Monday, December 17, 2012

Outlander: Innocence and Experience Pt. 2

Claire's sexual experiences in the Twentieth Century--from her first kiss at 8, then premarital sex (mentioned casually in a later novel) before wedding Frank--as compared with Jaime's relative inexperience throughout the series, highlight i/Innocence in a way that ultimately transcends sexual inexperience.  In this first book at least, Jamie--in spite of his experience of war and colonial "justice"--is an innocent.  He is a virgin, he has a strong sense of honor, and his sense of honor is, at least partially, tied to his idea of virginity.  Beyond a demonstrated unwillingness to compromise Claire's honor when they are mere acquaintances by spending the night in her room, and absolute indignation at the idea that he might have bedded Claire without wedding her, Jaime recounts his father's romanticism and good advice:
"[O]nce I got old enough for such a thing to be a possibility, he told me that a man must be responsible for any seed he sows, for it's his duty to take care of a woman and protect her.  And if I wasna prepared to do that, then I'd no right to burden a woman with the consequences of my own actions." (602)
and
"He said the greatest thing in a man's life is to lie wi' a woman he loves...." (603)
It is important to recognize the tie between sex and love in the latter, and the tie between sex and reproduction in the former.  These--and the concept of honor that, for Jamie, ties them all up in a neat package--go hand-in-hand with his innocence.  Though his r/Romanticism sets him apart from the men around him, many of whom do exploit women, he is also set apart from Claire's time, in part by comparison with Frank's experience:
There was nearly fifteen years' difference in their ages, for one thing, which likely accounted for some of the differences between Frank's urbane reserve and Jamie's frank openness.  As a lover, Frank was polished, sophisticated, considerate, and skilled.  Lacking experience or the pretense of it, Jamie simply gave me all of himself, without reservation. (305)
Earlier, the narrative voice of Claire had remarked that he "made love with a sort of unflagging joy that made [her] think that male virginity might be a highly underrated commodity" (287).

Not surprisingly, Jamie's innocence--almost prelapsarian--is the blurring of the distinction between soul and body--a split that manifests itself in striking ways when the texts introduce additional Twentieth-century characters.

Claire responds to Jamie's innocence.  It connects her soul to his.  But she views the world through her Twentieth-century lens of experience (represented by her own early experiences of physical demonstration), which Jamie negotiates from his vantage point:
     "Not the same thing, is it?" I said.  "Loving and wanting, I mean."
     He laughed, a little huskily.  "Damn close, Sassenach, for me, at least." (599)
It is Jaime's i/Innocence, here, that closes the gap between the physical (wanting) and the spiritual (loving).
***

And in some ways, Claire steals his innocence--a topic I will revisit when I move through Dragonfly in Amber and Voyager.

3 comments:

Melanie Bettinelli said...

Interesting how the novels reverse the stereotypical polarity of female innocence and male experience.

Literacy-chic said...

I agree, and I'm sure that was all part of the plan. In fact, I've seen it argued that Gabaldon would do anything to prevent her female character from assuming a victim role, so it stands to reason that the male character would be the innocent one who becomes a victim? I don't know. When it crosses that line, it becomes an argument I don't want to deal with because the article was sneaking into a weird "she's promoting abuse to save her heroine" place, but had Claire been the innocent and Jaime more experienced, the novel would have been criticized accordingly. So I guess the question becomes (for literary theory) whether every novel has to be victimless for fear of perpetuating something-or-other.

On the other hand, leaving my semi-rant against criticism, what I find very interesting is the way(s) in which the reversal, with Jaime as the embodiment of innocence (for now) works as an implied critique of the Twentieth Century. There's a sense in which, however barbaric the 18th C may be, there is more honor and immediacy (some might say passion, but passion is a byproduct of immediacy in the novel, I think) in the 18th C than in the 20th.

Literacy-chic said...

This is the article, btw: It's a Google book, so limited access.