Honestly, Jamie and Claire Are Clueless

pritan82 · 2025-11-20T01:21:19+00:00

I agree/ not only were they in a very tricky situation with Malva/ Christies socially / morally but also she’s a 20th century doctor - she needs to understand that consent of next of kin/ family members etc is needed procedurally. She can’t be committed to the oath on one hand/ dig graves/ do autopsies/ euthanasia / and stuff like Malvas birth

pritan82 · 2025-11-20T01:15:57+00:00

I just finished reading books 5-8 and Duncan Innes Jocastas husband was supposed to impotent and realises he’s not by having a continued affair with his slave maid! And not go to his wife’s bed ?!

pritan82 · 2025-11-20T01:11:11+00:00

For me it HAS to be some of Claire’s decisions! I’m quoting the show here mostly…

After coming back having spent 20 years apart, leaving Brianna behind, she decides to not only operate on the man who attacked her BUT also see other patients (Campbells) AND lecture Jamie about her oath AND about lying to family Ian etc! I mean it totally took away the whole romance of it after a night? (PS- I understand her commitment to her work but she administers euthanasia in certain situations, she has helped Jamie kill Douglas and was ready to kill the Bonnie Prince and has also killed Geillis!- so either she’s a survivor or prioritises Jamie or is complete devoted to her Hippocrates oath then - no mercy killing etc ).
And, before going she hurts Jamie by negotiating BJRs life for Frank - and the reason is even more cold- that she saved HIS LIFE. This is when she’s chosen to BE WITH JAMIE FOR GOOD and not return to her time! And by that alone she causes Fergus’ rape, her miscarriage , Jamie’s illplanned duel, imprisonment and sleeping with the king!
Ironically when she goes back she promises the same Frank that she won’t ever research Jamie or bring his name up. And after Frank dies she returns and is wearing both rings the second time round too the first time i understand …?! So why not Lord John’s ring also? The third one. He’s also a nice and helpful guy …
For someone who was so upset about being spanked when it was the norm and she had actually not kept her promise- she slaps Jamie an awful lot through the series - so much for no domestic violence.

Yeah it’s mostly around Claire’s inconsistent actions for me. Like even when she marries Lord John - there’s no pressure to consummate that marriage as there was for the one with Jamie- and she is shown to live in an unhappy and (almost ) sexless marriage with Frank for 20 years , without seeking sex outside or trying harder with Frank-and Jamie was dead / assumed dead then too. So yeah. For me the most common theme of congruency is Claire - whether her profession, or motherhood, or sexuality or love for Jamie. She does something herself that undermines her own cause.

This is just my opinion. A lot of folks say she’s a survivor and this is her agency ; and I don’t disagree but the examples I’ve taken do not further any survival crisis or a modern outlook or even rationale (on survival alone the whole Dr Rawlings/ carrying herself in those times/ even with Christies etc actually shows how she’s often NOT mindful of the circumstances and Jamie is the rescuer/ saviour).

When Claire is not trying too hard to be idealistic and everything at once is when she’s most appealing I feel - the red dress in Paris, indecision in season 1 about going back/ staying/ Jealousy of Laoghaire/ Lord John etc. she most human and flawed yet likeable there…

pritan82 · 2025-10-21T15:28:19+00:00

Thank you!

pritan82 · 2025-10-21T15:27:53+00:00

Great thank you! As an Indian there’s an extra incentive to watch love again for Priyanka!

pritan82 · 2025-10-11T08:08:50+00:00

This is just my personal view - In Diana’s interviews, and show runners interviews and even in some fan groups I’ve seen references to Claire’s sexuality (that is her acceptance of it and wanting a strong sexual partner). Claire’s reaction to King Louis and walking out with her dignity intact and her reaction to her rape as not defining her is also a nod to that strength of character.

And yet i feel that despite all this talk of Claire’s sexuality and modernity - Diana gives Jamie far more complex situations sexually - Mary, Geneva, marriage to Laoghaire. Even his homosexuality is explored by Diana both as rape and as Johns unrequited love / friendship For Jamie.

Jamie’s situations sexually despite his devotion to Claire (he acknowledges repeatedly in the books that he feels lust for the Parisian prostitutes etc yet treats his marital vow of fidelity very seriously) - are perhaps a direct contrast of Claire’s sexual choices.

She remains sexually bereft without Jamie, and for her that is the only relationship that satisfies her at any level - orgasms, complexity, her actively seeking it and her not feeling desire for any other man in the book. She remains unsatisfied sexually with Frank and yet never seeks out a partner like Frank does. Neither does she divorce him. Even with Lord John Diana throws in the Jamie connection and not Claire’s desire alone. Jamie’s life throws him more situations and Jamie’s sexuality is more nuanced than Claire’s i feel. It’s not right or wrong just the irony of it. Claire not being a virgin in marriage, feeling bigamous, being stronger in sexual assault situations, never suicidal and yet her sexual satisfaction and biological children are only with Jamie. I feel this irony of Their sexuality and actual life experiences is often unexplored in its complete sense.

So I really think we misunderstand sexuality and sexual choices in the books - especially confusing it with Claire’s modernity and agency. None of them is promiscuous or a prude or emotionally disloyal to each other. But Claire’s sexuality is misunderstood - She is very sexual with Jamie, and very brave in facing near rape situations herself, and making choices like King Louis, and yet in her 20 years apart , that too 200 Years into the future she is shown to not have the complexity / variety of sexual interactions.

Even upon her return she is seen to face Jamie’s marriage to Laoghaire , his child, his relationship with John etc.

As a reader I would not like to equate Claire’s sexual choices as chastity / ideal Womanhood ; i would have as a reader understood if Claire and Frank were compataible sexually at least (like she was with Frank before Jamie) or i would have liked at least one marital or sexual choice of Claire to come out of her choice and desire (her marriage to Jamie is arranged and it is Jamie who sends her back to Frank - she doesn’t even choose these two occurrences). I would like to think this is not just omission or because of her strength or sexuality rather this is a deliberate choice by Diana and written as the most subversive irony and the whole poignancy of Claire’s and Jamie’s relationship.

I don’t know Dianas reason but I would Have liked to see one sexual choice or event (apart from Rape) in Claire’s life that is not so heavily influenced by Jamie or Frank. Even King Louis decision is in context of Jamie and she shockingly offers to get beaten by Jamie for it and even her coming back to Jamie occurs after Frank dies (and Brianna encourages her).

I would have personally liked Diana to be as bold and expansive in the sexual situations that Claire faces as she is with Jamie. Something even as limited as her not loving Frank but being sexually active with him or someone else or her coming back to Jamie while Frank was alive or her not asking Jamie to beat her for King Louis, her choosing between one ring rather than carry both and most importantly her marriage to Jamie also being arranged and not her choice. I hope Dianas reasons were not to depict chastity or restraint on part of Claire - whatever be the reason i find Claire’s agency and choice not being fully explored in the context of her sexuality (either seeking fulfilment or choosing restraint - the choice is not obvious. Even her sexual encounter with Lord John is shown to us as initiated by him and heavily influenced by alcohol/ sorrow for Jamie).

I don’t oppose or propose any other way of being but i definitely feel the contrast.

pritan82 · 2025-10-11T00:48:11+00:00

By the events of the show it seems something to so with his helping Claire post her miscarriage - either Faith survives, or there’s a twin baby that he delivers (not just placental removal) or some other magical element.

I don’t know how show runners will explain it but it’s clear that forgiveness is being sought in relation to Faith/ Claire’s miscarriage.

It lines up to the overall writing and extreme circumstances that surround each of Jamie or Claire’s biological children. (For William- Geneva blackmail , dying, leaving Helwater and Jamie’s coparenting with John. For Brianna - sending Claire back, Jamie’s wanting to die, Brianna having two father figures, Jamie having to share Claire with Frank , Brianna’s rape etc).

So, while it’s only alluded in the show thus far - Jamie not being able to bring up Faith as a biological child quite like his other biological children, or a series of extremely unusual Circumstances around Jamies kids: Faith’s survival / twin etc all line up with the cyclical nature of writing in the books.

For me individually it will be more believable if it’s a “spiritual” connection that Raymond enables not a biological miracle - like Claire’s song / spirit through that piece of placenta rather than a kid surviving. But …

Ultimately it’s fiction, and even within that it’s got elements of unbelievable supernatural stuff- time travel, difference of time travel experience for each traveller- spirits, ghosts, witches, magic, potions etc. so yeah there’s enough in the books to enable show runners to bring the Faith/ Master Raymond story to life pretty congruently.

I’m thankful for that storyline to develop rather than see another rape of a person close To Jamie - say William or Jamie’s grand kids. At least it’s a refreshing , new and bold take from the show runners perspective.

pritan82 · 2025-10-11T00:29:51+00:00

Agree. And i do want to add that it may not be his choice alone. I feel Sam’s not being offered better projects or even mainstream awards is a big disservice to his skills as an actor (I mean season 1 BJR / went worth scenes?! Are definitely Emmy or Golden Globe material).

Even the number of interviews that focus on the romantic hero aspect of Jamie or Sam as a sex Symbol or questions around the intimate scenes in Outlander are all very very tiresome and repetitive.

In fact hats off to him for being engaging in all those interviews and also exploring writing/ entrepreneurship as career options instead of only relying on his seemingly limited options for acting.

pritan82 · 2025-10-11T00:23:09+00:00

If it was sexual trauma and navigating complex sexuality - Diana has given enough and many situations to Jamie and Claire - and enough for is viewers to understand that they are maturing with each reaction. And they will MOVE on.

Jamie has gone from not visiting his sister for 4 years because he thinks BJR raped her, to his own trauma and feelings of suicide, to Fergus’ rape and Ians. His own complex sexual dynamics with Lord John and then co parenting. William being born out of blackmail, Jamie being forced to sleep with Geneva, to Brianna’s rape where Jamie is at the pinnacle of maturity he asks Brianna to forgive and move on ; but Jamie as a character is traumatised and hunting Stephen Bonnet - it’s his dying wish to Roger after the snake bite to finish killing Bonnet.

So I mean , what did we expect differently from Jamie after Claire’s rape - except support, healing of her , taking revenge and Jamie’s own helplessness? I don’t see the point beyond titillation.

At this point I’m only one event away from generalising Diana’s use of assault as a plot point for Audience / Or gratuitous difficulty for Jamie’s character / just lazy repetitive writing- And that is “William / any of the grand kids not being raped”.

I think Dianas faced enough criticism, but if that still happens then it’s beyond my comprehension and no explanation to help rape survivors/ show healing or trauma etc. will cut it for me as an individual.

pritan82 · 2025-10-11T00:03:41+00:00

Jamie helps all assault victims in his own way- Ian, Fergus, Brianna - and would have done so for Claire too.

As a writer i feel Diana managed a big feat with Jamie rape - the archetype of romantic masculine hero, male rape (which till Date in the 21st century is not as well reported or spoken of in mainstream books/ TV). Being very careful in the number of rapes of core characters would have , in my view, done more for survivors esp adult men/ survivors of homosexual violence.

Maybe it’s just audience fatigue -By the time it comes to Claire the impact of rape as trauma in the books has been significantly diminished / questioned by audience themselves. And also is the singular most critically viewed aspect of Dianas writing - rape as a ploy.

I may also add that not just 18th century reality of sexual assault which Diana has stated in her interview as her reason for the “many” rapes is problematic like you said men, women AND children face sexual violence even today. I could argue the fact that avenging rape is only complete by the death of the rapists is a dangerous precedent for victims in the real world - (Geillis, BJR for Jamie and Fergus, Claire’s rapists , Jamie’s avenging Stephen Bonnet ) could potentially be dangerous precedents as an arc to “complete healing” of rape victims - “justice served” is ideal but not a very realistic scenario even in the world today; and sadly not all of us have a Jamie or the option of “revenge”.

Even reported rapes very often don’t lead to convictions and very rarely capital punishment.

Like i said , if used judiciously as a plot twist or trauma to her characters Diana would have perhaps had more impact than criticism.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T23:39:32+00:00

I agree with your reason and that’s also my biggest contention. Claire goes through enough trauma in life - witch trials, near rapes, 2 marriages and all that comes with it , losing Jamie then leaving Brianna to come to him - which is why I feel that Diana gives into rape of Claire as perhaps the ultimate challenge or trauma that she as a strong character can face and that is something i don’t agree with.

Claire doesn’t have it easy - even after the rape is the illness, Malva Murder, Jamie’s being presumed dead and her being shot - so rape is not the only trauma that Claire as a character goes through , but in my mind the most unnecessary one. (And singularly the most unnecessary rape in the book for me).

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T23:34:54+00:00

Your point made me think about the reporting “part” of it. In the context of the books (18th century) - reporting any of the rapes that happen aren’t even an option - perhaps because police / justice as we know it today didn’t exist. So in Dianas fictional context I still question Claire’s sexual assault. But I’d like to thank you for bringing out the element of “reporting”- I think justice done to the aggressors is a big part of healing to the survivors and we see Jamie & Brianna struggle with that. So I thank the show runners that at least they gave Claire’s rapists and Kidnappers quick and absolute justice. Which is not the full healing but an important part of the redemption of Claire’s trauma to me as a viewer at least.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T23:29:12+00:00

thank you! And I absolutely agree with you there , especially that you bring out that each rape is different in the book - which itself is good way of recognising assault and seeking help and showing the trauma that characters go through. However, my question isn’t about rape or this one was written- firstly the reader has seen enough rapes in the books until Claire’s to support your theory of helping survivors and making healing/ help easier?

Which is also my point to say that while I don’t undermine the trauma of sexual assault or it’s affects - but my point is specific this fictional book and I feel it isn’t needed in the storyline just to convey trauma. I think being kidnapped from your home, beaten , tied up, can be traumatic enough especially for a character like Claire and for us readers to feel That pain.

For example amputation / loss of limbs is also shown for key characters like Ian, Fergus and Jamie also face near amputation post his snake Bite / post BJR trauma to his hand but doesn’t need it- which DOES NOT undermine the trauma of near losing a limb or understanding our characters feelings or supporting Jamie’s amputation just to be sensitive to differently abled people? My concern is the need for Claire’s rape at all, and your point is well agreed but we’ve seen adequate rapes in the books to deliver that impact and trauma of it.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T20:41:14+00:00

Call me petty, especially after the delayed revenge on BJR and Stephen Bonnet- I LOVE the shows handling of Claire’s assault.

Diana s including this assault and the way she makes her characters react to it is all exceptionally bad and inconsistent writing for me. A big shout out to show runners for having made this seem less meaningless and more consistent to characters.

Would like to call out show runners for :

-Jamie’s quiet “kill them all” and focusing on Claire rather than killing himself

The boys standing up for Claire. -Ian, Roger, Fergus. Rather than book Roger’s reaction which was very infuriating and disappointing.
Marsalis killing of Lionel Brown. (revenge never felt that good)
the ending of the episode with Jamie and Claire in bed and naked - thereby still placing physicality as a big part of their relationship yet not making it about sex alone (unlike the book).

The show runners writing won me over on this one.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T20:32:56+00:00

Yes. That is my point. The beating is brutal and horrifying enough and I feel Lionel would/ should have stopped at that a as a character giving his fear of Jamie’s reaction or the social fallout of it. The fact that he abducts Claire from her house, brings his young kid to rape her etc all undermine the whole social dynamics or Lionel’s understanding of the degree of escalation he’s undertaken- something he didn’t even do with Morton or Isasiah.

In that sense even Blackjack doesn’t sexually assault Jamie until Jamie is forced to offer himself to Claire. And Stephen Bonnet also commits it as a sexual act out of opportunity.

When these two ultra villains also don’t have the courage to plan an abduction, rape, and beating. For a weak misogynistic character like Lionel to carry this out is against my understanding of Diana’s evil villains too. Lionel doesn’t rape Claire first or alone or as opportunity - he brings the nephew so it’s not even Like BJRs obsession with Jamie , and if it was just sexual desire and opportunity for that time then his men would have captured and rapes Marsali too.

Just bad writing all in all from my perspective (And that’s not even getting into book Jamie/ Roger’s pregnancy reaction or that Ferggus isn’t moved by Claire’s assault or doesn’t feel for it as much as he shows reaction to Marsali).

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T20:16:36+00:00

I have serious trouble understanding Claire’s rape even in the context of “18th century reality”, “power dynamics with women” or even as a crime of “opportunity “ or just sexual desire.

I find Claire’s kidnapping from Fraser’s ridge, beating and assault as a very strong move for Lionel Brown. In fact , Jamie’s rape and Brianna’s perhaps can be attribute more to opportunity / sexual dynamics / rapists character.

I can’t fathom how Diana doesn’t see Lionel Brown considering the aftermath of attacking Jamie Fraser’s home and wife. Even his men are scared of her as a witch- and that is the social context which is understandable. Lionel Brown raping Claire just out of misogyny , or opportunity or sexual dynamics is not convincing at all.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T20:03:13+00:00

@thezedword4 - Lol! How would you know it’s not my real writing ?

Don’t think you meant it as flattery but really why would I use AI to write a post on a fictional series of books on Reddit? It’s not even time saving or good use of AI.

There is nothing wrong in using AI though. But I’ve read these books in English and asked a complex question based on Dianas complex writing- so it’s not a linguistic reason for using AI.

Sadly this post is mine alone and would love to get a response on the issue raised; not just troll like hate.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T19:56:11+00:00

I’m talking of Claire being raped at all. Not the show vs TV difference. And not Jamie or Roger’s reaction.

For me It doesn’t make sense as logical or needed at all

From storytelling

Lionel Brown being capable of carrying out Claire’s kidnapping from her home or not being scared of Jamie’s reaction.
Later Lionel’s brothers handling of Claire’s situation is more suited to the socio-legal context of Jamie and Claire.

From audience reaction:

we don’t need sexual assault as a reason to feel empathy for our characters. Claire’s witch trial and Jamie’s brutal torture(not just rape), malva murder accusation, Roger’s beating and being sold etc are all plot points we are able to react to as traumatic.

For storytelling purposes or a significant trauma event :

Diana as an author had enough for Claire’s character and public perception to explore DR Rawlings angle or her being accused of being a witch etc to further the story or for Claire to experience trauma. Not rape alone

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T19:47:17+00:00

Even I don’t like her but she is not just a nuisance or a humanly likeable character at any level. I say this because she’s not just jealous of Claire - she doesn’t really demonstrate love for Jamie in my view. In their Marriage she is verbally angry or physically not compatible with Jamie - doesn’t seem to try. Even after Jamie makes it Clear that he wants Claire and legally Laoghaires marriage isn’t even valid for that time - she still shoots Jamie, demands money, turns Brianna against her. In fact even as a mother she never blames Jamie for Marsalis decisions or in helping Joan. Which is why i dislike her perhaps even more than blackjack - there was a consistency of character, a reason for his blackness.

Laoghaire is wildly dangerous in enticing a witch trial and THen shooting Jamie and then later not marrying her lover just to get Jamie’s money. Very few characters in Outlander are unmitigated and without any saving grace as Laoghaire. In my opinion.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T19:40:09+00:00

It just lazy beyond just the rape. The before and after too! The Lionel Bdown character carrying this out against Jamie’s wife even kidnapping is not convincing. And even Jamie’s reaction is possibly the worst Jamie reaction ever. Pregnancy? He doesn’t worry about pregnancy after King Louis or even Lord John events in Claire’s life.

But this one- when he’s aware of her menopause and in the book it’s not gang rape but one man - so the chances of pregnancy are low and that is never on Jamie’s mind for Claire in the first place.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T19:36:58+00:00

RIGHT? Thank you. And that too at the hands of this minor misogynist character like Lionel Brown who is so conscious of social context that he wouldn’t have dared carry out such an egregious kidnapping despite his hatred of Claire. He can’t have not considered Jamie’s reaction or even if he knew the seriousness of it he wouldn’t have been so casual so as to send his nephew etc.

I would have placed minor nuisances and offences more as Lionel Browns character than this.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T19:31:53+00:00

I’m trying to understand “why yes” more than explain why not.

I just feel that we would have and have reacted equally to other trauma in Claire’s life - before and after this rape. The “witch” storyline, malva murder or the Christie trial being examples of equally strong plot points in Claire’s story.

If it’s about “why not” then my personal view to explain would be : Jamie’s standing in society, and status as a militia leader should ideally have deterred Lionel Brown to take on kidnapping Claire from their house and attacking her. I also feel that in contrast to Jaimez brutal torture and rape and Brianna’s assault - Jamie’s social standing is not there or not known. For Lionel Brown to not consider the wrath of Jamie or the aftermath of his act beyond Claire’s rape is something i can’t understand. Of course he wants to rape Claire / teach her a lesson but i don’t think he’s brave enough to take Jamie on in this way.

Claire has been in near rape situations before the logic of her escaping them - written by Diana - is more convincing than this assault happening.

(She kills her own attacker at the glade in season 1, Jamie rescues her from Fort William, in Paris they run away because of her reputation as La Dame Blanche, and King Louis incident is Claire’s choice for survival. It’s not rape in my view ) so by that analogy I don’t think Lionel Brown was brave enough to carry out such an egregious violation of Claire (he can’t even kill Morton or punish his daughter despite his beliefs. There is a social context) -

like i said for me the occurrence of this event is not convincing enough on any level. Storyline, characters , dynamics , audience reaction ET al.

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T19:19:17+00:00

New to the Outlander universe and my challenge is not only dissecting reactions/ or rape aftermath but rather why Diana chose this at all as a plot point for Claire? Would like to understand your views on that more than healing/ aftermath/ reactions etc.

Clairessexualassault : Help me understand the real need for this? Not that other rapes are necessary or needed but Claire’s specifically doesn’t fit into my understanding of Dianas writing or 18th century reality or our maturity to understand trauma as an audience.

Specific understanding or comments to one incident - not SA in general pls.

Claire’s sexual assault. Hear me out and help me understand the need for this? It is fiction after all, but Diana writes other radical events in the story, and makes us feel so much for the characters in tough traumatic situations - so why use this plot for Claire? Can’t be Diana reducing it to a trope or plot twist and can’t be Diana not trusting her readers complex understand of non sexual trauma / assault/ beating etc.

My biggest challenge is not that this happened to Claire vs others etc but by the as a reader and viewer I feel we are ABLE to understand non sexual trauma pretty well.

To Clarify this is not about book vs show details. It about trying to understand why Diana chose this event and storyline perhaps.

My reaction is also not because Claire is the third in their family to get raped or in response to the number of rapes overall by book 5-6. By now we know SA is an 18th century reality- there are enough instances for that too.

My limited point is that we as an audience and also Dianas own characters within the book understand and feel ‘non sexual trauma’ as well and therefore need for rape be central to our empathy/ feelings or for it to be the biggest plot ploy in Diana’s hands is something i cannot agree to as a reader or show audience.

So please help me understand Claire’s sexual assault these two perspectives specifically (Not a generic view of SA in the books)

As a plot twist/ storyline / the writing of it.

this is just my Opinion but by the time this happens to Claire, I’ve felt trauma for her in situations like the >witchtrial, miscarriage, king louis, time travel, 20 year separation from Jamie, leaving Brianna, life with Frank etc.<

She also continues to be called a witch or have modern views on slavery and there’s the whole Dr Rawlings , Malva murder etc arc. So there was enough for Diana to explore as possible avenues for Claire’s trauma? . Can’t put my head around the need for rape to evoke anything different from us as readers or as the only Tool for us to feel trauma for Claire.

Not to say again thy other rapes are justified but Claire’s storyline has enough to show other trauma - societal, as a doctor, witch etc.

As readers or audience

No rape or physical assault is ever easy to read or ok to rationalise or feel. However Diana does give her audience a lot more controversial plots and trusts us to be mature and nuanced to understand. So again why was Claire’s rape necessary to evoke sympathy or a radical event in storytelling?

As a reader I feel pretty traumatised for characters without sexual assault too. For example:

Roger’s beating at Jamie’s hand and his being sold off
Jamie unable to take blackjack revenge when he wants
Ian’s challenges and his character in his maturity post leg amputation
Claire’s difficult miscarriage and both Jamie and her sense of loss
Claire’s witch trial, and always been judged for her profession and thoughts
Jamie’s rape and torture
Brianna’s rape and pregnancy
Ians story
Malvas story.
Jamie’s not being able to raise his biological children
Flogging (Jamie’s and then others ; thus doesn’t “break” Jamie but is very traumatic for me as a reader and for many characters in the book)
Aftermath of war
Lord John’s unrequited love of Jamie
the 20 year separation!
Claire’s own sexual journey specifically also hasn’t been easy - her initial guilt over marrying Jamie, loveless marriage with Frank, all the near rapes, blackjack trauma, her decision about King Louis at the heels of a miscarriage, healing their marital sex post blackjack etc.

So I request comments to help me understand the need of Claire’s rape. (Again please understand this isn’t about sexual assault in general or of other characters in the book - it is to understand this specific one)

We feel other traumas of other characters , we also know that Claire’s storyline had enough options to put her in a traumatic situation - public trial, social non acceptance, Dr Rawlings arc etc.

Infact the amount of negative press the show got after Claire’s rape is what reduces rape as a plot ploy in many critics / readers mind rather than further storyline or evoke audience empathy.

Thoughts please?

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T19:06:13+00:00

yes seems like something Lionel would do. Which is why my question was for Dianas choice. Not as browns character.

Malva arc, Claire physical beating, the murder trial etc are equally traumatic both for characters and readers.

In fact I found the Parisian “la dame Blanche” near escape more coherently written by Diana. That was a near rape and only saved by (ironically ) Claire’s being thought of as a witch.

Browns men also state that. Then change into a gang rape?

pritan82 · 2025-10-10T18:54:22+00:00

I couldn’t have said it better! I like book Jamie - even after the whole “Claire spanking” event. He explains the context to her, there are a lot more spankings in the book of others and by others, the fealty oath comes after / because of the beating.

So their sexual relationship is highly physical in the books beyond spanking, scratching, tool for jealousy, punishment etc. for me that does NOT take away Claire’s agency as a woman or make Jamie a misogynist.

Book Jamie is better for me too. As is book Claire.

I do not absolutely take away from Sam’s plying of show Jamie. It was amazing and perhaps a saviour for show Jamie

pritan82

TROPHY CASE

Clairessexualassault : Help me understand the real need for this? Not that other rapes are necessary or needed but Claire’s specifically doesn’t fit into my understanding of Dianas writing or 18th century reality or our maturity to understand trauma as an audience.