Meta: Clara Who?
Welcome back to the meta café. It's been a while, since for some reason my brain's not been engaging with meta since about Christmas. However, recently Clara has been demanding my attention, so here is a rather brief overview of some of my thoughts. I've made subheadings in an attempt at introducing some order. It still feels scattered though, because there is so much there and it's a little like trying to illustrate Captain Jack's 20th Century timelines...
ETA: Oh and as per usual half of this (at least) is promethia_tenk's, as we share a brain.
Clara Who?
Puppet Master
There is someone pulling strings, and he/she/it has been doing so for a long time. Remember, we still don’t know who or what made the TARDIS explode, or why. It is something above and beyond the Silence (the religious order), although the Silence is (presumably) another one of its puppets. So, lets look at what new information we have...
In the prequel for ‘Asylum’ we see a mysterious cloaked and hooded figure invade the Doctor’s dreams and send him a message ‘from Darla von Karlson’. This is important on several levels.
- The figure controls the Doctor’s dreams, refusing to let him wake up until the Doctor bends to his wishes.
- The figure uses Gallifreyan writing/maps to tell the Doctor where to go.
- The figure tells him to go to Skaro, the very name of which the Doctor will not pronounce, until forced.
- It’s all a trap, set up so that the Daleks can capture him.
- And all of this is set in motion so the Doctor can meet Oswin...
I re-watched ‘Asylum of the Daleks’ the other day, and there’s no doubt about it - the asylum is impenetrable. The Alaska couldn’t have crashed, it is literally impossible.
Which means that it was all rigged.
And as I very much doubt that the hooded figure was particularly interested in blowing up the asylum - or fixing the Pond’s marriage - Oswin stands as the only plausible explanation of why the Doctor needed to go there. Possibly the hooded figure also wanted Oswin to delete the Dalek’s knowledge of the Doctor, but that’s not something we can be sure of... What we know is that a) Oswin was put there deliberately and b) the Doctor was sent there in order to meet her.
We also know that c) Mysterious hooded figure is out to get the Doctor in some way or other, but not why.
(Aside: Plz be either Omega or the Valeyard? Please Santa Moff?)
So, what does this mean? Well... we don’t know. Except that Clara Oswin Oswald is important, and that she is something to do with the hooded figure. And there is this wonderful line from the BBCA trailer:
Doctor: "I look at you every single day and I don't understand a single thing about you!"
Is she just a clone, duplicated across time and space? How many are there of her? And more importantly - what is she?
Doctor: When you find something brand new in the world, something you've never seen before, what's the next thing you look for?
STRAX:
A grenade?
DOCTOR:
A prophet.
Eggs
Clearly all of her are more or less identical, although she adapts to her environment. Oswin was tech-savvy and confident, whereas Victorian Clara was changing to suit her environment and very insightful about people. But she’s obviously the same girl - she likes making soufflés, is exceedingly clever, and has those lines: ‘Run you clever boy - and remember’ programmed...
I’m using the word ‘programmed’ deliberately, because I suspect that Oswin might be a thing. Quite probably some kind of egg due to all the egg imagery - certainly something more on the ‘thing’ spectrum than the ‘person’ spectrum. (Unless she was originally one girl, duplicated. The two are not mutually exclusive.)
However, since last season we had a girl who was turned into a weapon (and never quite regained her all of her humanity), it would make sense to go the other way - turn a thing (possibly a weapon) into a person. After all, the line between ‘thing’ and ‘person’ has always been porous in DW - just look at the TARDIS for the best example.
Also remember that Oswin won the day because she refused to let the Daleks overpower her humanity. Whatever she was, she has become ‘real’ to an extent that might not have been foreseen by whoever created her.
Incidentally if she’s an egg, I’m guessing she’s a Gallifreyan egg. Partly because, as just mentioned, we have a precedent with the TARDIS, but also since this is the anniversary and there should be a fair bit of ‘going back to the beginning’ around. Besides, the mysterious figure wrote Gallifreyan and she is so cleverly constructed that the Doctor can't understand her. (Doctor: "I look at you every single day and I don't understand a single thing about you!")
But if she is an egg, what does she hatch into? (I say ‘egg’, but it might as well be ‘key’.) Whether she hatches, or unlocks something, she was created for a purpose. And we are being told in no uncertain terms that Clara is this season’s mystery. Could it be to do with Gallifrey?
However, if she is a thing, a 'constructed' person, how ‘real’ can she be? Well, we’ve got a precedent! (With many thanks to flowsoffire for making my head create the connection.)
From Forest of the Dead:
DONNA
Well, what about the children? The children aren't dead. My children aren't dead.
MISS EVANGELISTA
Your children were never alive.
DONNA
Don't you say that. Don't you dare say that about my children!
MISS EVANGELISTA
Look at your children. Look at all of them, really look.
The camera shows several children on the playground: all wearing identical clothes, all looking the same, exactly like Donna's children.
MISS EVANGELISTA
They're not real. Do you see it now? They're all the same. All the children of this world, the same boy and the same girl, over and over again.
[...]
DONNA
Where are we? Why are the children all the same?
MISS EVANGELISTA
The same pattern over and over. It saves an awful lot of space.
[...]
DONNA
If this is all a dream... whose dream is it?
MISS EVANGELISTA
She's not real. They're fictions. I'm sorry, but now that you understand that, you won't be able to keep a hold. They are sustained only by your belief.
[...]
RIVER (VO)
Now and then, every once in a very long while, every day in a million days, when the wind stands fair, and the Doctor comes to call... everybody lives.
Cut: River closes the TARDIS book. She gives a goodnight kiss to the Girl [CAL], who is now in the third bed in the children's room, beside Donna's kids Ella and Joshua.
RIVER
Sweet dreams, everyone.
She switches off the lights and the screen goes black.
Donna’s children live. Created from nothing, through Donna (and Lee’s) love, they gained independent existence to such an extent that CAL was able to bring them back from never-having-been and make them ‘real’.
(Sidebar: I love the fact that the Doctor’s wife, in her afterlife, is looking after Donna’s children - and they can hear all the stories about how amazing their mother was, how she was the most important woman in the whole wide universe, and how there are people living in the light, singing songs of Donna Noble, a thousand million light-years away who will never forget her. Donna who can never remember, who has to live as so much less than she was, has children who will live forever, and will never forget.)
And remember...
Since all the Claras are one Clara (I’m taking this as a basic truth), I am presuming that she will need to remember all the others in order to access whatever power is locked away/become herself fully.
As the Doctor said: “Nothing is ever forgotten, not completely. And if something can be remembered, it can come back...”
And as we know, that goes for people too.
We have already seen how important it was for the Doctor to remember Oswin, and connect her to Victorian!Clara, in order to go looking for a Clara who was still alive.
Which is where the adorable little prequel fits on so perfectly it hurts - the whole conversation turns around trying to find things that have been lost through the power of memory.
Amy remembered the Doctor back into existence - what will happen when Clara remembers? And why is it so important that the Doctor remembers? And what does he need to remember?
Memory also played a great role in The Snowmen (snow that remembered; the memory worm; Dr Simon who forgot his whole life...), not to mention how the Doctor has been busy erasing himself from the universe, making everyone forget.
And of course, the Library is full of people forgetting and remembering, hiding and being found, and people's names being the key to everything...
DOCTOR
CAL is a child! A child hooked up to a mainframe? Why didn't you tell me this? I needed to know this!
MR LUX
Because she's family! CAL... Charlotte Abigail Lux. My grandfather's youngest daughter.
(I've seen several people speculate that Clara is CAL due to the likeness. I think the chances of that being the case are 0%. Pay attention to the names...)
Clara Who?
‘If name makes meaning, as ‘tis said to make!’
The Divine Comedy, Paradiso, Canto XII, l. 81
From the notes to Canto XII of Paradiso:
The Plantonic doctrine that the inherent quality of things issued in their names, current among mediaeval philosophers and grammarians, is reflected in Dante’s Vita Nuova, where he quotes the formula “nomina sunt consequentia rerum” (“names are the consequences of things”).
I think we can safely say that this Platonic Doctrine is one that Moffat adheres to...
Clara: Feminine form of the Late Latin name Clarus which meant "clear, bright, famous".
Oswin: A boy's name of Old English origin. The meaning of Oswin is "God's friend".
Oswald: Divine power, rule of god. Derived from the Old English elements ‘os’ "god" and ‘weald’ "rule".
For more on this, please see My Oswin theory. I don’t know that the basic theory is correct, but there’s still lots of stuff there that’s relevant. Clara isn't CAL, but I am sure that there are/will be plenty of parallels/thematic relevances. (Oh that line about family.) And I look forward to diving into it all. :)
Also you should all go read purplefringe's Incoherent meta ramblings, which are not incoherent at all. Indeed they are fabulous and clever and deep and touch on lots of stuff I meant to talk about, but couldn't fit in this time round.
ETA: Oh and as per usual half of this (at least) is promethia_tenk's, as we share a brain.
Clara Who?
Puppet Master
There is someone pulling strings, and he/she/it has been doing so for a long time. Remember, we still don’t know who or what made the TARDIS explode, or why. It is something above and beyond the Silence (the religious order), although the Silence is (presumably) another one of its puppets. So, lets look at what new information we have...
In the prequel for ‘Asylum’ we see a mysterious cloaked and hooded figure invade the Doctor’s dreams and send him a message ‘from Darla von Karlson’. This is important on several levels.
- The figure controls the Doctor’s dreams, refusing to let him wake up until the Doctor bends to his wishes.
- The figure uses Gallifreyan writing/maps to tell the Doctor where to go.
- The figure tells him to go to Skaro, the very name of which the Doctor will not pronounce, until forced.
- It’s all a trap, set up so that the Daleks can capture him.
- And all of this is set in motion so the Doctor can meet Oswin...
I re-watched ‘Asylum of the Daleks’ the other day, and there’s no doubt about it - the asylum is impenetrable. The Alaska couldn’t have crashed, it is literally impossible.
Which means that it was all rigged.
And as I very much doubt that the hooded figure was particularly interested in blowing up the asylum - or fixing the Pond’s marriage - Oswin stands as the only plausible explanation of why the Doctor needed to go there. Possibly the hooded figure also wanted Oswin to delete the Dalek’s knowledge of the Doctor, but that’s not something we can be sure of... What we know is that a) Oswin was put there deliberately and b) the Doctor was sent there in order to meet her.
We also know that c) Mysterious hooded figure is out to get the Doctor in some way or other, but not why.
(Aside: Plz be either Omega or the Valeyard? Please Santa Moff?)
So, what does this mean? Well... we don’t know. Except that Clara Oswin Oswald is important, and that she is something to do with the hooded figure. And there is this wonderful line from the BBCA trailer:
Doctor: "I look at you every single day and I don't understand a single thing about you!"
Is she just a clone, duplicated across time and space? How many are there of her? And more importantly - what is she?
Doctor: When you find something brand new in the world, something you've never seen before, what's the next thing you look for?
STRAX:
A grenade?
DOCTOR:
A prophet.
Eggs
Clearly all of her are more or less identical, although she adapts to her environment. Oswin was tech-savvy and confident, whereas Victorian Clara was changing to suit her environment and very insightful about people. But she’s obviously the same girl - she likes making soufflés, is exceedingly clever, and has those lines: ‘Run you clever boy - and remember’ programmed...
I’m using the word ‘programmed’ deliberately, because I suspect that Oswin might be a thing. Quite probably some kind of egg due to all the egg imagery - certainly something more on the ‘thing’ spectrum than the ‘person’ spectrum. (Unless she was originally one girl, duplicated. The two are not mutually exclusive.)
However, since last season we had a girl who was turned into a weapon (and never quite regained her all of her humanity), it would make sense to go the other way - turn a thing (possibly a weapon) into a person. After all, the line between ‘thing’ and ‘person’ has always been porous in DW - just look at the TARDIS for the best example.
Also remember that Oswin won the day because she refused to let the Daleks overpower her humanity. Whatever she was, she has become ‘real’ to an extent that might not have been foreseen by whoever created her.
Incidentally if she’s an egg, I’m guessing she’s a Gallifreyan egg. Partly because, as just mentioned, we have a precedent with the TARDIS, but also since this is the anniversary and there should be a fair bit of ‘going back to the beginning’ around. Besides, the mysterious figure wrote Gallifreyan and she is so cleverly constructed that the Doctor can't understand her. (Doctor: "I look at you every single day and I don't understand a single thing about you!")
But if she is an egg, what does she hatch into? (I say ‘egg’, but it might as well be ‘key’.) Whether she hatches, or unlocks something, she was created for a purpose. And we are being told in no uncertain terms that Clara is this season’s mystery. Could it be to do with Gallifrey?
However, if she is a thing, a 'constructed' person, how ‘real’ can she be? Well, we’ve got a precedent! (With many thanks to flowsoffire for making my head create the connection.)
From Forest of the Dead:
DONNA
Well, what about the children? The children aren't dead. My children aren't dead.
MISS EVANGELISTA
Your children were never alive.
DONNA
Don't you say that. Don't you dare say that about my children!
MISS EVANGELISTA
Look at your children. Look at all of them, really look.
The camera shows several children on the playground: all wearing identical clothes, all looking the same, exactly like Donna's children.
MISS EVANGELISTA
They're not real. Do you see it now? They're all the same. All the children of this world, the same boy and the same girl, over and over again.
[...]
DONNA
Where are we? Why are the children all the same?
MISS EVANGELISTA
The same pattern over and over. It saves an awful lot of space.
[...]
DONNA
If this is all a dream... whose dream is it?
MISS EVANGELISTA
She's not real. They're fictions. I'm sorry, but now that you understand that, you won't be able to keep a hold. They are sustained only by your belief.
[...]
RIVER (VO)
Now and then, every once in a very long while, every day in a million days, when the wind stands fair, and the Doctor comes to call... everybody lives.
Cut: River closes the TARDIS book. She gives a goodnight kiss to the Girl [CAL], who is now in the third bed in the children's room, beside Donna's kids Ella and Joshua.
RIVER
Sweet dreams, everyone.
She switches off the lights and the screen goes black.
Donna’s children live. Created from nothing, through Donna (and Lee’s) love, they gained independent existence to such an extent that CAL was able to bring them back from never-having-been and make them ‘real’.
(Sidebar: I love the fact that the Doctor’s wife, in her afterlife, is looking after Donna’s children - and they can hear all the stories about how amazing their mother was, how she was the most important woman in the whole wide universe, and how there are people living in the light, singing songs of Donna Noble, a thousand million light-years away who will never forget her. Donna who can never remember, who has to live as so much less than she was, has children who will live forever, and will never forget.)
And remember...
Since all the Claras are one Clara (I’m taking this as a basic truth), I am presuming that she will need to remember all the others in order to access whatever power is locked away/become herself fully.
As the Doctor said: “Nothing is ever forgotten, not completely. And if something can be remembered, it can come back...”
And as we know, that goes for people too.
We have already seen how important it was for the Doctor to remember Oswin, and connect her to Victorian!Clara, in order to go looking for a Clara who was still alive.
Which is where the adorable little prequel fits on so perfectly it hurts - the whole conversation turns around trying to find things that have been lost through the power of memory.
Amy remembered the Doctor back into existence - what will happen when Clara remembers? And why is it so important that the Doctor remembers? And what does he need to remember?
Memory also played a great role in The Snowmen (snow that remembered; the memory worm; Dr Simon who forgot his whole life...), not to mention how the Doctor has been busy erasing himself from the universe, making everyone forget.
And of course, the Library is full of people forgetting and remembering, hiding and being found, and people's names being the key to everything...
DOCTOR
CAL is a child! A child hooked up to a mainframe? Why didn't you tell me this? I needed to know this!
MR LUX
Because she's family! CAL... Charlotte Abigail Lux. My grandfather's youngest daughter.
(I've seen several people speculate that Clara is CAL due to the likeness. I think the chances of that being the case are 0%. Pay attention to the names...)
Clara Who?
‘If name makes meaning, as ‘tis said to make!’
The Divine Comedy, Paradiso, Canto XII, l. 81
From the notes to Canto XII of Paradiso:
The Plantonic doctrine that the inherent quality of things issued in their names, current among mediaeval philosophers and grammarians, is reflected in Dante’s Vita Nuova, where he quotes the formula “nomina sunt consequentia rerum” (“names are the consequences of things”).
I think we can safely say that this Platonic Doctrine is one that Moffat adheres to...
Clara: Feminine form of the Late Latin name Clarus which meant "clear, bright, famous".
Oswin: A boy's name of Old English origin. The meaning of Oswin is "God's friend".
Oswald: Divine power, rule of god. Derived from the Old English elements ‘os’ "god" and ‘weald’ "rule".
For more on this, please see My Oswin theory. I don’t know that the basic theory is correct, but there’s still lots of stuff there that’s relevant. Clara isn't CAL, but I am sure that there are/will be plenty of parallels/thematic relevances. (Oh that line about family.) And I look forward to diving into it all. :)
Also you should all go read purplefringe's Incoherent meta ramblings, which are not incoherent at all. Indeed they are fabulous and clever and deep and touch on lots of stuff I meant to talk about, but couldn't fit in this time round.