[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 22:40:12 01/15/08 Tue
Author: 
JessieR and CatherineM
Subject: Mini Reread Topic for January 2008: The Bonds (or lack thereof) of Sisterhood
One of the dominant themes in Diana Gabaldon’s most recent novel, Lord John and the Brotherhood of the Blade, is the ideal of brotherhood itself. Brotherhood—a bond, often unspoken, shared by men who oppose a common foe—threads it way into the plot from many directions. There is the literal brotherhood of Hal and John, the traditional brotherhood of men called to arms, and the clandestine brotherhood of homosexual men forced to love covertly. There is even the struggle for brotherhood between John and Jamie that began at Ardsmuir and simmers on the back burner at Helwater.
So it’s no accident that the word “brotherhood” is in the title of this novel. Lord John struggles to be an honorable man by putting his duty to others, often other men, ahead of his own personal interests, and by doing so he embodies the core attributes of brotherhood and establishes his masculinity. The fact that Jamie Fraser espouses the same set of values is no accident, either, because brotherhood is one of the marquee themes of the Outlander novels, and he is the key purveyor of it.
But is there an equivalent sense of sisterhood in these novels? There is honor among men, and even honor among thieves. Is there honor among women, too? Should Claire have been a leader of women, as Jamie is a leader of men? Do the women in these novels regard one another with mutual loyalty based on gender, and if so, does this bond enhance their femininity or detract from it? Or are DG’s female characters lone operators, strong enough to assert their independence and subvert male authority, but disinterested in acting out of some altruistic sense of loyalty for other members of their sex? Is the singular courage and sexiness of a Claire Fraser more feminine than the camaraderie of the Edinburgh whores who earn their living through sex?
Actual sisters are hard to find, too. Brothers we get, starting with the most bodacious set of brothers in the books, Colum and Dougal MacKenzie, and ending with the feral, yet loving Beardsley boys. But sisters? Not many. And while we are privy to a great friendship between Jamie and Lord John, we don’t see a sustained friendship develop between Claire and another woman. Where are the great female bonds outside of family in these novels? Why can the men at Ardsmuir bond together when held captive in a prison, but Mrs. Chisholm, Mrs. Bug, and Mrs. Aberfeldy want to thrash each other when cooped up in the house at Fraser’s Ridge for a few weeks?
Perhaps DG is accurately representing the way in which men and women differ in this regard, or perhaps she simply tends toward more flattering depictions of men in these novels because she finds more there to like. Do you sense an undertow of contempt for women in general in these books, especially when compared to DG’s charitable depiction of men? Dougal and Colum are ruthless yet admirable, and despite Dougal’s attempt on Claire’s life (and even Jamie’s, for that matter), Jamie makes peace with the man out of respect for his stature as a fighter. But Claire never summons Geilie Duncan’s fighting spirit to help strengthen her in some way. Dougal gets rehabilitated because he was a clansman and a brother-in-arms to Jamie, but Geilie remains a villain to Claire. No common bond there, despite the fact that Geilie is a fellow-time traveler and once saved Claire’s life. Or is DG on to something here: a woman just wouldn’t do this.
The reading assignments for this topic focus primarily on Claire’s relationships, both successful and flawed, with other women, but you will also find other scenarios that depict women as a group in specifically female settings (the convent, the brothel, and the home). When you’ve reread these brief selections, consider the following questions:
1. Do you feel Claire and Bree had an obligation to share their feminist thinking with the 18thC women they met? After all, Claire and Bree had no difficulty sharing their 20thC technologies (at least as far as they could). Or would such a social initiative on their part been more dangerous than the ether and matches they created?
2. Does sisterhood flourish more easily among the Indian women who are not bound to the dictates of western, patriarchal culture?
3. Is brotherhood simply more romantic and heroic than sisterhood and therefore more interesting to include in a novel?
4. Or is it just more difficult for women to band together to oppose a common enemy when that enemy is often the person they care most about—the men they love who beat them, the pregnancies they want that endanger their lives, or the children they adore who claim so much of their time and energy? Could a woman in the 18th century put other women ahead of these demands? Can a woman in the 21st century do so, either?
Many thanks to pamelalass for her help in developing this topic.
Discussion will begin on Monday, January 21st.
Reading assignments:
Geilie & Claire: Outlander, CH 25: “Thou Shalt not Suffer a Witch to Live”
Claire & Mother Hildegarde: Dragonfly in Amber, CH 15, “In Which Music Plays a Part”
Claire & Louise de la Tour: Dragonfly in Amber, CH 26: “Fontainebleau,” up to the section that ends, “And so I seldom slept.”
Claire, the prostitutes, & Jenny in Voyager, CH 26, “Whore’s Brunch,” from the section beginning, “This was becoming ridiculous,” to the section ending with “And with a thunder of boots on the wooden staircase”; CH 38, “I Meet a Lawyer,” up to the section ending with Ian’s funny quip, “’It’s worse. He’s brought a lawyer!’”
The Council of Mothers, Tewaktenyonh, & Claire: Drums of Autumn, CH 57: “A Shattered Smile”
Bree & the domestic disturbance in The Fiery Cross, CH 30, “Spawn of Satan”
Claire & Malva in A Breath of Snow and Ashes, CH 22, “Ensorcellment” and CH 47, “Bees and Switches”
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to start this one off with a general comment. Not to criticize, you all know how much I love everything about the books, what we see certainly makes for wonderful reading. Still, I am thinking that aside from family, meaning Bree and Marsali, the only good long sustained female friendship Claire really had was with Mother Hildegarde. The others Geillis, Malva, Mrs. Bug and even Jenny all turned against her in the end. What must herself think of women? I can't help but think of how relieved Claire was to leave the women and their petty arguments behind when she went off to live with the discomforts and downright horrors of war with the men. How much Bree wanted to escape from the horrible women in the household in "Spawn of Satan". Hey, I love men too, but they aren't the only ones that can make long standing friendships and treat each other with honor and respect. -- Jane, 06:27:34 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Thanks for getting us started, Jane! -- CatherineM., 09:20:15 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Inre Jane's post: I hope that DG isn't saying anything particularly negative about women's friendships; she certainly hasn't done that on any site I've been on--I think that in this story, Claire simply has never been around women as much as men, consequently, she is more comfortable with them. I think she knows her own role better, feels freer regarding her normal personality and speech patterns and simply out of habit, congregates with men more often than women. She has made friends but due to the nature of her vagabond life, those friendships haven't been sustained. Claire is a bit of a fish out of water for the times; even Jenny, with her strength and force of Fraser will is better aware of her role as woman, and of course, Jenny is needed at home in a way that Claire never has been. If Jamie is the key that unlocked Claire's heart, he is also the key that allowed her to pursue and explore fully who she was/is as a woman and as a human being. -- KathleenM, 06:51:07 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Please don't get me wrong Kathleen. I LOVE Claire, Bree, Marsali, Jenny, even Jocasta and Benedicta (John's mother). I think these brilliant, strong, funny, talented women help make these stories so AMAZING. It's just that the men seem to be able to form permanent bonds and deep abiding friendships. I thought a good jumping off point might be why can't the women? Like Jenny are they too wrapped up in the running of households and caring for families? I can't help but think of Louise in Paris, she seemed a good friend but Claire didn't seem to have a lot of respect for her as a person. Nothing like a good controversy to get things going eh? -- Jane, 07:02:15 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I was thinking that maybe it has to do with the time (18th century), women aren't really allowed to go about on their own. They have to worry about how it will look if they go away from their home to seek others out, so they stay where they are, at home. Jenny herself says she has never been more then 10 miles from Lallybroch. The women seem to always sense something different about Claire, so they keep a distance from her. Claire feels this and just immerses herself in her work and Jamie. -- LisaW, 07:30:30 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I agree with Kathleen here. Probably gonna go long >>> -- Natalie C., 13:47:04 01/21/08 Mon
For most of her life, Claire has been in a setting that puts her in closer proximity to men than women. The exception to this would have been during WWII, in which her battle would have been fought alongside other women as well as men. However, war being what it is, many of these friendships may have been short-lived. Literally.
Anyway, I think if you have not had the experience of sisters or a close girlfriend from a young age, it can make forming a lasting bond with women difficult. Growing up in a house with 3 younger brothers and being something of a tomboy, I find I relate much better to guys than to other women my age. I'm not particularly close with any of the girls I was friends with in high school, and really only 1 or 2 girlfriends from college (and that mostly because she and I are both tomboys). The only exception would be 2 of my female cousins, and I think this is due to the fact that I spent as much time at their house when I was little as I did at my own.
Being in vet school now keeps me in VERY close proximity to way too many females. The classes here are 80% female at least, and believe me, it can become a very tense environment. Instead of us bonding together as a class, we form cliques and commit teenage pettiness. Women are wary of each other. We're competition for guys, jobs, and we tend to judge much more harshly than men do. For whatever reason, I think women feel more of a need to prove ourselves, and in so doing, need to look out for #1. As I said, close friendship between women takes a lot of work because there are more subtle nuances that have to be read and interpreted. Men are much more forthcoming amongst themselves.
What I've been trying to say through all the rambling is this: I do think sisterhood can exist between women. However, I think it needs to be started young, which Claire and Bree and even Jenny never had. And I'm with Claire - there are times when you need a girlfriend's shoulder, but given the choice, most of the time I'd rather be around guys.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
That's an interesting perspective about your school experience, NatalieC. When I went to grad school, the profs commented that we were the 1st all-Canadian class in a while (if not the 1st ever - can't remember) while we (the students) were struck by the fact that the 7 of us were all women. We took the exact opposite tack as the women in your class. We realized really early on (after about the 2nd week of classes) that there was "safety in numbers" and that we might as well help each other out and talk about stuff as much as we could. We set up weekly meetings to discuss how we thought our classes were going and to help each other out and I know the profs were really surprised at how we bonded like that. I am replying to your post without having read everyone's comments about Claire yet, so I hope I'm not repeating something others have said! Just interesting how experiences can differ so wildly, huh? -- ErinD, 19:21:43 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
I am a long time lurker, and fan of the books. This topic is dear to my heart, so has brought me "out" so to speak. I think that this is the one part of the books that have left me feeling distraught. It is the fact that although Jamie was seen to have close friendships and bonds with men throughout the series, Claire always seemed to only have Jamie. Even in the 20th Century. I think that is what I hold against Jenny. The one woman who you would think would understand Claire, turns on her when Claire reappears in Voyager. I hope this discussion will reveal some moments when Claire bonded with women. But, my feeling is that they will be fleeting, and not the "brotherhood" kind of bond we are speaking of here. -- Lady Alice, 07:31:21 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
The intro to this topic was a joy to read - Thank you Jessie and Catherine! Your readings caused me to see Jenny in a dift perspective. Like Lady Alice I was very let down by Jenny in V. This time I noticed the mention Jenny makes of being afraid of Claire. The combination of the cozy group of women in the Lallybroch kitchen, also whispering about Claire, and Jenny's admitting her suspicions (we never knew who your people were, etc), highlighted for me that Claire is very 'other' in this time and place. Maybe Jenny couldn't sustain a true friendship with her because she sensed the huge differences between them? I'm trying to give Jenny a break! Seen in the light of the rereads, it is a little problematic that Geillis (who was very kind to Claire in the witches hole) and Jenny and Malva (lets not even go there!) betray Claire. Dramatic and good for the plot yes...Inside>>>> -- HollyC, 08:14:58 01/21/08 Mon
but couldn't someone besides Jenny have served as the betrayer just as effectively? Is it only that women sense her 'otherness' and shy away, or is Claire not given a chance to sustain female friendship?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Holly, I try to give Jenny a break, too. I think that if she "betrayed" anyone, it was Jamie. Claire had been gone twenty years with many holes, as you say, in her story. Jamie, OTOH, has been there all along, hurting, working for the good of his family, living in a shell of himself, all of which Jenny is quite aware. She owed it to him to speak to him first about his "situation" and if he stalled or dismissed her concerns, she could have threatened to take action immediately. No doubt, he would have believed her capable. :-) -- KathleenM, 08:39:20 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Holly, I think that Jenny felt some betrayal from Claire when she "left" after Culloden. I think Jenny is not very free with her friendships with women, but she opened herself to Claire when Jamie and Claire live at Lallybroch. Unfortunately Jamie couldn't tell Jenny where Claire had gone, so Jenny concluded that Claire left him behind. And then Jenny had Jamie back with her at home, which she hadn't had in a long time. -- LisaW, 08:54:54 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
You both bring up neat facets of this betrayal - no wonder that whisper from Jenny's daughter is a shocker! Here I was trying to rehab. my image of Jenny, and Kathleen now you've got me mad again *bg* Jenny DID betray Jamie bigtime! LadyAlice, I meant to say before I also wonder why the friendships are fleeting for Claire? After all, Jamie gets to have sustained ones. If only Geillis hadn't gone off the deep end. Sigh. -- HollyC, 11:27:02 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Claire is a hard nut to crack, especially when it comes to her relationship with women. She’s had an unconventional childhood that deprived her of opportunities for female bonding, so her lack of sustained female friendships could be the legacy of her upbringing. But we could also argue that as a nurse in World War II, she would have been in the company of female peers nearly 24/7 for years at a time. The stress of war often generates deep attachments among those who share the experience, and I find it unusual that Claire never recalls a close female friend from her war years in any of the novels. It’s hard for me to imagine that Claire would have been such a loner that she wouldn’t have made friends with her fellow nurses, but as written, the Claire we get to know doesn’t need to draw any strength from those friendships, and I’ve often wondered why. -- JessieR, 08:09:34 01/21/08 Mon
Last edited by author: Mon January 21, 2008 08:13:24
Edited 1 time.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I wondered the same thing - perhaps her upbringing did not allow her those pivotal tween and teenage girl relationships, where you usually hone your 'relating to other female in socially acceptable ways' skills. -- LissC, 09:13:58 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Jane, I wasn't thinking you were against or insulting to Claire, et al! I like a good controversy, too. Reading the other comments, it seems we agree on some level that Claire doesn't make deep connections with women. Jenny's actions confused me initially but later I saw her as simply defending her family. She explained it well to Claire when confronted and Claire cannot really respond b/c she is very aware that she has never been totally honest with her "good-sister." I think women think they want honesty from one another but my own experience tells me we don't. We want support, we want acceptance, we want to laugh with someone, we want to talk but in the end, we choose only a few with whom we want true honesty. Women are wonderful, I love my sister, my daughters, I miss my mother incredibly BUT . . . we can hold grudges, be catty, competitive in the wrong areas and way too sensitive sometimes. I can see why Claire would steer clear when she doesn't fit in easily. -- KathleenM, 08:27:35 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
The lack of sister-sister relationships bothered me a bit, as DG herself has a sister, and seems to be pretty close with her, thus giving her ample life experience to draw from. The only sisters I can remember in the Books are Joan and Marsali - separated by circumstance, and Ute McGillvary's daughters, sort of non-entities, as far as the story goes. I myself have a dear sister and would like to have seen Diana bring some of those dynamics into the story. The other thing about Claire is that she really has only sustained two relationships well over the span of the stories - with Jamie and Bree. As practical as she is, it just seems like she refuses to make an effort otherwise. -- LissC, 09:17:16 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I should clarify - she is practical in that she only expends effort to those relationships that are dearest to her heart. Is it her natural inclination and her doctor's training allowing her to stand back emotionally from most other people?? -- LissC, 09:18:36 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Maybe because Claire lost her mom so young, she didn't have a female role model in her life to show how to nurture her female frienships. She could stand back emotionally, as you say Liss, from people to care for them, but she never opened emotionally to other women to be friends with them. -- LisaW, 09:29:15 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
That's an interesting observation. My parents divorced when I was 6 (due to my fahter's infidelity), and yet my closest friends are men. Do we learn friendships from parents or other people? Or is it something we find on our own? -- Rollaine, 09:33:57 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Liss -- and everyone else (waves at all the people who've reposnded so far:THANK YOU!!!) Do you have any thoughts on the tthe "sisterhoods" of the convent? or of the various brothels? -- CatherineM., 09:25:37 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Did you feel a sisterhood at the convent? Perhaps it was because Claire was close to "the BOSS" and the other sisters were in awe of her, but I never felt any of the sisters (besides Mother H) treated Claire with anything other than subservience. I did like the whores at the brothel and how they immediately took Claire under their wing. I also liked how Claire accepted them, tongue planted firmly in her cheek, but she seemed to really like them. As Jamie commented in ABOSAA, she might have "made a really good whore." -- Jane, 10:32:56 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Jane, you're on to something with 'the boss' comment. Of all the women I saw Claire with in these rereads, she seemed the most relaxed with Mother H, a highly educated woman who describes herself as wanting to life a "useful life". Is she just not given the chance to meet other women like that in future books? Yes, she likes the whores,she likes & respects the hardworking women of Lallybroch & she seems to admire Marsali greatly as time goes on. Is she too much of a 'boss' herself to seek close friendship - and I don't mean that as an insult to you Claire!! -- HollyC, 11:08:33 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Well, Claire seemed to really like Jenny Campbell and admired HER force of personality. Perhaps the women around Claire just didn't impress her because of the way that they were raised. Women were not encouraged to be independent movers and shakers. Claire doesn't seem to have a lot of respect for women who focus on things she feels are shallow (i.e.. Louise with her gowns, coo-coo clock, and monkey). I felt that Louise did do a lot to try to help Claire and didn't get a lot of gratitude or gain Claire's respect in return for her efforts. -- Jane, 10:08:27 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Jane & HollyC—I agree with you. I don’t get a sense of sisterhood at the convent. The nuns themselves get short shrift because the focus is on M. Hildegarde, who is, I think, one of the few women in all the novels who is the intellectual equal of Claire. The bond between Claire and M. Hildegarde transcends gender because their professional commitment supercedes it, so they shine while the sisterhood itself is but a shadow in the background. There is a greater sense of sisterhood at the brothel, where we see how mutual loyalty among those women works to protect them as they ply their dangerous trade. But the one place where I find sisterhood most difficult to find is in the domestic setting, either at Lallybroch or Fraser’s Ridge. Female bonds get sundered in those places, which given the fact that hearth and home have traditionally been the locus of female power, seems all the more ironic. -- JessieR, 13:01:02 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Good discussion! I didn't feel a sense of sisterhood at the convent, because it wasn't focused on as much as Claire and Mother H. I do think that Claire's lack of sister-like relationships is due in part to her level of intellect. She rarely meets anyone - male or female - who challenges her intellectually. Jamie, yes, Bree, yes, as her daughter, Frank, yes, but is constrained by their emotional desert of a marriage, Joe Abernathy, yes... But specifically women? Geillie, while an intellectual equal more or less, cannot be trusted. Jenny, after the L'heery incident in Voyager, and the estrangement from Jamie, also can't be trusted and is removed by distance. Who else matches her for intellectual ability. I again think that she is simply too practical to invest heavily in a relationship that is not on an equal footing. And those women she IS closest too - Marsali, Bree, Mrs. Bug, Lizzie - she is either older and mothering to them, or mothered by Mrs Bug, to Claire's dismay. -- LissC, 18:42:38 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Thought provoking comments from you all. Is it possible that the class structure of the 18th C explains why we don't see sisterhoods? There's a sisterhood among the whores at Madame Jeanne's, but they are all equals. They were willing to "adopt" Claire because they thought she was one of them. The married women at Leoch seem to have a similiar set up and also included Claire, though a little hesitantly because of her foreigness. Maybe the reason Jenny doesn't have the same relationship with the women of Lallybroch is because she's the Laird's daughter/sister? -- Carol P, 19:45:05 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[>
In this way, I do relate to Claire. I do not form close bonds or deep connections with women, either, In fact, my closest friends, aside from my husband, are men. I kind of feel like an outsider when I am with a group of women. Not that anyone is bad, or says bad things to me, I just find it hard to relate. Remember in Voyager, when Claire was pushing the baby carriage and she somehow felt out of place, I totally related tot that>>> -- Rollaine, 09:25:47 01/21/08 Mon
Sometimes, after I had kids, and I would be pushing the stroller, I kind of felt like a stranger-like how did I get here? Maybe that sounds terrible, but thats how I felt. I was also subjected to quite a bit of passive-aggresive comments from women regarding the choices I made.
I had a really close friend when I was in elementary school-I mean we were inseperable. When we got to 7th grade-she dropped me like I was nothing. It hurt very much and I think I steered clear of alot people after that. When I did, I gravitated towards men becasue I just felt more comfrotable. Which is interesting since my parents divorced when I was 6 & I had no male role model.
I don't feel connected to parents in my kids schools. I like to do other things that don't revolve around my kids 24/7, and in my neighborhood, that's all they seem to talk about. Like its a popularity contest or something. I work, teach and do research and I think some people have a hard time with what I do.
Like Claire, I'm a bit of loner. I'm perfectly content to be with my family or my hhusband. I feel no need to go out with other women and talk. I'm not knocking it-I sometimes envy the connections others have. However, whenever I have tried, like Claire, I always felt like an outsider looking in.
Most of my connections are with men. They are my closest friends. I did have one very dear, wonderful friend who was a woman who shared so much of my love for birds and the environment. When she was killed in a car accident years ago, I was devastated. She was the one woman who I really felt connected to.
For Claire & Bree, I think it would have quite dangerous to talk feminism given the volatile time they were in. The notion of women's equality would have been met with hmmm...not sure, but a great deal of resistance to put it mildly :-). Think about, women got the right to vote in this countyr les than 100 yrs ago! Can you imagine them preaching about women's rights in the 1770's?!?! I don't think it would go over to big! I think that is the primary reason I could never live back then-the status of women was so crappy. I like choice and freedom, and women basiclly had none.
I did notice how Claire doesn't really form bonds with women in the books, but I attributed it to the nature of her slightly nomadic upbringing. Maybe there was never time to from lasting bonds/relationships. Perhaps this is a carry-over. It never occured to me to think otherwise. Though she liked Jenny, lets face, they are 2 totally different people. They are strong, yes, but Claire is not content to stay in the same place and be the "homebody" Jenny is.
Your question about the Native Americans is quite interesting. I don't know much about thier culture. However, living the life they do, I would think bonds bewtween women may have been stronger. They certainly lived, by standards of the time, a more "primitive" lifestyle. More of a hunter/gatherer community. It is probably the nature of that culture for the women to be more strongly connected through activites where they are working together more. They proabably didn't have social status to worry about (in the way western/European cultures have it) or slavery (again, correct me if I am wrong, I am no expert on Native culture).
Sorry I went a bit long. Interesting topic!
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I should say, that I do have a sister. And while I Iove her dearly and would be there for at the drop of a hat, we are not "buddies". You could not find 2 diametrically oppostie people. We differ in EVERYTHING-politics, religion, you name it. But, we know that if we are there for each other and we have been always. We jsut don't have that sisterly bond where we socialize or hang together. -- Rollaine, 09:31:15 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I know what you mean--I truly think some women don't get along with other women for whatever reason. It's not always how they were raised (tho in Claire's case, it likely has something to do with it). It took a long time for me to relate to my female peers, and I still don't, entirely--I found a different set than had been available to me previously >>> -- devenhuis, 07:08:44 01/22/08 Tue
sometime in grade school, I realized that the boys' play was more fun: tree climbing, dirt, action figures... The girls I knew were starting to get all girly, playing house & whatnot. Never for me, tho I always loved pretty things. Even when I played Barbie, there were never any babies born, no house--nope, deserted islands, etc. Continued into high school, as well--the "feminine" interests of dating & obsessing over personal appearances were not for me, & I continued friendships with boys.
This female bonding is fairly new to me on a personal level.
I was raised in a 2 parent home, and I have sisters, tho we're pretty well spread out. I can hang out them socially, but we had to grow into it; it wasn't there from the beginning.
Regarding what someone else said about Jenny--undoubtedly she felt betrayed by Claire's leaving, but at least partly for what it did to Jamie. I think none of us have any doubts that she loves her brother very much. Mind, what she thinks is right for him isn't always (re: legwhatshername), but she does try. I do think that if Claire had been able to remain in the 18th c, the friendship could have continued on some level. There are always letters, after all. And maybe that's why things went downhill after Claire came back. It's plain she's alive, and thriving, but she never made any contact with her in-laws over that 20 years, which most people would have tried at least. and then she & Jamie are off & running again, so no chance for prolonged contact to renew that friendship.
[ Edit | View ]
[>
in general, i do believe it’s harder for women to create bonds with other women. i think it’s just the nature of things. men have that natural disposition to belong to a group, a team, an army, and to create long-term bonds between each other. in peace or war, they live in a way that allows them to strengthen that bond, in spite of all the competition within the group. it’s strange, somehow men are able to compete and develop bonds at the same time. as if they knew each other’s place in the structure of power and were able to respect each other, and even the attempts to change that structure of power are accepted as just another rule of the game. the best, the strongest, deserves to rule. even the relation with the enemy is such that they can come to a point of respecting their enemy, respecting in the nemesis the attributes they consider valuable in themselves. it seems to me that women can’t do that. (more in the reply) -- dea, 10:25:27 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
see inside -- dea, 10:27:00 01/21/08 Mon
competition is fiercer among women, especially when it refers to men. it’s not a simplification. i think it’s a kind of atavism, things we bring from ancient times. females are lonely in the natural world. though they choose the male, it’s always for a limited time. after they give birth, they have to compete with other females for food and to protect their offspring. for that matter, they have to protect their offspring from males too. i think it’s a very lonely and dangerous task. i can relate to Claire, because i’ve lived a very similar story. no bonds from childhood or teenage years, or even college, due to “reserved” family ways and the choice of a different career than the schoolmates. then i moved to another city with my ex-husband, “adopted” his friends, then lost them when we separated. on the other hand, i was never “girlish”, maybe too smart and opinionated, so i was never part of the girl’s groups, never cared much for my appearance or fashion, things i considered kinda silly. a loner as a child, ins spite of two younger sisters, i used to dwell among books, stories and poems i liked to read and write. only in adulthood i overcame shyness, but instead of joining a sisterhood, with women my own age, i always felt more comfortable among men. or older women, wiser women, from whom i could learn something without the pressure of competition, or the fear of jealousy or betrayal. i can relate too with the feeling of “not really belonging” anywhere or anytime, the feeling of being misplaced, or wrong, unacceptable, as if all that makes you who you are, unique, important (being a healer, a free thinker, in Claire’s case) is considered strange, wrong, and evil. and there’s more. despite all my independent attitude, i always knew i could only fulfill my mission on earth through and together with a partner. not professionally, because that i have done quite well, and so has Claire, i pay my own bills, buy my own jewelry, pay for my journeys around the world, do not depend on a man for that (sometimes it was the other way around). i mean emotionally, spiritually. but Claire is lucky, because she found Jamie. i’m not that lucky. so, i do think Herself’s choice to make a loner of Claire is not just for dramatic purposes. it’s real, it happens more than one can tell.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Wow, dea, I feel the same as you do...maybe we were separated at birth!! As a scientist, I kind of look at this also from an evolutionary standpoint. Males will compete for females, but it is the FEMALE of the species who ultimately does the selecting. It is she who picks the strongest and fittest. Maybe there is just as fierce a competition among females, but somehow it is more subtle that makes bonding a bit more difficult. Maybe an evolutionary carry over! I do find any type of behavior fascinationg. Some here form strong bonds with women, while others find it difficult. I think there is one thing-we have all bonded here, no?! -- Rollaine, 15:00:21 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I know this will sound sort of trivial, but I was watching the football games yesterday and when the games were over and the players were meeting each other in the middle of the field, I found it so interesting that to a player the men all hugged and congratulated each other. The game was over, the competion complete and they all came back together as friends. Women, I think, have a hard time letting go of actions, even if they are done in fun. Our emotions play such a strong role, that it can interfere with our relationships. -- LisaW, 10:38:27 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Loved your thoughts and can totally relate (see my reply to Kathleen above). I also love watching the team mentality that men get, and am much happier myself when I am in that situation. It's why I never minded playing pick-up games of whatever sport with the guys. >> -- Natalie C., 14:02:15 01/21/08 Mon
I've been on sports teams since I was in kindergarten. I played soccer for my township before there was a girl's league. I was the girl the weekend of prom that was playing Ultimate Frisbee with the boys rather than laying on my beach towel with the girls.
However, even women's teams are different than men's. Despite the "battle" scenario, there are still grudges and cliques within the team. I envy my brothers' participation in sports because they have that easy comraderie with teammates that girls just don't get. And it's part of the reason I love following my city's professional teams - the guys (at least this season) seem to be playing for each other and generally gel well. As woman, it's not something we experience very often.
[ Edit | View ]
[>
See inside -- LadyKyla, 12:44:50 01/21/08 Mon
I don't really post much on the boards, just lurk, I found this topic of discussion to be really interesting because I have noticed the lack thereof of sisterhood and female friendships in the Books and wondered about this. I am the type of person who gets along well with other women-I have a close-knit group of three or four girlfriends I have known since primary school whom I have a strong relationship with based on shared memories and past experiences, as well as a similarity in lifestyle and mutual respect and affection...I think that the fact that Claire does not share any of these things with any other women contributes to the fact that she does not have a lot of female friends. She doesn't have girlfriends whom she's grown up with, who helped her through hard times, and there is really no women whom she really has very much in common with. I also think that it's harder to develop close female relationships outside the family as you grow older because women are somehow programmed for their primary allegiance and loyalty to be to their husbands, and their family. The center of Claire's world is Jamie, and then of course Bree, they meet all of her needs.
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Just one comment re: Claire and female friendships. Claire was already somewhat disadvantaged here due to her unusual upbringing, her experience "thru the stones", etc. What really put paid to it, I think , was her medical training. When Claire went into medicine it was still unusual, and quite difficult, to be a woman doctor. And a surgeon - unheard of, largly speaking. She had no peers, and even if there had been another woman she could see as a potential friend, Frank made things difficult at home, at least initially. There was only school and Brianna. Medical training then was really rigorous and very unforgiving of personal needs, such as child care. There was just no time for friendship in her life, beyond the quick camaraderie of the OR or ward, and always with men, which reinforced her natural tendencies. -- jayne johnson, 14:48:26 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
We're off to yet another excellent start -- keep it coming! -- CatherineM, 14:59:31 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Just a "wild" thought, but >>>>> -- Melva T, 15:05:24 01/21/08 Mon
I, for one, think women can and do have strong bonds of friendship even though I'm a lot like Claire as I'd much rather help some guy tear apart a transmission than go shopping or any other 'girly' thing I can think of...
Still... most wedding vows order us (DH & DW) to forsake all others for each other.
Example: "Will you, _______, have _____ to be your wife/husband? Will you love her/him, comfort and keep her/him, and forsaking all other remain true to him/her as long as you both shall live?" ("I will")
Forsake: to leave forever or to give up completely
Now I lost my thought... LOL! Oh well, what do think? Pertain or not?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Did they really say that? I wasn't paying attention! We were married by a justice of the peace, so I'm not sure if he said those exact words! I would, however, take it to mean forsake all others wiht respect to "romantic" realtionships. I don't read it as forsaking friendships. Interesting thought! -- Rollaine, 15:15:51 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
I think we need to separate Claire from the other women in the books. Claire doesn't have time to develop a sisterhood with any other women. I think she and Jenny were well on the way when Jamie and Claire first went to Lallybroch. But they weren't really there very long, the next thing Jenny knows Claire abandoned Jamie. But I think the desire is there in both Jenny and Claire to regain what they both recognized as love for each other. We'll see. One difference between men and women that I think DG captures is that men do not expect their friends to be everything they need because they are friends or brothers. Women seem to think if someone is a friend, they need to almost be mirror images and like/do/support everything one does. Maybe we are less successful at forming sisterhoods because we demand so much from our sisters that they can't measure up? -- Carol P, 18:41:12 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Carol—yes, Claire is such an unusual woman that she does beg to be treated as an exception. Like LissC mentioned above, there are few women who are her intellectual peer, so the likelihood of her finding a smart and companionable woman are fairly low. That being said, it’s certainly within DG’s power to give her one; she doesn’t hesitate to put smart men in Claire’s way. But your statement about the difficulty of forming sisterhoods intrigues me. Several women today have commented upon the problems inherent in female groups, so I’m wondering if we should have begun this discussion by asking if sisterhood is something women value. What does it benefit women to bond together if they can’t find peace in each other’s company? -- JessieR, 19:25:50 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Carol, your thoughts are very interesting. I do think women value friendship but we've all hit on that difficulty that can exist within women's groups. Men and women react and interpret social situations quite differently. I see this in my students even early on and always by middle school are the patterns of behavior set. Some girls, AKA tomboys, fit in better with boys for a bit, later they branch out. Boys who are perceived as less masculine by their peers have a harder time. Boys seem less likely to hold a grudge. Their feelings get hurt, they fight or insult one another, sometimes they punch it out but then they move on. Girls feel the hurt more personally and therefore, hold onto it longer. Only with maturity do women begin to overlook faults as easily as boys do early on. And yet. . .>>>> -- KathleenM, 20:19:51 01/21/08 Mon
men struggle later to have meaningful friendships about more than just work or a sporting event. Women build friendships and will take time to nurture them when possible. I also think that men struggle to find intimacy outside the marriage vow yet women are more able to achieve that. When two people are in a relationship that is as intense and intimate as Jamie and Claire's, the need for outsiders is diminished. Jamie turned inward without Claire for a host of reasons but even Ian could not bridge the gap. Jamie was not intimate in thought/body with anyone. His physical relationships involved the body only.
Claire, too, found it difficult to be truly intimate without Jamie. She was more intimate with Joe than with Frank; in many ways, Joe knew her better and she was more honest with him. Excluding the oddities that time travel represents (s), I think Claire and Jamie react in a normal pattern. She seeks a man (Frank) to provide for her child--without Brianna I don't see her staying with him. Jamie sought marriage to Laoghaire to relieve his lonliness and physical need. Neither finds intimacy without the other, in part b/c neither thinks of the other as truly "gone" or "dead" (TT element complicates things!).
So, after my long digression here, Claire just flat out doesn't have the need for a lot of extraneous relationships when she is with Jamie. She's friendly, kind, certainly of service to anyone with a need but she doesn't put herself out there much and I doubt she thinks about it overly. But then--neither does Jamie. He has the usual male bonding of work and purpose (the military aspect) but he seeks Claire for companionship, not a friend. And only she is really privy to his thoughts. Later, he has Roger and young Ian for some support, just as Claire has Bree. One trouble perhaps with our question is an assumption that male/female relationships can or should be compared. We seem to need such different things from them--in fact, I dare say that many men I know would consider this whole discussion unnecessary! ;-)
Sorry to go so long--ah well, tomorrow is back to school, so I enjoyed it while possible!
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
KathleenM, I really like what you say inside about the completeness of J & C's relationship, and why she may not have the need for a 'best friend' so to speak. And that soulmate aspect of their relationship is part of their appeal to me. But how about everyone else? Where are their friends? Spawn of Satan is a very funny chapter - but very far from the idealized pioneer spirit of women sewing, cooking, exchanging childbith advice, etc together. Maybe DG has it right and I've spent too much time with (idealized?) children's historical fiction when the moms are so excited to have female company (from Little House on the Prairie to Hattie Big Sky) inside>>> -- HollyC, 13:56:52 01/22/08 Tue
I love Dg's take on lots of people in close quarters - I'm just saying it seems a little odd to me that there isn't a friend even for Bree. Someone to commiserate with about her son or husband, or the laundry *g*
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
HollyC--Great point about Bree! She doesn’t seem to have had many girlfriends in her 20th life, or at least not many that she recalls when she’s living in the 18thC. I find her lack of girlfriends more odd than Claire’s. But perhaps Marsali is her best friend at Fraser’s Ridge. They often share the burdens of young motherhood, and it’s Bree who tells Claire that Fergus beats Marsali. -- JessieR, 21:57:40 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I had trouble thinking about "sisterhood" and "brotherhood" in the introduction, as they seem to represent different things. Claire, and many of the other women in the books, do have "brotherhoods" similiar to what we see in the men. They come together quite often to work cooperatively at a specific challenge, and then go on about their lives. For what we seem to be demanding of friendship, among the men maybe only Rupert/Dougal, Jamie/Ian and Jamie/Murtagh approach what we want to see among the women. I wonder if many of us are talking about two different things? -- Carol P, 12:10:30 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Great question, Carol. I think we are indeed talking about two very different phenomena if we characterize "brotherhood" as coming together to achieve a particular goal and "sisterhood" as a long-term friendship that involves emotional intimacy. >>> going long>>> -- pamelalass, 18:04:37 01/22/08 Tue
Either way you slice it, I don't see the women in the Books doing much of it, and I do think both these aspects of friendship/kinship are explored with great thoughtfulness and perception, in the context of male friendships such as the pairings you noted, as well as in the Jamie/John friendship. It's hard to even think of a pair of female friends or kinswomen in the series who share the kind of bonds of both emotion/affection and practicality/loyalty that characterize these male friendships. Perhaps it's just as many here have perceptively concluded: with Claire as the central character, and the exploration of marriage that is at the center of the story, exploring female friendship just wasn't in the cards.
But there is also this strong theme of loyalty and honor throughout the books, that frequently gets explored in the context of "brotherly" relationships, adds deeply to the emotional and romantic resonance of the novels, and is almost entirely a masculine phenomenon. At the same time, there is a repetition of the theme of feminine betrayal, and more than a few female friendships end badly when allies suddenly become betrayers, or foes. Yes, both Jamie and Claire hew to each other, but even Claire notes Jamie's easy intellectual intimacy and bonds of loyalty with John, and she and we come to learn that there are emotional ties as well, through Willie, and through a complicated (to say the least) shared history. Actually, I think some of the friendships DG depicts have both “brotherhood” and “sisterhood” going on, if we go back to our separate definitions above. Which makes me think maybe we should leave aside the language question, because we're grappling with the question of what makes people feel connected to each other in both an emotional sense and in terms of shared experience or conditions, and I think this can probably happen between women friends as well as men friends, but we may notice it more heroic contexts than domestic ones.
On the other hand, it's not just that there isn't a female character who's smart and independent enough to be Claire's best friend, it's also that the smart, independent female characters keep ending up at odds with each other. Is this just “how it is” in real life? Is the brotherhood we cherish in the Books -- with its layers of emotional intimacy and an irresistible bevy of men who actually like to talk a lot -- a more idealized version than “real world” masculine friendship anyway? Among women, is the notion of emotional intimacy among friends more a myth than a reality? If we do share our emotional lives with women friends, how is that different from fiercely-felt bonds forged by fighting a common foe alongside relative strangers, and why does that kind of sharing not necessarily translate into loyalty, or even always signify trust?
I find that I am raising more questions for myself as I go, and a very basic one that occurs to me is to figure out how many significant relationships in the series get “screen time” in more than, say, two of the novels? Other than the married couples, the only lasting partnerships appear to be Jamie’s with his male friends and kinsmen (but I may not be firing on all cylinders and could be forgetting someone). And are there really many more scenes with wonderfully charming and/or powerful dialogue among the men than there are emotionally resonant scenes of women hanging out or working together, or is that just how I remember it?? *g* I confess I am perhaps influenced by having done a QOTD week about male friendship, but I remember I had a terrible time narrowing down from what seemed like dozens of examples that absolutely took my breath away, to just pick 7! By whatever name you call it, DG presents masculine bonds in a way that is indeed romantic and heroic, and feminine ties are both less binding and less straightforward.
As for the question raised below of women readers and a possible "double standard" for judging male and female friendships, and characters, I am intrigued, and would add a question as to whether a female author might (inevitably?) write characters according to a similar duality...? That is: do we judge Jenny, Laoghaire, and Malva more harshly than John, Dougal or Bonnet because we are women, and lack a sense of sisterhood, or because they are written less sympathetically, less heroically, less romantically, etc? While DG leaves plenty of room for interpretation and ambiguity, I think she also demonstrates a clear preference for male scoundrels, even villains! (And no, this is not me admitting that Lord John is a scoundrel or a villain! But he's a character whose motives may conceivably be open for interpretation, yet she clearly wants the reader to like him. For one thing, he gets so many good lines!)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
You raise some great points, Pamela. (And thanks for helping define this topic) The more I think of all this, the more convinced I am that Claire doesn't have a sister because she just doesn't stay in one place long enough to develop the intimacy needed. The men friends you cite have all spent years together. going long>>>> -- Carol P, 20:42:16 01/22/08 Tue
And how much of the charming and powerful dialogue you cite among the men is the result of having the leisure to pursue such conversations? While we are not privy to the actual conversations, Claire tells us that the ladies of Lallybroch did shared work while Jenny read novels or poetry? I envision all kinds of conversations there and the hint of a deep connection among those women.
I think Claire would be best friends with almost anyone, a woman friend wouldn't have to be overly educated or inordinately independent. Claire is a woman of the first half of the 20th C, she was more than willing to subsume her independence first to Frank and then to Jamie, so she could easily accept the lack of independence in the 18th C women. Maybe the accepted practices of society are part of the problem, leading to different definitions of honorable action between Claire and 18th C women. Claire might easily have become friends with Jocasta, bar the little problem of Jocasta being a slave owner. Would we really want to see a close and dear friendship with a person Claire believes is commiting a great evil? Claire can love Mother Hildgegarde because they both see as good treating the sick no matter who they are. Jamie has trouble with this concept when Claire wants to go to the Dolphin. Off to mull over your other questions.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
WOW, I had to read your response twice. Once again, I am struck by the perception, insight, and intelligence of you and all the women who have posted here. I can't help but think that Claire and the rest of the women were short changed during that time period and how lucky we all are now. It was an exception if a woman was well educated in those times or had the leisure to form bonds outside of their own family circle. As boys and young men they would be schooled together or go off to University. As adults he men were often thrown together as soldiers, prisoners, or even simply working in the fields together. Lack of sisterhood back then was more likely a lack of opportunity than some personality flaw in the women in general. -- Jane, 20:46:22 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Typo...not "he men" but the men..still, "he men" is quite a funny slip. -- Jane, 20:50:47 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
giggle, giggle. "he men" made perfect sense to me, Jane. I doubt that the non "he men" had any scintillating conversations or friends we'd want to overhear. You're right, women today are so lucky in many respects. Our world is certainly a bigger place than that of the 18th C women. And yet, a romantic part of me envies the certainty that those 18th C women have about their place in the scheme of things, certainty born of a lack of choice perhaps. -- Carol P, 05:38:18 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Hi Jane, glad you think this discussion is fun! I am loving seeing what everyone has to say, and I am having to think verra hard to keep up! I agree completely that environment and context are big factors, not only in causing people to band together, but in shaping how the bonds are perceived. Men were in public situations that created all kinds of heroic and ceremonial associations around their bonding, and women in the domestic arena probably felt less of the energy and drama of "all for one, one for all," even if we now see their struggles and labors as heroic and bonding. Even as a feminist, I find I have to consciously examine what might be going on among the women in the domestic arena, and look for heroism, drama, etc., while I respond on a gut level to the stirring actions and interactions among the men in these books. -- pamelalass, 08:49:50 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
But sticking a dirk in someone's wame is more immediately stirring than dosing a kid and waiting for him to poop because he swallowed a rock. -- Carol P, 11:33:43 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
OK ---- I'm a bit alte to the party and reading all the posts and just had to respond to this one ---- I am laughing so hard people inthe surrounding cubicles must be wondering just WHAT is so funny on the Internet today! How often do you come across a sentence with both "poop" & "wame"? ........... now, on to more reading .... -- navine, 12:21:55 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yup. It just is! -- pamelalass, 13:37:26 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Although upon reflection I will say that Jamie gets quite stirred up watching Claire in action as a surgeon, and those are clearly moments of heroism and drama, even if they do involve messy bodily functions! The thing is, saving a life via surgery is something she does to someone, rather than with someone, and she does not have comrades. Also, it's completely unique in the Fraser's world, because she's a time traveler. Other women didn't have occasion for such public displays of healing prowess. -- pamelalass, 14:38:06 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Pamela—Great post, and great question: who is judging the women in these novels more harshly—the readers or the author? Perhaps both. A great example to explore is Malva, and I found the treatment of her in ABOSAA raised all sorts of questions for me. Claire seeks out her company, befriends her, and runs interference for her with Tom Christie. In the “Bees & Switches” chapter, Claire even has a moment of female bonding with Malva as she watches Tom Christie take a switch to the girl, an observation that raises red flags for Claire and reminds her of when Jamie took a strap to her. Both women know what it’s like to receive a beating from a man. Plus, Claire and Malva share an interest in medicine, an interest that Claire is unable to share as deeply with her own daughter. If there was ever a potential for a sisterly bond, I think it was there with Claire and Malva. >>>going long>>> -- JessieR, 21:47:20 01/22/08 Tue
But DG sunders that bond by having Malva falsely accuse Jamie of infidelity. At first, I felt like this was such a stereotypical move—make the woman a sexual threat and ruin the relationship over a man. But as you suggest, there are layers of ambiguity in DG’s writing, and the Malva case is, at least to me, is a more multi-faceted affair in the hands of a writer like Diana Gabaldon. Why? Because Malva’s motives are colored by having been abused. It’s not clear what made Malva promiscuous, or how long she’d been the victim of incest. It’s also not clear if her behavior is a legacy from a deranged mother or from a mother who was the victim of a terribly unhappy marriage. To me, Malva represents a failure of sisterhood—a failure of the community of women in which she lived to sense that something was wrong in that house. If women’s strength is the emotional bond and the ability to read more intuitively than men, then why didn’t Claire pick up on Malva’s abuse? Why did she send Jamie to talk to Malva after she witnessed the beating? Perhaps this is DG’s way of acknowledging sisterhood by dramatizing what can happen when it’s not in force. It may be a more back-handed approach, but I found it quite compelling.
Carol asked whether brotherhood and sisterhood were the same thing, and I agree that they are not identical. But the difference to me stems more from the formal and ritualized nature of brotherhood. It’s honored throughout history and celebrated in art and literature. Plus, secret societies of men have endured for centuries and are rich with tradition and ceremony. Men have concrete badges of brotherhood that announce their bond: the battle scar, the ring, the club, the secret handshake. Sisterhood, however, is a far more ad hoc affair. It can organize on the fly to help the new bride and the new mother, and it offers assistance and consolation to the new widow. But then it disbands when it’s no longer needed. No badges given, and no membership required. My guess is that DG assumes her readers will know that this sort of thing is going on in the background of her novels.
But there is also the less public and more intimate kind of sisterhood—the need to share thoughts and fears in a language that only another woman could understand. I think it’s far more difficult for a writer to realize this kind of female bond, and it’s this depiction of sisterhood that I’d like to see DG explore in more depth.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Once again you've got me thinking really hard, Jessie. With Malva, "Claire seeks out her company, befriends her, and runs interference ". Claire does exactly the same thing with Laoghaire when they first get to Leoch. going long >>>>> -- Carol P, 06:13:58 01/23/08 Wed
And Claire's emotional reaction to Colum's punishment of Laoghaire is the same as to Malva's punishment, even though Claire hadn't received her own beating at that time. I'm struggling with your idea that Malva could represent a failure of sisterhood. I don't think Malva or Laoghaire saw their situation as abusive, nor would the women on the ridge characterize it that way, so it was not necessary or possible for them to change it. I'm sure the women and children on the receiving end of corporal punishment didn't like it, but they and everyone else thought it acceptable. When Marsali has her sex talk with Claire on the ship, my heart almost broke at the matter of fact way Marsali spoke of their neighbor who sometimes sported a black eye or limped from an injury done by the lady's husband. I'm with you on the less public kind of sisterhood. The early conversations between Jenny and Claire, even those where the men are present, approach the intimacy between women. I have hopes that DG will develop that yet between those two, surely their troubles are as surmountable as the difficulties Jamie and Lord John overcame.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Carol—interesting point. While Malva may not have used a term like “abuse,” I can’t help but feel that she knew having sex with one’s brother was somehow wrong. When Malva stomps away from her father’s beating, I’ve often wondered if she was mad because Christie seemed bent on punishing only her. It was Allan he should have lit into, not Malva. But Christie is fixated on female impropriety rather than male perversion, especially given the history he has with his wife, so it’s Malva who gets the whipping. But Claire, a woman, intuitively senses that something is wrong with the “Christie ménage” when she witnesses the thrashing. At the sight of this, Claire suspects that Tom is the agent of perversion, and while she’s wrong about him, she’s right about the perversion. I don’t feel she acted on her instincts as perhaps only a woman like her could. Would Malva have opened up to Jamie about incest? I doubt it. -- JessieR, 06:38:33 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Nah, Malva wouldn't have opened up to Jamie, but I'm not so sure she would have been honest with Claire either, no matter what Claire did or said. Malva may have felt she was being singled out unfairly, but she also may have felt she deserved the punishment. I wondered if there wasn't an element of "I've paid the piper, I can now do what I want to" in Malva's mind. Young girls today in unhappy homes sometimes turn to promiscuity to feel loved, maybe Malva isn't so different. Tom doesn't know what's going on so he has no reason to punish Allan. Incest is such a horrendous sin that Tom would never recognize it unless he caught them in the act. I can't think of anything Claire might/should have done here. Have you got possibilities in mind? -- Carol P, 07:06:24 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I probably should take longer to think this through, but it occurs to me that as Malva's mentor, Claire is in a relationship that is more akin to Jamie's with Young Ian than to a contemporary notion of women friends or "soul sisters." But in spite of the difference in age, and Claire's role as mentor, I think there could have been a bond based on shared experiences as women. And it is hard to imagine Jamie staying so hands-off if he sensed something amiss with Young Ian that rose to the level of what Claire sensed about the Christie household. Claire sends Jamie to talk to Malva, an impersonal strategy Jamie would never employ, and one that doesn't seem to live up to the emotional intimacy she later claims to have felt was betrayed by Malva. "Brotherhood" of the kind we've been discussing means you've got someone's back, whether they are younger, older, of greater or lesser rank, etc. "Sisterhood" doesn't have to mean "sisterly." -- pamelalass, 09:01:55 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I think it makes a difference that Jamie was "Himself." *Everybody* on the Ridge recognizes his authority. That being so, it might be that Malva would feel she could appeal to him for justice, so to speak, as she would see him as having the power to affect the dynamics of her household; something no one else could have done. At least, that's why I assumed that both Claire and Jamie thought it appropriate for him to talk to her. She wouldn't have felt Claire could do anything, and therefore probably wouldn't confide in her. -- maddiej, 13:10:00 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree, his role as laird certainly must have been a factor in their decision to proceed in this manner. But I still think Jamie wouldn't have let some other guy, no matter who was technically in charge, go check things out if one of his lads were potentially in trouble. He and Claire approach problems, and people, differently, and I'm not sure where I as a reader come down on the question of whether it's a man/woman sort of difference, or just these two individuals. I also wonder about the role of the author here -- is she "leading the witness," so to speak, by giving Jamie and Claire such different experiences of friendship and solidarity? And if so, where is she leading us? -- pamelalass, 14:00:59 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
I never viewed Claire and Malva's relationship and "sisterly". I thought Claire acted more motherly towards her and she was her mentor. "Sisters", IMHO, can open up to each other and speak of things openly and honeslty. I didn't get that from thier relationship. Claire was too much her senior to have a sisterly type bond. I do believe Malva HAD to know incest was wrong. This is a multi-cultural taboo that is pretty universal. More than likely, the last time incest was "acceptable" was Ancient Egpt where marrying siblings was common to keep royal bloodlines. Maybe it was a sick way of rebelling against her father's treatment? Her brother had to know, too and used her perhaps to get back at Tom, too?? I can't see Malva opening up to anyone about this for several reasons: the stigma of the behavior and consequences would be devastaing, and I believe Malva herself was just not mentally capable of making rational decisions. She was quite frightening in the end. -- Rollaine, 08:39:06 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Hi Rollaine, I think we were pondering some of the same questions -- sorry I didn't see your post while it took me way too long to finish my thought. Interesting question about whether we have to be sisterly to have sisterhood! I definitely feel more sisterhood with women friends (of all ages) than I do with one of my sisters, especially when it comes to feeling understood, having people who "know where I'm coming from", etc. But we've always had a lot of sibling rivalry in my family, which raises another question -- what about how rivalry is handled in "brotherhoods" vs. "sisterhoods"? Could Claire have sensed on some strange unconscious level that Malva was going to be a rival? Is this why she kept her distance? As a reader I was frequently suspicious of Malva's overweening interest in Claire's activities. -- pamelalass, 09:36:38 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
This is an interesting point, pamela. I've not been able to keep up with all the discussion here, but it did occur to me that claire tries several times to be motherly/sisterly- once early on with Laoghaire and then with Marsali and both of those backfire because the girls want Claire's man. Now, with LIzzie, I see Bree as stepping in and doing her part to protect a "sister" in need and that was successful. I think it worked for Marsali too. But no matter what the issue, IMO, Claire can never have a true deep friendship with anyone because they don't even know who she really is! They no nothing of the true nature of her "other" marriage, she can't tell many stories about Bree's childhood- nothing. There's even a scene with marsali where claire laments that she can't share the spaghettie incident. She has to always be guarded and I think those who may wish to get close to her feel that- which is why I wish Jenny could be told! -- susiej, 11:51:18 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That's a good point, Susie, that Claire can't ever be honest enough to have a deep friendship. Now I'm sad. I do hope she tells all to Jenny and Ian. -- Carol P, 12:08:30 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for such insightful comments, Pamela and Rollaine. Thinking of the parallel with Jamie and Young Ian, Jamie would have asked Ian about any suspicions and then they would have chosen action. But the situation with Malva and Claire is more complicated. They don't have a deep relationship to draw on. And, other than gaping, bleeding wounds in front of her, Claire never offers opinions and advice unless she's asked. The closest she comes to giving unsoliticed advice is when she gives the facts of life to Mary Hawkins. I think this is a basic part of Claire's character, she doesn't feel compelled to preach, even if those around her need the preaching. But she could have gone into her mother-mode and tried to draw Malva out about what was going on in her life, so was it the lack of established intimacy with Malva that stopped her? Or unlike the Mary Hawkings situation, did Claire hold back because, if her suspicions were right, she couldn't think of a solution to offer Malva? -- Carol P, 12:02:48 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, Carol. I know you're right that this has to do with Claire's personality, her sense of reserve and distance. But it's still interesting to me that she and the other women just don't have that gut, "got your back" instinct - - or if they do, they don't act on it with the same kind of immediacy that the men do. Women had to be more cautious than men in every way, when taking action of any kind in the public sphere. But as Donner noted, Claire was notably not cautious about speaking up, so I still think she could have done something more, I don't know, forceful and/or wisewoman--ish, than send Himself to check it out, the same way she would send him to deal with any other tenant issue. -- pamelalass, 13:47:16 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yea—I agree, Pamela. This was a missed opportunity on Claire’s part, as well as a missed opportunity for DG to illustrate a moment of female bonding. >>>inside>>> -- JessieR, 16:04:42 01/23/08 Wed
Claire is getting a bad vibe from the Christie family, and it’s Malva she sees as the victim. She’s unwilling to leap to conclusions, but still, she’s concerned. But in the “Bees and Switches” chapter, Jamie derails Claire from pursuing her suspicions by reaffirming male authority and a man’s responsibility to “draw the lines.” He implies that Christie has the right to beat his grown daughter. Claire ponders this concept and deals with it objectively, but that doesn’t mean she has to abandon her 20thC sensibilities, and those sensibilities tell her that something is wrong. But rather than allow Claire to contemplate Malva’s situation more deeply, DG turns the episode into an illustration of how beating a woman (or the threat of beating a woman) can be sexualized and converted into erotic power. It’s not that this isn’t an interesting tack, but it felt like familiar territory for DG, and I would have rather seen her plumb the depths of a psychologically complex young woman like Malva Christie. But hey—it’s not my novel, and no doubt DG had good reasons to characterize Malva as she did.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good observation. Claire's reaction in dealing with Malva's beating in an objective way is interesting. She has absolutely no problem using certain 20th century medical practices. Yet, with the treatment of women, she remains fairly silent. You asked this question above about feminsim. In my post below, I thought it would be quite dangerous for Claire & Bree to start talking women's rights in the volatile 1770's (let's face, women only got the right to vote in this country less than 100 yrs ago). I'm thinking it would not be well received. But what about moral absolutes? I'm not religious, I'm an agnosotic. But I believe there are moral absolutes-and I think beating a person and leaving bruises and marks is one of those absolutes. This is not self-defense. This is the "I'm the man/father-I have the right"...nonsense, that's crap. At least she could have said to Jamie-no this is morally wrong and should not be acceptable. -- Rollaine, 18:25:01 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I mean no offense, but in fact, the notion of corporal punishment of children actually isn't a moral absolute; it's one of the cultural paradigms that shifts over time and between cultures. (Unlike murder and incest, which do seem to be universally viewed as immoral.) I *really* don't mean to be offensive, but, "That's not acceptable!" is such a very-late-20th-century response to something one personally disapproves of. Even in Claire's part of the 20th century, a parent's right to correct his/her children physically was taken for granted. Certainly it was in the 18th. Jamie, for one, doesn't see it as morally wrong, and he's been physically disciplined pretty frequently himself. He does explicitly make a distinction between corporal punishment (even to the point of bruises) and "beating" someone, and it's a real distinction, I think. -- maddiej, 13:30:52 01/24/08 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
No offense taken, but I still respectfully disagree. The idea that its cultural, doesn't make it right. Slavery was justified by religion and practiced by many cultures, but it is morally wrong. The treatment of women in many cultures as second class (lack of education, voting rights, beating, the seling of girls inot prostitution) is also "justified" as cultural, but is morally wrong. For me, these are moral absolutes-they are wrong. It's not wrong to discipline one's children, but beating is beating. You may disagree, but it is for ME it is morally wrong-and something I see as a moral absolute. You may not-your beliefs differ from mine. Again, I think at the very least, Claire could have voiced her concerns-she has no problem speaking up about other things. It seemed that she was bothered by Malva's treatment. -- Rollaine, 16:10:41 01/24/08 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
maddie—interesting post. But when does Claire support the corporal punishment of a woman or child? Though I don’t know if Claire sees her position as a moral absolute, the textual evidence suggests that she agrees with Rollaine: the practice is “not acceptable.” Plus, Jamie’s behavior is not always consistent with his statements about corporal punishment, which suggests that the cultural paradigms of the 18thC were more nuanced than we might think. (Wasn’t Bentham opposing corporal punishment in schools in the late 18thC?). In the end, the novels tell me that Claire and Jamie can take a beating far better than they can administer one to a child or a woman. >>going long>> -- JessieR, 18:24:33 01/24/08 Thu
In Outlander, Claire is repulsed by the potential public beating of teenage Laoghaire and characterizes it as “barbaric.” Jamie takes the beating anyway in order to spare Laoghaire the humiliation. Claire intervenes in the ear-nailing incident, and it’s Jamie who helps her. In DIA, Claire’s aghast (and so is Jamie) that Fergus must be beat for something she did (it’s Fergus who really wants the beating). Jamie doesn’t want to thrash young Ian in Voyager, but he does so because Ian, Sr. makes him. The culture, and in the case of Fergus, even the child, supported the punishment of these young people, but it’s Claire and Jamie who prevent it from happening or who are troubled by carrying it out.
As for beating women--Claire forgives Jamie beating her, but she threatens to disembowel him if he does it again. (He likes to threaten her, but I cannot imagine him taking a strap to her again, even though she disobeys him right and left). When Claire witnesses Tom Christie beating the bare bum of his grown daughter, she’s not only concerned, she’s alarmed. She suspects that he’s sexualizing the act. She may not shout from the rafters that Christie better knock it off, but she does ask Jamie to check on Malva, and despite his bravado about men showing who’s in charge, he does what she asks. Even Ian taking a strap to Jenny is less about punishment and more about Jenny’s agency as a loving wife who wants to empower her husband.
As far as I can recall, there is only one instance where Claire sanctions the corporal punishment of a woman or child, and only one instance where she delivers it. She asks Jamie to beat her with nettles in Dragonfly in Amber, but she does so to restore Jamie’s pride rather than to correct her behavior. Jamie notably doesn’t take her up on the offer. And Claire does land a solid slap on Malva—enough to knock the girl down—but it’s more an act of defiance and rage than a medium of punishment.
All of this suggests that while the prevailing cultural attitudes of the 18thC supported corporal punishment for wayward children and wives, the protagonists in the Books have much more modern sensibilities, including Jamie. For a guy who asserts a man is someone who must “draw up lines and fight other folk who come over them,” he seems very uncomfortable fighting folk who happen to be women and children. Readers are left reconciling his statements with his behavior, and his behavior seems to suggest that he’s not fully subscribed to the 18thC notion that beating a youngster or a woman is an effective form of correction. I just can’t tell if the change in him is due to his own thinking or to the fact that’s he’s married to a woman who in nearly ever case finds corporal punishment “not acceptable.”
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
All I can say is...wow, JessieR! I'm impressed! I most certainly see these beatings (and, yes, to me these are beatings-not a little slap on the wrist or behind) as morally wrong. Look at the ramifications-what effect did this have on Malva (or anyone for that matter)? I have a hard time when injustice is claoked in culture. Becasue it is prevalent or accepted doesn't make it right. MaddieJ mentioned incest and murder as 2 pretty standard morally wrong absolutes (and yes, they are). And yet, incest was routinely practiced among the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. Many cultures practiced human sacrifice. Isn't that pretty much culturally sanctioned murder?? Even today, there are parts of the world where "honor killing" is practiced. Yes, corporal punishment may have been "accepted" and sanctioned, but it most certainly doesn't make it right-at least IMHO. -- Rollaine, 18:46:17 01/24/08 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What a wonderful synopsis of this subject in the books, Jessie. Thinking about the different situations you mention, my first reaction was that maybe Jamie would behave pretty much the same way without Claire's influence. going long>>>> -- Carol P, 20:24:40 01/24/08 Thu
He didn't like being thrashed and he doesn't think it's effective. He even forces Ian to admit that a beating never stopped him from doing what he wanted. Add those experiences to a grown man with a strong protective bent, and thrashing women and children might very well smack of unfair bullying. Jamie might agree with Maddie, he might not say it's immoral, but his actions surely shout that he doesn't think it's right or honorable. The lines Jamie draws are for other men not to cross and he's more than willing to enforce those lines with physical force. He's learned from experience that he doesn't need to use force to enforce his lines against weaker folk. Rollaine has identifed one the big moral quandries faced by all people in all times. It's very hard to identify and eliminate an injustice that is prevalent and acceptable in a society, regardless of what label we put on it. And yet, humans do make those changes. Corporal punishment was very common and almost universally accepted and practiced in homes and public schools when I was a child. Yet, by the time I was 35, all schools had stopped the practice, I knew no parents who would spank their kids and people were openly critical if a parent did such a thing in public. I'm still not sure how that change came about so quickly.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Rollaine and Jessie--no problem with disagreeing. I don't happen to think corporal punishment is generally useful myself. Just pointing out *why* Claire probably wasn't storming down the hillside and informing Mr. Christie that his behavior wasn't acceptable. Regardless of her own feelings about corporal punishment, she is the product of a time when that *was* acceptable, and is in a time when it's even more so. -- maddiej, 02:16:48 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oops, pushed Send too soon....meant to add that Claire doesn't just go away and ignore the situation. She does what she thinks is most likely to be effective, given what she knows of the Christies at this point. That Tom is a stubborn religious fundamentalist who thinks women are basically immoral *and* stupid, and that Malva is secretive about her homelife. So it's not likely that direct inquiry or interference by Claire will achieve anything, but Jamie might at least put the fear of Jamie (if not God) into Tom Christie and prevent injury to Malva. Claire may be opinionated and impulsive, but she is observant, and she isn't stupid. -- maddiej, 02:22:25 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yes, Jessie, I agree there are other possible scenarios that would have remained consistent with what we know of Claire, and I think her 20thc sensibility was causing her to sense something more awry than Malva receiving thrashings from her father. So my question about why we don't see her get more involved is less about the beating she observed and more about her suspicions that the beating, which I think took place outdoors where it could be witnessed, was a symptom of something much worse that could have been going on inside the Christie house. She only had a vague sense about this, but if it was just about corporal punishment I actually don't think she'd have sent Jamie, because she knows he holds the traditional 18th c view on this form of discipline. The way Claire's concerns are expressed, to me it seemed she suspected something was really wrong, so I was surprised that her intervention was so indirect, given her usual "damn the torpedos" approach. >> -- pamelalass, 17:24:38 01/24/08 Thu
Given Jamie's perspective on physical discipline, sending him to talk to Malva falls rather far short of "solidarity," now that I think of it! For the rest of the Malva storyline to fall into place, however, there had to be a time when Jamie visits her alone.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Light bulb went on, thanks for explaining this so well, Pamela. I think you're right that the problem wasn't the switching. I don't have my book handy and can't remember how long after this scene the stuff hit the fan. Is this another of those situations where things happen so quickly there's no time to stave off disaster? I'm still trying to think of anything Claire could have done besides talk to Malva, which I'm pretty convinced would have been a big waste of time. -- Carol P, 18:20:01 01/24/08 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ahhh.."damn the torpedos" is the perfect way to describe Claire's approach to things! Agree with you here-I tried to kind of say this, but apparently not as well! -- Rollaine, 18:22:02 01/24/08 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yea—Claire’s concern about Malva is not really about corporal punishment; she sees Malva as an adult rather than a child and worries that a grown man beating the naked bum of his grown daughter could be sexualizing the act: “”Perhaps he [meaning Tom] does…other things to her,’” Claire tells Jamie. I also agree with you that the lateral pass to Jamie is driven by the exigencies of the plot. In the “Woodears” chapter, not only does Malva get to be alone with Jamie, she also gets subtly demonized by the recurring trope of the snake. Malva will help bring ruin to the Eden that Jamie and Claire made on Fraser’s Ridge, and DG has to begin convincing the reader that Miss Christie is wicked enough to do so. -- JessieR, 18:36:47 01/24/08 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ah, Jessie, you are such a marvelous teacher. I noticed the snake but didn't think beyond the fact. The scene is much richer if I think about Eden too. -- Carol P, 20:34:55 01/24/08 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I, too, never thought about the symbolism of the snake - thanks for the clarity! Great discussion, btw, wish I had had more time to participate.. -- LissC, 17:52:14 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's true that Claire often *is* "damn the torpedos," yes. [s] However, at this point in the story, she's had several run-ins with Tom Christie, and knows just how stubborn he is, as well as just what his attitude toward women is. She'd know she couldn't get anywhere trying to prevent him doing what he thought was right (and his right). But he does owe Jamie his livelihood, as well as the general respect due to the local authority figure; Jamie *might* get somewhere. My impression is that Jamie wanted to know as much as he could before approaching Tom directly. And in fact, I don't think Claire does "send" him to talk to Malva; he runs across her by accident, but takes the opportunity to probe cautiously into her situation. -- maddiej, 02:13:09 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's funny, I can't help agreeing with everything you've said, Maddie! Yet still I have this bee in my bonnet about Claire's modern sensibility and her suspicion that the punishment had a sexual component, or was evidence of something more sinister, and I find her strangely passive as the narrative plays out. I don't fault any author for making close calls when it comes to how to turn her plot, and my (completely personal) opinion is that Claire recedes here because there needs to be the Jamie/Malva interaction - - his time with the serpent in the garden. You're right, she doesn't send him, but I thought they did come to some sort of agreement that he would be the one to find out more. Which makes Claire's "intervention" feel even more casual, and her lack of urgency doesn't fit, for me, with the concern and suspicion she articulates. She doesn't seem to "have Malva's back" -- and for contrast, I love Cathy's idea about the Beardsley ghost wives! -- pamelalass, 06:30:19 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[>
In ABOSAA, Donner told C he should have realized she was a fellow TT because she was different from other women of that time - she wasn't afraid. She was always "different" and that difference was more noticed by women than men. Getting too close to other women was dangerous for C. Once nearly burned, twice shy. -- Ruthlass, 21:51:32 01/21/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
I don't understand how so many here can say they dislike the way Jenny treated Claire in Voyager! I mean, put yourself in Jenny's shoes. The brother she loves so dearly comes home from Culloden seriously wounded and without the woman he loves, and who professed to love him. Inside, I may go long lol -- KImL, 06:10:37 01/22/08 Tue
She is given no explanation for Claire's disappearance, other than the fact that she is "gone". Jenny brings Jamie back from death's doorstep, only to find that he isn't the same man he was, emotionally. Finally, in an attempt to try and make him "whole" again, she suggests the match to Loaghaire, which Jamie does agree to. She did not hold a gun to his head to make him do it, he went willingly enough. Then, when that marriage starts to fail, Jamie moves to Edinburgh, and seldom goes to Lallybroch, but at least Jenny still gets to see him, even if it is not often. Then, all of sudden, Claire is back, with no explanation of where she was, other than her telling Jenny "I thought he was dead." I mean, Jenny is not stupid. Claire has been gone twenty years, why did Jamie not try and find her if he still loved her? Afterall, she doesn't know about Claire's time travelling abilities, so it would only be natural for Jenny to think that if Jamie knew where Claire was, he would try and find her, and since he didn't, that he must not love her, or her him, anymore. Then, when Claire comes back, Jenny sends for Loaghaire for one reason and one reason only-to try and keep her dearly loved brother at least in Scotland. She "knows" that Jamie will leave Scotland now that he is with Claire, and she is afraid she will never see her brother again. I think what Jenny did was only natural and I think it was Claire who acted irrationally. I think that,in that day and time, I would have done the same thing as Jenny, if it were one of my brothers, especially if one of them had been through what Jamie had been through. I know that I seem to be in a minority here with my way of thinking, but, please remember that it is only my humble opinion! I think one of the reasons why women bond differently than men is that we are so much more unforgiving. We tend to hold onto injustices longer than men and we expect so much more from others than men seem to. And, we are also just more nurturing in general, so therefore, we don't like to see anyone we love get hurt.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I think it was the way it was done. It was a bit underhanded and it did nothing but cause hurt to Claire, Loaghaire and her daughters. There were other ways she could have handled it, but it seemed like a sneaky way to do what she did. If she cared so much for her brother, he is once again with the woman he loves, then she sends for a woman he obviuosly does not love but is with out of obligation. Why not pull Jamie aside and say-Hey, what's the deal, what's going on? She sees her brother happy for the first time in years, then sends for Loaghaire and her daughters. Then they walk in on them in bed. Sorry, that;'s just not right. On one level, I can see why she did it, but I think it was not a nice thing to do. IMHO, it was not her place and she overstepped her bounds on this one. -- Rollaine, 06:43:17 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
I think Jenny had a right to do what she did. Jamie brings claire home to bed her in front of her children who only knows loaghaire as their aunt. And from the looks of things jamie has not told claire the truth in all this time or is going to , so jenny , in her own way makes him own up. Its her house , her kids, and jamies lies. He was the one in the wrong. I also think she was very afraid of losing him. I'm on jennys side on this one. -- dirbeauchamp, 07:53:07 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Again, my only porblem is that is caused great hurt and embarrasment to Claire, Loaghaire and her children. While she may have been right, it is Jamie who should have born the brunt-not the women. I'm no fan of Loaghare, but I felt kind of bad for her. What a thing to see. I think it caused hurt to the wrong people-that's my main issue with what she did. Here again its that sisterhood thing :-). Jamie caused the deception y lying, but who does Jenny actually go after-Claire, and indirectly Loaghaire and her daughters. I think it was obvious Claire did not know about Loaghaire and vice-versa. Jenny was right-Jamie should have been honest-but I still disagree with her actions. -- Rollaine, 08:14:26 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[>
KImL said "one reason women bond differently than men is that we are so much more unforgiving. We tend to hold onto injustices longer than men" put my thoughts into words very well. I've seen men fight over an issue at work and then still be friends. Women tend to become enemies for life. Women usually either compete with or support each other. Men seem more capable of doing both. -- Ruthlass, 09:11:44 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Interesting that you mention this. I read an article in the NY Times a few years back (I think it was from a book). It was basically about how men and women differ in how they fight. Men can fight, differ on things and get up and still be friends. The person who did the research found that women fought in a more underhanded way. Ruining reputations, being sneaky, spreading rumors and forming cliques to exlcude others. This is esp prevalent in school (but I do think it does carry over to adulthood-from my own personal experience). The author went on to say that what females do is much more damaging, because it can pyscholigically damage another person for a long time. I think she felt that men and women are socialzed differently-its acceptable for men to fight & be open about & physical about thier differences, while it is not acceptable for women. This was a few years back, so if anyone esle can clarify or add-that would be great! -- Rollaine, 10:39:13 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
I've never read the article, but it echoes what I was taught in my psychology of women class in college, as well as personal experience. Come in if interested >>> -- Natalie C., 12:46:22 01/22/08 Tue
I'm 25 and in my 3rd year in vet school. I attend school in the UK, which means the mix of ages in the class is fairly large - 21-30. The class is also 80% female. I see the underhanded cliquey behaviour all the time. Last year, the girls that I was close (I thought) friends with (two of whom I lived with) decided for whatever reason that they didn't like me anymore. There were some minor issues with the girls I lived with, but they weren't the underlying problem. By March of last year I'd been nearly completely excluded from the group, and my two flatmates moved out without warning in May. That was the last time I spoke to any of them, and these girls are my age or older! To this day I still have no clear explanation of what happened other than I didn't want to spend 24/7 with the same people, and I have brothers and male friends, so I've never understood how to fight "girl". I have also seen the cliquey behaviour in some of the vet practices I've interned at, again a female dominated workplace. Mostly nurses not liking other nurses and gossiping behind their backs. So yes, Rollaine, the petty, middle-school behaviour does continue into adulthood.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
There were cliques at Ardsmuir too until Jamie came and ended it- women don't just beat each other up when there's a problem- they use more subversive aggression. With men its more allowable to duke it out. And Jamie feels the need to lead- one could almost say its a power trip. Claire doesn't need that- she gets her power trip through surgery. -- susiej, 15:23:24 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
You've described something going on right here perfectly, I think. No offense to anyone, just a humble observation made with a smile but the majority of us here are women, and we get pissed off at Jenny for her actions, don't like Bree because she's a pain in the a@@ at first, love to hate Laoghaire (I know I do (BG)), think somewhat poorly of Lizzy if we are not outright scandalized, etc ,etc. In the same breath, there are legions here who adore both Dougal and Stephen Bonnet and we forgive men many of their sins and shortcomings. It's the women we tend to rag on (with the exception of BJR). What's with that? ;-) -- KathleenM, 12:48:52 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
LOL! I can only speak fo myself, but I always liked Bree. Se had to deal with some very strange things, and I think she did quite well. Jenny is OK, a bit too free with her hands when it ocmes to her brother :-)! I do think she over-steps her bounds too much. Loaghaire did try to have Claire killed indirectly. Can't blame us for not liking her! Me, personally, I find nothing appealing about Bonnet at all-he's a sleaze. Same goes for me with Dougal.>>> -- Rollaine, 13:20:14 01/22/08 Tue
At the risk of getting pummeld with tomatoes :-)...I'm no fan of LJG, either. I most certainly don't put him in the same category as the others. What I find interesting is how much LJG is loved (again, I don't hate him, but I don't love him). Here is a man who is in love with Jamie (and pretty opnenly so when Claire is around), and yet he is viewed as this great guy. His open affection for Jamie and the fact that he came around unannounced with Jamie's son with another woman (in DOA) is seen as this great thing. If that were me, I would be really angry!!! He tells her he came to see if I could still feel. What??? You are telling me you are in love with my husband!!! Am I supposed to be OK with this?? Not me, I would be really angry and I don't care if it's a man or woman!
If it were a woman, she would be shredded to pieces :-)!!! Now, I know you will think, but LJG is a man and no threat to Jamie & Claire's relationship. But, can't one argue that since they have this incredibly strong bond, no one should be able to come between them, not even a woman!
Is there somewhat of a double-standard with LJG? Just wondering...food for thought, maybe??
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Weeeel . . . talk about opening a can of worms! LOL, indeed. I don't have feelings towards LJG that lean either way particularly; he's quite interesting to me, an anomaly of sorts, an unexpected sort of mushroom, as DG calls them, in my reading. I think her writing is incredible enough to draw me in where I usually wouldn't go. I don't like Dougal; a self serving opportunist is the nicest thing I can call him and Bonnet is a sociopath. No feelings of sympathy there, I would have shot him dead in the forest. :-) I like Jenny and Bree even when they annoy me, I do love to hate Laoghaire even though I feel sorry for her. I just notice we are much harder on the women characters, and it makes me laugh b/c it mirrors real life IMO. -- KathleenM, 13:53:09 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Didn't want to open the can LOL! But I do think its interesting. LJG is an interesting character-I'll give him that! I always wanted to put that question out there, without getting anyone angry! -- Rollaine, 14:50:08 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I don't think that is a bad question. I think LJG is written to be a person we connect with, admire, understand his reasons, etc. That's why many of us forgive him. If I think a woman was written as sympathetic as John, we wouldn't feel the need to scratch her eyes out. We "know" John (We meaning the ones who love him), therefore we don't get angry. I think the same thing would happen to a woman if we really knew her and liked her. -- Conmama, 07:22:46 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ah, you are all much nicer than me! I'd scratch all their eyes out-male or female! Thena again, I am a very jealous person, much to my DH's amusement sometimes. But I do wonder if it was a woman, would she be as admired as LJG?? -- Rollaine, 08:43:01 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
See, I'm not talking about real life. In real life, anyone had better not step on my toes. I'm not nice at all in that regards. I'm just talking about a fictional woman that we might have grown to like in the story (similar to LJ) and how we would perceive her acting up now and again with Claire. This has nothing to do with my real life, whatsoever. Being a scorpio myself, I have a verra deadly sting when attacked, just like you. -- Conmama, 09:31:31 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm a Sagittarius. Not sure what I'm suppposed to be! Personally, I don't know if I would be accepting of a LJG female character. I guess its simply that I insert my own feelings and expereinces when I read. -- Rollaine, 10:19:46 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Rollaine - you KNOW that I agree with you about John. But I've actually heard HERE that some would like to "try" with him. NOW _ THAT- makes me sick. Sorry. -- GwenM, 16:23:31 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
I'll weigh in --- I'm definitely NOT on the I-luv-LJG train. He's interesting enough (as all DG's characters are), but I only came to "appreciate" him in his encounters with Bree ..... and even those --- when he's charming and funny and all that --- have the "taint" of my it coming across as him being interested in her and liking her and all MOSTLY because she's not only Jami'es daughter, but LOOKS so much like him. Nope --- count me in as not liking LJG all that much.. -- navine, 12:30:11 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
That's a very good point Kathleen and I guess its just that those women who dig Dougal et al forgive them thier faults because they are hot for them. But they aren't letting the women off the hook so easy. -- susiej, 15:27:21 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Weeeeel, maybe this explains the lack of "sisterhood" we set out to examine. They are as unforgiving with each other as we are with them. -- Ruthlass, 15:44:42 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
These observations are just too funny. The person I first got pissed at in O was Jamie and I darned near didn't finish the book, I was so mad/disappointed/disgusted with him. And he's still the one I get mad at the most, mainly because I think he should know better when he does those stupid things. I understand where Bree, Laoghaire, Jenny, Lizzie, Lord John et al. are coming from so I have a tendency to make excuses for them. *BG* -- Carol P, 20:55:55 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
And I get mad at and rag on people I love in real life too; loving and ragging are not mutually exclusive. *BEG* -- Carol P, 21:03:41 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Carol—me, too! I’m so happy to learn that I’m not the only one who got disgusted with Jamie in Outlander. But I’m glad I persevered and finished the book. He still pisses me off, even more than Claire, but he always wins me over when all is said and done. -- JessieR, 21:32:56 01/22/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
The most uplifting moral of these stories is that, if even dyed-in-the-wool heroes can behave like jerks at times, there's hope for us all, we can all be better. more heroic people. -- Carol P, 06:30:45 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
that's so funny- i never get mad at Jamie because I just adore him. I can always come up with a very plausible defense! Seriously, he's never pissed me off except a little bit when he beat up Roger but that's because it was Roger! If it had been Bonnet, I'd be cheering him on. -- susiej, 11:40:30 01/23/08 Wed
Last edited by author: Wed January 23, 2008 11:52:37
Edited 1 time.
[ Edit | View ]
[>
OK- I'm going to throw this out- sorry if it is off topic, but in light of what we've been saying here, are we harder on our daughters than our sons? hold them to a higher standard? -- susiej, 11:54:41 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I'll have to think on that...my kids are young. DD is 12, DS is 8. I think I'm harderon him because he is much lazier wehnis comes to schoolwork! SHe is more conscientious and can mostly work on her own. I have to practically sit on top of him to do his homework! -- Rollaine, 12:12:17 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Gosh, Rollaine- we've got a lot in common- my dd is 12 next month, my ds just turned 9 and I'm a sagitarius and a bio major and though I like lord john, I too see some of his acts as less selfless than a lot of the other ladies do. I don't think I'm easier on ds but he is a lot more like me in many ways than my dd. sometimes, i think i was harder on her because she was the first not because of her sex. -- susiej, 12:25:49 01/23/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Hello all -- I am coming up from exam hell and have enjoyed, as always, reading the thought-provoking posts and marveling at the breadth and depth of insights. I share the interest many of you have in the dynamics of female friendships in "real" life, and would like to say a few things about that perhaps later: right now, a question for you, even if it isn't from the passages we chose for the mini-read: a day or so after we posted the questions for the discussion, I woke out of a weird little dream, somehow thinking about the strange but undeniably intimate relationship between the spook Mary Ann and Fanny Beardsley, linked by their common experience of brutality at the hands of Mr. B. -- a powerful and protective sisterhood of sorts, since it reaches back from beyond the grave . . . what are your thoughts on THAT, sistahs? -- CatherineM., 19:03:19 01/24/08 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I'm awed by your thinking of those two. Now that the goosebumps have subsided, I vote Mary Ann the sister of all sisters. She certainly embodies (can I use that word for a ghost?) the loyalty and protectiveness we seem to want in a sisterhood. -- Carol P, 20:53:02 01/24/08 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[>
When Roger was talking to Bree about starting a Masonic Lodge for Fraser's Ridge he mentions that the men have no way of bonding. He said that the women have common ground, that they "sew and spin and knit and quilt with the others, and if they privately think that you or your mother or Mrs. Bug are heretics damned to hell, or goddamned Whigs, or whatever, it seems to make no big difference. But not the men." (More inside) -- Jane, 06:16:29 01/25/08 Fri
Bree thought that said something of the relative intelligence and common sense of the two sexes, but didn't say anything about that or the fact that he obviously didn't know anything about the type of gossip that went on in sewing circles either. Still, we know that Claire hosted at least one quilting at the big house (the day Ian came home). SO, I am thinking perhaps Claire connected a little more with the women than we see in the books. She seemed to at least know most of the women on the ridge. I felt she was actually pretty impressed with Granny Abernathy (who'd been born a Fraser!) and all the younger Granny Abernathy's. So did Claire have closer bonds with the female population of the ridge than we saw played out in the books?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Great points, Jane! Perhaps she did have closer bonds with the quilters, even if she herself was not much for needlework. What I think is interesting, then, is the question of why these female bonding times are explored to such a lesser degree than the male ones we've talked about so much? We are left to imagine afternoons spent sewing and gossiping, but we get plenty of male bonding throughout the novels, in spite of what Roger says are the challenges to unity of spirit among the Ridge men. As Carol so brilliantly pointed out, it's the appeal of blood-stirring moments involving dirks and wames! Male "brotherhoods" seem to be more interesting to both the author and her readers. -- pamelalass, 07:54:47 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Maybe we don't see so much of these things with the women in the books because we, the (female) readers, may already experience these routine events everyday. We know that the women are spending time together quilting, sewing, or cooking because this is what we do in our days, maybe not on an everyday basis. While these"chores" may seem mundane, you can't help but think that the women are having really in depth conversations, sharing secrets and private joys, just like we do with our girfriends over lunch, while the kids are at school. Sisterhood is experienced on a much quieter basis then brotherhood, which tends to be about physical experiences. Women often just talk with eachother to have that sisterhood. I hope this makes sense, kinda rambling. -- LisaW, 09:46:59 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Whatever the women thought of Claire, it seems most called her to deliver their babies. But how many of those scenes do we want to read? Though I would be interested to know if C helped anyone besides Bree with birth control. I still think C held back a bit from other women out of fear of being discovered for what she was. They would not have been able to understand TT & would have thought her a witch. She's learned where that can lead. So she cannot really be herself with anyone other than Jamie, Bree, Roger & young Ian. -- Ruthlass, 09:50:55 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
I was thinking along the same lines as all of you today. DG's books are populated with strong intelligent women (whatever their century), but she simply is not writing Divine Secrets of the Fraser Sisterhood *g* And we did get to see Bree, Claire and Marsali take down that boar - even if we didn't get to see them talk about it later! I'm alittle more puzzled by the betrayal theme- but I suppose even there we have Dougal and The Bugs, not just women, as champion betrayers. -- HollyC, 13:21:21 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
I Love that "Divine Secrets of the Fraser Sisterhood" line! -- CatherineM., 18:37:54 01/28/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
I personally don't doubt that Diana herself thinks girlie bonding moments are for mortals like us. If you have ever seen an outline of one of her days, she never says called my girlfriends or lunched with so and so. It is usually Doug she meets for lunch if she mentions eating at all. Her life sounds pretty hectic, besides the many hours she spends on computer interactions in addition to actually setting down to writing, it sounds as if her family and home life (her animals, shopping, cooking, gardening and exercising) take all but a few precious hours that she seems to actually get to sleep. Personally I am glad I don't hold myself to such high standards, if I were to write a book and trust me I know I don't have the talent, mine would be much more chatty, a LOT less heroic, and a whole lotta BORING. -- Jane, 15:31:32 01/25/08 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
OMG! Did I just kill this conversation? Why isn't anyone posting anymore? If it is my fault I am SORRY! -- Jane, 18:13:54 01/27/08 Sun
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
No way, Jane! I look forward to all your comments! I guess we can’t psychoanalyze the author, but your post about DG makes sense to me. -- JessieR, 07:49:57 01/28/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[>
I was hoping we'd hear from Cathy this weekend. And I'd like to hear more opinions on the "Spawn of Satan" episode. Is it common for one disruptive person to break the cooperation and civility of the others in the group? Mrs. Chisolm is so overbearing that no one wants to be around her. Her children are such little brats that she gets no support or child care from the others. Do you suppose after Bree shifted everyone that the remaining women acted more like a sisterhood? I would have thought so, but Bree tells Roger in Ch 33 "Home For Christmas" that Mrs. Bug had lit into poor little Mrs. Aberfeldy for burning the biscuits and putting blueberries in them, for cying out loud. I can understand why the women all cramped up acted very unsisterly, as I would go beserk in a situation like that, no matter how nice everyone was. How did people live on top of each other and not commit murder and mayhem?? -- Carol P, 19:08:30 01/27/08 Sun
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I think Cathy is buried beneath piles of exams. It’s the end of her term. But in the meantime--Good question, Carol. I’m not sure I have the answer, but my hunch is that underneath all the fighting was a turf battle over a woman’s domain. Bree may be the titular head of the Fraser house while Claire and Jamie are away, but Mrs. Bug runs the household. Mrs. Chisolm and Mrs. Abernathy disrupt the smooth operation she’s established with their inept housewifery and unruly children. Mrs. Bug is a tyrant and shows little compassion for the displaced wives, but I wonder how a man would feel is two men suddenly showed up in his workshop and started messing around with his stuff. He may not act petty and rude, but I bet he’d waste no time making clear who’s boss. In this case, Bree has to take charge because Mrs. Bug is ready to clock someone, but I do feel a wee bit of sympathy for Mrs. B. >>inside>> -- JessieR, 22:09:05 01/27/08 Sun
I think DG is spot on here, though, in terms of depicting the difficulties of people who lived in such close proximity to one another, especially the domestic nightmares that could and did happen among women who often had to share what was essentially their domestic sphere—the locus of a woman’s power and hence a big part of her identity. Caroline Kirkland, a 19thC teacher and writer from New York, went west in 1837 and lived on the frontier (what is now Detroit!) for a few years and wrote about her experience in a wonderful book called, A New Home—Who’ll Follow? (1839). One of the things she frequently addresses in her narrative was the way in which other women, women less well-off than she, would abruptly make themselves comfortable in her house, with her food, and with her things. Her description of such behavior is often satiric, and one gets the sense that her neighbors “bugged” her no end. But the friction stemmed from class conflict. Perhaps that’s what’s at work with Mrs. Bug. Is sisterhood more class-dependent than brotherhood?
Last edited by author: Sun January 27, 2008 22:10:59
Edited 1 time.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Thanks, Carol -- and thanks to all of you for the juicy bits (Hi Jane! Waving energetically! Oops -- just dropped a bundle of exams) that are keeping me afloat when I check in quickly daily. Off to the Baord today to re-mark all the failures -- one of my least favourite days of the year. -- CatherineM., 03:25:48 01/28/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I often felt sorry for Mrs Bug. At one point her husband had been a tacksman for The Grant, she'd has some status, and maybe even servants of her own. There she was reduced to working for some relatively poor landowners far out in the wilderness. Even though she was treated with respect and kindness, even called Granny Bug, making her more part of the family, she must have felt pretty darn lowly. She worked pretty darn hard too, and maintained some pretty high standards, no wonder those kids drove her crazy. I find people who've never had kids of their own have very little sympathy for parents who aren't able to control their kids and she was no different. -- Jane, 06:32:27 01/28/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
I do think that once the Chisolms were gone things got more peaceful around the house. After all Mrs Bug seemed to get along well enough with Amy and her two boys once Lizzie was married and Amy came to the house to take her place. I'm pretty sure quiet little Mrs Aberfeldy was a lot more help. Mrs Chisolm needed to take a parenting class, poor thing, she must have been overwhelmed with all those kids and no concept how to manage them properly. -- Jane, 06:38:20 01/28/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I knew you ladies would add depth to this episode. Jessie's comment about class makes sense. However, I doubt sisterhoods would be more class-dependent than brotherhoods. From the little history I know, both men and women knew their place and acted accordingly. Mrs. Chisolm ignored her place, but I imagine that sort of thing could have happened in men's groups too. Jane's adding the reaction of a non-parent touched a chord with me. It is hard to accept the little things kids just do if you don't know enough about children to know that sometimes they just do irritating or messy things because they're kids, no malevolence intended. -- Carol P, 09:36:56 01/28/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Jane is spot on about people who do not have children. A friend told me about an episode in which her uncle had been very unreasonable & impatient. I commented that her aunt & uncle had no children. Children teach you to be more flexible. She laughed & said "but if they'd had children, theirs would have been perfect!" Mrs. Bug is the same. After all, she did believe she gave up children to save her husband's life. -- ruthlass, 21:55:43 01/28/08 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Of course, anyone who has never had children of their own or at least taught or cared for children on a long term basis always think they could raise perfect children. Only people who have dealt with the day to day reality of those little individual personalities crying out to be themselves understand that what you may want in a child and what you get are completely different things. -- Jane, 06:12:44 01/29/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Carol—I agree with you that class distinctions cut across gender lines. An infantry company in the military has all the esprit de corps of a brotherhood, but it’s explicitly hierarchical. Commanders, despite sharing the privation of combat with their men, are elevated both in class and responsibility because of the rigorously applied rules of chain of command. Jamie is an excellent example of this. He is the “commander” of his men at Ardsmuir and cares about them deeply, but the men accept that he is “above” them. Jamie knows this is necessary but misses the closeness (literal and physical) the men share. But an interesting twist on class-consciousness in a brotherhood is the example of Tom Christie. Christie was an educated Lowlander who felt aloof from the Highlanders with whom he was imprisoned. Though united with them in his Jacobite sympathy, he isolated himself because he felt they were somehow too crude to associate with, and he had a tough time accepting Jamie as his leader. -- JessieR, 07:20:14 01/29/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Your remarks about Jamie and the Ardsmuir men made me think of the Parritch War on the Artemis. Claire was surprised the men didn't go to Jamie as the Lallybroch men would. Further the Lallybroch men wouldn't need to go to Jamie because he would already be aware of the problem. So was the hierarchy looser at Lallybroch or is there perhaps an additional element in clan/kin relationships? Thank you for once again doing a marvelous job here in framing a delightful and thought provoking discussion. I so enjoy hearing everyone's ideas on these in-depth topics. -- c, 11:06:37 01/29/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Darned new keyboard, I hit the shift key rather than the enter key and it posted my entry before I was ready. The above post is me. -- Carol P, 11:09:07 01/29/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Great connection to the parritch episode in Voyager, Carol! I also enjoyed this provocative discussion, too -- way to go, Broch Talkers; thanks for always making me have to think harder! (especially you, Carol!) -- pamelalass, 17:14:33 01/29/08 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Carol--coming in late here (as usual). Your comment about the Parritch War on the Artemis sent me back to Voyager for a quick reread. What a great example! It proves that the ingredients of brotherhood can be elusive and are not naturally occurring whenever men form in groups. Jamie notes that he’s not the men’s laird--”’only the man who pays them.’” I like how DG makes a distinction here between being the boss and being the laird. I suspect that sharing a kinship with a leader would make a big difference, but I would also think that the Scots on board the Artemis, men who are culinary outcasts just like Jamie, Marsali, and Fergus are, would have banded together against Murphy. But it didn’t happen. Very interesting twist. Thanks also for all your comments during this round of Broch Talk. You always make me think carefully about what these books have to teach us. -- JessieR, 20:24:45 01/30/08 Wed
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
