WARNING this post contains non-detailed spoilers.
Please read no further if you do not want to have a peek into the ultimate outcome for our hero.
The Outlander TV series has been bold and unapologetic in adapting Diana Gabaldon’s work to a visual medium. It is thrilling to not only have brave actors putting it all out there for viewers, but the brave team in the writers room who are willing to get the sexy, ugly, horrific, scary, triumphant content to the actors. What Outlander has to show is not titillation. The thread of real these characters all have in common with us causes passionate fans to be born.
“Wentworth Prison” and “To Ransom A Man’s Soul” are the darkest moments to date for these characters. Brutal. Gutting. Disturbing. Powerful. Intimate. Ultimately, inspiring. From the depths of hell beauty grows. Through hardship and loss, bonds are strengthened. In short, these characters must suffer to prevail. They are fully revealed to us through the fires.
The last two episodes of Season 1 are going to push the envelope even further than what most are able to imagine. Delving into male rape coupled with sadism, the bold and fierce loving courage of Claire to save Jamie, taking a look into PTSD from the holistic assault Jamie endures, and a harrowing healing effort in the end.
These episodes will be difficult to watch and experience. It will be worth it. Trust me as a fan. Trust Ron. Trust Diana.
If you like this post, photo, or podcast, please share, join the discussion, offer feedback, and follow!
Like my page on Facebook – A Dram of Outlander
Follow me on Instagram – dramofoutlander,
Follow me on Twitter – @dramofoutlander
Follow me on Tumblr – A Dram of Outlander
A Dram of Outlander 
I am out tring to acquire whisky right now so I can sit through tonight’s episode. I had a problem reading these chapters, but they were words. The visuals are scaring me. If the season ends like the book, I will feel more peaceful. Ron however did say the Abby is in Scotland, so there is still danger ahead.
One other thing I would love to see is a 10-year jump, not 20. I think they could still adapt the story so well that way. I see so many scenarios in my head, keeping Claire and Jamie young, vital and still central.
LikeLike
They stay vital deep into middle age!
LikeLiked by 1 person
But they are 35. How can they have a 20 year old daughter, who would probably only be like 10 years younger. It’s like watching DOOL
LikeLike
They would be in their late 40’s ish in DIA season 2
LikeLike
In the show they are 23 and 27 roughly. IRL they are in their 30’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why are we worried about a 20 year jump when they still continue to live in 1743 thru 1745 in this and next season?
LikeLike
Have you read DIA?
LikeLike
For me, it’s the actual age of the actress they pick to play their 20-year old daughter and how absurd that could look when the actors are so young themselves. I thought a reworking of 10 years, with Frank still keeping the truth of Jamie not dying a secret, him taking Bree away to Oxford with his newest girlfriend, Claire being a doctor, and trying to get back to her only true love, once she discovers the truth, with their daughter, could be exciting on screen and still be true to the book.
LikeLike
But then Bree would only be 10 and that wouldn’t work.
LikeLike
Only if they don’t advance them the roughly 20 years the book does. Claire would be around 49 and Jamie 45 if they follow DIA.
And Claire has to be in 1968 to see Geillis in modern Scotland.
LikeLike
Did Claire ever see her or only Roger and Bree?
LikeLike
She saw her — but they never met it was too late
LikeLike
Bree can’t lose her Dad at 10… And JF spent 7 years in hiding so do the math.. They are seasoned at their reunion and plenty of life left in them stay true to the books. DG had her reasons.
LikeLike
I am an avid reader and love this series to p pieces. I am looking forward to seeing how Ron Moore brings Diana’s words to the small screen. I know it will be tough but the rewards will be greater. Thank you for your podcasts. Sara
Sent from my iPod
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheers! It will be disturbing and uncomfortable, but Sam & Tobias will be awesome I have no doubt!
LikeLike
It will be AMAZING. Serious acting chops.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you seen these episodes?!?
LikeLike
No from being a reader and going through the articles — they will be keeping along the storyline
LikeLike
I think my point is being missed. In real life they are 35. I think for an adaptation 10 years would make more sense. They may be in their 4Os in the book but When I read, I still see Cait and Sam. I think Dianas’s love scenes for Claire And Jamie are done so much better than Bree’s and Roger’s and I guess I’m not ready to shift to them.
LikeLike
Ah got it. Hm I need to think on that
LikeLike
I think dialing back their ages and altering the second book significantly would be a huge misstep. Bree and Roger are great characters that add to the depth of Jamie and Claire’s relationship. Bree and Roger get things right eventually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just think how old will theses actors be? If they are playing 20 and older with actors who are 35, it is too soapoperish. Cait maybe can get away with it.
LikeLike
No they are going to age Sam and Cait with makeup etc
LikeLike
Jamie and Clair don’t exist in later years until they Voyager, the third book!
LikeLike
Diana knew precisely how the timeline in OL had to be so things would work out. Taking 10 years off would change the Geilllis timeline, the Revolutionary War time line – IOW, the rest of the series.
LikeLike
Think of Sally Field being Forest Gump’s mother. Isn’t she only 2 years apart from Tom Hanks. I think there can be so much to adapt without aging too quickly.
LikeLike
But the aging is in the story. It would be a big departure and error not to follow it IMHO.
LikeLike
To me the story is Claire and Jamie’s love, and the love we all long for, how they make their marriage work, stay together and work as a team. But this is TV and all I can think of is how cartoonish young people look when aged.
LikeLike
It will be done well I am sure. I understand you worries though to be sure. I think they look older than their characters now and still it works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you’re missing the point that Sam and Cait are 35, not the 20 somethings they portray. They will only have to age them about 10 years to get them to the age they are after the separation (mid 40’s)
LikeLike
I think the issue is that the characters need to age about 20 years but the actors only need to age about 10. That is absolutely correct I think two different things are being discussed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be honest, I have more of a problem with the way the show is now with 35 year old’s playing younger. They don’t look the ages the characters are supposed to be. Especially Jaime being only 23. I think the 20 year jump will actually help them look more age appropriate for the roles.
LikeLike
I think so too. They look older than 23 and 27. In the zone but older
LikeLike
It’s not them but the actress who will play the daughter, how old will she be, 5 years younger, 10 years younger?
LikeLike
Raquel, since there’s no need for Bree to age 20 years in such a short period of time, there’s no need to cast someone in their 30’s to play her. I think they did that on purpose with Sam and Cait so that they could appear both in their 20’s and 40’s without too much trouble. I’m thinking they will cast someone more age appropriate for the roll.
LikeLike
I think the 20 year aging has to happen if it is going to follow what is historically happening in the world, especially once they get to America.
LikeLike