Howling:Tombstone and "Amelia's Last Farewell"

Did anyone else find issue in the fact that Amy's name wasn't already on the tombstone under Rory's? I might not have even noticed, if it weren't for the fact that the last chapter, Amelia's Last Farewell, was already in the book since the very beginning. (Or at least since we first see the list of chapters.) Which means that, in her own future, she had already made the decision to follow Rory into the past. So why did her name not appear until AFTER the Angel touched her? Even Rory's name was on the tombstone since the shot of it near the very beginning of the episode.

It's a bit odd that we never see Amy or Rory again after the last Angel touches them, also. Which means, in all fairness, we may technically not know when/where they were sent. Even the tombstone itself is a bit vague about the details. There is no date listed for their deaths, only an age. (For some reason Rory's middle name also makes an appearance, but Amy's does not.) So, what if this "fixed point" isn't as "fixed" as it appears?

Throughout the entire episode, we're also given to believe that River wrote the Melody Malone book. But did anyone notice that River was NOT the one using the typewriter? Not at the end of the episode OR the beginning. I say this because for this entire episode, Amy's nails are noticeably painted red, which she does rather often anyway. They also appear to be the same exact nails we see in every shot of the typewriter, on a hand which also happens to be wearing Amy's ring (not River's).

It just seems that the above, along with plenty of other parts of the episode, seem a bit off. The Liberty Angel is still puzzling me. Nothing about it being there actually seemed to have a point. Not only did it so clearly not adhere to the normal rules of an Angel (the only thing it really had in common with them by the end was the faces they make), but it also didn't DO anything. It didn't attack anyone, it didn't time-blink anyone, it didn't chase anyone, nothing. The only thing it managed to do was get to where Amy and Rory would be be jumping- only to do nothing but wait and watch. But for what purpose? Not to stop the paradox, clearly, as it made no obvious attempts to stop them at any point in the episode.

I don't think we have the full story on what is going on in this episode, nor what Amy and Rory did in their time away from the Doctor. (Even her farewell is rather vague and short, and Rory never even got to say his own proper goodbye.) I'm certainly not complaining though. I just think we really haven't seen the end of the Ponds. The 50th anniversary is getting closer and closer, with promises of pulling out all the stops. If anyone from recent past deserves to have a part in it, it's certainly Amy and Rory. (Apologies for rattling on about a bit more than the title suggested.) Saghan ☎  20:10, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the tombstone shows that Rory's death was fixed the moment he noticed the tombstone, but Amy's still wasn't; she had an actual choice to live out her life without Rory, or to get sent back to be with him. Amy making that choice is really the cornerstone of the episode.


 * As for who was writing the story: That's an interesting point; I'll have to watch it again. But assuming Amy _is_ rewriting River's story instead of just tacking on an afterword (I think that's what you're implying, right?), I'm not sure that's a plot point they have to revisit; it could just be a clever parallel for Amy changing the original events. And it's also the kind of thing that makes the story a little better if you notice it, but isn't essential if you miss it. (For example, if Amy wrote it, the conversation on the edge of the building could be word for word what actually happened; if River wrote it, it was partly guesswork.)


 * Finally, while I think Moffat may well revisit Amy and Rory in 2013, I suspect he won't want to undo the tragic ending that he was so proud of (and that the reviewers liked so much). We could see them sending a one-way message to the Doctor, or just being affected by some history-changing event the Doctor is dealing with elsewhere in time—or, more simply, we could see extensive "new flashbacks" to the 5+ years of untelevised (and unnovelised) adventures they've had between TBB and TATM. --70.36.140.233talk to me 21:02, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Lady Liberty did send that detective at the beginning back in time. Presumably the reason that it didn't prevent Amy and Rory from jumping was that it was being observed. Even if none of the four main cast were looking at her, she's pretty freaking big. It's reasonable enough to assume that someone was looking at her. Amy was typing at the end because she wrote the afterword, but apart from that it was River. It probably wasn't actually Alex Kingston's hands, but that doesn't really matter. The tombstone not initially having Amy's name was probably just because Amy hadn't made the decision to go back yet. Kind of like the blank tombstone in Back to the Future: Part 3, that didn't settle on anything until Buford Tannen was arrested. We may see Amy and Rory again for the 50th anniversary, but given that they just left I think most people would rather see companions who haven't been around for a while. Captain Jack, at the very least, but hopefully a few classic companions.Icecreamdif ☎  21:04, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Liberty actually _was_ being observed by at least one of the TARDIS crew for most of the time. Amy was watching her until Rory climbed onto the ledge; Rory was watching her almost the entire time she was on the ledge; River looked back after spotting Amy and Rory. There were a few seconds of gaps, but it's not like she was unobserved the whole time, as many people here seem to think.


 * Other than that: I suspect Moffat will be bringing old companions (and foes, and maybe Doctors) back in multiple episodes throughout 2013, not just the special. He's harped on the fact that the whole year is an anniversary enough times, and I doubt anyone would be disappointed if Jack or Ace were in, say, episodes 805 and 806 instead of 814. So, there's plenty of room for Amy and Rory in there somewhere. --70.36.140.233talk to me 21:09, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * The chapter title "Amelia's Last Farewell" is non-specific -- the very reason they were looking at chapter titles instead of reading the text. It doesn't say to whom it's her last farewell. Had she chosen to stay with the Doctor & River, it would have been her last farewell to Rory & the chapter title would still have fitted. As long as she made a last farewell to someone, anyone, it would have fitted. The gravestone inscription, by contrast, was specific. Once Rory had read it, he had to be sent back by the Angel. The added inscription about Amy didn't appear until she had made & implemented her decision to go with him. She had a real choice & the inscription appeared only once that choice had been acted on. That part was Amy's Choice again, this time in irrevocable reality. And she made the same choice: Rory.


 * It was explicitly stated, near the end, that River wrote the "novel" & (somehow) got it to Amy so that Amy could write the afterword & get the thing published. Conversations when Amy was present but River wasn't needn't be guesswork, however. If Amy gets the typescript before publication, she can correct (or insert) those conversations. Provided that River gets the Doctor's account of his actions when none of the other 3 were present & Amy gets Rory's account, all 4 points of view will be as accurate as memory can make them. The "novel" would then be a collaborative effort by the 4 of them, just as the actions were. (I'm usually 89, but I'm only 2, just now)--2.96.17.102talk to me 23:27, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Your second paragraph is the point I was trying to make, but put much more clearly. But I think what Saghan was arguing is that Amy _didn't_ get a typescript from River, because she was the one doing the typing. But even if it was Amy doing the typing (I'm still not sure), she could have retyped River's typescript, or retyped a few pages. Or maybe River gave her a longhand manuscript and said "Mom, type my homework for me." (I'll bet anyone born after the 70s doesn't believe people used to say that… but they did.) The only significance I can see if the typing hands are clearly Amy's is that it's an extra clue to the same conclusion that you and we all already came to (Amy could have edited River's book), but that many viewers might not have. --70.36.140.233talk to me 05:54, October 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * A longhand manuscript seems unlikely. If River didn't send a typescript to Amy, she'd be much more likely to send an audio recording of some kind. The technology to play a recording did exist at the relevant time, as long as River was careful about the format. That's just a detail, though. The main point is unaffected by it: River conveyed the "novel" to Amy somehow, in some form, & Amy could revise it in whatever way was needed.


 * "Mom, type my homework for me.": I was born (long) before the 1970s but I'd never have got away with that. Mind you, my mother was a teacher (so was my father) & I'd just have got the response, "The typewriter's over there. Type it yourself!" --2.96.17.13talk to me 08:20, October 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone (not me) found an interesting image on Facebook. Source of image is not specified. If it was Moffat/the BBC, it's wonderful. If it's a fan effort, it's a nice idea but nothing more. A detail that bothers me is that Sarah Jane is credited as a staff reporter, when she was a freelance for most of her career, except very early on (before she met the Doctor). --2.96.17.13talk to me 08:53, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

70: what makes you think that the computer made children less lazy about typing their homework? Just because we had Microsoft Word doesn't mean early middle school me didn't pester my parents to help me type my homework. This is off topic.

Back on topic: if that was a BBC made article, then it's interesting but still doesn't change much.

I think everything else has basically been said, but i doubt that we will see the Ponds back for the 50th anniversary, if only because it would be too soon after they've left. Imamadmad ☎  11:16, October 1, 2012 (UTC)