Howling:Amy's childhood (with the cracks)

Okay, there's one thing I've been thinking about and would like to know what others say. The Doctor said Amy's life didn't make sense. Fair enough. But did Aunt Sharon actually live with her in the timeline with the cracks? Or, was the reason she was all alone at home at night because it was her house, but not Aunt Sharon's? I mean, her parents were taken out of time, but she still existed (the erasing from cracks is delightfully screwy in that way). So was her house still her house, and Aunt Sharon never lived with her? Sure, it's totally wrong for a child to be living alone, but would the cracks lead to a lack of ability to perceive that?

Against the arguement of separate living is Sharon speaking to the mental health professionals. For it is that Amy is in the same house both ways. And that she still lived there as an adult with no indications of Aunt Sharon being there. And she is still in the same bedroom (the child bedroom?) even as an adult.

Just an idea.

207.171.251.170 18:35, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

When Amy's parents were erased, it was her and Aunt Sharron living in the house alone. Sharron at least had been there for most of Amy's life, but it seems that during Amy's adulthood, either Aunt Sharron moved to another house, or was, too, erased, without afrfecting the consequences, such as her making Amy see psychaticsts, ect.. In the finale, the Doctor commented on her empty the house was and how everyone who lived there was gone, aside from Amy. He said the crack ate away at Amy's life, meaning that, one-by-one, her family dissapeared until it was only her lfet in the house.
 * 1) Aunt Sharon lives with Amelia; it was shown in the finale.
 * 2) the cracks only erase and don't retcon...whatever's deleted from the timeline never existed but the timeline itself doesn't work around it and make any attempt to mend the gaps...they also only affect what's afterward but not before, that's why Post-Cracks Amy can exist without having parents....Similarly, that's why they were still involved in the Silurian incident despite that Rory never existed203.168.176.42 00:31, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delton Menace 18:19, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

But the events of The Eleventh Hour don't support that. When the doctor says 'You were a child five minutes ago'. Amy replies 'You sound like my aunt.' The implication is that she still has an aunt. And we see her aunt in her childhood taking her to the museum and with the psychiatrist - events which come after the night when the doctor either did or didn't crash the Tardis in her garden. So where was Aunt Sharon on that night? This was not explained satisfactorily and I, for one, was disappointed that the finale offered no explanation for that. I was expecting Aunt Sharon to have a more significant role at the end and consider this to be a plothole.86.190.57.165 21:26, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

It was already explained that Aunt Sharron left Amelia alone at night, and her aunt was at least gone by 2010, as the Doctor confirmed... and the fact that Amy was clearly the only one living there by 2010, which he noted. Delton Menace 05:23, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yes...what are you, brainless? How is this a bloody plot-hole? She just didn't show up...Your world must be filled with plot-holes:

Where is Donna Noble now? It is a plot-hole!

Where is Wilf? It is a plot-hole!

Where is Mickey? It is a plot-hole!

Where is Martha? It is a plot-hole!

Where is Sarah-Jane? It is a plot-hole!

Where is Jack? It is a plot-hole!

Where is the Bad Wolf? It is a plot-hole!

Where are the other incarnations of the Doctor? It is a plot-hole!

Where is every bloody character that has appeared in the entire show? It's a plot-hole!

Why wasn't UNIT shown? It's a plot hole!--203.168.176.42 14:36, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Amy was living alone in the house by 2010 as she was an adult by then (but when did the doctor confirm it?) She wasn't living alone in the house when she was seven. When the doctor says (just before he flies the Pandorica into the heart of the explosion) something on the lines of 'Little Amelia Pond - all alone in that big empty house' Amy mutters 'I had Aunt Sharon'. But she was alone in the house the whole of the night that the Tardis landed and yes, I do want that explained even if its only by showing, in the finale, that Aunt Sharon was an uncaring character. They didn't show that. And its not the same as asking where characters from other series were. This is about the internal logic of this series.(Things have been explained in other series - such as the absence of the Torchwood team when Saxon says he has sent them off to the Himalayas.)

And who are you calling brainless? This is a '''forum. I'm expressing an opinion '''in response to the first poster. It may not concur with your opinion but civility costs nothing and oils the wheels of debate.81.141.81.52 09:12, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

you said it yourself: Amy said she had Aunt Sharon, and you still think this is a plot-hole...It's like saying they must show the Torchwood team in Himalayas on-screen. Did the camera showed every room in the house in the Eleventh Doctor? Is Aunt Sharon strapped on a chair with deadlock seal? What If Aunt Sharon were just taking a dump, must the camera show it too? Or did you expect the Doctor to invasively search every room in the house of a little girl? You know when shots are edited, do you consider them plot-holes and ask people how did he get from exterior to interior? How did his arm move? Not showing Aunt Sharon didn't contradict anything; I just couldn't imagine what kind of people would not be able to grasp such a simple concept.--203.168.176.42 14:40, July 9, 2010 (UTC)