Moff Who, Clara, the Silence, predictions (with diagrams!)

[promethia_tenk]

*deep breath* Ok, if you're gonna play at guessing at Moffat Who, sooner or later you have to put your cards on the table. So here's how I see this whole thing going. It's a question of . . . aesthetics. Let me show you:







And that's my 2 cents.

(If you leave a comment and I've disappeared, I'm sorry. I have today off and then life goes sideways for awhile. I will do my best.)

Comments

[elisi]

♥ ♥ ♥

It makes ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD. I don't know how (*pokes Clara*), but I'm sure she'll be at the centre of everything. (Not sure that she's a Pond though. I'm still more inclined to think Gallifreyan in some way.)

Eggs. It'll be to do with eggs, I just can't see it clearly.

[kass]

Oh! Oh, I love this. Diagrams! Arrows! Magical rainbow love beams! <3 <3 <3

flowsoffire from LJ

[(Anonymous)]

*torn* Personally, I'm not big on the idea of Clara being another Pond woman - I feel that the lost-child!dynamic has been used up with the River storyline… Then again, we could say the same of the whole "who are you?" thing, and Clara will be a mystery anyhow. Your diagrams are really nice, I like the way you had it all thought out, made it seem a lot clearer… And I would LOVE it if Clara tied up the loose ends, my god. To be honest, I might sound cynical, but I was thinking Moffat will just be leaving plotholes behind - so if in the end, Clara brings it all together, I'll be delighted!
Very nice seeing your thoughts about this anyway =)

[owlboy]

Wasn't the Doctor already erasing himself from history before Clara came along? Or was he just keeping a low profile...

[honeynoir]

Crosses fingers for magical rainbow love beams!

[tenlittlebullets]

I'm not sure she's a Pond, but the diagrams are convincing about her general place in the narrative: little bubbles of plot and character enter the scene, seemingly from the sidelines, and then your view rotates and they turn out to have been central all along. Clara's going to be one of those.

I think the Ponds are also still in play, even if they've officially exited, because they're caught up in too many still-running plot threads. Other things we still don't know include: why the TARDIS blew up on Amy and Rory's wedding day, and what's behind that proto-TARDIS in the Lodger and the s6 opener. (Clara has an impeccable sense of time...) There's one other detail I keep coming back to: Amy Pond's house doesn't just have too many rooms, it has too many stories. Literally. It's a two-story house from the outside, and yet on the upper-floor landing there is a very prominent staircase. That just so happens to be identical to the one in the Lodger. It's way too prominent to be a continuity error, especially in a scene that draws attention to the extra room nobody notices. There's an extra story folded into Amy's house that isn't there on the outside.

[snogged]

I love your diagrams and your thinky thoughts.

Can't wait to see what's in store for the Doctor, Clara, and River when the new episodes start back up again.

[sea_thoughts]

This makes a lot of sense. :)

[kaffy_r]

I saw this back when you first wrote it, and really got a kick out of the circles and lines and rainbow rays of love, but I wasn't sure I agreed with all of it. At the time, I wasn't sure whether I wanted Clara to be part of the Pond saga (not because I don't like her, never that; just that - hmmmm scratch that. See comment below), but people are pointing out so many things that are thematically consistent and could also be consistent plotwise ... it could happen.

As to what I said above, I think I stopped myself in the middle of falling for the "does everything have to route back to ______? Why can't [writer A/B/C/Moffat] do something new?" fallacy. And I caught myself. After reading this: "Moff is big on going over the same ideas again and again, but he never does them in exactly the same way. He's always building on top of what he did before, revising, circling back around. And he's constantly changing things in ways that don't just alter the immediate situation but everything that came before." from flowsoffire, a great huge honking light went on in my head (or a huge honking bell rang, not sure which), as to why the "he always recycles stuff and that's bad!!!" complaint always bothered me.

Bless you both: why on earth should any writer be invalidated for returning to archetypes, messages, imagery that speaks to her, as long as she does so well? And Moffat always does it well, finding something new to see in the old imagery, or finding a new way to use it.

And yes, I'm finally going through a whole bunch of peoples' commentary and meta now. After way too long and after the second half of the season has started.

Oh, I miss my Ponds. I have yet to work through that.