Today AAR’s Melanie–who is all caught up on the show–shares her thoughts about this season of Outlander. She watches the show each week with her sister, Natalie. Here’s their take:
With much ado, the current season of Outlander, the Starz adaptation of the novels by Diana Gabaldon, is coming to a close, and I have been an avid watcher since the beginning. While I don’t have the cable channel myself, I’ve enlisted my sister’s subscription and DVR to the service of romance series television, and I’ve gotten her hooked.
As I start to write this, I have to admit two things: one, I have never read Outlander, or any of the series by Diana Gabaldon (I’m perpetually stuck at 6% of Outlander, for no other reason than I have too many things to read in a limited amount of time); and two, I drank an entire bottle of wine during last Saturday’s penultimate episode of the season, Wentworth Prison.
In case I’m missing things (like large chunks of my memory and my liver), I’ve asked my sister, Natalie (who has read the books and is now on the fifth book of the series) to help me fill in the blanks. Her additions are in red.
We’re almost at the end of the first season of Outlander, and I’ve been loving it. Well, up until this last episode where (spoilers!) terrible things are happening. I knew something big was going to happen (Dabney sent me this link about the episode which this little sister found highly disappointing as reviews go. I mean, having read the books I know what to expect and after reading that review I find that it was highly melodramatic in relation to the latest episode), but no matter how much I asked, Natalie just would not tell me what was going to happen. So mean.
Most definitely NOT mean!! Just want to save all the good stuff until you see it. Plus as far as the book form goes I was not sure how they would portray certain events.
The loveliness of this series being transferred to television for our viewing pleasure is that they have stuck to the books very well. I mean if you sat there and followed along they use a good 80% of the dialogue from the book. <3
I’m trying to keep things spoiler-free here, so I’m not going to discuss any major plot points (plus, unless it was part of the show, I definitely wouldn’t know anything about it).
First of all, Jamie is a beautiful man.
No matter what terrible things are happening on screen, Sam Heughan makes me happy. And in this last episode, many terrible things happend. But Sam’s Jamie made me feel a little bit better about it. Plus, his character is masterfully created – Jamie is vulnerable in interesting ways, strong in others, more than a little headstrong, and definitely suffers from acting before thinking.
Lies!!! While I will have to agree that he is vulnerable, strong, definitely headstrong (like an ox), he does not, I repeat DOES NOT “suffer from acting before thinking.” Jamie was raised in a time when you have small windows to react, but he is always thinking. Just unlike Claire, you cannot always ken what he is thinking.
Secondly, Claire has the survival instincts of a lemming. She’s smart and strong, obviously a trained nurse, and used to working near the front of World War II. Why does she continue to act as though she’s in the 1940s? What is it that she just doesn’t get about the 1700s?
The little sister disagrees! Claire knows how to be independent, but she takes the highroad when she is back in time, in part, because she knows she must allow her husband, Jamie, to be a man in his time. As the story goes on you learn just how strong of a woman she is and you understand better why she acts like such a sissy or lemming, as Melanie calls her most of the time.
I do really like her, though. Caitriona Balfe is a fabulous actress, and her beauty fits well in both the 1940s and the 1700s. Claire really is a strong female character and is unapologetic about the things that make her fit in less in the 1700s. For example, she’s quite fond of drinking. I fully support this.
She’s able to translate a lot of her skills (from nursing to building a fire you don’t have to get up constantly to add logs to) to things useful for the 1700’s time period, and also use her knowledge of the era, thanks to her modern-day husband, to navigate the political scene. I doubt I would be able to do as well in that situation.
It has been really hard to watch that whole scenario from the outside (by which I mean my living room). In the beginning I LOVED Frank, but Randall (Tobias Menzies plays both men.) has poisoned my sense of him and so you get that awkward uncomfortable, squirm in your seat feeling when you think of them. But, alas, Claire handles it with the utmost, unnatural calm that she uses in almost all situations.
And oh, the chemistry between Claire and Jamie!
I wasn’t expecting it to be quite as wonderful as it was. They really are quite beautiful together, and it’s not just because actors are generally a beautiful species. When they work together, they really work together. It’s definitely more about how their characters mesh than how they look kissing. And doing other things. Though again, they are pretty people, so that certainly doesn’t hurt.
Speaking of chemistry, all of the sex scenes (of which there are many – be prepared to see Claire’s breasts, and so much Jamie butt) are beautifully done, even some of the more awkward ones. The show is very careful about keeping the sexual moments (and really, the entire show in general) in realm of the feminine gaze. The sex is all about Claire and her pleasure, instead of watching her as Jamie, which keeps things from being pornographic while still getting pretty darn specific. It actually fits perfectly with romance as a genre, and I’m quite pleased with the result.
And, of course, the scenery is absolutely stunning. Each image works like a beautiful picture, and I want to be there with them. Except with electricity. And the internet. And a bathtub with hot running water.
Looking back over the course of the season, there are very few moments that do not move the plot along, which is amazing for a world that is so huge. As I said, I haven’t read any of the books, so I don’t know if there are things missing, but I’m looking forward to more – I’d watch the whole series this way.
Having read the books I will say that I hope they get to complete the whole series. There are moments that have you sighing with the beauty of it, moments I find myself giggling all by myself whilst reading the series, and times I cringe and worry and read as fast as I can to resolve whatever has happened. I have thoroughly enjoyed this series. I dread the day that I get to the final chapter of the final book.
Have you been watching Outlander? Are you waiting for the season to end, so you can binge watch the whole thing (which, now that I think about it, is a great idea. Which they are actually doing on the Starz Channel Memorial day Weekend starting at 2 pm CT and leading up to the Season Finale!!!!!)? Let us know what you think!
AAR’s Melanie and her sister Natalie
I’m glad that someone finally addressed the issue about rape that isn’t understood–that men or women can physically respond but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape. That is the part that tortures the mind most.
As both a reader of all the books and a watcher of the series, I feel that, unlike the wedding scene, the series made some improvements to Diana Gabaldon’s writing. They left out the ridiculous wolf scene. While I was reading I was thinking, “”Really?? She’s gone in, found the key, found Jaime, gotten strangled, thrown out a pit and now ….she has to fight wolves?”” Diana sometimes gets off on inflicting pain! (I mean that literally and ironically).
And they left out the ridiculous decision by Claire to torture Jaime out of his PTSD. In the book, Claire doesn’t really get Murtagh saying that someone has to go into the darkness with him, she immediately goes there–to inflicting pain on him like Randall does–in order to bring him out of it. It was a ridiculous assertion in the book and the series has corrected it to some extent.
But while I’m at it–the Wedding and the character of Claire during that whole first half–was extremely disappointing. Claire is a lusty, bold woman. In the wedding scenes she is this shrinking violet who (a) let’s Jaime twist in the wind while he wonders how his first sex was received. Who does that? (b)each sex scene was interrupted somehow. (c) Claire is constantly turning away –actually WALKING UPSTAGE–away from Jaime, when no one would do that. (d) When they finally begin to hit it off, Claire decides she needs to show Jaime how pain can be good. [Again, my assertion that Diana herself is a bit twisted. ] So, in terms of her character, that whole part just didn’t fit the book nor what the character of Claire is supposed to be.
Having read all 8 books and knowing all that has to happen, it makes me a little tired thinking of the series–mainly in the waiting. I will wait for the next seasons (if there are some) to be over and binge watch. It’s better than this dribbling of content. IMO!
For those interested in some of Gabaldon’s comments on the Wentworth scenes, check here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1smdnbc
Partial quote:
“” So we’re coming now to the end of the first season, and _to_ those scenes at Wentworth. Now I’ve seen Mr. Heughan do them, and my expectations—which were pretty high (I mean, I’ve _been_ in Wentworth; I know what went on there)—were exceeded in every particular.
(snip)
But it’s Jamie who’s at the pointy end, and it’s Sam who did what I thought he could do, and made it real. I’ve honestly never seen anything more courageous than what he and Tobias did there. Yes, it’s strong stuff—so is what I write, and it’s not for everyone. But as the people who ¬_do¬_ read my books realize, that depth of emotional engagement—with its attendant risks—has a substantial payoff.””
I don’t know why you feel the need to educate me on rape and consent – I am not the one claiming that Jamie consented and that it was not rape. You might want to read my comment instead of just attacking me. I don’t need to be schooled about rape by you or anybody else here. And my feelings and thoughts about Outlander are just as valid as yours. But that’s the Outlander fandom for you – whenever anybody dares to say something critical about the “”sacred text”” the rabid fans go into attack mode.
I don’t get the sense you were attacked, just disagreed with. And bringing up rabid fans and applying to anyone here isn’t fair and a bit of a low generalized low blow. There has been no name calling. For myself, I’m as far as can be from a rabid fan. The only book I read from cover to cover is Outlander and I read that about ten years or so ago.
But I did start watching the series and skimmed the book again as I love period drama. I’ve found this series mesmerizing from the very first scene. The actors are amazing, the scenery beautiful, the soundtrack haunting
I think many of us watching can all agree on that. Where we disagree is what happens in the last episode and the one coming up.
I had loved the TV show until and including the wedding episode. That was such a lovely episode. But I haven’t enjoyed the later episodes as much and I absolutely loathed the Wentworth episode and this final episode was just beyond the pale, like a kick in the stomach. So exploitative and pornographic. I had a chance to see the new Mad Max movie Fury Road last weekend and it is so ironic that this movie with such a violent pedigree is such a positive watching experience for women in general and for rape survivors in particular. I left this movie feeling empowered and excilarated. While the last Outlander episodes made me feel diminished, dirty, depressed, abused and most of all angry for having watched. I won’t watch the second season next year.
Have you seen Game of Thrones? Or Spartacus? Those are both shows where I found the violence gratuitous and I had to stop watching both even though for a while I was really enjoying GoT.
The Wentworth episode left me feeling dirty, depressed and diminished too, but for me that’s the point! That’s how Jamie was made to feel and we shared that. The reason, at least for me, is being so invested in the characters. But the book made me feel the same. Although I knew even from 10 years ago that what Jamie went through was very disturbing.
But it’s a testament to the love that he and Claire share that he triumphs to a large degree.
Without going to the deepest depths we can’t appreciate the highest highs.
While I even had to change the channel in a couple of spots last week, I’m GLAD I watched all that I did. Because when Jamis comes back, it’s that much sweeter.
At least that’s how I see it :-)
Actually, I pointed out that if *people in general* don’t understand that having a physical response to a sexual assault doesn’t make it consensual, they need to be educated. You know, those people you think will get the wrong idea from Outlander depicting such a thing. I do argue against your interpretation of what happens in the book, because I think it’s wrong. I haven’t seen episode 16 and can’t say how faithful the adaptation was in that regard, but I will assume they stuck pretty closely to it.
Your argument so far basically seems to be to 1. Outlander provides fuel for people who believe that rape survivors enjoy the experience and therefore deserved it 2. It’s meant to titillate because some people find it titillating 3. Disagreeing with you and pointing out weaknesses in your argument is an attack, reflects rabid fandom, and/or the perception of Outlander as a scared text.
It’s fine to dislike Outlander the book or the show, to be upset or angry about some of the things they depict, and to share your take on these things. But you can’t expect everyone to fall in line with your interpretation, and having a different perspective from yours does not make me, or Eliza, or Kristie, or anyone else a rabid fangirl (which, unlike the responses to you, actually is an attack).
I’m findinding some views very disturbing too. Jamie had no other option but to submit to Randall considering what he would do to Jamie’s beloved Claire. To say its the least bit consensual is most unbelievable. I just finished rereading Outlander a few days before the Wentworth Prison episode and felt the anguish Jamie suffered and marveled at his bravery, knowing only a small part of what he would be going through.
And equally disturbing is that some are calling this torture porn or other things. I applaud the cast and production team for actually going there. It is true to the book that was written how many years ago now? And people are saying this? Sad.
KristieJ, I too find it disturbing that words like torture porn, slash fiction, titillating and the like have been used for the Wentworth scene. Equally sad is any time one poster dismisses another poster’s take because s/he is a “”rabid fan.”” Attacking a person instead of addressing the subject at hand is an ad hominem fallacy–a failure in logic and reasoning.
I couldn’t agree more with you, Yulie. Again. I especially appreciate your saying,
“”…the point is that no matter how someone reacts to a sexual assault, it is still an assault, and that is what people need to understand.
I think that Gabaldon made this very clear. It’s not something that was written to titillate, and characterizing it is slash fiction is absurd. Jamie’s physical reaction to being raped in no way made what he experienced less traumatic. If anything, it magnified the emotional trauma, because he was ashamed and horrified that Randall was able to get that kind of response from him.””
I particularly like your use of the word “”assault”” because that’s exactly what BJR does to Jamie in every possible way he again, even making him think of Claire during it all.
I also want to note again we’re still focusing on the victim when it is BJR who should be taking all the heat generated in a discussion like this.
Thanks, Eliza. Some of the views expressed in this thread have been very disturbing to me, and I’m glad to see that there are posters who share my take, both with regard to the book/series and some of the broader points.
These are direct quotes from the text:
How that can be interpreted as consensual is completely beyond me.
In any event, my objection is to your definition of rape, not to the your interpretation of the text. I’m not going to agree to disagree on this. You can if you like but to me, your definition of consent is so off base as to be dangerous. It falls in the “”she was wearing a short skirt so she was asking it”” camp or the “”too late to change your mind baby – yes at the start means yes all the way through”” camp. It’s rape culture at it’s most pernicious.
Check this brilliant video regarding consent out. http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_this_sexual_consent_instruction_video_is_everyones_cup_of_tea_2015052
Now, add in the scenario – I will torture your wife/I will hurt your wife/I will have your wife arrested and hanged for a spy right along side you tomorrow morning* but I will let her go free if you submit to me and drink the tea.
If the tea is force-fed there is no free consent.
*At the very least, Jack had sufficient evidence to have Claire jailed and/or hanged. He caught her red-handed trying to break Jamie out of jail in addition to everything else he suspected about her. Even if he didn’t torture her or kill her himself (which I think he was entirely capable of; recall he was strangling her at the time the “”bargain”” was struck), she was absolutely going to prison and very likely to die.
I know I’m not going to change your mind. I’m hoping that my comments and the comments of others will stand as mitigation here to what you have said about rape and consent.
Well said, Kaetrin.
I’m not sure of the point you are making here. Part of the trauma to Jamie is that his body responds, at least sometimes, when Black Jack is raping him at Wentworth prison. It’s a thing that can happen to both men and women. It doesn’t make it less rape but, as I understand matters, it can add to the emotional toll the rape takes. In Jamie’s case, it certainly does.
I don’t believe that anybody tortured and hurt like Jamie is capable of becoming aroused and having an orgasm. This is just another disgusting example of the book and now the TV show being like lurid and bad slash fan fiction.
And just like in bad slash fic here you have people claiming in this very thread that it isn’t really rape and that Jamie asked for it.
Just as so many female rape victims have been blamed for their own rapes and been accused of getting off on being raped. Makes me sick just to think about how the author and the makers of the TV show use rape to cheapen it, trivialize it and titillate with it. Disgusting.
That is so far in left field that it really doesn’t deserve a response, but it needs one. Your body’s response to sexual stimulation does not have to do with pain (BDSM enthusiasts would happily share that fact with you), even though sometimes it does enhance it.
AND the point of this scene is not to belittle rape victims everywhere, it is to further develop his character. A large portion of Jamie’s development in this book to me seems to be his growth into being a man.
As for my personal opinion of the scene that is coming up on the season finale, you do not have to agree with it, but why can you not agree to disagree?
Quite frankly for personal reasons I find your definition of rape deeply offensive and I am certainly not going to agree with it. Or with you on anything else regarding this subject.
And from personal experience I am allowed to define rape in the way I see it. Trust me from someone who has gone through it you don’t need to lecture me.
I’ve already addressed why I find Natalie’s characterization of Jamie’s (lack of) consent troubling, so now I’d like to address your comment. I find it disturbing. I don’t think you meant to, but essentially you’re saying that rape survivors who had some kind of physical reaction – an unwanted one! – are somehow at fault and that such an experience should not be discussed. Natalie has argued that Jamie consented and therefore it wasn’t rape (I strongly disagree), but she never even suggested that Jamie’s reaction is what made it consensual.
It doesn’t matter if someone experiences unwanted arousal or even climax while being sexually assaulted. It doesn’t make it consensual. It doesn’t justify it retroactively. It’s still a rape. It’s not their fault, just as we should never fault someone who was drinking, or who consented at first but eventually said stop. I think you’re the one who’s confusing the issue, because the point is that no matter who someone reacts to a sexual assault, it is still an assault, and that is what people need to understand.
I think that Gabaldon made this very clear. It’s not something that was written to titillate, and characterizing it is slash fiction is absurd. Jamie’s physical reaction to being raped in no way made what he experienced less traumatic. If anything, it magnified the emotional trauma, because he was ashamed and horrified that Randall was able to get that kind of response from him.
I never said that rape victims are incapable of having physical reactions. I said somebody as badly brutalized and tortured as Jamie on the TV show would be incapable of having a pleasurable reaction. Some pain is just too great. You can’t convince me that a p erson having his hand smashed that way would be able to maintain an erection and then climax. I just don’t believe it. As to the show and the book playing like lurid slash fic in those scenes – that’s what it comes across it to me. There was a comment made on one of those Outlander message boards where one woman said that Jamie’s neck looked so beautiful while he was being tortured by Jack. That told me loud and clear that Jamie is a sexual object to this fan and she is being titillated by his torture. Just like people are titillated reading torture porn slash.
That’s your proof? A fan on a message board thought that Jamie’s neck looked beautiful? Seriously?!?
People find all sorts of things titillating. It is no reflection on the author, the writer of the episode, the director, the actors or anyone else involved. I’d argue that it’s probably no reflection on the fan, either; what we find appealing in fiction or fantasy we may well find appalling in real life.
For you it was too much to suspend disbelief, and that’s fine. But Outlander the book, and presumably Outlander the show, didn’t for a second suggest that Jamie’s physical reaction to Randall’s sexual assault makes it consensual, or less traumatic, or not a rape. If some people don’t understand this about real-life sexual assault then they need to be educated. But it’s not Outlander that’s responsible for such beliefs. Outlander shows how traumatic it can be to respond in such a way, which completely goes against the very idea you claim it supports.
It’s totally rape.
I forgot to say that Jamie SUBMITS to Jack – he does not CONSENT. They are two very different things. Jack doesn’t want Jamie’s consent anyway – it’s his submission that he’s after. Knowing that Jamie doesn’t want it, makes it all the more sweet for Jack (because Jack is an evil sadistic bastard).
Jamie does submit, but out of his own free will. He is meant to hang, and he knows it. He could’ve chosen to let Randall keep torturing him the way he had been, but he does not. Randall is a sadistic bastard, who I dislike seeing in every episode he has been in, but he us a large part of the plot.
Everyone will have their own opinion, but in my eyes it is not technically rape. hell, I watch with my sister and she considers it raPe and we still agree to disagree!
He submits but he doesn’t consent. They are two different things. Frankly I’m concerned that your definition of rape is so very narrow. Coercion and duress are very much a part of the equation here. Unless agreement is freely given and enthusiastic, it is not consent.
I don’t even think it’s about interpretation of the text. I’m talking the legal and cultural definition of rape here.
Jamie only agrees to submit to Randall to save Claire’s life. Jamie gave his word he would “”not fight”” Randall – that’s a long way from consent, freely given. There was no other choice given to Jamie. Either he could watch his wife be violated and/or tortured and killed by Randall or he could bargain so she went free. The only thing he had to bargain with, the only thing Randall wanted from Jamie was his submission, so that is the coin Jamie used. That is not consent. It is coercion.
You said in your comment “”he could have chosen to let Randall keep torturing him as he had been”” – um, WHAT??? Where was the CHOICE?
My definition of rape is not “”narrow”” by any means. But from how I read the book I have to disagree. Everyone will have their own opinions and I have mine. Randall is jealous of Claire, but he would not have killed her. And Jamie, expecting to die does choose to submit to Randall, out of his own free will.
In re-reading this discussion, it occurred to me that Yulie really hit the key point about Jamie’s Wentworth torture when she said, “”It’s certainly not fun, but it’s not there for shock value – both the sacrifice he makes and the aftermath are pivotal for Jamie as a character and for his relationship with Claire going forward.”” In fact, the author has said something similar on a number of occasions about this being her intent. It must work for bunches of us who have read the books multiple times.
As for future viewers of the series? People who were already fans of Outlander and are hooked on Jamie and Claire have been there all along and I think are likely to stay. Their initial support before/during the first episode even resulted in the scheduling a second season right away. Fans also knew BJR and Wentworth were going to be tough, but wouldn’t being see more of that once it was over. Those scenes are tough but they’re there for a reason, to paraphrase Yulie.
As for new readers of the books perhaps drawn by the series, I think it likely they’ll hang in too for the series, based on the remarkable book sales of this series. Now OTOH viewers who are NOT readers of the series may have more of a split IMO of who stays and who doesn’t. Some of it will depend on whether how they feel about the last episode and what it says about Jamie and Claire’s future. Finally, if reading the books hasn’t been just everyone’s cup of tea, I don’t see why the series would be for everyone anyway. Everything else aside, even the most popular of TV series don’t draw in every last person either.
Agreed, I did not start reading the series until my sister introduced me to the first episode of the show. Since then I have been hooked. Now that I am on the 6th book I will continue watching because the show really has done well in sticking to the book.
The series is not for everyone, my husband and mother included (they call it porn). But they have taken it a step further than being your generic romance series.
I think the difference between a written novel and a movie or tv series should not be underestimated. The very best a visual representation of a book can do is get the spirit and intention of the book as close as possible…as well as include as many pivotal (and likely favorite) scenes as possible. How can the difference in reaction between the two not be different? When one is reading, the images are influenced by the reader’s own mind, imagination and experience. When one is watching a visual reproduction, the images are there–flat out–chosen by others. It goes back (again) to does the visual production do justice to the literary work? It’s hard to pull off IMO, but I think this production of Outlander does pull it off, and very well, which is no small thing. When I think of other visual successes, I think of the earlier version of Far from the Madding Crowd (1967), Women in Love (Alan Bates again, 1969), and several different versions of various Dumas and Dickens novels I’ve seen.
So… when I watch the TV series those thoughts are always in my mind. They’re the same but they’re different at the same time. As someone who is a fan of the book, I enjoy the perspective on the book in a different way. I confess I don’t like violence of any kind in general but DG’s handling of darkness and evil (pick a word) works for me, not so differently than the way Thomas Hardy’s books handle all the shades of life in nature as well as in humans, all of which are part of a whole.
Good points. I think the power of the visual medium often makes the violence in books more vivid. Outlander, with its “”female gaze,”” has done a better job for me of making the source material’s brutality viewable than, let’s say Game of Thrones.
I’ve read that they’re deliberately making the Jamie/Claire relationship less of a focus, and all these bogus secondary storylines nobody cares about more of a focus because they think the show is too “womanly” and they want it to be more for men. Funny how they never try and make the guns and car chase shows more womanly…
I loved the first half of the season, and I pretty much hate the second half. I could go into detail (the lead actress’ weak performance is one reason), but instead I’ve decided to stop watching. I definitely think the VERY long gap between this season and the next is going to hit their ratings hard.
I think that with splitting the first season up as they did it was a let down. But all in all I do enjoy the show. It is difficult to take such a detailed book and turn it into 16 episodes. I can understand that they want to cater slightly to the male viewers since it was written as a romance novel.
I think what is also going to hit their ratings is that some viewers who haven’t read the books were not prepared for the torture and brutality. The Wentworth episode was the lowest rated so far. Two of my friends have already stopped watching. I’ll finish out the season but I won’t subscribe to Starz again next year.
Luckily I have other programs to look forward to – like the upcoming POLDARK on PBS.
“”I think what is also going to hit their ratings is that some viewers who haven’t read the books were not prepared for the torture and brutality.””
Oh, absolutely. I regularly forget that not everybody knows the story.
I post on non-book boards, and SO many people have been shocked by the show in recent episodes. The wife-beating episode was really toned down from the book, and still they lost a lot of viewers there. However, what came after… well…
I’m so behind on Poldark, but next weekend I plan to sit down and watch the whole thing!
Well, since Claire was being strangled to death and she is Jaime’s wife, I would say that is a bit more than “”slight”” coercion to save her life.
Spoiler……
The very worst crime BJR commits IMO is what he does intentionally to try to destroy Jamie’s mind and soul. All of the other physical stuff being talked about is what Randall does in order to exert his power to bring that destruction about. By definition sadism is “”enjoyment that someone gets from being violent or cruel or from causing pain; especially : sexual enjoyment from hurting or punishing someone.”” And Yet… the means used (sexual, physicality) always seems to get more of the focus, attention and verbiage than the (misuse of) power and intention (cruelty).
I think that’s a great point. Thanks.
It’s interesting how much static there is this week on Sansa’s unseen rape on Game of Thrones and how little there has been about Jamie’s very graphic rape. And almost odd sort of sexism at work.
Have you seen the episode? If not spoiler alert:
*
*
*
*
They did not show all of the Wentworth prison scene. I imagine they will the final episode using flashbacks.
Spoiler!
*
*
*
*
The rape happens next episode. It’s supposed to be disgustingly graphic, full frontal nudity, anal penetration. Also, Jamie has an orgasm. Because you know when you get brutally raped it’s always such a turn-on (sarcasm!) In the way it’s structured the episode mirrors the wedding episode. Sounds like a barrel of fun.
Well we were trying to keep this spoiler free….
But SPOILER
*
*
*
*
*
*
I don’t really know how you can technically define the scene as rape when he agreed to what Randall wanted to save his wife. This is a pivotal moment in the books. It needs to be included so the rest of the series works.
Are you kidding by not calling it rape?
Do you really believe that anything that Jack does to Jamie is what Jamie wants? Or asked for?
I have read the books and only state what is in the books.
Well, if sex through coercion occurs, it is most certainly rape.
It is slight coercion. I really don’t want to blast all kinds of details for people who have not read the books. The way I read it is the way I am responding. Not having seen the final episode I cannot say if they will stick to the books for this or not.
Spoiler:
*
*
*
*
“”If you don’t let me screw you, I’ll kill your wife.””
That’s rape.
Imagine if it’s 2015. Someone abducts you, tortures you and says they’ll kill your husband if you don’t let them have sex with you. What would you call that other than rape?! I would think – HOPE! – the law would call it rape.
Randall is not the one who says let me screw you. Or at least in the books it is not stated that way. Jaime knows what Randall wants and offers it to him out of his own free will. I cannot consider that rape.
Yes, it was Jamie’s only source of leverage and since Randall had articulated his wishes clearly more than once in other scenes, it was clear that Jamie had only one thing with which to bargain. It was not consensual sex by any stretch of the imagination. If Jamie had other choices, he would have taken them.
SPOILER… I guess…
I’m getting REALLY sick of seeing full frontal nudity in rape scenes. I don’t EVER need to see it, but why is it only ever shown during a rape??!!
Since this entire discussion is spoiler for non-readers, do we still need spoiler tags?
I don’t know how closely they’ll follow the book, but the way I remember it is that Jamie doesn’t have an orgasm from being brutalized but from Randall performing oral sex; it’s not consensual in any meaningful way, but it’s not physically painful, unlike most of the rest of what Randall does to him. And it’s emotionally traumatic – one of the things that’s difficult for Jamie to deal with later on is that Randall was able to make him feel aroused get him to react to that.
It’s certainly not fun, but it’s not there for shock value – both the sacrifice he makes and the aftermath are pivotal for Jamie as a character and for his relationship with Claire going forward.
Re Natalie’s comment, the kind of bargaining Jamie is forced into does not constitute consent. I don’t see how it can be read as anything but rape.
Originally my sister and I wanted to keep this spoiler free, but unfortunately that did not happen!
You are right that this scene is not for shock value, and the only brutal part that plays on in the series is Jamie’s hand. The rest, the sex is totally mental. Randall ruined him in Wentworth and it is whether or not Jamie can overcome that.
Everyone will have their opinions, but for me with Randall not asking or forcing the intimacy and it being Jamie’s idea I cannot personally call it rape. He willingly offers himself to Randall in my eyes.
If I put myself in Jamie’s situation, it cannot be anything other than rape. I doubt (HOPE) there aren’t many people in the world who would be in Jamie’s situation and call it anything other than rape.
Forced consent is NOT consent. Forcing someone to have sex is RAPE. I’m not American, but I believe – thankfully – that both our countries would consider this horrible crime rape.
I’m truly astonished you don’t automatically consider it rape. And not only rape of Jamie’s body, but also of his mind. Randalls goal is to completely break Jamie and that is nothing BUT rape!