Shouldn't We Tell Stories Realistically?

Written by: Emem Uko


Nothing is good about rape. It leaves victims in horrible psychological states. Even when the outward effects, such as bruises are healed, inwardly, only the victim can gauge the level of damage from which he or she suffers continuously . Knowing how deeply traumatizing rape is to people who have experienced it, and the possibility that they would painfully relive the experience when viewed on television, is it necessary for Outlander to portray that act so realistically? Will minimizing the harshness of the perpetrator and the suffering of the victim be better for viewers? Or will narrating the story as opposed to showing the gruesome act be best?

Season 1, episode 116 entitled "To Ransom a Man's Soul" was arguably one of the most talked about episodes on television in 2015 for obvious reasons. Jamie suffered a cruel sexual assault from Black Jack Randall and STARZ showed as much as possible. I remember watching -yet not actually watching because I closed my eyes more than I opened them during those brutal and extended flashback scenes.

 I wasn't the only one.

That episode garnered a lot of praise for the actors' portrayals as well as rebuke of the show for the graphic nature of the assault. On one hand, it was a cinematic milestone for the show.  It managed to stay true to the realistic nature of the crime, which was relevant to the story. On the other hand, it was too intense for some people to view, let alone someone who has survived a sexual assault.


Of course, one may argue that this depiction makes for great television.  Outlander is often compared with Game of Thrones, which doesn't shy away from showing sex and brutality. The wonderful thing about Outlander is that the show doesn't glorify meaningless sex and brutality for the sake of it. The show examines the individual's emotional damage as well as how loved ones peripheral to the individual are affected. For example, in season 2, Jamie continues to struggle with traumatic episodes both awake and asleep as a result of his devastating assault. Claire tries to help him, but can only do so if he confides in her.  Jamie's struggle is more understandable after watching the extent of the abuse from episode 116. Would Jamie's traumatizing struggle in season 2 be as believable as it is if those scenes weren't shown in such a graphic way?

Maybe so, may be not.

Perhaps Sam Heughan would've had to fight much more of an uphill battle in terms of his performance in the early episodes of season 2, had the season 1 finale not painted such a horrific picture. These scenes were vital to the story and raised Black Jack Randall's villain status. We needed to see Jamie, always so strong and vital, utterly broken.

We also witnessed the limits to Claire's medical skills since Jamie now needed more than her herbal knowledge. Maybe these scenes could have been censored a bit to the level that one didn't have to flinch at every second. Maybe doing so would have caused the them to lose their intended impact and originality. What we know is that the actors were willing to go to those dark places, it was well cut and edited and ultimately, STARZ gave it their seal of approval.


Fast forward to season 2, episode 204 and we see Mary Hawkins raped in an alley. We watch this sweet girl robbed of her innocence in a time when violated women were considered ruined. Granted, Mary Hawkins' assault was not as stomach-wrenching as Jamie's but it was still horrible to watch because rape is always terrible, no matter the context.  We were treated to weeks of build-up, cementing the fragile doll-like quality of Mary to make the assault that much more of a sucker-punch. Yet even so, a friend confided to me that this scene was much easier to stomach.  I agreed with her, but pointed out that it was just as relevant to the story as 'To Ransom a Man's Soul' had been.

Rape, as presented in film and television, should never be something to be viewed without flinching, and if it doesn't phase you, perhaps that's something you may want to examine. With this in mind, Outlander got the right reaction when people found episode 116 hard to stomach. We had formed a connection with Jamie, many of us years before Sam's portrayal was even a glimmer on the horizon, so we should have felt almost a physical sense of discomfort when that was happening to him.  I know I did. Since Mary Hawkins' assault was also upsetting, maybe Outlander didn't have to go as far as they did with Jamie's to get the reaction they wanted from viewers.

Viewers should be able to recognize rape as any instance where there is a lack of consent.  It doesn't have to be particularly "violent" to qualify . . . a point to keep in mind as we head into season 3.  Yet this idea . . . that rape IS always clearly violent and easily discernible, has permeated film and television's view of assault almost exclusively.

What happens when lack of consent isn't so clear?  What happens when the victims are silenced from crying out by the societal norms which surround them?  And, if we are telling stories realistically, should we not explore those grey areas as well?


This brings us to episode 207, Faith, and the re-imagining of Fergus' assault.  What we are presented with is a clear lack of consent.  I won't delve into the show's depiction of child rape here, since this has been discussed ad-nauseum on the Outlander Cast Podcast as well as in the Clan Gathering Facebook group, but what we should look at is the clear distrust the creative team shows us in changing the very nature of Fergus' assault.

Book readers know that Fergus was sometimes offered to patrons of Madam Elise whose predilections lay outside the norm.  When Fergus had his encounter with Black Jack in the text, there was initially tentative consent, and (for what it's worth) if a child is even capable of offering consent.

 As most of us would agree, consent is something which can be withdrawn at any time.  When the encounter turns violent, Fergus withdraws his consent and it becomes a sexual assault.  Despite this shift in consent, there have been many book readers who maintain that the scene in the book is not rape.  Withdrawn consent is something which is seldom explored, yet is a major real-world problem, silencing assault survivors through victim shaming.  If Outlander wants to really push the envelop, perhaps they missed the boat.  They have the opportunity to address it in season 3, but I'd lay pretty solid odds against them even trying.

Yes, Outlander would be better off showing relevant scenes that would enhance the story as season one's graphic assault is now supporting season two's story line. Scenes like those depicting sexual assault do not have to be overly-graphic for viewers to understand how horrendous they are (I didn't have to see some of the things that Black Jack did to Jamie. His scream was enough). It is understandable that as the story was told from Jamie's point of view, they had to amplify the assault, which gave those who were familiar with the book a different view. Speaking of fans of Outlander, most of us appreciate how far the creator, directors, and producers go to make the story fresh to those who've read the book. While I like that the pivotal story lines are portrayed well, some things are best left to the imagination.

What are your thoughts?  Did they go too far?  Should Outlander be trying to openly explore the nature of consent, given the ubiquitous nature of sexual assault throughout the series?

18 comments

  1. Interesting insight into all three situations!

    ReplyDelete
  2. So well written Emem!Yes grey areas should be explored,for my 2cents worth Starz are doing a great job showing all the rape episodes,well it was more explicit in the books!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks :) You're absolutely right...it would be super ambitious of them to follow the book. I don't think we'd like to see everything on screen.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think you hit the nail on the head with your statement that these scenes should make people uncomfortable. As a society we have become so desensitized. Each of the victims in this case had a different treatment as it should be, simply because no two rapes are identical in nature. And I agree with the previous poster - those scenes were much more graphic in the books. It will be interesting to see how they treat the situation between Bree and Bonnet. I, myself, cheered when I read and watched Murtagh deliver the Duke of Sandringham's head. Now that was justice served.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your awesome comment, Laura. I'd totally forgotten that there was going to be another ehem *spoiler.* I can't wait to see how it would be translated on screen. BTW, I can't deny that I whooped when Murtagh did his deed. The Duke of Sandringham had it coming.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I didn't realize that Fergus was depicted differently in the books. But either way, I don't agree that that would have been a good place to explore 'grey areas' of consent. Fergus was 10 years old, a pre-pubescent child being trafficked by a brothel, where he was repeatedly sexually abused. There's no grey area in that. Sexually abused children are 'groomed' or conditioned over time to accept the advances of their abusers, but this is not consent and never becomes consent. So maybe it's better that they depicted what surely the first time he was sexually assaulted was like, not depicting him as numbed and resigned to the fact that he would be exploited but just shocked by additional violence on top of it.

    50% of sex-trafficked children in the U.S. today are boys, and they are often disserviced by stereotypes that paint them as existing in some grey area of being 'not really victims' due to their gender. So I'm very happy with the choice that the show made not to reinforce that. Outlander has been really great at showing sexual assault as happening to a diverse range of people and having real consequences including PTSD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Vale, I get your point. I consider Fergus a clever lad who had to grow up quickly due to circumstances. Based on his character, using 'consent' isn't far-fetched. However, your point about sexually abused children and their conditioning over time holds true that accepting the situation doesn't mean consenting to it.

      Delete
  7. I didn't have a problem with the way the many rape scenes were portrayed, they were hard to watch but very thought-provoking. They also should be looked at in the context of the times, the 18th century was a very violent time. That's not to say these things are not happening now but I think there is not a lot of discussion about it, so I think that anything that makes you take a look at a situation that you don't normally want to face is a good thing. I think Starz was brave in their treatment of the subject matter but seem to have become squeamish about not only rape but sex scenes as well. They keep saying they aren't doing anything gratuitous but really they're not doing anything at all. Season 1 was ground-breaking, season 2 mundane.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the rape suffered by Jamie in season 1 opened up discussions on the after-effects of rape in season 2. I think that showing us how that affected Jamie and his love life created a lot of discussion. I wouldn't call season 2 mundane...Starz had to work with what book two had to offer. Okay, I agree that the sex scenes were almost non-existent.

      Delete
  8. I think all 3 rape story lines were handled properly. As you rightly point out the devastating and long lasting effects were portrayed well within the limitations of time. However, whereas the rapes of Jamie and Mary closely followed the books and carried the story forward, the rape of Fergus deviated from the book but I think it was the correct thing to do.

    To explore the right for a consenting partner to withdraw their consent mid-stream would not have carried the story forward any better and would have added another complexity to an already complex story.

    While the subject is worthy of discussion, Diana's story doesn't addresss it and therefore the Outlander TV series is not the proper place for it. It is a place for story telling, not a place to address societal ills if they aren't part of the story. The fact that Fergus got raped moved the story forward as well or better (for time constraints purpose) than if they had delved into withdrawn consent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a good point about how complex the story would have gotten if Fergus' story was exactly like the book. This season has been full of surprise deviations and it's partly exciting for those who have read the book because we get to see new content. On the other hand, leaving out or tweaking pivotal story lines can be annoying. Here's to hoping that the writers give us a fulfilling season 3.

      Delete
  9. I just started reading the books and whilst watching the show, I was constantly flinching when it was implied what Black Jack Randall wanted with Jaime. I could not and did not watch the rape assault scenes with Jaime in season 1. Even when he had nightmares I could not handle it. I can never watch rape scenes...No Matter What!!!! I have never suffered through such a Horror Thank God, however it inflames too deeply. I am curious though about Black Jack and his childhood past, as to whether he must have endured some sadistic horror that made him take such great pains to wrap his humanity with such diligence therefore only revealing traces of it to the chosen few (his brother Alex & a tad to Mary Hawkins, until his brother died). He recognizes there is darkness in him and I wonder if it was as a result of a family member. I do hope the books touch on that. As you stated in your post, the act of rape is very affecting to those who suffer it and should not be easy to hear about or watch, so I cannot imagine what it does to those to those who inflict it!???? Well written points!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BJR does not appear after Book2 and his dark past is not explored in Books 1 & 2 (that I recall).

      Delete
    2. I would also like to know more about BJR, sadly, the books do not expand on his character. Maybe this will be a fun project for Diana Gabaldon as she has done with Lord John. Surely, those who inflict this act have a certain mindset. It would be worth knowing why.

      Delete
  10. Hello, i am glad to read the whole content of this blog and am very excited.thank you....
    gclub casino
    จีคลับ
    casino gclub

    ReplyDelete

Back to Top