Click here for an easy and free way to help protect endangered habitat at The Rainforest Site! Non-profit ad by Voyager
VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:04:42 01/23/08 Wed
Author: JessieR
Subject: 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>>>
In reply to: pamelalass 's message, "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." on 13:47:16 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.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 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 ]










[ 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.