Let’s Talk About Those Outlander Season 1 Voice Overs

Outlander Season 1 voice overs got a lot of people all angry and whatnot. All but one episode in the sixteen-episode season of Outlander was told from Claire’s point-of-view. To help with the sense that Claire is “telling” the story, several voice-overs were added to episodes. Sometimes they were helpful; sometimes they were entertaining; sometimes they were just annoying.

More from Opinion

If I had to choose one pitfall of the freshman season of Starz hit TV adaptation of Outlander, I’d point my finger decidedly at those voice-overs.

The funny thing is that at first, in the moment, they didn’t bother me all that much. After I’d watched the episodes live, I went back through to watch them a second and third time, and it was then I started to notice that they were, well, annoying as all get out.

And I’m not the only one that felt this way. Google “Outlander voice-overs” and be prepared to be horrified, entertained, and a little bit justified in your feelings. The internet is a weird place.

Mostly what I find weird about them is that they don’t play any real part in the story. Caitriona Balfe is an amazing actress, and does a great job of showing us what we need to know about Claire. The characterization is there. The plot moves forward. The writing is, apart from the voice-overs, really good, if not excellent. It begs the question, What was the point? Was there some ulterior motive to include Claire’s “thoughts” throughout the season? Or was it meant to keep us tethered as much as possibly to the books? Maybe it was lazy writing, or a device used by the creators of the show to hammer home the point of each plot point?

I’m not sure about you guys, but I have a theory.

We’ve written about this theory a little bit here. The voice-overs add to our already postulated claims for Season 2.

Let me explain.

Book 2, “Dragonfly in Amber” is the source material for Season 2. We already know that. What some of you may not know is how “Dragonfly in Amber” is formatted. If you don’t want to be spoiled, turn away now.

No, really.

Castle- ABC

“Dragonfly in Amber” begins with Claire in back in the 20th Century. Frank has died and her daughter, Brianna, believes Frank was her father even though Jamie is actually her father. Claire and Brianna travel to Scotland for a little vacay, and while they are there… Claire basically spills the entire story about traveling through the stones and falling in love and trying to change the future and… Everything.

Brianna hadn’t known anything about the 18th century, her mother travelling back in time, her father… Claire hasn’t told her.

Through a series of story-telling flash backs (kinda), we (and Brianna and Roger) get the story… Jamie and Claire fled to France and tried to stop the rebellion. They failed. They went back to Scotland and on the eve of the bloody battle at Culloden Moor, Claire went back through the stones, back to her own time, pregnant with Jamie’s child (this was her second pregnancy; she miscarried the first.)

Okay. So that’s book 2.

We already know that Season 2 is being shot in Prague and Scotland and whatnot, and that the characters are still in the 18th century. We’ve had all sorts of leaked photos from the set of the characters, not to mention there has been no mention of ANY SINGLE 20TH CENTURY CHARACTER CASTING.

Brianna hasn’t been cast.

Roger hasn’t been cast.

So. Those voice-overs?

I think we’re going to lean that those voice-overs from Claire have been her “telling” the story to Brianna and Roger. Season 2 will MOSTLY, and I mean like 99% take place in the 18th century. I’m guessing the very last episode (season 2 finale) will be in “present day” and will show that Claire has been spilling the beans- hence the voice-overs which will act as the “flashbacks” from book 2.

Ya follow?

So. Yes, they are annoying, but they could end up acting as so much more than just annoying voice-overs.

What do you think?

More from Claire and Jamie