Content warning for violent sexual assault. It’s at the very end of the recap.
The title card is people sitting in an 18th century theater.
Roger is in North Carolina, it is confirmed that it’s 1769, and he’s using the drawing of Brianna from the gathering to show to people and ask if they’ve seen her. He stops outside the printing office, and kind of glowers at the Wilmington Gazette. The proprietor sees him, and Roger explains that he knows this lady had arrived on the Phillip Alonzo but hasn’t been able to find her. The guy hasn’t seen Bree, but asks Fergus, who is also leaving the printing office (where’s he’s been working), and he has not.
(I’m kind of digging Richard Rankin with the long hair tied back.)
Fergus goes home and finds Marsali getting lunch together, and Jamie and Claire with baby Germaine. Jamie explains that they have been summoned to see a play with the Governor, but happily that means they get to chew on the new baby and see the kids, so that’s all to the good. Jamie says that governor wants to introduce Jamie to one of his right hand men, who Murtagh says is definitely skimming off the treasury.
Claire and Marsali step into the kitchen, and Claire asks how they’re all getting along. Marsali says things are going well, but is also discomforted about the depth of maternal feeling she has. “I’d have a knife through the gut rather than seeing him hurt or in pain.” Claire says it’s the hardest thing about being a parent. “Even though you’d know you die trying, you can’t protect them from everyone and everything.” The foreshadowing here is pretty thick and heavy.
Roger is in the tavern, dozing in his chair, and accidentally spills some ale on the drawing. In trying to clean it up, he smears it. I am certain this will not become relevant later. He gets up, when he hears Brianna’s voice asking after passage to Cross Creek, and he calls her name. “It’s you!” They embrace, until she has a thought bubble to the surface. “What are you doing here?” “Looking for you! At no small risk to life and limb, I might add.” He wasn’t supposed to come, and she would have told him, but she wasn’t sure where they stood after everything that happened. He says they should go outside, and Lizzie comes downstairs to see Bree being pulled out the door by Roger.
Outside, Bree asks Roger how he knew where she was. He tells her about Gayle, and Inverness, and the letter (While Lizzie watches through the window, and all she can see is what looks like an angry conversation). “I wanted to call you, but I didn’t know how to tell you that I love you.” Roger pulls her into a back room where he’s been staying (I guess?) and they begin the process of ripping their clothes off.
Bree stops him and asks if he’s sure, since they’re not engaged. “At the festival, that seemed very important to you.” Roger sighs and says it was and still is. “I’ll have all of you or none at all.” “Well then, you have all of me….how can I say no to a man who pursued me for 200 years?” (I dunno, by doing it?) Roger thinks of handfasting- when a man and woman weren’t near a priest, they could promise themselves to each other for a year and a day. Bree agrees.
At the theater, Tryon is pleased to see Jamie and Claire and tells them all about how this play is written by a native son of Wilmington. He also finds Fanning, a assemblyman, a register of deeds, and judge of the superior court in the same county as the Frasers. There’s some talk about the regulators, but the upshot of the conversation is that Fanning has a hernia that he got during a stand-off with the regulators the previous spring. His surgeons says it’ll go away. Claire offers to take a look when they’re not, you know, in the middle of society, and Tryon laughs politely and says no, they have surgeons and such. They don’t need a backwoods healer.
Tryon drags Jamie off and leaves Claire with his own wife to navigate the Society of the Wives. She nods to a woman across the room, and describes her as the woman who could fill a thousand ships with tobacco, wit and wealth aplenty. Claire muses that this lady’s husband seems to be quite popular. “That’s Colonel Washington.” Claire: he’s what now. “Well…. I should love to meet them both.”
Washington apparently helped with the surveying of what became Fraser’s Ridge, and blah blah blah Tryon is very generous, well, that’s because Fraser is very loyal. Tryon mentions that Jamie is a former soldier, and Jamie says yes, at Culloden in ‘46. Washington doesn’t recall that battle, “I spent my youth in Virginia.” Claire smiles, “Chopping down cherry trees,” and then can’t believe she let that shit fall out of her mouth when everyone looks at her.
Thankfully, the play is about to start, and everyone goes in. Claire gives Jamie the rundown on Washington- most famous American, wins the war against the British, first president, not a king, chosen by the people. “If Brianna were here, she’s have a hundred questions to ask him.”
Brianna has other things on her mind. She and Roger are cobbling together a handfasting, kneeling in front of the fire. Roger uses his cravat to wrap around their hands, and they say their vows. “By the power vested in… this unusual Scottish tradition…” they pronounce each other man and wife. Then they get down to it.
Lizzie asks the bar man if Brianna has returned, and he says no, she’s still off with that man. “The man of wanton morals?” the barman laughs and Lizzie goes upstairs, concerned.
At the play, as they’re taking their seats, Tryon grumps that the regulators are trying to deny him his palace, by stealing the money. But he’s got a spy in the Regulators, and he knows they’re going to swipe the money from a wagon going to New Bern that very night, but really it’s a wagon of soldiers, and they’re going to arrest them all, especially the leader, Murtagh Fitzgibbons. Jamie frowns, thinking furiously about what he can do. He offers to go out and join Tryon’s men, but Tryon thinks he has it well in hand. “Enjoy the performance.”
Out on the road to New Bern, Murtagh and his dudes set up for their robbery
Roger and Bree have gotten her down to her chemise and he down to his shirt. Then she’s naked and he tells her she’s the most beautiful woman he’s ever seen. They lay down on a pallet in front of the fire, and he reminds her that if he has her now, it’s for always. “Yes, Please.” As they start moving together, he puts her hand on his chest. “Feel my heart. Tell me if it stops.”
At the theater, Fanning is squirming in pain, and Claire is not real thrilled with 18h century theater conventions where the audience feels they get to yell back at the performers. I would also be unthrilled with this. Jamie thinks, while Murtagh waits on the road. There’s a group of men hidden off in the trees.
Roger and Bree are cuddled in post-coital bliss, but Bree is worried a bit about if she did it right. Roger assures he was in no way disappointed. “Behaving as though you’ve had your spinal column removed is a fair indication of male satisfaction.” She also liked it, quite a bit. She doesn’t think she’s ever been so happy, and then kisses her way down to his nether regions, to repay a service he did for her.
Back at the play, the audience is restless, and Jamie sees his opportunity. Fanning is squirming, and Jamie punches him in his hernia, jumps up, and calls for a surgeon.
Claire knows her cue and orders Fanning to be brought to the lobby and Jamie mutters if he just killed him. Claire: no, you possibly saved his life but what the fuck? Jamie tells her about Tryon’s plan, and asks her to keep him occupied while he tries to warn Murtagh.
In the lobby, Claire says she needs to operate, and sends people out to find her supplies. Tryon calls for surgeon, and Claire snaps that she IS a fucking surgeon, and no, they cannot be more private, there’s no time.
Outside, Jamie stumbles on George and Martha Washington, who are leaving- the play is not to their tastes “What a labrugious performance.” They offer Jamie a ride so he can “fetch my wife’s surgical tools.”
Inside, Claire’s minions have gotten her everything she needs plus an apron. She tells Tryon that she needs his help to hold Fanning down, and to help keep him calm. She NEEDS his help.
Jamie is dropped off, and thanks Washington for helping a fellow soldier. “Is there a war I’m not aware of?” “Aye. Aye there is, sir.” Jamie heads off on horseback.
Claire operates, much to the fascination of the audience members. This is better entertainment than the play. Tryon tells Fanning that if he survives, he’ll dip his hand into the treasury and build a fine house with the best brickwork fit for a guy the king relies on. Claire shoves the intestines back where they belong, and Fanning screams in pain and then passes out. Tryon: He won’t remember what I said, right? (HA.)
The local dude doctor comes in and is aghast: what hath hell wrought? All he needed was tobacco smoke blown up his ass. Tryon says the lady has it all in hand. As it were.
On the road, the wagon approaches, and a man with a lantern stops them on the road. Murtagh: Let’s take our money back.
Claire stitches Fanning up, and thanks her assistants. Tryon admits she probably saved his life, and she looks up to see Jamie sidling back in to the back of the crowd. He hopes he got word to Murtagh in time.
Just as Murtagh and the crew are about to move in on the wagon, Fergus stops them- it’s the first time Murtagh and Fergus have seen each other since just before Culloden. Murtagh gives the “abort abort!” signal, and the guy who stopped the waggon backs off. Fergus tells Murtagh that he’s got a spy in his crew, and Murtagh’s like, my lazy-ass godson couldn’t come his own damn self? Murtagh is REALLY happy (in his way) to see Fergus.
Back in the nest of newlywed post-coital bliss, Roger supposes they need to start looking for gemstones so they can go back after they find Claire and Jamie. Bree worries that she doesn’t know how much time they have, and she’s very annoyed at the printer for allowing the date to smear (nevermind that it might have smeared or been damaged at any point between printing and when it was put on microfilm, but whatever.) Roger says he was tempted to plant the guy a facer when he saw him that morning and Bree is like, who? You didn’t know about the obituary until I told you earlier.
Roger doesn’t say anything but Bree figures out that he knew about it. Before she left. He tells her not to be angry, he was almost going to tell her, but she was so happy and he didn’t want to make her sad by telling her that her mother died. “Even Fiona agreed!” “FIONA?” Roger tells her that Fiona knew everything anyway, and they both agreed that not telling Bree was the best choice. “You didn’t think I should know my mother was dead?” “You knew she was dead! She’s been dead for 200 years! What could you do?” “THIS.”
Roger tries to tell her that he doesn’t think they should be the arbiters of who lives and who dies, but Bree thinks (correctly) that she should have been the one to make that choice for herself. “But you wanted me to be happy so I’d marry you.” (Sophie snarls this line so well, you guys.) “YES! Pardon me for wanting you to be my wife. Which you are now, so maybe you should listen to me.” This does not go over well. He says he nearly died coming after her, which she did not ask him to DO. No, he says, no, he was supposed to get a note a year later if she died or got stuck.
“Maybe I should just go back.” “MAYBE YOU SHOULD.” He asks if that’s what she wants. “You told me about the last words to your father.” She is SUPER pissed at that emotional blackmail and tells him to screw himself. Maybe this rushed handfasting over a super emotional moment just so they could go to bonetown was a bad idea. He tells her to look him in the eye and tell him that she wants him to leave. “No one’s stopping you,” He shakes his head in disgust, gathers up the rest of his clothes, and leaves. She begins to sob.
Tryon, in his carriage, has received word that no robbery was attempted. He is grouchy and wonders who could have tipped his hand. A random dude in the carriage says that someone DID leave the play who DID know about the whole thing… Washington. And Martha. Tryon: Never trust a Virginian. WASHINGTON WILL GET HIS.
Bree sadly gets dressed, and walks back to the tavern. Inside, Bonnet is playing cards, and is going to use Claire’s ring as stake in the game. Bree happens to be walking by, and he asks her to blow on it for extra luck. She asks where he got it, since it looks like one her mother hand. She asks if her mother is alive, since it’s bad luck to wear the jewelry of the dead. Bonnet assures her that Claire was both alive and well when he last saw her, but it was a while ago.
Bree asks if he’ll sell it to her, and he says he doesn’t haggle in public.
They go into a back room where he rapes her. It’s not on screen, it’s shown through her screams through the door and how everyone in the tavern knew what was happening and didn’t do anything.
I will not go into more detail than that.
Afterwards, she numbly pulls herself together, and takes the ring. Bonnet tells her to give Claire his regards, and she goes upstairs to her rooms.
Elyse: God DAMNIT. I hate everything. Mostly I hate Diana Gabaldon. Can we just have one character who doesn’t suffer some horrible traumatic sexual assault? I’m so mad. So mad. I knew what happened to Jamie because I read the first book, but I never read beyond that and I honestly cannot see the point of Bree being raped other than reinforce how awful Bonnet is (WE KNOW, OK) or to set up some bullshit plot point where her maid accuses Roger of it or some who’s the father of Bree’s baby nonsense.
I JUST WANT NON-RAPEY TIME TRAVEL OK?
And while RHG didn’t go into much detail, and I won’t either, I will say that the scene is disturbingly graphic. We only hear it, we never see it, but it’s really … You hear a lot. Like it made my stomach hurt. It’s something I’d warn people against watching if you even think it might be slightly upsetting to you.
My only other thought on the episode was to wonder why Jamie had to wax his entire body but Roger is still allowed to be hairy. IDK. I bet Sam is kinda salty about it.
RHG: There’s a lot to go over, and there’s two things I want to cover before I get into how pissed I am at Gabaldon for doing this, and how disappointed I am that the showrunners decided to keep it in.
I saw some comments elsewhere that called out Claire for fangirling over Washington when he was a slave-owner, too. That’s legit, but also keep in mind how and when Claire learned the bulk of her knowledge about George Washington: from her kid’s schoolwork in the 1950s. Yeah, he was basically a deity then. He was just short of deity when I was in school in the 80s. Tackling George Washington, Slaveowner, is a fairly recent development. (I was at Mount Vernon at the beginning of the summer, and they are doing an excellent job representing the enslaved population there, and handling the complexities of American history.)
Roger: What the fuck, man. I do think that not having the luxury of being in Roger’s head and having things get kind of compressed (Because Drums of Autumn is a damn long book) is not doing his character any favors. He is a Preacher’s Kid from mid-century Scotland, but my man, you are being a dick. Could you please stop.
The rape: This is an unnecessary plot point, and while I knew the showrunners wouldn’t have the fortitude to just…. not. (I mean, yeah, there’s a bunch of plot down the road that would change, but I think it’s worth it.) But mostly I am angry at Gabaldon who decided that this was a thing that needed to happen to one of her main characters. Again. AGAIN. There is a distinct problem with rape in the Outlander books, and to my knowledge, Gabaldon has consistently kind of just shrugged it off.
I really hope there was someone in the writer’s room that at least put forth the idea “what if we don’t?” I know the fan outcry in several corners would have been terrifying to behold, but I could and would have defended it.
The Frasers must be cursed, for rape to happen on each on their family member.
I love Diana Gabaldon, even follow her on facebook, but what the hell!!!
This is the point where I gave up reading the books. I started watching the series because Sam Heughan is hot, and then stopped before the assault on Jamie because, dear god, reading it was bad enough. I don’t need to see it. And that’s it, I’m done with Diana Gabaldon’s books and the TV series. There are so many great books and TV shows, so why give my time and money for things that turn my stomach?
I haven’t read or watched Outlander (though I listened to part of the audiobook for the first novel years ago and never finished), but could I introduce Gabaldon to Seanan McGuire, a writer who’s on-record as saying she won’t have her characters get raped because there’s no reason for that to be done in order to have character development? Apparently, Gabaldon disagrees. (So, creepily, did a bunch of people who wanted McGuire to write rape and complained that she didn’t.)
Yeah, I’ll just keep avoiding this series/writer, thanks…
SPOILERS FOR THE BOOKS/KIND OF A RANT, SORRY
I absolutely hated this episode for the reasons outlined in the review. Brianna’s rape really is so cruel and so unnecessary, and if I’m remembering the books correctly Gabaldon spins it out into some pretty toxic storylines. AGAIN, SPOILERS Bree gets pregnant and isn’t sure whether the baby is Roger’s or Bonnet’s, and so much of the rest of the book is just Roger angsting about how hard the ambiguity is for him, how difficult Brianna’s assault has been FOR HIM, his resentment towards Bree and the baby, and eventually his oh so magnanimous decision to accept them fully into his life (plus the kid turns out to be his anyway, so what even was the point). So much of the aftermath of Brianna’s rape becomes about Roger rather than her own trauma. Given how unaware the show seems to be about Roger’s incel tendencies, I really have no confidence in the writers to handle this aspect of the book. It is so gross, can we please just light this whole plot thread on fire.
Also, I might be oversensitive, but the timing of the rape coming right after their fight on the show made the assault seem almost punitive? Or like we’re supposed to see Roger in a more heroic light because he isn’t totally evil like Bonnet? Just…no, thank you.
I haven’t read the books and have only seen brief parts of the show when I was passing through a room where my parents were watching, but I’ve liked reading the recaps so I can kind of follow along when my parents talk about it. But, I don’t really watch any sort of drama shows/movies and rarely read books that are straight dramas, not romances or mysteries or sff, and stuff like the rape in this episode is a huge reason why. Sexual assault and violence against women keeps being used to create more plot for the future and is always done in a way that seems almost designed to titliate in its graphicness. I’ve never minded shows like Law and Order:SVU, or when rape is part of a character’s story like Eve in the In Death stories, but I’ve realized that it’s bc in those stories justice and healing are big central themes. IDK, there’s been a lot about grimdark stuff on Twitter lately, and it’s made me examine why Some things don’t bother me at all and why other things, same subject and similar language will upset me for days, and I think that’s it. The difference is that sometimes the creator is saying “bad people do bad things, let me show you just how bad those bad people are, let’s really get deep into all this badness” and other times, the times I can stomach, the creator seems to be saying “bad people do bad things, let’s look at how our society tries to prevent that from happening all the time and how cope and recover and heal”.
If you don’t like rape, the Outlander books are not for you. I quit after A Breath of Snow and Ashes because each one featured a sexual assault.
My BFF gets the early viewing on Saturday, but still told me “enjoy!”, when I signed off to watch last Sunday. I texted her after to say enjoy was not at all an appropriate word choice. “Survive” is the one I would have gone with.
Just wanted to mention that in the book, Brianna’s physical traits (she’s not a wee thing–I still wish they had cast an actress who fit the 6 foot bill correctly) forced her to confront her feelings of utter helplessness in the wake of Bonnet’s assault. Her initial expectation in challenging Bonnet about the ring was that he wouldn’t be able to overpower her.
SPOILER: The next episode has Brianna share those feelings with Claire, but the lines don’t come across the same way because the actress doesn’t convey that sense of physical presence (although clearly she conveys the emotional setf-confidence of a twentieth-century woman).
Shit like that is exactly the reason I stopped after reading the first ‘Outlander’ novel and have no interest in watching the show, no matter how well performed and produced it may be.
Apparently Diana Gabaldon is besties with GRR Martin, which makes so much sense somehow. They seem to have the same justification for the constant rape plot points: that it’s historically accurate. You know, just like time travel, and dragons.
As much as Diana is one of my inspirations as a writer, I don’t plan to have rape to use at all as a plot device or whatever.
And even if I do put rape in one of my stories, I would absolutely make it certain that the rapist never gets away with, that they will always face justice or get their comeuppance. One of my favorite Greek myths about rapist getting his just desserts is the myth of the sisters Philomela and Procne; Philomela was mutilated and raped by Procne’s barbaric husband Tereus, and in revenge, the sisters killed Tereus’s only son (who takes after his father from personality to mannerism), cooked his flesh and fed him to Tereus, ritually denying him an heir. The sisters were spared from his wrath by being turned into birds, swallow and nightingale, respectively.
I stopped reading the books after Dragonfly in Amber because there’s a minor character (I can’t even remember her name) who gets raped, and afterwards they talk about how her life is ruined, and it was just so incredibly unnecessary to the plot and it highlighted the shitty, emotionally manipulative nature of the writing, and made me realize that by continuing to read I would be letting someone provoke pain in me for no real reason, because there wasn’t any sort of emotional growth or revelation spurred by it, either for myself or for the characters. I have very little respect for Gabaldon as a writer or, based on the few comments I’ve read that she’s made about rape in her books, as a person (she wrote a long defense of why it wasn’t rape when Jamie kept on having sex with a woman who told him to stop, which basically boils down to “well she blackmailed him into it in the first place and just momentarily panicked when she realized how big his dick is.” You can find this on her facebook page, followed by pages of middle aged women talking about how right she is and how much better they are than people who find that scene objectionable, and it’s really depressing). I’ve been encouraging people to not read Outlander for over a decade now.
A couple years ago I read a great article that summarized, then rebuffed, the argument that all this rape in historical dramas is simple historical realism. I think I may have found the article through Smart Bitches, can’t remember if it specifically referenced Outlander or what but I would’ve given anything to have it on hand for an annoying Christmas dinner discussion last week. (Yay for small talk with extended family!) Would anyone here maybe share a link to a piece that tackles this topic? Thanks in advance!
My takeaway from the books and by extension the series is that life was and is fragile. Look, if you think that rape doesn’t happen now, that intelligence and pluckishness somehow inure one to sexual assault… all I can say is that that has not been my experience. I actually found the rape storylines to be comforting, or relatable. As a person who was raped in college (as an inexperienced person in a hyper religious environment) twentyish years ago I could very much relate to the feeling of… interruption. Like, I was just living my life, focused on my scholastic objectives and…wtf. One date with the wrong guy and my whole life was altered. It was jarring and disturbing and yeah, no one came to my rescue, even though I’m sure it was not a fully private event (I’m sure my cries were heard, if ignored). Now or three centuries ago it is dangerous to be a person perceived as desirable or a prize or a target. And (this is a spoiler) when Brianna talks with Jaime about her rape, and the shame she feels about not having fought back, or fought harder, and Jaime physically demonstrates that Bonnet was stronger, that Brianna was blameless, that fighting back was useless… Fuck, I’m *not* trying to say that it’s wrong to fight back. But if you have zero experience in hand to hand combat, if your rapist outweighs you and you are not a trained fighter… this happens. People are overpowered, violated by someone physically stronger. I don’t feel it was titillating in the books or the show. Rape happens. Often unexpectedly. And, upsetting as it is, I appreciate it’s representation in a fairly mainstream, accessible medium. This may not be exactly my story, but at its heart, it is. And I’m not sorry to see it.
That being said… I really really dislike Roger, he’s just the worst partner. In general, but also for a sexual assault survivor. Entitled bastard.
@Hypatia, I don’t think anyone is making the argument that rape doesn’t happen now or didn’t happen in the past, and my and probably a number of other opinions are likely also informed by personal experience. The problem I have with the books is that the rape is exploitative and sensationalized (and I disagree that in the books it’s not used to titillate), and uses “rape is realistic” as an excuse to profit from depictions of rape without putting in the work to earn it. I read these books as the equivalent of finding a bruise and poking it over and over, and saying “look how much I can make you feel,” and I think we can and should have a higher standard than that.
But I hear your point that the rape as portrayed in the books seems like an honest reflection of your own experiences and is healing to you, and realize that this is something that is subjective in many ways. I’m sorry to hear of your story.
@ Linastew here are a few articles/blog posts:
http://maggiestiefvater.com/this-is-a-post-about-literary-rape/
https://www.themarysue.com/historical-accuracy-sexual-assault-fantasy/
https://litreactor.com/columns/the-problem-with-rapes-portrayal-in-fiction
That bit with Bree was where I quit reading the books. I’ve only watched season 1 so far, but kept up with the recaps to see if things happen as I recall, and now that I know they do, I don’t need to go back and catch up on the show. I know that this happens in reality, but I’m not going to encourage the repeated use of sexual assault as a plot point.
I appreciate your updates..and like everyone else, this scene about killed me. I was powerless to do anything but listen.. hands clenched [my iWatch notified me that I needed to breathe] & wait for it to be over. It’s been years since I’ve read the books but I don’t recall which one I stopped at. Yes, it’s graphic and unnecessary and could have been done differently.. but it’s real world too. How my heart ached for Bree. Yes, Roger is an ass but maybe I’m wrong in this sentiment but I was glad she had lost her virginity to him and had a good experience before the assault. I hope I’m conveying that appropriately..
Nevertheless, no doubt the event was triggering for some.. and heartbreaking for others.
I feel torn about Gabaldon’s inclusion of so much rape. I never finished all the books (I got further than the show is now, but not by very much) and recently (a few weeks back) took a break from watching the show, partially because I knew this was coming up soon. But I don’t know if my own reluctance to watch it means it’s wrong to include.
It’s all part of a larger debate in media: should shows/movies/books avoid portraying horrible things to keep them from becoming further ingrained in the social consciousness? Should they portray horrible things, but only in a way that empowers those who have experienced them? Or should they portray horrible things in all their potential horror in order to create more understanding and empathy for those who have lived through all the worst of it?
That’s a complicated question for people way more educated in the subjects that I am. All I know is that it makes me feel sick to watch things like Bree’s rape scene … but I don’t know if I would be able to empathize with survivors as well without such representations. Could they be less graphic and achieve the same? Is it only OK if there’s specific follow-up (support for the survivor, justice against the perpetrator, etc.)?
Yeah, I’m definitely torn.
I stopped reading the series after this book. I had had enough!
@Linastew: Was it Carrie’s Mad Max Fury Road Makes Your Rape Arguments Invalid? It may also be the Mary Sue article that Hera linked to.
@Hypatia: I’m so very sorry for what happened to you. Thank you for sharing your perspective that portrayals like this connect to your experience.
@Ruth-I couldn’t agree with you more. I loved the first few books in this series, except for very specific instances, like the rape of Jamie. I read the next few because of my love for Gabaldon’s world building- but then I said “enough is enough”. I’m so torn with this author because she draws me in, maybe too much! I guess if I didn’t care so much about the characters, certain scenes wouldn’t freaking haunt me. I did come to the conclusion that for me, and only speaking for myself-I was done.
I have read all the books out, but am behind in the series (don’t have cable). I agree with everything Kristin said, I am torn as well. On one hand, there are people who are lucky enough to never have experienced any kind of sexual harassment or violence, and maybe seeing it portrayed in media, they can sympathize and be less likely to dismiss victims. I can also see how seeing it ‘sensationalized’ in media may encourage the bad behavior by glorifying/normalizing it. I am very torn.
I will preface this by saying again I have not see the whole series (I think I’m up to the end of season 2), and have not had a chance to read all the reviews of every episode, so if it’s addressed elsewhere, my apologies. But I think I would be okay with the Bonnet raping Bree part being left in. I do like a bad boy in my fiction. And in the books, I was in danger of really growing to like Bonnet. Yeah, he was a pirate and a did bad things to people, but, you know – he’s a pirate. I very much remember enjoying the scene where Bonnet is cruel and steals Claire’s ring – not that he was stealing her ring, I was furious, but I just found it to be an excellently written scene overall. As I read mostly romance, there was a part of me that wanted him to be ‘redeemed’ later in the series. Being reminded of all the parts of what it likely meant to be a pirate, not just the glorifying part of riches and bad boy behavior, I think is a good thing. Gabaldon did not glorify being a pirate. She showed every aspect of it. As a fan of her books, I feel like that is what she does in everything. There is no sugar coating. Rape happened a lot then, as it still does. It was common to control women thru assault and rape. As I stated above, I am very torn with seeing it portrayed so often in media.
Bree was naïve if she thought Bonnet would just hand over the ring, and she was bound to have it.. Rape is horrendous no matter what century it happens in, and it is just as prevalent in the 21st century. But she does get revenge eventually,and takes a pistol and blows his head off . I prefer the books as they give the whole story. The tv series takes bits and pieces from different chapters and tries to make a story. Roger is a good guy, and the tv series is not portraying him as he was in the books. After nearly a year as a slave in an Indian tribe (Jamie sold him) he comes back to find out he has a son, and Bree shuns him. And what about Jamie and his temper? He beats the shite out of Roger, never stops to asks questions of who Roger is or why he is looking for Fraser Ridge, just assumes this is the man who raped his daughter. All because Lizzie is sure she saw them arguing. I loved the books, the tv series has too many writers trying to dissect the story their way…..
@Hera @SB Sarah The Mad Max Fury Road post and Mary Sue article are exactly what I was looking for! Thanks!
That Gabaldon doesn’t shy away from traumatic experience is one of the things I love about her writing. While I adore romance novels in which things won’t get too bad and there is a guaranteed happy ending, I also want literature that is gritty and messy and beautiful and horrible, just like life. Her characters have always struck me as behaving in very human ways.
I loved Outlander so much when I first read it, and still do. I thought of Jamie’s rape and recovery as brave–such a trope-defying thing, but then DG kept going there. It is so frustrating. In a lot of ways she’s a wonderful writer, immersive, great characters, etc, but people–very rightly–get fed up with how sexual assault is handled in her books and quit them. She could have had so many more fans if she’d made different choices. I’m going to read the books until the end, but I hope that after this, the TV writers really think about what they have the power to change, and should change in this story I love.
This is where I stopped reading. I was just done. It takes a lot for me to stop reading a series I was so invested in, but Brianna’s rape was just the final straw. I know a lot of people felt that way about Sansa on GoT, so it doesn’t surprise me to hear that the two authors are friends.