MovieChat Forums > Outlander (2014) Discussion > Claire - Moral Superiority

Claire - Moral Superiority


We just started watching and are like 5 episodes into the first season. Do they continue with her never ending questioning of 1740's ethics and customs in regards to everything from religion to taxation?

The premise and scenery are great but she is annoying the living hell out of me. She is worse than any pouty spoiled feminist of the 2000's; does she ever STFU, accept and move forward with her situation? I keep rooting for one of the clan members to beat her ass...

reply

I don't think so, but then again, I'm not even sure I know exactly what you're really talking about; apparently it never really bothered me. Claire speaks out when she views something as wrong, and I love that about her; she's a bold and strong woman.

KXM/Kili

On the way, I saw five hours of sleep - but your fire makes it all worth while.

reply

She is worse than any pouty spoiled feminist of the 2000's;


That's actually enough said to not even enter this discussion.

reply

That's actually enough said to not even enter this discussion.


👍

reply

That's actually enough said to not even enter this discussion.


Pretty much.



Gareth: There had to be a reason for that.
Rick: We didn't want to waste the bullets.

reply

Yup...

reply

Pretty much, men who are threatened by women asking for equality are just not all there...

reply

Pretty much, men who are threatened by women asking for equality are just not all there...


Or they are leading the free world....

reply

If you are waiting for her to get beaten up you will get your wish before long.

Not sure what that says about you though.

reply

Claire does eventually learn to live in the era in which she was tossed. Takes her awhile. The producer (a male btw) of the show wants her to be a badass, so she'll continue take over in situations she didn't in the books. Unfortunately in Hollywood bitch = strong woman.

reply

Personally love Claire. Everyone should question more things in life, we are not sheep.

reply

Do you go into new situations that could be dangerous to you by being obnoxious and antagonizing the natives? That's not being a sheep, that's called not being stupid. Anyone with half a brain in their head gets their bearings and the lay of the land/politics before opening their mouth. That's called wisdom.

reply

Hmmm I dont recall Claire being stupid. She has made her fair share of mistakes however its her courage and wit that has helped her survive and even saved Jamie various times. Most people would not survive 10 minutes if they were thrown into the same situation. So easy to be judgemental and opinionated from a distance. If anything, Claire's imperfections make her a much more rounded and interesting character.

reply

Claire getting in people's faces deciding she knew best was stupid. Claire running off when she got angry at Jamie was stupid and ultimately caused the problems with BJR down the road, since she put Jamie back on BJR's radar. Just as a couple of examples. I could go on.

reply

Agree to disagree!

reply

Claire running off when she got angry at Jamie was stupid and ultimately caused the problems with BJR down the road, since she put Jamie back on BJR's radar. Just as a couple of examples. I could go on.


I would point out that these things were necessary from a point of narrative structure: they were required to set up the events of the book. I know I have a history comments on the board of doubting Diana's story-planning at times, but this one is clear.

reply

I know why it's done, but it doesn't make Claire look any less stupid.

reply

I know why it's done, but it doesn't make Claire look any less stupid


I agree, and I feel sometimes that she does look stupid, but in book one she has to. Her plan, having arrived in 1743 is to return to 1945/6 (depending on which version you've read), and that plan has to fail.

Had she been clever and brilliant, perhaps she'd indeed have found a way to trick/convince/persuade the clansmen to return her to Craig na dun, and she would have been able to return to the 1940s. But then, there'd be no story/series of novels.

She had to act in a way that sabotaged her plan, so we have to accept that. We cannot bemoan it and want her act differently, because if she had, and satisfied those complaints, then they'd be no story!

I think we have to accept flawed Claire, and her personality as it is written. Its central to the way the novels work, and as a self-confessed book fan, do you not prefer to have a flawed Claire with Jamie in the 1700s than a clever Claire in the 1900s with Frank? I don't think we can have it both ways.

I think that is what it comes down to.....perhaps you see differently. I value your opinion, broughps.

Newguise

reply

There have been plenty of stories where the female protagonist isn't an idiot and there is still conflict.

Claire could have been written without the arrogance and stupidity (which isn't quite as bad in the books. The show makes her looks worse), still have been flawed (because who wants a perfect person) and had problems that could have resulted in the same outcomes. Just getting captured at Craigh na Dun could have been changed to Claire still hiding in the woods waiting for Jamie to return and the Red Coats find and capture her there. A cat and mouse chase could even have been added. The result would have been the same but Claire wouldn't have looked so bad.

reply

How about we try and figure out Claire's mindset? It could either help us understand her, or show us just where the author/show writers went wrong. 

* Claire has just been through a war, where's she's pretty much managed to take charge over men. It will be a hard to just up and relinquish this new trait she has built up over several years.
* Claire is on holiday to recoup, but how much recouping has she managed to do before going back in time? Is she still stressed out and exhausted from her years as a war nurse?
* Claire seems to have somewhat gotten back into her old routine with Frank, but how much is she suppressing in order to manage this? Does going back in time discombobulate Claire to the point where she's acting out of character?
* Does the experience of time travel somehow scramble the brain a bit? Has Claire's brain been scrambled to the point where she is off-kiltered enough to change her personality?
*
*
*

Anyone else have suggestions to add to the list?



[Edit]

Changed 'writer' to 'author/show writers.'

[/Edit]








=========
http://tinyurl.com/TwilightSagaBoard
http://tinyurl.com/ProWhoosh

reply

I think all of these points are relevant; she is confused and thrown by what has happened, she's been gone about eight weeks when she runs into soldiers and is taken to Fort William, and must be getting increasingly desperate. I don't just think it is about character though, more than that is conspiring against her. I think that Claire, in trying to take some element of control over her situation and in deciding what to do, is acting on very poor and incomplete information.

She has seen vast fronts devastated by mechanised warfare, by comparison she is now in, what must look like some some rural backwater, which is in fact a deceptive appearance. I also think that because the clansmen she is travelling with do not trust her, they have also kept from her how dangerous the situation is. She doesn't really know where she is at any time, and where the solders are/are most likely to be. She doesn't know if she is likely to encounter them or not, where she must be more careful. She's almost operating blind. When she leaves the trees where Jamie leaves her, in the show, she can see her destination. Had she not been screaming her head off (hearing Frank) she'd probably have made it. In the book, she is far from the stones, and doesn't really know where they are. She heads off in a general direction (pretty clueless) and is pulled out of a river by a concerned soldier.

I think her ignorance of the geography and the political situation are key, but she can't really remedy either of these things. The people she is with think she's a spy. She can't try and find out more about where she is, or what is going on without arousing even more of their suspicions. You can't doubt her bravery, which you might want to call stupidity, but what can she do differently? She wants to return to the stones. Her only other option is to sit tight, and do nothing, which isn't going to work. She has to make a break for it, and this is the first chance she gets, so from her point of view, she has to take it, regardless of the consequences.

reply

I'm sure everyone complaining about the character would be totally unfazed by all that happening to them.

Honestly, I don't see the problem. She is sometimes arrogant, sometimes bitchy, sometimes she acts before she thinks, sometimes she is rude. So what? She is still a realistic character. I'm sure if they put up any real person on the screen with all their flaws, they would probably be far less likable than most fictional characters which have been created.

GRR...ARGH!

reply

Honestly, I don't see the problem.


Nor me, but it keeps getting posted, so I'm going to keep replying!

reply

So do I apparently 

I don't get the whole likability thing to be honest. Of course in this case, I still find Claire immensely likable, but even if she weren't I much prefer realistic characters even if it is at the expense of likability.

Because who is 100% likable?

GRR...ARGH!

reply

Newguise: Her plan, having arrived in 1743 is to return to 1945/6, and that plan has to fail. ... She had to act in a way that sabotaged her plan, so we have to accept that.
Yes, something has to fail so that Claire doesn't return to the 1940s.

However... Claire's behavior and actions could have been written differently.

For example, BJR and Dougal both remark on how she's dressed and that she was found alone.

What if Claire stopped, thought and realized that, if she's going to travel alone, she needs to acquire men's clothes to pass as a man. (Not those silly skin-tight pants Cait wore in S1E16) If she's going to travel as a woman, she needs to pay attention to how married/widowed women dress, get those clothes and get a man to accompany her on the road. She needs to figure out how to stop attracting attention and blend into the crowd.

There are plenty of pitfalls in stealing clothes and a horse that would allow her to fail, get imprisoned and face judgement for stealing.

In a later book, Claire gets angry at another physician when she knows he's mis-diagnosed a patient. Bree stops her mother and asks if Claire can treat the man's condition. Claire has to admit she can't. Bree then goes and does the one thing that might help the patient. She gets the other physician to clean his blade in boiling water between patients thus possibly preventing infections. Claire's ego prevented her from being as wise as Bree.

I think there are plenty of ways Claire could be written as intelligent and determined but still be thwarted in her intent to return home.

reply

However... Claire's behavior and actions could have been written differently.


Absolutely. 100% true.

...

But it wasn't, so don't we have to accept that we'd act differently, but that is the character on the page?

For example, BJR and Dougal both remark on how she's dressed and that she was found alone.


They do, but BJR makes those comments before Claire even realises she's in the past. She still wonders if this is a film set, and is just confused, she's still disbelieving and unsure when she ends up in the cottage that same evening. She was thrown straight into the middle of these characters, and didn't have time to get things together. She has to try and explain it retrospectively to Colum once she has seen the date on his letter and the time jump is absolutely confirmed.

reply

Newguise: But it wasn't, so don't we have to accept that we'd act differently, but that is the character on the page?
Accept? Not me. More like barely tolerate. 😀 After watching the first three episodes, I went and read the first book just to see whether the show was a bad adaptation. IMO, it is because Claire is WORSE in the show than she is in the books. When a character is so inconsistently and obnoxiously written that it takes me out of the story, I blame the author and/or writers.

In the 1940's Claire is written as passive and flirty to the point of being air-headed. We see she obviously knows how to be quiet and subservient when it suits her. Suddenly, when she goes through the stones, she's written as (IMO) a loud, arrogant shrew. I might buy she's disoriented for an hour or two but she's written this way the whole time she's in the past. How anyone could think she was a spy is incredible since she has absolutely no adaptability or self-awareness. She should experience consequences for her stupidity and arrogance but its usually Jamie who pays the price.

They do, but BJR makes those comments (about how she's dressed) before Claire even realises she's in the past.
I think she knows almost immediately since the soldiers are using live ammunition and BJR introduces himself as Johnathan Wolverton Randall. Had he been an actor, his reaction to seeing her pop up in the middle of a scene would be completely different than BJR's. Later, when she cannot see Inverness as they leave the cottage, she may not know what year it is but she says she knows she's not in the 20th century.

I do understand and respect what you're saying about accepting Claire as a character in the Outlander stories, but I cannot help but want a more sophisticated and wiser Claire in the first two books. She's much improved in Voyager but I don't hold out much hope for her in season 3 of the show.

Hey, it's still fun discussing it, right? 😉

reply

I might buy she's disoriented for an hour or two but she's written this way the whole time she's in the past.


And that's just it, wouldn't you keep your mouth shut and figure things out before you act like bull in china shop? Wouldn't you think after screwing up the first time and suffering the consequences you'd step back and assess the situation?

I think the show has done Claire a disservice by not having her start to mellow out/adapt in the second season. While you didn't see her start to get wiser until book three, I saw her starting to adapt in book 2. This should have been shown in the show instead of RDM's "badass" Claire.

While I don't particularly like writers/producers pandering to fans, in this instance they need to listen when we say we want equal Jamie/Claire, focus a little more time on their relationship (but obviously don't go crazy) and that Claire needs to stop being the "badass".

reply

broughps: And that's just it, wouldn't you keep your mouth shut and figure things out before you act like bull in china shop?
I agree!

She was an ARMY nurse so I have to believe she mastered the basics of adhering to the chain of command, following orders and keeping her mouth shut from time to time. You'd never know it from the way Claire's written!

reply

They do, but BJR makes those comments (about how she's dressed) before Claire even realises she's in the past.


I think she knows almost immediately since the soldiers are using live ammunition and BJR introduces himself as Johnathan Wolverton Randall.

But would your first thought actually be, "Oh! I must have time traveled! This must be 1740-something since Frank's ancestor is here. Maybe he will help me. I'll just explain who I am and it'll be okay." A sane person's mind is not going to be able to accept what he or she is seeing. Claire is going to look for some other explanation, anything, because she can't really have time traveled back 200 years!
I thought the difference between passive 1940s Claire, and Claire back in time was that the unknown situation and circumstances, complete with live ammunition, brought out more of Claire the combat nurse persona. Sort of a fight or flight reflex. She didn't need that with Frank, in her own time. She was trying to readjust and reconnect with him so she did what she thought she needed to do with Frank, to bring back their old relationship. She went back to prewar Claire to try and bring back prewar Claire and Frank. All that ended when she woke up in the past. Claire was shocked, disbelieving, confused. She acted on instinct.
Claire always had to be on guard, even when she knew where she was and what year it was. Yes, some of what she did and said was annoying and impulsive. I don't think she was as bad as some think she was. And, as broughps previously mentioned, we have Badass Claire in the show. That Claire has been made to be the star of the show and says and does things that Book Claire didn't.
I do hope that in Season 3 they show can figure out that Claire doesn't always have to be that way. Claire can adapt and still be a strong woman. Let Jamie be Jamie. Show the relationship and marriage of Jamie and Claire. THAT is the real star of the show, or should be. It's with Jamie that Claire can be herself, a strong woman, and not to his detriment. Claire can be Claire with Jamie, not Badass Claire, not milquetoast Claire, just her real self.
And she'll still do things that annoy me, but not nearly as often.😃

reply

redheid: But would your first thought actually be, "Oh! I must have time traveled! This must be 1740-something since Frank's ancestor is here. Maybe he will help me. I'll just explain who I am and it'll be okay." A sane person's mind is not going to be able to accept what he or she is seeing.
  

Oh, if you only knew how much sci-fi I read in my earlier years. Once my head cleared on the other side of the stones, you betcha time travel would have been front and center in my mind.  Does that make me insane?

I would know better than to tell BJR (or anyone else) who I was and when I was born!!
She acted on instinct.
At least her gut told her to run from BJR and she acted on it! One of the few times Claire got it right.

Claire always had to be on guard, even when she knew where she was and what year it was. Yes, some of what she did and said was annoying and impulsive. I don't think she was as bad as some think she was.
I'm one of the ones who found Claire's behavior obnoxious and stupid nearly all the time. The one major exception being anytime she was healing another character. Other than that, I wanted Jamie to drop-kick her back through the stones after Cranesmuir for his own safety.

Claire can adapt and still be a strong woman. Let Jamie be Jamie. Show the relationship and marriage of Jamie and Claire. THAT is the real star of the show, or should be.
I agree with you on all these points! 
I just don't believe RDM will let it happen.

reply

If anything, Claire's imperfections make her a much more rounded and interesting character.


I agree. I love Claire because of her imperfections, especially her big mouth. Lol!

reply

I would credit your emotional reaction to the quality of her acting. Frank as well, the old and the new. It's drama. Her well-written character is being played by an excellent actress. All the actors are amazing on this show.

I feel bad that IMDB is dropping this forum. It's a mistake imho.

reply

I know. Do they realize how obsessively I came here and rated stuff, mostly due to the forums? I'd check them a ridiculous number of times per day. xD

KXM/Kili

On the way, I saw five hours of sleep - but your fire makes it all worth while.

reply

The character is portrayed accurately. Stick with it,keep an open mind & enjoy.
I can recommend reading the books, which give you the benefit of her background,thoughts & reasonings.

reply

Think of all of the people in our own time who have a problem seeing issues through the lens of another time. There are so many things that weren't even an issue then; people just accepted that things were the way they were in a time when it was a struggle just to survive. Claire is a modern person suddenly thrown back into a time and place 200 years ago. She is disoriented for a time just trying to get used to the place and the culture,while remaining herself and finding a foothold.
About the feminism issue: imagine coming from our time into a time when death in childbirth was accepted as almost inevitable, a time when men's authority over all of the women of their families, as well as subordinate males was absolute. That authority would be hard to accept to us, but back then there was a reason.
Life in the 18th century Scotland of the Outlander novels was a dangerous business. Woman alone were are the mercy of all sorts of perils. It was up to their men to shelter and protect them. Jamie,young, and in many ways naive, takes that responsibility seriously, putting his very body and life in surety for the safety of Claire by oath, which he also takes seriously. While talking to Claire about why he must beat her, he relates that lessons in life were taught him by his father by the same method when he contravened the rules that kept him from harm.

reply

cont..Back then in that place, men did the fighting for the survival of their families and the power of their clans. Whether by hunting and providing or in battle to protect their property and its inhabitants, their lives were on the line. The system only worked if everyone knew and kept to their place in the system, accepting the authority of the leaders.
Claire, realizing that Jamie was relating the occurrences of his whippings at the hands of his father was explaining that he, too had to bear the punishment that he would reluctantly have to inflict on her to drive home the lesson that she had to accept his authority for him to ensure her safety AND keep his life if that were possible. Her leaving the place he had told her to stay put them both at risk,and he might have died in rescuing her as he had pledged. As she says, after hearing his stories, "I couldn't help but admire the job he had done. Without one word of direct explanation or apology, he had given me the message he intended. I gave you justice , it said, as I was taught it. And I gave you mercy, too, as far as I could. While I could not spare you pain and humiliation, I make you a gift of my own pains and humiliations, that yours might be easier to bear."

She accepts the whipping which, of course, few of us modern women would ever accept, but afterwards while pretending to submissiveness, Claire draws her dagger and presses it against his chest, telling him that if he ever again raises a hand to her she'll 'cut his heart out and fry it for breakfast', whereupon Jamie asks for her dagger upon which he takes an oath that under pain of having his heart cut out, he swears by Jesus Christ and the 'holy iron' (dagger )that he will not raise his hand to her in 'rebellion or in anger'. Jamie, bless him, takes his oaths very seriously, although later on, he half-humorously says that there are times that he regrets taking this one. He, perhaps being so young and relatively naive, is open to some of Claire's anachronistic ways, as they are applicable to his times, accepting also that she is from 200 years in the future, and has knowledge that is ahead of his time.
Claire, on her side, cannot help being a know-it-all. She DOES know so much more than the inhabitants of the 18th century, and, as a nurse, frustrated at the lack of medical knowledge does as much as she can using her superior knowledge of herbals and physiology to remedy what suffering she can. She does have to learn to rein in much of her knowledge as proven by the incident where she is unwittingly arrested as a suspected witch because she happened to be at the home of Geillis Duncan who was under suspicion, and claimed to be one but also had a similar secret to Claire's.
Learning to live in a backward time is a constant challenge to Claire, and she makes a lot of blunders, causing peril to herself and those who care about her, but she is brave, doesn't shrink from danger, tries to do what she can to relieve suffering, and learns in time to read the people around her and try to act accordingly. And Claire does come to prefer the times and people of Jamie, the man she comes to love.

reply