NO VERRA SENSIBLE:Â PART I: âSAM/ JAMIE OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDERâ (SJOCD):Â Or How Jungian Archetypes, Paleolithic Brains, Large Screen TVâs, Social Media, Kilts, Neurochemicals, Diana Gabaldon, Ronald Moore, Starz PR, and Sam Heughan Contributed to a Phenomenon That Has Driven Millions of Women (and Some Men) Across the Globe ABSOLUTELY BONKERS!!!
SUBSECTION I: On losing control, archetypal Jamie, and cultural rationalization
Published June 21, 2015; Subsection I was last revised 03.03.18
This revised edition of Part I of the No Verra Sensible series has been divided into separate posts for different subsections, in order to facilitate easier reading. See Subsection II and Subsection III for the other two sections of this âSJOCDâ essay. Please read the Introduction for disclaimers, for links to other parts of this essay series, and to understand how spoilers and other matters will be handled.
It was Audible that first seduced me. I was looking for a new book last summer to listen to during my commute to work and there it wasâ5 stars: Outlander. So I downloaded the audio book onto my iPod and the text onto my Kindleâand descended into my own private obsessive-compulsive hell.
Iâve now been through the 8 main books twice, I have read most of the novelas, Iâve watched all the episodes on Starz at least once (and parts of The Wedding episode, oh, I donât know, 2, 3âŚ10 or 12 times). Worse, Iâve been on social media (SM) looking for whatever crumbs of information I can get about the books, show, and actors, especially Sam Heughan, who plays Jamie Fraser, the 18th century husband of time traveling protagonist Claire (Caitriona Balfe).
The last straw came when I found myself checking Outlander social media (SM) in the morning before I read The Times! THE NEW YORK TIMES !!! (Sacrilege for someone raised in the Tri-State Area.) Iâm a social scientistâIâm not supposed to DO âobsession!â I knew I HAD to get a grip on this before I was completely lost. So after considering my options, I decided to ANALYZE THE HELL out of what was going on.
What follows are the totally subjective musings of this half-crazed woman regarding what might be happening to herâand maybe to you, if you have found your way to this blog in your own restless search for answers about why Outlander, Jamie Fraser and Sam Heughan have taken over your life.
Of course Claire (and the rest of us) could not resist Jamie Fraser because he was deviously conceived by author Diana Gabaldonâs subconscious mind. The Jamie who arose fully grown from Dianaâs imagination is the powerful embodiment of several Jungian archetypal figures, which strike deep chords inside most of us.
For instance, Young Jamie personifies the questing Hero/ Prince, a âhail fellow well metâ who is idealistic, valiant, strong, and charismatic. He is also the Lover, searching for meaning through the romantic love of his soulmate Claire.
Post-Culloden Jamie (during his cave dwelling, prison, and Helwater years) develops the internal strength and wisdom of the Sage/ Hermit. One important trait of this introspective archetypal figure is demonstrated by Jamieâs capacity for self-examination including his determination to avoid lying to himself or to Claire. (As a social scientist, I find this trait of honest self-examination extremely swoon worthy.) The fact that Jamie often manages to do this with self-deprecating humor, and a twitch of one corner of his mouth, only adds to his allure. (Truth be told, Jaime had me at his first âOh, ayeâŚâ)
(See more under the cut.)
Part of the Sage archetypal figure is also (obviously) intelligence. Jamie has that in abundance. He reads widely, is a polyglot, is a master chess player (literally and figuratively), is quick and witty, and is good at assessing people and situations.Â
The only thing Jamie canât apparently do is understand music or sing. I suppose Diana had to give Jamie this disability or he would have been too cognitively perfect. (Even so, this deficit came about only because Jamie suffered a major head injury as a young adult.) Of course it was important that Jamie be verra smart because he had to be an equal match for Claireâs brilliance.
In Voyager, Paroled Jamie played the Outlaw/ Rebel (Young Jamie also embodied this at times). When he was living in Edinburgh in Voyager, Jamie personified a Robin Hood figure whose illegal activities help to support his impoverished family, Lallybroch tenants, and some former Ardsmuir prisoners.
[I have to confess, I always thought that middle-aged Outlaw Jamie was a silly contrivance. If he wanted to make money, Jamie could have just gone to France and worked for his cousin Jaredâand it would have all been legal. Perhaps Diana chose this path to show that Jamie was a bit lost without Claire as his moral compass. Still, it was hard for this reader to watch Jamie make one ridiculous choice after another in Voyager. And please donât get me started on Jamieâs association with Mr. Willoughby in the book--although that character was greatly improved in the show.]
In the later books, Elder Jamie embodies the Father/ Ruler, a warm, caring, just authority figure, protector, and provider. Truth be told, this older incarnation of Jamie is my favorite, maybe because Jamie is about my age in the later books. Some (not all) of the rashness he displayed on occasion in his youth has burned off at this time and his love for Claire still smolders but with a steadier, deeper glow.
Because Jamie was a womanâs (Dianaâs) idealized concept of a man, naturally his anima (or inner âfeminineâ qualities) are strong. Jamie is very empathic, sensual, loving and intuitive. He is also vulnerable, in a way that few male heroes have ever been. As horrifying as the Wentworth prison episode is for Jamie (and readers/ viewers), it nonetheless provided Jamieâs character with a first-hand understanding of the underlying fear of rape that haunts every woman. In that way, Jamie âgetsâ women in a fundamental manner that few male protagonists ever do. Creating a vulnerable hero was a masterstroke on Dianaâs part, and it is a major reason why Jamie touches the souls of many of Outlanderâs female readers.
[I know; I know! Some of you are shaking your heads at what I just said because of book Jamieâs very troubling 18th century sexual mores/ behaviors, which sometimes cross the line into sexual assault by 21st century standards. Iâm going to deal with all of this at some point in a separate essay series about rape. Although I believe that cultural/ historical rationalization doesnât fully excuse Jamieâs behavior in his 20âs and 30âs, I can somewhat forgive his early sins because older Jamieâin his 40âs and 50âsâseems to be more mature in his sexual attitudes. In this older incarnation, Jamieâs experience at Wentworth helped him understand how devastating rape is for women and ***spoiler*** therefore helped him to be a better support for Claire and Brianna during some of their struggles in the later books***end spoiler.]
Another aspect of Jamieâs having such a strong anima (especially in his book version) is the fact that he often treats Claire in a far more egalitarian fashion than would be expected for an 18th century male. (That isâonce he gets past his belief that he must discipline her physically and that she must always obey him.)Â What helps with this, however, is the fact that he is a gentleman who often has a lot of resources at his disposal. For instance, when Claire is pregnant she is still able to volunteer at the local hĂ´pital in Paris because she has a household full of servants to take care of such mundane tasks as cooking and cleaning. If Jamie were a peasant, Claire would have been bound to the house.
Finally, the Jungian concept of the Shadow helps us to understand why, despite the fact that Jamie is a VERY imperfect hero (after all, he is capable of murderous vengeance), the reader is somehow willing to overlook his misdeeds. The Shadow is the part of the Self that we do not wish to acknowledge and which we often project onto others in an unconscious attempt to rid ourselves of itâa losing proposition because we can never actually be free of it.
One can see the cognitive dissonance arising in fans regarding Jamieâs shortcomings in the comments left on web discussion threads. However, Diana has handily (although probably not consciously) provided readers with a great character on which to project Jamieâs Shadow so that it does not cause too much turmoil in her audience. That character isâyou guessed itâClaireâs 20th Century husband Frank Randall.
When I first started looking at reader comments on the web I was shocked at the Frank bashing. Youâd have thought he was a truly horrible man (which makes no sense if you consider that Claire did love him in many waysâas much as many readers would like to deny that). Now, donât get me wrong, Frank has his flaws, but the venom often directed towards this tragic figure does not seem to be justly deserved.
However, if you think of Frank as a convenient receptacle on which to project Jamieâs Shadow, the venom makes sense. I discuss Frank in relation to Jamieâs Shadow in other essays separate from this series. For now, it is important to realize that I believe he partly serves this function in the storyâalthough again I doubt that Diana consciously designed him that way. (By the way, casting the handsome, charismatic Tobias Menzies as Frank may make it a bit harder for some fans only acquainted with the show to use Frank as a handy receptacle for Jamieâs Shadow.)
Mix in Cultural Rationalization
We are also helped in overlooking Jamieâs shortcomings by the fact that Diana placed him in the 18th centuryâthus providing a useful cultural rationalization for Jamieâs darker aspects. He famously spanks Claire and the only way a modern reader can forgive Jamie is if she thinks of him as having been shaped by the sexist attitudes of his time.
Jamie also kills a fairly large number of men during his lifetimeâbut readers can rationalize this by thinking: Well, back in the day, menâespecially Highlandersâtook justice into their own hands!
Of course, these rationalizations do not fully hold up if we compare Jamieâs âbloodyâ behavior to say that of his brother-in-law Ianâat least the version of Ian found in the books. In the Voyager book, young Ian appears to realize this as well, since he finds it easier to confess that he might have killed someone to Jamie rather than his father.)Â
Again, Iâll deal with this more thoroughly in another essay outside of this series but for now, suffice it to say, the 18th century argument serves as a useful rationalization to help readers to keep viewing Jamie as the âking of menââwith only marginal twinges of doubt.
Part I of this essay series has been broken into subsections. See Subsection IIÂ and Subsection III for more âingredientsâ that contribute to âSJOCD.â
