"And what of you, my bonny Sassenach?" he asked, grinning. "Did ye have the wee laddies panting at your heels, or were ye shy and maidenly?"
"A bit less then you," I said circumspectly. "I was eight."
"Jezebel. Who was the lucky lad?"
"The dragoman's son. That was in Egypt. He was nine."
"Och, well, you're no to blame then. Led astray by an older man. And a bloody heathen, no less." (605).
I admit to being troubled by this the first time I read it. Why, I wondered, should the author make this particular decision? I have seen numerous discussions--academic and less so--on childhood sexuality, including claims from adults that they had sexual encounters which were not forced, with peers at young ages. And certainly children can be sexually curious. But what this passage seemed to be implying seemed a bit extreme, first. Second, Claire's revelation does not at all disconcert Jaime, who simply laughs it off. Jaime's opinion of sexual honor has been well established, and in later novels, he expresses shock that Claire was not a virgin when she was first married (to Frank, in the 20th Century). That seemed to me to contradict this exchange rather blatantly.
Or does it?
It occurs to me that my puzzle is based on a misreading. There are two possibilities here. Since they are discussing virginity, Claire could be referring to her own when she says, "I was eight." (Because I tell you--no claim related to sexuality is so far-fetched that it couldn't show up in fiction.) But they are also talking about kissing. So I will now eagerly conclude that Claire's first kiss was a 9-year-old Egyptian boy, when she was eight. And that makes me much happier. Though seriously? I shouldn't have had to work so hard to get there. I think the author was being cryptic. Although no doubt scholarship on childhood sexuality has poisoned my brain, influencing my initial interpretation.
9 comments:
Hmm. I *always* read that passage as about kissing. Even just now, reading it here, I assumed she was talking about her first kiss, not about when she lost her virginity.
And for the record, your blog posts have driven me to pick up the fourth novel again, though I've had to put it down again to get through grading. :)
Yeah, I can see it as a misreading now, but I still argue that it was ambiguous. Far-fetched and a little ridiculous if it was about virginity, but I'll admit to a weird misreading. It definitely happens. In my defense, though, I was still trying to figure out what these books were *doing* the first time around, and I have read some far-fetched, ridiculous claims on the topic. So I'm sort of blaming the discourses that even planted that possibility in my head!!
And... YAY! Glad you're reading the 4th one again!!! :) Especially since I blame... er, CREDIT you with introducing me to them!!
Also, I was pressed for a post for today. ;)
Yeah. I always read it as about Claire's first kiss.
Ah well. Overruled! ;) It makes more sense, and I was likely reading QUICKLY the first time. But there's a transition that I make from this to Monday's upcoming Outlander post, because their difference in experience--even a kiss--is a big deal.
You know, it occurs to me that that comment of mine might have been misconstrued. What I meant is that *I* have been overruled! And it makes more sense as a *kiss*.
I understood the comment. And I have definitely been in the position of having misread a passage in a story and kept reading it that was for years only to have my misreading corrected. I think once you see something one way it can be hard to see it from a different perspective. And I'm not very good at admitting when I've been overruled.
Okay, good. I just didn't want you or anyone to think that I was shutting out your comment!!
In this case, my misreading BOTHERED me. And I was glad to realize what was going on. I *still* think it could have been clarified in the narrative. (I'm stubborn that way.) But even a misreading or problem can bring attention to something that runs throughout. I want to draw attention--in some ways--to the process of reading (or misreading). Just because I think that the process itself--working these things out--is valuable, and overlooked. When I used blogs in my class that one time, this is what I was trying to highlight. So it's a continuing project in a way. Only I am the guinea pig instead of my students.
" I want to draw attention--in some ways--to the process of reading (or misreading). Just because I think that the process itself--working these things out--is valuable, and overlooked. "
That's one of the things I'm really liking about these posts.
Post a Comment