Howling:Clara's Super Powers?

(I'm moving this off of Clara's Talk page to The Howling, seems more appropriate)

Clara was a human woman, albeit one scattered throughout the Doctor's timeline of 900+ years. But she had no superhuman powers. She was pretty good with computers (thanks to the Great Intelligence, by the way) and pretty clever but that was about it.

Exactly how could she possibly undo all of the damage that Great Intelligence wrecked upon the Doctor's life it entered his timestream? I'm not sure if even a Time Lord could follow the tracks of the GI and undo whatever they did, much less a human being.

Any ideas? Badwolff ☎ 20:44, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it appears that Clara simply "overwrites" the Great Intelligence in all of its appearances. --Bold Clone 20:52, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

One thing that Clara managed to do that Time Lords couldn't is access Gallifrey's past. It was pretty solidly established in the classic series that time travel into Gallifrey's past was prevented, although it wasn't explained how. By going via the Doctor's timestream, Clara walked through whatever protections there were.

On a closely related point: In The End of Time, the Doctor explained that "nothing could get in or get out" of the time lock on the Time War, "except something that was already there". In that story, it was the noise in the Master's head that was "already there" & provided a way through the time lock. The Doctor's timestream was "already there", too, so Clara ought to have had a way of walking through the time lock & into the Time War. (The same, of course, applies to the GI.) --89.242.69.88talk to me 01:25, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I have a theory on Clara's "powers" but it may be too "spoilery" even for here. [Unsigned but appears to be DCT 12:14, May 22, 2013 (UTC)]

It's up to you whether you post it or not but, if you do post ir (or anything else), please sign your contributions. You can do that by typing 4 tildes ( ~ ) or with the signature button on the toolbar. --2.96.29.191talk to me 12:30, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, was supposed to sign it but was distracted and rushed by technical considerations. I am actually loving the simplicity of those tildesDCT ☎  15:55, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it. It's just that I've run into a succession of unsigned contributions lately, in several discussions, & decided it was time someone posted a reminder. Yours just happened to be the first unsigned one I found after deciding that. Personally, I try to remember always to use the "preview" button to check I've not missed anything out, like the signature -- but I occasionally forget, too. --2.96.16.178talk to me 16:41, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Back to the topic (more or less): One thing we don't yet know is how much the original Clara will remember of her other lives. If she does remember them, there'll be another reason for her to be very special to the Doctor -- she'll be the only other person still around who remembers Gallifrey as it was. --2.96.17.223talk to me 12:57, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

potenitally and technically could clara be an access to the time war and gallifrey as i assumed she could go to gallifrey because by entering the doctors timestream she was then in a timywhimy sense 'always' on galifrey rather than traveling through the time lock, like the drums in the masters head (i might have said the same thing as above)...but i digress if she was on galifrey within the time lock could she then on only remember it but act as a access point like the master and the diamond in the end of time. 87.83.10.218talk to me 13:36, May 23, 2013 (UTC) ers the events of Journey

also she now remembers the events of journey to the centre of the tradis so presumably she will remember what ever it was that she read about the doctor from the History of the time war book in the library 87.83.10.218talk to me 14:29, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems highly likely. There's no guarantee she actually remembers everything that happened but she remembers enough to tell us that she could remember what she read, especially if something happened to trigger the memory.

On the Time War & time lock: As I said above (when I was 89, at 01:25, May 22, 2013), the Doctor's timestream ought to have given Clara a way to get through the time lock into the Time War. That probably applies only while she's in his timestream. Once the Doctor gets her back out, she'll probably not retain the ability to get through the time lock. Remember, though that he hasn't yet got her out. The episode ended before that could happen, so there might be more complications to come (in the Anniversary Special), before the Doctor & Clara finally get out.

There could be a Clara in the Time War but she'd have to be one the Doctor doesn't remember (not yet, anyway). If he had remembered her, seeing her in The Snowmen would have set all kinds of alarm bells ringing immediately. Anyone he recognised as a survivor of the Time War would have that effect!

That reminds me: When Clara spoke of her many lives, she said, "I was born, I lived and I died." The Clara who told the First Doctor which TARDIS to steal was on Gallifrey (in the Citadel of the Time Lords, no less) at a time when there were no humans there. (It was during the Fourth Doctor's time, after he'd parted from Sarah Jane, that humans were first allowed to go there.) If she was born there, that Clara was presumably a Gallifreyan, because her parents would have to be, though maybe not a Time Lord herself. --2.96.31.103talk to me 15:33, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted this thread with one question and, like always, I come back and find dozens of ideas I hadn't considered. It could be that the next episode features The Doctor & Clara getting out of the timestream. I'm still not sure how "our" Clara remained whole, the person we knew before, if she was torn into millions of pieces and strewn throughout the Doctor's timestream. But I think this just going to be a plot hole that doesn't get explained.


 * One question I have that was brought up in a review of the episode. The Doctor looked for our 21st century Clara after encountering her in the 19th century and Asylum of the Daleks (unknown time). And THEN Clara entered the timestream and went back into time to do those acts. So, like in the naming of Melody Pond, which happened first? Melody Pond was named after Mels...but Mels got her name because she was Melody. So who first came up with the name Melody? No one.


 * So, it's because of future Clara that The Doctor was saved (more than twice) and caused him to seek out future Clara that led to her then entering his timestream and setting this course of action in motion. But he was only saved in the past because of future actions he couldn't have known about. This show plays fast and loose with cause and effect! Badwolff ☎  21:47, May 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * The Doctor & Clara roaming around the Doctor's timestream (while trying to get out) would let them visit any of the events shown over the last 50 years & as many of those events as Moffat wants them to. As I keep having to say, I don't know what Moffat has in that very strange mind of his, but exploring the Doctor's timestream seems to me like a rather neat way of having an Anniversary Special that revisits all kinds of things throughout the show's 50 years. --89.241.67.98talk to me 23:02, May 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes sense but I'm not sure whether it is possible for The Doctor and Clara to enter into The Doctor's timestream and stay who they are...remember, Clara was supposed to have fractured into hundreds (millions?) of different Claras. I still don't understand how, at the end of the episode, The Doctor was able to enter his own timestream and find HIS Clara, in tact.


 * I mean, if that isn't a temporal paradox, I'm not sure what is. He was warned about even coming to Trenzalore, much less walking into his past timestream. I realize that, ultimately, it's Steven Moffat who controls the laws of time, not the Time Lords so who knows what we'll see. But, I would think, being in your own timestream might allow you to watch your life pass before your eyes but I'm not sure whether you can walk back into moments earlier in your life. Badwolff ☎  19:57, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * He was indeed warned. What's more, he seems to understand (because he's a Time Lord) why it's such a dangerous thing to do & probably didn't need to be warned. Nonetheless, he's done it.


 * The warnings are most likely to be for our benefit -- so the audience knows it's a really drastic situation -- & that makes me think Moffat's setting up to show us the consequences. There's something he wants to do & the paradoxical situation is how he intends to bring it about.


 * The presence of Clara & the Doctor in the Doctor's timestream would (for example) allow Moffat to tell a story about Gallifrey & the Time Lords without needing to undo the time lock or the Time War. Please note that that is only an example. I'm not trying to predict that that really is what he has in mind, just to say it's one of the many possibilities. I don't know what story he has in mind.


 * I think the Doctor was able to find "his" Clara because she's the one who is inside his timestream. The others are/were "echoes" of her (as she called them). Maybe there'll be "echoes" of Eleven before we're finished.


 * Anyway, it is definitely a temporal paradox -- & Moffat likes temporal paradoxes! He thinks they're great fun. I don't know if you've read "What I did on my Christmas Holidays by Sally Sparrow", the short story from which Blink was adapted. If you've not read it, there's a link to the online version at the bottom of the article. In "What I did...", Moffat plays with several paradoxes of varying degrees of importance. (BTW, the story's worth reading for its own sake, anyway.) Moffat isn't going to be ignoring the laws of time, he's going to be using them. --89.241.75.178talk to me 23:14, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Could Clara actually be the Doctor? In the final scenes of The Name of the Doctor (TV story), set in the apparent wasteland of the Doctor's time stream, all the Doctors are present, including John Hurt's figure; and then there's Clara. Maybe she is part of the Doctor by virtue of existing within his time stream (and being saved by the Doctor). She'd make an interesting #12 (or #13, depending on whether Hurt counts as a previous Doctor). 98.180.49.69talk to me 18:12, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Clara couldn't already be the Doctor. She will have an unusually strong connection with him now, though, & that connection may get stronger before Eleven regenerates. They're not out of his timestream yet & there are two specials still to come. (I was 89 earlier.) --2.101.62.165talk to me 15:03, June 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * A really awful thought -- what if the 2012 April Fool's announcement was actually the plan for 2013? doctorwhotv.co.uk:"Next Doctor Will Be Female" The joke was that the Doctor would meet Omega in the Christmas special and regenerates into Jenna Louise Coleman: that could actually work out in 2013. [Unsigned but appears to be 70.168.103.253 01:57, June 7, 2013 (UTC)]


 * You're right. It is a really awful thought. I've no objection to a female Doctor (if they get someone good) but I don't think J-LC would be the right choice. Either we'd lose Clara after only half a series or J-LC would be horribly overworked & it'd cost a fortune to insert a 2nd copy of her into so many scenes. It'd wreck the schedule, too, taking twice as long to shoot almost everything. As an "April Fool", it might be tolerable; as an actual plan, no. The accountants would never stand for it! --89.242.71.6talk to me 03:41, June 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * I had this thought recently when I learned Matt Smith was leaving. I would miss Clara too but her story appears to be over. The problem with these serialized dramas these days is that when you connect any of your characters to a plot mystery they can start to tread water when the mystery is solved. We've just seen it happen with Karen Gillan. I don't believe that it's likely they'll do this but at the moment there's little stopping them. Execpt sense, hopefully.DCT ☎  14:31, June 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Clara's story (rather obviously) isn't over yet. The initial mystery has been partly solved. That's all. We now know why she turns up in different times & places. We don't yet know by whom she was put in touch with the Doctor. We don't know how she & the Doctor will get out of his timestream. Much more importantly, we don't yet know the consequences for him or for her.


 * As you say, "they can start to tread water when the mystery is solved," but "can" doesn't mean "should" or "inevitably will". If they do "tread water", it's poor writing. It can be & ought to be much more interesting to see how a character is affected by what has happened than to see only what has happened.


 * Much of the revived series -- much of what's been good about the revived series -- has been exploring the consequences for a character of a climactic event. RTD began with the aftermath of the Time War & explored its consequences for the Doctor. Moffat seems to be continuing to explore those consequences.


 * Entering the Doctor's timestream & being "splintered" throughout time & space is a climactic event for Clara. How will she react to it? How has she been changed by it? What kind of person will she be? If Moffat wants to exploit it (& has the ability to do so), he has enough material in those questions to make Clara a fascinating character for several years yet. (I was 89 earlier.) --2.96.28.29talk to me 16:17, June 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Totally, agree in principle but the most problematic thing about these "soft mysteries" is the writer often doesn't think like we do. They can put something in casually and not realize that us fans will jump on it and build a whole new mystery around that they never saw and have no intention of returning to. Sometimes I suspect Steven Moffat does it deliberately just to confuse us.

On the other matter yes I agree even more so and have debated it on other forums about other shows. Nevertheless we did see it happen with Karen Gillan and no sooner had Amy stepped off the TARDIS at the end of The God Complex she started to become half a character. So much so Steven Moffat couldn't even manage to write her into any more than the last five to ten minutes of The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe. Which is not how you're supposed to treat your co-leads.


 * So no I don't think Clara is done and have my suspicions about her future revelations but given what Steven Moffat said about The Name of The Doctor I can't be sure he sees it the same way.DCT ☎  13:29, June 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't think that Clara has to become "half a character", nor that she should -- but I agree that she might, if the writers do lose interest in the character.


 * With Amy & Rory (both, not just Amy), there was an opportunity to do something new to the show: exploring what their lives would be like when they were spending some of their time living a "normal" life & the rest travelling with the Doctor. There were gestures towards that but they were no more than gestures.


 * "Which is not how you're supposed to treat your co-leads." Agreed. Especially not when they're as good as Gillan & Darvill.


 * With Clara, she seems to spend most of the week as the Maitlands' nanny, then take time off on Wednesdays to go travelling with the Doctor. Her time away, from the Maitlands' point of view, seems to be fairly short but, of course, that has nothing much to do with how long it is in her timeline. Again, there has been a gesture towards exploring that -- the end of The Crimson Horror & Nightmare in Silver. We've immediately been taken away from that & given a situation, not yet resolved, where she'll have something even more drastic to cope with -- the aftermath of being "splintered in time" by entering the Doctor's timestream in The Name of the Doctor. Even if Moffat's interested in the effects her situation will have on her character, he has now given himself "too much of a good thing". He can't properly deal with the demands & effects of the half-domestic/half-time-travel life when he also has to deal with the consequences of Trenzalore. It's not that he isn't bright enough to figure out the way they'll interact; it's simply that one will inevitably take our attention away from the other.


 * The time to deal with the half-domestic/half-time-travel life was when we had the Ponds. Clara is going to have too much else (of too high a priority) to cope with. --89.240.242.125talk to me 16:31, June 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I would hope so, @89, but I'm not optimistic. Although I'm a hearty Moffat supporter, he gives short shrift to the domestic lives of his Companions, especially compared to Davies. Just think of Rose, Martha and Donna...we knew all about their families members (although they all basically had the same, awful Mother figure). But aside from a glimpse of Amy's now restored parents at the"Big Bang" wedding and the late stage introduction of Rory's father, Brian, we don't get a full look into non-TARDIS part of Moffat's Companions' lives. I think "The Power of Three" tried, a bit, to address this but that was less about the Ponds at home and more about The Doctor trying to live on a regular, Earth timeline.


 * What is so lacking in Clara's storyline is building up her relationship with The Doctor as was done so thoroughly with Amy in "The Eleventh Hour" and much of Series 5. I think this was was why some viewers don't care much about Clara as a character. The writers had 8 episodes in Series 7.2 that they could work on building up the character's backstory and how trust between her and Doctor grew but aside from the brief intro to "The Rings of Akhaten", that was just not included as a priority. So it was almost like the scripts were written with <--Insert Companion's Name Here--> for her character. Badwolff ☎  19:18, June 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you about the lack of building up that relationship. It's something I strongly dislike (the lack, I mean; agreeing with you doesn't upset me). Throughout the whole of Series 7, I've felt there was something missing -- not in every episode but in most of them. It doesn't compare well with Series 5, especially in the introduction of the companion. (I don't want to complicate matters by comparing Moffat with RTD, when I can compare Moffat with Moffat.)


 * The 50th Anniversary Special has been in the works for years. A 50th anniversary isn't something that can easily sneak up on anyone unexpectedly. Moffat has been building up to it since he took over from RTD. He must have known fairly well in advance at least roughly what he wanted to do with it. If, after his plans were well advanced, Moffat was unexpectedly faced with a cut in the number of episodes available (about half-a-seriesworth of episodes), it'd explain a lot. He'd have to get the plot to the right point for the Anniversary Special, so something other than plot would need to be cut out: something like character interaction.


 * A loss of episodes would explain quite a lot: the feeling that there's something missing from Series 7 (explained because there is something missing), the scarcity of DW in what ought to be its biggest year, the huge gap between "The Name..." & the Special, and so on. From the previous pattern, there ought to have been about half a dozen episodes in early autumn this year. Screening "The Name..." at about the end of September or the beginning of October would make sense, given that the Special will be on 23 November -- a gap of a couple of months is long enough to let anticipation build but not long enough to let it fade again, whereas six months does risk that fading effect. Even the "one-parters only" thing would be explained -- there are no two-parters because they all had to be reduced to one-parters to fit the reduced episode count. We know Moffat can do better than he has recently, because we saw him do it in Series 5. If the bean-counters have got in the way, it'd make sense of many things that otherwise don't make sense. Bean-counters seldom care (or even know) whether the beans are good or bad. I don't like this theory but it does seem to fit. --89.242.73.239talk to me 01:26, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Good points, as always, @89, but I don't quite get the viewer complaint that there are fewer episodes. I expect 14 episodes over 12 months and that's we are got with Series 7 (Sept. 2012>May 2013). I can only hope that Series 8 airs (in part or wholly) in Spring so we can get 14 episodes over 2014. I think there was a long gap between The Wedding of River Song and Asylum of the Daleks (Summer 2011>September 2012?) so that was a long dead zone without episodes. I'd be really disappointed if there was 9 month wait between Christmas and the beginning of Series 8 and I'm sure there would be a lot of fan complaints.

I agree, this six month empty period is surprising considering how much HYPE Moffat has given the 50th Anniversary year (and this started at the beginning of Series 7 in 2012). I mean, there is that movie about the early years of the show (which I expect will air in November, too). He kept talking about "surprises" so I'm thinking there is something that neither he nor the BBC has revealed that will happen at the end of the summer or early fall...could be a special or it could be more webisodes. They could really easily post short video tapes online although I'm not sure fans have much patience with teasers...I hope they'd be little stories in themselves rather than, "Oooh, I bet you can hardly wait for Nov. 23rd...it's going to be good!" ;-) Badwolff ☎  20:38, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Badwolff: How many episodes in 2013, the Golden Anniversary year? Ten, including both the Anniversary & Christmas Specials. That's 5 short, considering that the the Anniversary Special is a one-off extra.

Additionally, the more the BBC & Moffat hype the Anniversary Special, the more danger there is that it will be perceived as a let-down, even if it's excellent in itself. Hype leads people to promise themselves that they're going to get what they personally want. Since the sum total of what all the fans want is far, far beyond anything that could actually be produced, most will find that some of what they want ain't there. In the absence of hype that's led them to believe it's been promised, that wouldn't do much harm. With too much hype, it could do quite a lot of harm.

As I say, the problem isn't what's actually promised. The problem is what the hype leads people to convince themselves has been promised, when really it hasn't. If you organise a birthday party for (say) 4 children who have different favourites, it's asking for trouble to seem to promise each & every one of them that the one cake will be "your particular favourite". Tears & bad temper are virtually guaranteed.

Now think how many will be at this party & how many different favourites they have! (I was 89 earlier.) --2.101.53.202talk to me 23:04, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Have we strayed slightly off topic? --2.101.53.202talk to me 23:05, June 12, 2013 (UTC)