Outlander - Adultery
Coyote5486
I've been having this discussion with some friends and thought I'd throw it out
here and see what comes back <g>:
Assuming you liked "the books"..........(that's why most of us are here, isn't
it?)
Do you (or did you at any time) view Jamie & Claire's relationship as
adulterous?
If you are calling it adultery, are you more accepting of this "adultery"
because you like Jamie more than Frank? Some other reason?
Tell me your opinion and I'll tell you mine <g>.
Inez
LWhi...@gamecash.com
I never felt the relationship was adultery at all, or if I did it was only in
the most vague and theoretical sense. In the 1740s, Frank did not exist.
Claire had no way to know if she could ever go back to him, so she was, in
effect, a widow. She had not chosen to leave Frank, it was an accident.
Strangely, if I viewed any relation adulterous, it would be the one with
Frank when she returned. She had "chosen" to leave Jamie, even if it went
against everything her heart told her to do, but she did it for the Brianna-
to-be. She never loved Frank as she did Jamie. Of course I *do* like Jamie
more than Frank, and maybe that clouds my judgement some. I have a hard time
arguing with a true, soul-deep love like Claire and Jamie's. Sort of like
Bridges of Madison County, which I read when it first came out, liked it, but
now wonder why the h*ll I ever thought so (it seems sort of trite and pat),
in which Francesca has the "fling" with what she felt was the love of her
life, but settles for a boring, predictable marriage for the sake of the
children and public acceptance. Of course Jamie and Claire had a much more
deep and lasting relationship than Francesca and Richard.
Essentially, I don't think any of our common moral codes can apply to a "time
travel" situation. If they were in the same era, say Claire was captured by
the enemy during the war and fell in love with a soldier, and chose to stay
with him, I'd have to say it was adultery, though if the man were a modern
era Jamie, yes, I'd have to say I'd be a little more accepting because of the
depth of thier love. 'Course she could have just gotten a divorce if they
were in the same era, which was not an option to her in the 1740s, with Frank
in the 1940s. She had no real recourse to become "free," though I think the
fact that Frank didn't exist in that time negates that necessity.
Just MHO!
Lori
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Coyote5486
This was sent to me via e-mail from Jackie, who has asked me to post it to the
newsgroup:
Interesting question-
I suppose I accepted Claire's feelings initially that she had no way
to return to Frank and therefore had best begin a new life. In this
case, her relationship with Jamie is not adulterous IMO. Of course
there are those who would argue that marital vows are vows and nothing
less than death of a spouse should null them. Another view would have
to be that once you have found the great love of your life, you should
do whatever is necessary to remain with him/her.
I found it very interesting that when books such as Bridges of Madison
County were discussed in alt.books.reviews some people were adamant
that because the relationship was adulterous the heroine (can't
remember her name) was a sinner and that made the book worthless ( I
always thought it was worthless on literary grounds). Actually there
was another book discussed once in that group with many posters
refusing to read it because there was an adulterous but beautiful love
affair in it.
Get real, folks! This is fiction. Even in the best of marriages (I
think mine is a good one) we have days when we can't stand our spouses
or perhaps the world in general and the thought of that knight in
shining armor (or a kilt)who would whisk us away from our troubles and
adore us is a very attractive thought. We would never act on these
feelings but what a ride we have in our imaginations. Maybe this is a
good way to vent a little steam so that when we return to the real
world our spouses look wonderful to us again.
All that being said, I still think that if I were transported by the
stones into Jamie's arms, I'd do just as Claire did and not think
twice. And judging from some of the postings in this group I'm not
the only one.
Jackie
JenniesCKs
I never thought of Claire and Jamie's relationship as adulterous.
However, what DID bother me was Claire sleeping with Frank after she went back
(I'll admit to never being overly fond of Frank). Although Claire and Frank
were married, I saw her relationship with him adulterous to Jamie's memory
(okay, so she thought he was dead...).
Ditto with Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire (even though he never thought to see
Claire again) if not more so, especially since he was admittedly a man who
didn't take a vow lightly.
I know it's unrealistic to hope that they would have remained "physically"
loyal to each other in the visceral sense for 20 years, but the romantic in me
hoped....
jc
Alexa James
Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire bothered me a lot. I didn't expect that
Jamie would remain physically faithful,either, which is why his little
interlude in the cave and with Willie's mom didn't bother me. But,
like you, I didn't see him as the type to enter into a marriage with a
woman he didn't love, especially with such non-compelling reasons. I
know he is suspectible to Janet's wiles, but, come on . . .
And, for the record, Claire's post-Jamie sex with Frank didn't bother
me. The book makes it clear that she doesn't enjoy it, that she tried
to get outof the marriage and that for the most part, they were
strangers who shared a home. Having lived in a marriage like that, I
can sympathize!
Alexa
Fran Bragg
I have to agree that I didn't see Claire back with Frank a betrayal.
After all, Jamie is the one who sent her back knowing that Frank was on
the other side waiting! Claire thought Frank would leave as soon as he
knew she was pregnant. In that day and time it wasn't easy to get a
divorce and it would be worse on Brianna than Claire. If Frank
acknowledged her even though everyone suspected she wasn't his then
things would be much easier for both she and Claire.
I don't know why Claire took so long to find out what happened to
Jamie. I would have gone straight to the library or whatever to find
out anything I could and as soon as I knew he had survived Culloden I
would have probably risked myself and the baby to go back.
I was terribly upset when I got to the scene where I found out Jamie had
married Loaghaire. That was VERY much a betrayal in my book. That was
so out of character for Jamie that I had to wonder what Diana was
thinking. Of course from that point on I didn't take anything for
granted about what Jamie said and it kept me on my toes waiting on the
other shoe to drop! What a great twist to throw in! Now I don't try
to anticipate what's going to happen. I think I am still learning who
Jamie is!
CathySharb
Remember - Claire never told Jamie about Laoghaire's part in getting her
arrested. He wasn't betraying Claire by marrying her. He remembered L as
someone who was sweet on him when she was 16. She had little ones that needed
a father. He was lonely. He wouldn't be the first to think that marriage to
anyone would be better than being alone.
As to Claire and Frank's 'relationship' after she returned... Check out
the part of Voyager when Claire is remembering living with Frank's affairs -
when he comes from their beds to hers she insists that he 'make love' to her
(she almost sounds jealous - sorry I can't find the page right now). They had
a relationship all right. And she loved and cared for Frank. Even if he
wasn't the love and passion of her life.
cathy
JaneE2059
Hi All--
The relationships that Claire had ....first with Frank...then with Jamie
...weren't adulterous for the simple fact that the two men were not
alive at the same time. Claire remained faithful to each husband
while they lived (a remarkable feat in her marriage to Frank...in the
fact that HE was consistently unfaithful to HER). Claire DID try to
return to Frank in the beginning, but the events of the series swept
her far from Craigh Na Dun, her door to the future.
Besides, Claire was forced to marry Jamie...in order to keep her safe
from the clutches of Black Jack Randall. The marriage was fortuitous
in that Jamie and Claire found the love of their lives.
Happy Exploring!
Jane...@aol.com
JenniesCKs
Glad to see that others found Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire as upsetting as I
did!!
As far as the Frank and Claire situation goes...did anyone else think that in
DoA Frank seemed to be made out as a bit of a "hero"? Jamie thinking that
Frank was a much better man than he and the letter at the end of the book about
him planting the gravestone. (Again, I really don't like Frank) lol
I'm surprised Claire never told Jamie what her life with Frank had been like to
set his mind at ease. Afterall, at one point Jamie thinks to himself (after a
conversation with Brianna) what Claire would know of lonliness having lived
with a husband for 20 years.
jc
Coyote5486
>>I'm surprised Claire never told Jamie what her life with Frank had been like
to set his mind at ease. <<
jc,
I was a bit surprised too. But then I was projecting my own personality onto
Claire - I wouldn't have been able to stop myself from telling him every last
detail <g>.
I think that DG's method in slowly revealing these things about their life
apart increases the drama & suspense. After all, we have what we really want -
they are together again <g>. The complete details of their life apart will be
revealed in their own good time, I guess. (or some things, perhaps, we don't
really need to know).
>>After all, at one point Jamie thinks to himself (aftera conversation with
Brianna) what Claire would know of lonliness having lived with a husband for 20
years<<
Do you remember the exact page in Drums where this conversation occurs? I'd
like to go back , read it and think about it a bit. Sounds
uncharacteristically bitter of Jamie.
Inez
JenniesCKs
coyot...@aol.com (Coyote5486) wrote:
>>I was a bit surprised too. But then I was projecting my own personality onto
Claire - I wouldn't have been able to stop myself from telling him every last
detail <g>.<<
Exactly! In some ways Claire is a bit of a "martyr" after her return. Jamie
tells her about his hardships after their parting, but Claire for the most
part, keeps quiet about her life except to tell him about Brianna. For
instance, she never told him that he was right to send her back because if she
had stayed she and Brianna would have died in childbirth. Don't you think he'd
like to know that in order to feel better about sending her back?
>>Do you remember the exact page in Drums where this conversation occurs? I'd
like to go back , read it and think about it a bit. Sounds
uncharacteristically bitter of Jamie.<<
I don't think he was bitter per se, just curious. I took the quote a bit out of
context, the page of DoA is 733.
jc
Coyote5486
<<In some ways Claire is a bit of a "martyr" after her return. Jamie
tells her about his hardships after their parting, but Claire for the most
part, keeps quiet about her life except to tell him about Brianna. >>
jc,
I don't think Claire was being a martyr. I think she didn't tell Jamie much
because she didn't want to hurt him. And thinking about it, thinking about
exactly what to tell him - there were so many ways he could have been hurt.
Jamie didn't tell Claire alot of what happened to him either. WE know it, as
readers, because of the chapters devoted to Jamie's life apart from Claire.
Claire knows what she, Roger & Brianna have found following the paper trail
throughout history. But I don't think Jamie has really told her too many
details himself.
Inez
Tdcdwc
>Although Claire and Frank
>were married, I saw her relationship with him adulterous to Jamie's memory
>(okay, so she thought he was dead...).
But when Claire returned to the 1940s, Jamie WAS dead...
Tammy
Alexa James
Frank reminds me too much of my ex-husband (whom I found out after I
divorced was gay). He seems so effeminate - what they would have
called a "dandy" in earlier times!
Alexa
JWolste695
>But when Claire returned to the 1940s, Jamie WAS dead...>
Uh, good point, Tammy!!
Also, getting back to what they told each other in Voyager, Claire actually
_did_ know quite a bit about what Jamie had been doing from Roger's research.
She just didn't delve into things like marriage records! It was Jamie who,
scared she'd leave him again, tried to avoid any reference to his personal
life. Jani
Fran Bragg
It was Jamie who, scared she'd leave him again, tried to avoid any reference to his personal life.
Fran
ALIXGUNN
>She had not chosen to leave Frank, it was an accident.<
stones, it was by her own choice that she stayed.
All her life, Claire drifted. Even her marriage to Frank, and initially her
marriage to Jamie - these were situations that fate threw in her way and she
got "carried along by their stronger tide".
When she had to make a decision in her life - like joining the nurses corps or
staying with Jamie rather than heading back to the
"saftey" of the 20th century - I saw these as defining moments in her life.
These were when Claire became who she was meant to be.
She took control.
So - she DID chose to stay with Jamie. Not by accident. I think that was
what weighed heavily on her conscience - that she abandoned Frank.
> She had "chosen" to leave Jamie, even if it went against everything her
heart told her to do, but she did it for the Brianna-
to-be. She never loved Frank as she did Jamie.<
She did NOT choose to leave Jamie. She wanted to stay and die with Jamie.
She went back to Frank to honour Jamie's wishes and raise the child he begged
her to save. She did NOT choose.
ALIXGUNN
>Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire bothered me a lot. I didn't expect thatJamie
would remain physically faithful,either, which is why his little interlude in
the cave and with Willie's mom didn't bother me. But, like you, I didn't see
especially with such non-compelling reasons.<
along with his child - that they wold be safe. He left his son behind,
undeclared - that HE would remain safe. He signed over his birth-right to his
family, for their sakes and the sake of those
dependant on Lallybroch. He hid in a cave - like an animal - for 7 years; and
went to prison - where he was treated like an animal, for
a few more years; and then went to live with strangers for a few more.... He
is a man adrift. He has connections (Janet's family),
but no "home" of his own. He doesn't feel that he "belongs" anywhere. To
anyone.
Granted - Leoghaire isn't the love of his life. But she is a familiar
face from a time in his life that probably was his best.
He might not love her,, but he must have cared for her, to marry her. and he
was longing for a home.
>And, for the record, Claire's post-Jamie sex with Frank didn't bother me. The
book makes it clear that she doesn't enjoy it, that she tried to get out of the
marriage and that for the most part, they were strangers who shared a home.
Having lived in a marriage like that, I can sympathize!<
No where do I rethat she didn't enjoy it. It wasn't as satisfying as
Jamie's, but it served it's purpose. Frank wasn't Jamie. He could
make love to her, but he couldn't love her to the depths that Jamie had been
able to reach in her. Claire loved Frank - She wasn't IN love with him. And it
was different. Not better. Not necessarily worse. But different. And there had
to be times when it was a
comfort - or you'd expect madness or mayhem<g>
ALIXGUNN
>I was terribly upset when I got to the scene where I found out Jamie had
married Loaghaire. <
"I wouldn't want tot be Leoghaire. Claire's gonna kill her".
Just like Diana to provide fireworks for the homecoming celebrations.
JenniesCKs
> alix...@aol.com (ALIXGUNN)
>As I recall - when I first read that scene - my initial reaction was
>"I wouldn't want tot be Leoghaire. Claire's gonna kill her
To me, this would have been the perfect time for Claire to tell Jamie that
Laoghaire tried to kill her...
I also thought she forgave him awfully quickly.
brenda
Hi
I don't think that quote is page 733 in paperback. Could someone tell me
the paperback page?
thanks :-)
JenniesCKs <jenni...@aol.com> wrote in article
Alexa James
> Non-compelling reasons? He has sent his soul away to the future -
>along with his child - that they wold be safe. He left his son behind,
>undeclared - that HE would remain safe. He signed over his birth-right to his
>family, for their sakes and the sake of those
>dependant on Lallybroch. He hid in a cave - like an animal - for 7 years; and
>went to prison - where he was treated like an animal, for
>a few more years; and then went to live with strangers for a few more.... He
>is a man adrift. He has connections (Janet's family),
>but no "home" of his own. He doesn't feel that he "belongs" anywhere. To
>anyone.
> Granted - Leoghaire isn't the love of his life. But she is a familiar
>face from a time in his life that probably was his best.
>He might not love her,, but he must have cared for her, to marry her. and he
>was longing for a home.
>
I guess in my understanding of Jamie's character, it didn't FEEL
right. I know he was lonely, etc, etc. But the way it was written in
the book, it just sounded like such a quick fix. Jamie IS more of a
martyr, for good or for bad. It's hard for me to believe he would
have entered into a loveless marriage just because he was lonely.
Just my interpretation, I know!
> No where do I rethat she didn't enjoy it. It wasn't as satisfying as
>Jamie's, but it served it's purpose. Frank wasn't Jamie. He could
>make love to her, but he couldn't love her to the depths that Jamie had been
>able to reach in her. Claire loved Frank - She wasn't IN love with him. And it
>was different. Not better. Not necessarily worse. But different. And there had
>to be times when it was a
>comfort - or you'd expect madness or mayhem<g>
>
Now, see, I do read (between the lines, I suppose) that she didn't
really enjoy her "carnal" relations with Frank because she couldn't
get Jamie out of her head. (Maybe I'm just projecting here)
And, while everyone IS different, to me, saying that "sex" served her
purpose, well, after what she had with Jamie, how could that possibly
be enough? It certainly wouldn't be for me!
Alexa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ibette
>It's hard for me to believe he would
>have entered into a loveless marriage just because he was lonely.
Jamie married Laoghaire for Jenny's reasons, not his own. Jamie didn't
feel anything; he was dead inside. He agreed only because he felt he had
nothing to lose by the arrangement; that's all it was. I think Jenny was just
trying one last-ditch effort to bring Jamie back to life, even though she knew
only one thing could accomplish that.
When Claire returned out of the blue, Jenny tried to chase her away,
although I think she knew it was useless to try. Jenny was afraid, with good
reason, that Jamie would leave again, because Claire couldn't anchor him to
Scotland. Maybe it's the nomadic streak in her. I suppose we'll just have to
wait and see if DG will explain that one later.
JenniesCKs
>I don't think that quote is page 733 in paperback.
Weird...it's 733 in my paperback copy of DoA...maybe I have a second printing
or something?
Anyway, it's the section where Jamie wakes Brianna up early to go hunting (the
chapter right after Jamie brings Brianna home to Claire). I think it all
starts with her asking if he minded living in a cave...
Hope this helps you find it
jc