upon to. Whether she learned it at home or in the bitchy modelling business, who knows. Most of her characters I've seen her play are nasty women. Somehow it's there and coming out in characters. Perhaps bitchy women are her acting specialty. Ha. (Joke)
shareFor me book Claire is more annoying, whenever left alone, she let's her imagination run wild and turns into an immature insecure whiny middle schooler. The show does bring out her compassion more, caring for patients & children. I'll never reread Outlander book again, much rather pop in the DVD and enjoy show Claire.
I do agree with you there. Book Claire always seems to take a diffucult situation and make it worse with her dark imaginings. But that's not as annoying as the b*tchy shrew way TV Claire behaves. I think its the imperious English-accented delivery by Caitriona that gets under my skin. It's arrogant. But I do agree TV Claire is more bearable when she shows a caring side in her work or with Fergus, which we didn't see in the books. I guess I just don't like the harsh way TV Claire is written for the show and Caitriona's acting in those scenes. There's just something I can't put my finger on overall going on here. But there's a reason she wasn't nominated for an Emmy this year, even for the Faith episode. Perhaps the Emmy committee didn't submit her name for award votes for similar reasons. They saw something off in her work that left her out.
sharehannahjamesglasgow, it's called money. Watch a video called Adam Ruins Everything: Oscars. https://youtu.be/rNRpb_E0jPc
shareLove that show. And Adam does ruin everything.
shareThe main reason she wasn't nominated at the Emmy's wasn't a lack of talent but rather the obvious snobbism of the genre in the drama category and the large numbers of contenders this year. She was acclaimed like Sam in many serious articles for the last season particularly and she made the top place in the snubbed nomination . She also did get a GG one this year, it wasn't small change.
But anyway I prefer tv Claire to book Claire and it is Caitriona that attracted me right away to the show , I was hooked in 10mn.
She didn't get a GG. She was nominated for one. That's it. No win.
shareNo offence. I'm getting a feeling that you don't like Caitriona in particular, judging by some of your posts on this thread and other threads. Am I right?
---------------------------
At the point of Crisis and Annihilation, Survival is Victory- Dunkirk
@krish_rocker
I'm struggling to like Caitriona since seeing that video of her meangirling Nicole Kidman. I've asked her and the owner to remove the clip several times, to no avail. Obviously they stand by what they did. It sickens me. Makes a mockery out of everything Caitriona has said about being a feminist in support of other women and strong women roles. Sure, nobody's perfect. But if your friend owns the clip and can remove it from the public domain if you ask, but you don't ask, that speaks volumes about the character of the person.
@krish_rocker
Also I came to dislike TV Claire long before seeing Caitriona meangirl Nicole Kidman. Seeing the video just made watching Claire harder. I want to like Caitriona so I can enjoy her work as Claire, but the more she's nasty as Claire I think of the video so it's not fun. She's close to ruining Outlander for me.
You realize that clip is from a movie called "picture me, a model's diary"? It's a documentary, but it's a) from almost 10 years ago and b) is supposed to be "shocking". So the question remains whether or not it is scripted.
Yes, I've seen the documentary. A documentary is a presentation of the facts. It isn't supposed to be amped up for shock value. All that clip adds to a film about the modeling industry is immature female models in it can be catty about other women. Sure, discuss what measures models take for facial procedures to prolong a career, but Caitriona didn't have to make fun of Nicole Kidman. An old clip or not, it's just plain nasty.
share@krish_rocker
Those two things and when Caitriona barks at fans on Twitter to "Be nice" as if we're all feral losers in the same boat. I don't know why she does that and it's offensive to those of us who are respectful to her on social media. I don't respond to her often, but when I do it's decently. Besides, it's a bit rich coming from her after she wasn't nice to Kidman in that video clip.
[deleted]
I want to like Caitriona
I originally started this thread asking why I had such a struggle reconciling book Claire and TV Claire. In think you've clarified it. It's not that I don't want to like Caitriona. It's that I already don't like her. She's irritating fluff with no intellectual depth that has made a hypocrite of herself. No matter the context of the documentary or the fact it's 10 years old, that sort of behaviour is not on with me. Not cruelly making fun of people is basic. We learn that as children. So Caitriona was old enough to know better in that documentary. The fact the clip hasn't been removed by her or the doc creator tells me they stand by the comments to this day. So that to me undermines anything she says about supporting women to this day. It also makes me wonder what sort of meangirl behaviour she's engaging in to this day because obviously her character hasn't changed.
I went to high school being meangirled regularly by these types. I think seeing that doc clip of Caitriona triggered something I hadn't thought about for years. I was already struggling to like TV Claire, but I think the video clip sealed the deal on both Claire and Caitriona. It's too bad. I liked the show, but likely won't watch it anymore. I'll remain with my enjoyment of the books and continue to discuss things on the forum.
So, in the end I have my answer. And that's alright, alright, alright.
The fact the clip hasn't been removed by her or the doc creator tells me they stand by the comments to this day.
So that to me undermines anything she says about supporting women to this day.
It's not that I don't want to like Caitriona. It's that I already don't like her.
Hahaha. Thank you for "Caitsplainin'" her behaviour to me. But I'm going to stick with my own feelings and opinions on this since I'm entitled to them in this forum. You seem to have this need to convince people of your point of view on her and there's a bit of an aggressive tone with those who don't share it. I don't have to like her. I've sorted out why (which was my original reason for the post) and that's the end of it for me. I'm glad my post sparked a good thread of discussion about Claire as well. Having been bullied and trolled in the past on social media for expressing my dislike of TV Claire, I'm glad this forum was more accepting. Cheers!
shareYou seem to have this need to convince people of your point of view on her
and there's a bit of an aggressive tone with those who don't share it.
But I'm going to stick with my own feelings and opinions on this since I'm entitled to them in this forum.
Agreed. ??????
share[deleted]
I was referring to a nomination , not a win of course! Otherwise I will have mentioned it right away
shareI like the fact she can go toe to toe verbally, but I agree with you to some extent.
She seems overly snappish with James, also I think she had the nerve of a wet cat to lay into Murtagh for having an affair. I get the whole jealousy thing she had going at the time, but geez, completely not her business territory. Her later apology didn't even sound that sincere.
Gareth: There had to be a reason for that.
Rick: We didn't want to waste the bullets.
". . . the nerve of a wet cat. . . " I love that phrase!!! And yes, it's true Claire behaved that way. But she was right at the end of the Faith episode. She was to blame for a lot of the pain her and Jamie had been through in Paris. It's like she started everybody on this mission, then got all pi**y when they were doing what she wanted because it was complicated. What did she think? That trying to change history was going to be a piece of cake??? It was pretty arrogant of her to think she or Jamie could change history. He indulged her too much by going along with her. They paid an awful price. I'm hoping TV Claire mellows during the 20 year separation from Jamie like book Claire did. She learned to pick her battles and be grateful for the sacrifices made for her.
shareThey paid an awful price. I'm hoping TV Claire mellows during the 20 year separation from Jamie like book Claire did. She learned to pick her battles and be grateful for the sacrifices made for her.I think this is one of the main problems with TV Claire, everything is a battle to be won and she is not very considerate of other people's efforts or sacrifice. She feels that people are suppose to just do things because she says so. Not sure if the attitude comes from Cait's delivery or the writing.
I think it's the writing or the directing. Cait seems to be able to deliver the softer, friendlier lines just as well so I doubt it's all her.
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
I like the fact she can go toe to toe verballyBook Claire was able to stand her ground, but TV Claire is just pure nasty when she does it: the nastiness is just uncalled for.
I just don't see her as being nasty all the time. She is rude occasionally. Some comments to Murtagh come to mind. But she isn't horrible to Jamie constantly. They did show closeness between Jamie and Claire in season 2 once they got back to Scotland.
Claire isn't unlikable to me. I'm not thrilled with giving Claire Jamie's lines and ideas, but that is on the writers. Any nastiness would have to be okay with the show runners, wouldn't it? The director directs the actors, so if they didn't want nasty it wouldn't happen. And I don't see that much meanness from Claire.
I don't see her being nasty at all, actually. She is in contrary a very kind and caring person. She has a big mouth and blurts out what she thinks as soon as it enters her head, but nasty? She also doesn't hold back and bluntly voices her opinion without much tact or diplomacy. I think she gets that from Diana actually, who to me seems pretty much the same.
But I don't see her as "nasty" at all. Just honest to a fault and way too impulsive. She does care for other's though and sometimes even when it would be to her own advantage if she could care less.
Well said Andorra.
shareShe has a big mouth and blurts out what she thinks as soon as it enters her head, but nasty? She also doesn't hold back and bluntly voices her opinion without much tact or diplomacy.I think your description of Claire is "spot on" and is the exact definition of rude and nasty. You see, when you say things without tact or diplomacy, it's called "being rude". So, yes, Claire's rude a lot. And I do agree with you that Diana has seemingly given Claire one of her own negative traits: lack of tack.
She is in contrary a very kind and caring person.Actually, I don't see her as kind or caring at all. I see her as one of those doctors or surgeons who are great at their job but have a terrible bed-side manner. I don't really see much compassion for others: what I see is a passion for healing and wanting to fix everybody.
I think your description of Claire is "spot on" and is the exact definition of rude and nasty
Actually, I don't see her as kind or caring at all.
As always Andorra, this is spot on! Claire is not perfect but nobody can ever accuse her of not been caring. She is too often in trouble for precisely caring too much , not the opposite.
sharePutting in my two cents...I wonder how much of Claire's lack of social niceties is the result of her upbringing...most all of her formative years are in the field with Uncle Lamb, a person she describes as not saying I love you but knowing she was loved. She's raised amongst men in unrefined conditions. Then she's again in the field as a wartime nurse where she's taught, I believe, to be to the point because seconds matter, and to not get too attached to her charges (she's not quite successful with that instruction). If you think about it, she's raised and taught to behave like a man of that time. We don't hear of any female influence in her life...we can assume her nursing instructors were female, but they're not there to teach her social graces, only to save lives. She's naturally compassionate, it's how she expresses that compassion that needs fine tuning. Maybe we cut her a little slack as she learns to be softer in her life...I think it's in there, but never had the chance to grow. Just my opinion. 👌🏻✌🏻️
shareAndorra, bunny, others who agreed - I agree as well. She lacks a little social refinement, but she definitely cares and I don't find her to be a nasty person at all. Sometimes she's a bit sharp tongued, of course, but she's in a strange world with strange people - no one is going to be the picture of grace, humility and compassion in that situation.
She's used to modern times where women are allowed to be heard and treated more equally, not this strange time when women are just property of a man. I think that all of us faced with that situation would not be able to remain subservient or immediately fit in with grace and humility.
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
Hopefully we'd all be smart enough to keep our mouths shut until we got the lay of the land though.
shareBut that doesn't mean its ok to disrespect the people of the time and place she's in. In fact, it makes better sense she would be more prudent in her comments because she's in a strange place. The fact she doesn't is glaringly obvious.
shareShe thought she was being kidnapped. Colum then held her hostage as his prisoner, accusing her of being a spy. These are people she needs to be nice and respectful to? They aren't nice and respectful to her.
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
Well they could have handed her over to BJR and been done with her. They could have kept her in A room of the castle and not allowed her the freedom to roam around and make friends. They could have hung her as a witch instead of letting her use her healing abilities. They could have... She had a lot of freedom for being a prisoner.
And antagonize your "captors" because that always goes well for people.
She's on their turf. They don't have to be. Not saying it's right, but we know her rudeness didn't help her situation. Even she came around to the idea of being pleasant to buy time while plotting her escape.
sharePutting in my two cents...I wonder how much of Claire's lack of social niceties is the result of her upbringing...most all of her formative years are in the field with Uncle Lamb, a person she describes as not saying I love you but knowing she was loved. She's raised amongst men in unrefined conditions. Then she's again in the field as a wartime nurse where she's taught, I believe, to be to the point because seconds matter, and to not get too attached to her charges (she's not quite successful with that instruction). If you think about it, she's raised and taught to behave like a man of that time. We don't hear of any female influence in her life...we can assume her nursing instructors were female, but they're not there to teach her social graces, only to save lives. She's naturally compassionate, it's how she expresses that compassion that needs fine tuning. Maybe we cut her a little slack as she learns to be softer in her life...I think it's in there, but never had the chance to grow. Just my opinion
Fair enough...I mentioned the upbringing as a reason, not as an excuse for her "personality quirks", and you got that. I understand your not warming up to her. Thanks, though, for that "maybe"! 👍🏻👌🏻✌🏻️
share👍 Yet again Andorra.
shareWell said.
shareExactly. This is well said.
shareShe has a big mouth and blurts out what she thinks as soon as it enters her head, but nasty? She also doesn't hold back and bluntly voices her opinion without much tact or diplomacy. I think she gets that from Diana actually, who to me seems pretty much the same.Almost exactly my thoughs, wish I had read your post before I wrote mine :) I'm curious, though, did you find her the same in the books, or different?
But I don't see her as "nasty" at all. Just honest to a fault and way too impulsive.
I just don't see her as being nasty all the time. She is rude occasionally.
But she isn't horrible to Jamie constantly.Why be horrible to your husband at all?
They did show closeness between Jamie and Claire in season 2 once they got back to Scotland.Oh, they show closeness at lot of the time: but, that does not negate the fact that she is at times very rude.
Any nastiness would have to be okay with the show runners, wouldn't it? The director directs the actors, so if they didn't want nasty it wouldn't happen. And I don't see that much meanness from Claire.Yes, they would have to approve, and they are also part of the problem.
I completely agree.
shareWell that's what I enjoy about these forums. We can weigh in however we like, whenever we like. I'm just not a rah-rah type of fan I guess. I can't fawn over an actor, and mention it ifsomething seems off to me. I don't try to be an expert as some people are in fandoms. I just go on instinct. Season 1 and 2 Claire has been written too harsh imho. It's distracting from my enjoyment of the show, and because I love the books so much, that fact bums me out. I'm not really happy with what Ron Moore has done at the helm of this show. Nor Matt Roberts. I just don't think men get it when it comes to Outlander. If they want Caitriona to portray a harsher Claire, it does them no favours in broadening the audience. I just hope they don't take a hacksaw to season 3 and leave out some of the best scenes like they did with season 2.
shareI just don't think men get it when it comes to Outlander. If they want Caitriona to portray a harsher Claire, it does them no favours in broadening the audience.
I just hope they don't take a hacksaw to season 3 and leave out some of the best scenes like they did with season 2.
Give specific examples of her harshness.
Courage consists not in hazarding without fear; but being resolutely minded in a just cause.
Give specific examples of her harshness.The first example that comes to mind is from season 1 at Castle Leoch where Claire and Jamie are walking through the corridors. Claire is in front walking very fast and Jamie asks her to wait up because it's not appropriate for him to be seen trotting along behind her. Claire's response was, "Well you should keep up then!" This was extremely rude to say to anyone, much less your husband whom you are suppose to love. If you are going to be married to the man, the least you could do is to respect his position as your husband.
What episode is this from? I don't recall that scene.
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
9th episode. Extended Version.
---------------------------
At the point of Crisis and Annihilation, Survival is Victory- Dunkirk
Thanks, I found it on YouTube.
Justice456 - so after Jamie just BEAT her and humiliated her, you want her to be all warm and fuzzy to him? They might be married, but that doesn't mean they necessarily love each other yet. He does, she might, but she's still fighting that feeling for multiple reasons. And may I say again, he just BEAT her. With a belt. For this example, maybe she wasn't harsh enough...
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
He beat her because she rudely gave a big *beep* you to Jamie and the men and took off to the stones against advice. Thus endangering everyone in a matter of life and death. She wouldn't listen countless times and it was ok when it was just Jamie, but when she endangered the men of the clan she had to be taught a lesson that went home to her about the seriousness of it since she wasn't willing to take responsibility for it maturely. She had it coming. For her to take it out on Jamie was just being childish.
shareShe had it coming. For her to take it out on Jamie was just being childish.
redheid - 👍
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
But Claire did know, having lived in foreign countries and been educated well, she would've known the barbarity clan culture was known for. But she CHOSE to behave rudely and immaturely. Sure, I could see it for the first little while because what happened to her was so jarring. But it went on and on, so that means it's engrained in the character and had to be dealt with. Unfortunately it was dealt with in the 18th century with a tawse on the bare bottom. But she had been warned. Not saying it's right, but she had it coming because she didn't give the warnings importance.
share...but when she endangered the men of the clan she had to be taught a lesson that went home to her about the seriousness of it since she wasn't willing to take responsibility for it maturely.
For her to take it out on Jamie was just being childish.
She had it coming.
She was hangry.
I'm a great believer in the phrase "you teach people how to treat you". Jamie taught Claire that there are situation where she must obey him, for her safety and his. When she says to him that he could have just told her, he agrees, but because they don't know each other very well (despite the sexy times), he's not sure that she "gets it" and the trauma of getting a belt to the backside makes sure, in his mind, that she's understood the lesson. Did I like it that he belted her, no...I understood his reasoning behind it. Her actions did put maybe not men, but a man, Jamie, in dire jeopardy...this is the pebble in the lake that starts Black Jack's "reawareness" of the boy who would not beg, who thwarted him and escaped...we know where this ends up and I wonder if Claire thought back on the moment she decided to run when she's seen Jamie's broken body and spirit.
Claire also teaches Jamie how to treat her, by emphatically fighting back against his punishment, showing her anger, disappointment, and fear to him who swore to protect her. He learns that physical enforcement isn't an appropriate response with Claire, and as he loves her and sees what his actions have cost him in trust, he vows never to raise a hand to her again. He realizes that he's now on Black Jack's radar again...to him it's worth it to have saved his heart as she later saves his soul. The whole thing is a teaching each other to trust one another, fully. Just the reasons behind my opinion...✌🏻️
Very well said.. Nice interpretation of the whole situation.
---------------------------
At the point of Crisis and Annihilation, Survival is Victory- Dunkirk
And 👍 to you Bunny as well.
shareClaire also teaches Jamie how to treat her, by emphatically fighting back against his punishment, showing her anger, disappointment, and fear to him who swore to protect her.
Hope you're not thinking that's my opinion of Claire, FC34... I believe Jamie's anger stems from fear that because she didn't listen, Claire could have been killed, and he loves her. Claire's anger stems from the fear that her heart fooled her into choosing a brute instead of who she believed Jamie to be, and she's just beginning to realize she loves him. Both understandable, both justified. Nothing rude or nasty about any of it.
shareNope, sarcasm. That does appear to be some people's opinion though!
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
Yes, that's my impression, too. If Claire was a man no one would call her rude or nasty. She's just not submissive and "friendly" enough to match what we expect from a female.
shareYes, that's my impression, too. If Claire was a man no one would call her rude or nasty. She's just not submissive and "friendly" enough to match what we expect from a female.If a man said the same things as Claire, he'd also be rude and nasty. And if he didn't think before he opened his mouth and did not take stock of his surroundings, he would also be just as clueless as Claire.
Like women being told to smile more. Mhmm, never get tired of that one...
GRR...ARGH!
he beat her because she rudely gave a big *beep* you to Jamie and the men and took off to the stones against advice. Thus endangering everyone in a matter of life and death. She wouldn't listen countless times and it was ok when it was just Jamie, but when she endangered the men of the clan she had to be taught a lesson that went home to her about the seriousness of it since she wasn't willing to take responsibility for it maturely. She had it coming. For her to take it out on Jamie was just being childish.Um..You're seriously arguing that she deserved the beating? Even from a modern point of view, or are you just seeing it from their side, while not agreeing personally..?
And no, it was not that he did it per se (I know it was the custom), but that he enjoyed hurting her, like it was some sexual game or something (which it clearly was not, as her hurt, fear, and anger were real). It was bizarrely out of character, and nearly threw me off the whole series.
Yeah, and the interesting thing is that, in the book, that was the thing Claire struggled with as well. She tells him that she has trouble forgiving him, not so much because he did it, but because he enjoyed doing it.
That was the only bit that I struggled with a bit, even more so in the book because, as you say, it was out of character.
Yeah, and the interesting thing is that, in the book, that was the thing Claire struggled with as well. She tells him that she has trouble forgiving him, not so much because he did it, but because he enjoyed doing it.
Thinking on it, I suppose things changed when she started to fight back and it turned into a fight between them and that was when he started to enjoy it.
That's a fair point. I think Jamie does respond that way to Claire's fighting spirit.
And my post previous to this was slightly facetious, which I should have indicated, as you can't really tell that from just reading it.
BenignPillows: it was not that he did it per se, but that he enjoyed hurting her. It was bizarrely out of character.Jamie doesn't make many mistakes but when he does, they're whoppers. This hiding is one of them.
This is where his lack of experience lets the whole situation get out of hand. He has to catch, subdue, then restrain Claire while he punishes her. This lets his temper/frustration take hold and he doesn't stop at the twelve strokes which would be typical for Claire's infraction.
The side effect of this very physical interaction was, as happened after the fight during the Grant raid, that the adrenaline transmuted into a different kind of 'excitement'.
As for Bear's music during the tawsing, it's just one of many terrible choices the show made that distorted situations and characters from the book.
Justice456 - so after Jamie just BEAT her and humiliated her, you want her to be all warm and fuzzy to him? They might be married, but that doesn't mean they necessarily love each other yet. He does, she might, but she's still fighting that feeling for multiple reasons. And may I say again, he just BEAT her. With a belt. For this example, maybe she wasn't harsh enough...I am just one who believes that a couple should be able to settle their differences by talking things out without all of the disrespect and namecalling: otherwise they don't really need to be together. If I don't show you any more love or respect than I do my enemy, then why are we together?
First of all, there is a big difference between a beating and a paddling (just ask any abused wife or child). What Claire received was a disciplinary paddling, not a beating.
There is a difference between a beating and a paddling, but there's also a difference between a paddle and a belt. She received a beating with a belt - as a punishment. At that point in time, she had no idea if that was the "real Jamie" and if she was to expect that every night? In her mind, I'm guessing that she was more confused than ever. Was Jamie actually on her side, saving her life? Or did he just marry her on a ruse to use her as a plaything?
Jamie had already told her that they did not have to stay together, so she knew she had the ability to stay or leave.
I am one of those people who believe that in punishing Claire, Jamie did what was appropriate for the time period and Claire should have spent some time assessing her situation and try to reconcile their differences without the disrespect and nastiness.
This isn't all on Claire, especially because I think Jamie knew she wouldn't have completely understood that a "paddling" was standard practice.
Now I might be getting my timeline mixed up, but didn't he already acknowledge that Claire comes from a different "world" where it's easier? He says something like that and she doesn't correct him, then they talk about how she "doesn't yet ken the Highlanders' ways." I can't recall when they have this conversation, but I think it's before they are even married?
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
Now I might be getting my timeline mixed up, but didn't he already acknowledge that Claire comes from a different "world" where it's easier? He says something like that and she doesn't correct him, then they talk about how she "doesn't yet ken the Highlanders' ways." I can't recall when they have this conversation, but I think it's before they are even married?
Thanks for the clarification on the timing. Then I guess that brings up another question - do ladies in southern England receive beatings as punishment? I don't know. Did Jamie know?
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
WARNING BOOK SPOILERS !!!
I understand the argument that Justice456 began, that this 'paddling' isn't the sort of beating where a man loses his temper and beats a woman to a pulp, and that is undeniably correct. But I still think this was more violent than it needed to be to act as a reprimand, and that everyone's subsequent reactions (book) bears that out.
We know from the books that when a young girl is disciplined in such a way this occurs through layers of woollen skirt and petticoats. This is not what happens to Claire, who is beaten black and blue and unable to sit down for two to three days. The description we are given says Jamie put his knee in her back and continued to beat her for some time. One of the first comments we have from Claire the morning after is that Jamie 'had his revenge'.
Jamie is known to be stubborn, if he really believed that he had acted proportionately and appropriately with regard to Claire do you think he would he have been so quick (book) to make a solemn oath before God that he would not lay another hand on her as long as he lived? To me this says that he was a bit surprised by how 'badly' (his thinking) she reacted to this, and that, on reflection, he does think he went too far. If he didn't think that, (and thought his behaviour was fine), I'm not sure he would have made the oath.
I also struggle with this section of the book on a lot of levels, like other posters, and when the topic comes up again (in book six is it?) when Jamie and Claire remember this episode decades later. She is still very upset by it - this isn't a wound that heals, and that discussion is also really unsatisfactory. Diana comes back to it, and still doesn't resolve it well.
This is when we discover that Ian and Jenny have found a way to incorporate mutually consensual spanking or whatever you want to call it, into their relationship. Jamie struggles with this, despite having enjoyed doing something similar to Claire (non-consensual) years before. That's the part of the original episode I struggled with, like other posters.
I'm not sure I really have this straight at all!
But I still think this was more violent than it needed to be to act as a reprimand, and that everyone's subsequent reactions (book) bears that out.I don't think it was violent at all. I do think it was a serious spanking and any serious spanking would have left a women sore for days. Naturally Claire would think it severe, since she had never had a spanking before, not even as a child. I also think many people's reaction was due to modern sensitivities. I, and others like me, just took it for what it was: a story about an 18th century man acting in the fashion in which he was accustomed.
Jamie is known to be stubborn, if he really believed that he had acted proportionately and appropriately with regard to Claire do you think he would he have been so quick (book) to make a solemn oath before God that he would not lay another hand on her as long as he lived? To me this says that he was a bit surprised by how 'badly' (his thinking) she reacted to this, and that, on reflection, he does think he went too far. If he didn't think that, (and thought his behaviour was fine), I'm not sure he would have made the oath.Yes, I do believe that he would have made the Oath to Claire because he realized how seriously upset she was about the situation. Any woman he knew would have taken it all in stride. He didn't understand why she was so upset, but he knew it could never happen again and he wanted to make sure she understood that he would never do that again. He made the oath because that's who he is, and he honestly loves Claire and wants to make her happy.
"Any woman he [Jamie] knew would have taken it all in stride" - Justice456
Really? They might have known that such a thing was likely to happen and there was nothing they could do about it, but that doesn't mean they'd shrug it off as irrelevant. A woman powerless to stop something doesn't have to like it, no matter when she was born, and she can feel as angry, as humiliated, as upset, as hopeless, as desperate and as miserable as anyone else, no matter the year of her birth.
Times change, but I don't think that people change that much. Not when it comes to gut, emotional reactions. I don't think Claire's reaction is necessarily so different from that of a woman of Jamie's time, just the way she openly expresses it. Laoghaire is tearful and silent and upset (about possibly past and present treatment) with Jamie and he knows damn well she's upset and hurting just as Claire was, but as he doesn't know why there's nothing he can do about it.
Broughps reminds us that Claire is not a modern woman and was born in 1918. This is right of course, but my Grandmother was born in 1922 and would count as the same generation. She was on active service during WWII and lived within the constraints of the society of her lifetime. She was married to my Grandfather for nearly 56 years until his death, and he wasn't always an easy or great man to be married to. If you think she kept her mouth shut every time he said something that could be interpreted as being slightly 'off' (after years of behaviour which was 'off') you'd be very much mistaken! She only did so indoors and in front of the family, but none of us were in any doubt if she felt aggrieved. I don't think I'd have felt differently. I'd have left, but then I'm living now, and that's possible.
"Any woman he [Jamie] knew would have taken it all in stride" - Justice456
Really? They might have known that such a thing was likely to happen and there was nothing they could do about it, but that doesn't mean they'd shrug it off as irrelevant. A woman powerless to stop something doesn't have to like it, no matter when she was born, and she can feel as angry, as humiliated, as upset, as hopeless, as desperate and as miserable as anyone else, no matter the year of her birth.In the 1700's, yes, women would have taken it in stride: I'm sure they were not happy about it, but they would not have rebelled. It was a way of life; rebelling would have just gotten them more of the same. As Jamie so clearly intimated in his comments to Claire: "My father and mother before me, and his father before him, and so forth and so on".
And beleive me, the 1700's were gravely different from the 1900's as far as women's rights were concerned. Your grandmother had it great compaired to women in the 1700's. We are in 2016 and think the 1920's was bad, but the 1700's was horrid.
Of course I totally agree with you. My point is that I don't think Claire necessarily felt differently, she reacted differently. A woman born in 1720 may have felt as angry and upset as Claire did being beaten by her husband. I agree, she'd have reacted differently.And I agree with you that the women in 1700 may have felt the same as Claire but reacted differently. That's what I meant by taking it all in stride; not that they were ok with it, but that it was a way of life for them. I think that was what was so suprising to Jamie, that Claire responded so differently: he had not seen that type of reaction before.
That's what I meant by taking it all in stride; not that they were ok with it, but that it was a way of life for them. I think that was what was so suprising to Jamie, that Claire responded so differently: he had not seen that type of reaction before.
[deleted]
In the interest of accuracy, I think they say in the book that it would be a bare bottom...the scene where Jamie takes L'heery's punishment, he says she would have been shamed before everyone...as he was when it happened to him. I could be inaccurate about my accuracy, however... 🤔
shareNope you're not. Laoghaire would have gotten a strapping on the bare butt.
share@Newguise
Where was it that Claire was rendered "black and blue" by Jamie's tawsing of her? We didn't see it on the show, nor was it in the books. She couldn't sit on a bench or horse. To me that infers her bottom red and stinging. That's it.
That some of the responses in this discussion about Claire's tawsing has shades of being hysterical says more about the commenter's strong feelings on the subject. Of course I don't condone wife battery or assault of any kind. I'm looking at it in context of the time and basing my opinion on that. I'm looking at it without the emotion in it. They weren't living in a " no means no" era. I think it's harder for people younger or with less life experience to understand this part of the show and books.
What I find ironic is writers had funny music added to the scene on TV to make it more palpable for the female viewing audience. That wasn't done for Jamie's whipping scenes. They were straight up what it was like 18th century. If we women are as equal to men as we profess to be in 2016, why did so many prefer Claire's tawsing scene be softened by Bear
McCreary's comic background music??? Many women today seem to want what they want for equality and opt out when it's a bit squeamish. There seems to be a skewed version of equality which reflects in the reaction to Jamie's tawse of her. I certainly don't think it a beating. That's an over the top description. He was forceful enough to make her butt sting so she wouldn't make the mistake again. But unfortunately Claire didn't learn so I would argue Jamie didn't beat her because she likely would've smartened up quickly after the 18th century version of a beating. It took the horror of the witch trial
and a real whipping there to finally bring
home the seriousness of where she was.
I think the Outlander series reflects the fact it's an American writer at the helm. That country tends to rush into situations it doesn't fully understand, proceed to behave in it's own way, and dictating how the culture should be, rather than respecting the established ways of the
people. Other countries don't do that and I think that's why fans of other countries and American fans get fractious over certain things in the books. America is powerful enough to bull it's way in and use force to sort other errant nations out. The rest of us aren't like that. We have to be a little quieter, use diplomacy, tact, and persuasion to get our point across. That's being dignified and what we wish Claire would do more of. Of course there's a time to use force, but it's after all other warning measures were ignored.
I expect I'll be verbally trampled for this. But I own it and stand by it. It's the world perspective living around the globe has given me and helps me understand where Outlander is coming from. Other nations certainly aren't perfect, mine isn't. Nor is my comment meant to wound or scratch in judgement. It's an observation that helps explain Claire to me. That's all. I find her irritating just as I do the USA at times. But I don't want either beat up for it. ?
Hi Hannah,
I thought that it was mentioned in the books that Claire was black and blue following Jamie beating her. I thought that it was mentioned she had bruises on her behind when her bruises were being discussed after the rough night she and Jamie had after their return to Leoch. I could be wrong and am more than happy to be corrected.
I thought that it was mentioned in the books that Claire was black and blue following Jamie beating her. I thought that it was mentioned she had bruises on her behind when her bruises were being discussed after the rough night she and Jamie had after their return to Leoch. I could be wrong and am more than happy to be corrected.
I love the fact that people are still discussing the beating scene. It disturbed me in the show & I'm only now reading the book and it disturbed me in print, too. The fact that people are still thinking about it means I'm not the only one who can't get it off my mind. Personally, I have a hard time with how quickly Claire forgives Jamie in both the book & TV show. As I read the book, I'm amazed & grateful at what a superb adaptation the show is. Things that are thin in the book are more fleshed out on the show and vice versa. For example, in the book there's a nice scene a couple of days (I think) after the beating, in which Jamie talks about how often he was beaten as a child & teen. It's his way of explaining to her how he was raised & how corporeal punishment is the norm in his world. I wish this scene was included in the show because it goes a long way in helping Claire forgive Jamie, or at least understand him better. There are times where the book can take its time, whereas the show doesn't often have that luxury.
I have issues with both Book Claire & TV Claire. They are both quick to anger, they both seem to have no problem saying things to Jamie that they know will hurt him. As sadistic as he was in his beating of her, she seems to give it right back verbally & emotionally. I don't know if I prefer one over the other; as I read I actually feel they balance each other out.
However, I will say that I like them both for their gumption, their fight, and their (often detrimental) natural instinct to help other people. That being said, sometimes I'm annoyed by how much TV Claire has her nose in the air & a pouty stuck out chin whenever she's challenged by someone. I feel like yelling at her the sage words of another fictional character: Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead) says to his son Carl "Think, don't talk." Don't get me wrong, I love Cait so much, but sometimes I want to smack TV Claire!
Uh oh, maybe that means I do have a preference...
Then I became Nerdferatu.
--Simon Lewis
I can't swim.
--Vasiliy Fet
What I find ironic is writers had funny music added to the scene on TV to make it more palpable for the female viewing audience.
What I find ironic is writers had funny music added to the scene on TV to make it more palpable for the female viewing audience.
They said in the podcast that they brought the music in so the audience would know things were going to be OK. But that when they discussed this beforehand, about what point the music should start many women in the room wanted it to be played more serious and darker.
That some of the responses in this discussion about Claire's tawsing has shades of being hysterical says more about the commenter's strong feelings on the subject. Of course I don't condone wife battery or assault of any kind. I'm looking at it in context of the time and basing my opinion on that. I'm looking at it without the emotion in it. They weren't living in a " no means no" era. I think it's harder for people younger or with less life experience to understand this part of the show and books.
I expect I'll be verbally trampled for this.
It probably wasn't as common as it sounds on this thread, but I'd venture to say there was more disciplining of spouses (read wives) than we see today.
shareI think a hell of a lot of it goes on today too, to be honest, but I have no way to quantify it. There have been periods in time when prevailing attitudes on courtesy may have affected prevalence, whatever may have been allowed, legally. I think large numbers of people were also fundamentally disinterested in their spouse, and lived separate lives, which you don't get these days, when far more people choose to marry each other. (This varies across the globe of course).
We assume that we are far more civilised than those in times gone by, but there are times when that is not always true...
Personally I think we're devolving as a species not evolving, but that's a whole different conversation. lol.
And yet we have couples today that marry but live apart (and it's apparently becoming more common). Which makes no sense whatsoever to me. If you don't want to live with someone why marry them?
And yet we have couples today that marry but live apart (and it's apparently becoming more common). Which makes no sense whatsoever to me. If you don't want to live with someone why marry them?
hannahjamesglasgow: I think the Outlander series reflects the fact it's an American writer at the helm. That country tends to rush into situations it doesn't fully understand, proceed to behave in it's own way, and dictating how the culture should be, rather than respecting the established ways of the people. ... I expect I'll be verbally trampled for this. But I own it and stand by it.(on soapbox) Hmm... HannahJG? I'd like to give you a different, American perspective with no intent of verbally trampling you.
There is a difference between a beating and a paddling, but there's also a difference between a paddle and a belt. She received a beating with a belt - as a punishment.Ditto to broughps comment:
At that point in time, she had no idea if that was the "real Jamie" and if she was to expect that every night?She had been around Jamie every since she arrived and actually did know him quite well. It's possible that she could have started wondering if it would happen every night, but I doubt it, since she had already done quite a few things that would already have merited her a spanking.
You're getting your timeline confused if we are still using the "rude" comment in the hall about keeping up as our talking point. She said that just minutes after they returned to Castle Leoch (shortly after her beating), and well before he came to her several nights later and asked her if she wanted to live apart.In their wedding bed, he made it perfectly clear that they didn't have to be together. He even said that he would be willing to pretend (hopefully I'm not confusing this with the book).
Unfortunately they didn't add Jamie's line from the book where he told Claire that if she didn't stay put he'd take a strap to her. She broke faith and he kept his word.
And I wish people (generic people) would stop calling Claire a modern woman. No she's not. She was born in 1918. People need to stop thinking of Claire as a late 20th century/early 21st century woman. She wouldn't think like either of those at that point.
Yes. Let me add that from what we know of her upbringing, it was nothing, repeat nothing like a woman, modern or otherwise, would have experienced...she is who she is...unique in her experiences and responses to situations. Maybe if we stop trying to "type" her or "pigeonhole" her, we might understand her better. (Steps off soapbox)... Again, opinion mine and open to others. 🙂
shareI concur. ??
shareWell put.
share[deleted]
I think she's harsh when she accuses Ned and Dougal of lining their own pockets, and effectively robbing Collum, before she understands that they are in fact collecting for the Jacobite Cause. She also refuses the food the clansmen give her because she doesn't like how it was obtained. She entitled to object to that, but she criticises the men feeding her quite aggressively, and Jamie warns her afterwards.
Generally I think she wades in using her heart and not her head, as others have said in more detail, in other posts.
The Highlanders again took up for her while collecting rent and Jacobite money when they fought for her honour that day in the pub. There she was scolding them all for fighting until Murtagh, bless his heart, set her straight. That shut her up. Did she thank them after Murtagh spoke? No. So she had numerous chances of being decent, but wasn't. That's why when the harsh punishment came, I wasn't sympathetic. She'd had her chances.
shareI find it interesting things in this discussion have evolved into some trying to dissuade others of their opinion, specifically those who dislike TV Claire are forced to defend their opinion. I find this a curious tendancy and winder why some feel the need to do that. Other fans just have mixed feelings about TV Claire or don't care for her because of perceived rude comments and behaviour. I don't see anything wrong with that.
shareAbsolutely nothing wrong with that! Myself, I don't think I try to persuade (hopefully, and please tell me to step back if it comes across that way). I'm genuinely curious about other people's opinions and the reasoning behind them...including the reason "I just don't like her". We've all met people who just rub us the wrong way from the get go. Someone's opinion might make me pause and think in a new direction. I believe if the discussion remains an exchange and doesn't fall into, "I'm right and you can't tell me otherwise", it'll all be good. Just my opinion... 🙂✌🏻️
share@bunny
Not at all. If I took issue with your posts I would comment on them. All good.
find it interesting things in this discussion have evolved into some trying to dissuade others of their opinion,
I think we're all just stating our opinion, and disagreeing at times. If that's seen as trying to dissuade others, that is probably not the intent, but I guess so be it. Everyone interprets online posts differently.
I think those of us that like (or at least don't dislike) Claire are more empathetic to her. We see her situation. Those are fair points to bring up. In my opinion, she's not just rude for no reason - and my impression of several of these posts is that people just think she's rude for the fun of it. Sorry, I disagree.
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
Rude for the fun of it? Wasn't something I posted.
shareI'm also glad it's not just me.
TV Claire and book Claire are both strong, so I've been wondering what the difference is. I think one difference is dignity. Book Claire has more of it. TV Claire is so incredibly controlled by her emotions and impulses. She just acts on or blurts out with everything she feels, no reflection, no concern for consequences. Not *all* the time, of course, but this is my general impression, and I think it accounts for some of the rudeness and nastiness.
I just wish she was more dignified *sigh*
-----------------------
"The best fairytale is one where you believe the people" -Irvin Kershner
@BenignPillows
I wholeheartedly agree with you and also find TV Claire undignified.
There seems to be some misconception in North American society today that an independent woman asserting herself is firing off all manner of opinions and behaviour in situations they dislike. Being assertive is exactly the opposite of that.
Of couse Claire is entitled to be angry or outspoken when it's warranted, she's in a strange place. But having lived in a few strange foreign countries (which is basically Claire's experience) I can tell you shutting up and showing gratitude while adjusting to a new place is the far better, and more realistic, action. Once you know the culture you can speak up the way it's done there. That's why I have no sympathy for Claire. Having lived all around the world with Uncle Lamb, she would have an idea of this andknow tribal(or clan) cultures could be raw and violent..She's educated and knows about the history of the Jacobites. Yet she behaves rudely, immaturely, and ungratefully in their midst. The Highlanders didn't have to save her ass from Randall just after she came through the stones, but they did. That alone was reason enough to be at least a bit grateful. Obviously they weren't going to hurt or rape her. That was cleared up in the cottage before setting Jamie's arm. For a
character who is supposed to be cool under pressure and a stiff upper lip Brit who came through WWII, she isn't a very cool customer thinking things through before acting most of Season 1 and 2. So the character of Claire beings on my scorn herself. She's only easy to get along with when it's on HER TERMS.
There seems to be some misconception in North American society today that an independent woman asserting herself is firing off all manner of opinions and behaviour in situations they dislike. Being assertive is exactly the opposite of that.
I've only read the first book so far (I plan on binge reading the rest soon), but I honestly don't understand the love of book Claire. She came off like a total doormat and her relationship with Jamie is disturbing.
TV Claire does get on my nerves sometimes, but I have far more respect for the TV version than the book version.