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)

To start, the point made above about not knowing who "Amelia's Last Farewell" was being written to is a completely fair argument, and I had not even considered that. So thank you for bringing that to my attention. But I still don't quite agree with Amy's name not already being on the tombstone. Even if she could have written her "last farewell" to someone else, she would STILL have to have been sent to the past in order to write the book. Since I am convinced it was Amy typing from the very beginning of the episode, she would have had to have ALWAYS (in a "fixed point" kind of manner) "already" have made the decision she made in the end. Even River says she has to send the book to Amy to get it published, meaning that she, like the Doctor, apparently can't go back to that time era even with the Vortex Manipulator. (Which I'm still going back and forth about believing that's actually how she got to 1938 in the first place. Sure that's what she told Rory, but she is known to be a habitual liar. If she wanted the Doctor to show up, she could have just as easily used her Vortex Manipulator to just go pick up him and Amy, as well as using it to get out of the Angel's grip without breaking her own wrist. Or even simply teleporting the entire TARDIS crew out of there when Rory decided to try to run rather than accept his fate. I'm starting to believe her VM no longer works.) Also, someone mentioned that it was still probably River typing and not Amy, and that it just wasn't Alex Kingston's hands. I could have almost agreed there (since it seems River also had red nails for the entire episode) except for the ring. Whoever is using the typewriter clearly has a wedding/engagement ring on their left hand, both in the beginning and the end. Earlier in the episode when River is explaining that Rory was moved in space, not time, we clearly see her holding the book and the device with her left hand, and it's also clear that she's wearing no such ring, and the Doctor (officially her husband now) certainly never gave her one. I doubt they would have put one on the hands typing if it was supposed River. Plus, we just recently learned that after quitting as a model, Amy strangely decided to become a writer. So she certainly now has the necessary experience to have written the book.

Also, having obsessively now re-watched the episode with gratuitous use of pause and rewind, I still have some issues.

Firstly: I (especially in reference to Doctor Who) have always adhered to the argument that "If you don't see it happen on screen, it's not confirmed." That being said, we never actually see the Liberty Angel do anything to Detective Garner. We never see the Liberty Angel do much of anything really. It also still seems like the Liberty Angel (along with a few of the others) doesn't behave like the Angels we've seen in the past. When Rory steps on to the ledge, it's clear that there are plenty of cars driving around, so I simply refuse to believe it could have walked there without being seen. (Someone argued above that even without the TARDIS crew looking at it, someone on the street likely was, but even that would mean there would have been no possible way for it to walk that far. Rory looks at the Statue of Liberty before going inside Winter Quay, and it's quite far off, and its path to WQ would have been wide open- giving the people of the city more than enough time to observe it.) Also, the scenes of both Rory and S. Garner making it to the roof are almost identical, and in BOTH cases, they paused before ever turning around to look at it. Giving the Liberty Angel plenty of time to make its move. Yet it doesn't. Plus, when Amy steps onto the ledge, she and Rory were both far too busy looking at each other, and the Doctor and River had not even made it to the roof yet. Even when the Doctor and River DO make it to the roof, the shot shows them coming up the ladder from an angle in which the Liberty Angel would have been behind them, so they weren't looking at it. (And Rory and Amy were still too busy looking at each other.) Someone above also said "there may have been a few seconds of gaps, but that it's not like she was unobserved those whole time". The problem being that a few seconds is all it takes. Even blinking takes a fraction of a second, and that's always been plenty of time for them move or attack. I don't mind Moffat including something in an episode and then not using it, as it's happened plenty of times. But something as big and specific as the Statue of Liberty being an Angel? That's a bit too fishy to me. (Though again, ALL of this is just speculation, and while I'll be disappointed if nothing is ever explained, that doesn't mean I won't simply get over it and move on. It wouldn't be the first time.) [Just as a side note to the Angel seemingly doing nothing but watching these events happen rather being involved- doesn't that seem very reminiscent of the Silent who came to Lake Silencio just to watch and confirm the Doctor's death?]

Next: The Angel in the graveyard now bothers me as well. The whole "it's a survivor" theory of the Doctor's is a bit thin. Really? It survived a paradox? And then what- waited in the graveyard until present day to get its revenge? Again, a thin explanation. I'd also like to point out that during that scene, there were moments where the Angel was most definitely either being looked at while it did something, or not doing anything when it WASN'T being looked at. Even when it blinks Rory (a term I much prefer over "zap", lol) We can easily see that Amy would have been able to see it. It's not directly behind Rory from her point of view, it's off to the side of him. Then after River leans down to kiss Amy's hand, she stops looking at the Angel, and the Doctor stopped looking at it long before that. Leaving Amy as the only one watching. Unfortunately, she blinks SEVERAL times. I'd normally chalk this up as just having been overlooked in filming if not for the fact that even as far back as 'Blink', all of the shots of someone staring at an Angel NEVER had any such mistake. This just furthers my theory of the Angels not acting in a "normal" manner. As to why they're acting strangely, I can't yet say. It just seems like there is a point to it that we don't understand. (Okay, technically I DO have have theories on why they're acting this way, but none of them are based on enough facts to mention quite yet.)

My last new issue with the episode has me looking forward to reading the 'The Angel's Kiss' book that they'll be selling out here in the real world. Did anyone else think (and I may just be wrong here) that the chapter names we see in the book seemed either to be slightly out of order, or even that we're currently missing the story of what happened in some of those chapters? Like I said, I may just be wrong here. (Though I do plan to watch it yet again and focus on this point.) [Also, in case anyone needs a reference, the chapters and their order are as follows: 1. The Dying Detective; 2. The Angels Take Manhattan; 3. Missing in New York; 4. Taking the Case; 5. Night in the Statue Park; 6. Gargoyle; 7. The Skinny Guy; 8. Julius Grayle; 9. Calling the Doctor; 10. The Roman in the Cellar; 11. Death at Winter Quay; 12. Amelia's Last Farewell] Now, I can already see some of these being correct, but what are chapters 5 and 6, exactly?

I'm sure I'll be back with more questions or comments, and I'd like to take a second to apologize for being so long-winded with my posts thus far. The reason for that however is that of all of the MANY places I look online for my Doctor Who-related information, this is not only the most generally informative one (in my personal opinion) but also the only one with enough well-informed and well-spoken users on it to convince me to actually create an account for. You also all tend to be the least rude of the people who normally post on similar sites, and I greatly thank you for it. Don't blink, always bring a banana to a party, and vote Saxon. Saghan ☎  13:57, October 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, technically we never see the Angels doing anything(except moving their hand once in The Time of Angels) The audience was clearly meant to believe that the Statue of Liberty is what sent the detective back in time, and it was the main threat that Amy and Rory were facing before they jumped off the building. Since none of the main characters actually saw the typing that the audience saw, it wouldn't have become a fixed point in time even if it was Amy. They probably just slipped up with Amy's blinking in the final scene, since they were all more focused on Amy's goodbye and decision to go back to Rory. Usually, scenes with the Angels are more focused on the dangers of the Angels. Icecreamdif ☎  15:36, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Amy blinking while looking at Lady Liberty is too much of a problem. The noises of the footstseps that she made on the way to the Winter Quay building suggests that she moves very slowly, so whenever Amy blinked Lady Liberty could only move an infinitesamal amount. 87.102.118.41talk to me 16:39, October 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * If this was in reference to my post, when I said Amy blinked while looking at the Angel I was referring to the one in the graveyard. (As there ended up being a few moments where she was the only one looking at it, and happened to blink at least five times.)


 * But your post does also brings up another question I have: Why would the Liberty Angel move as slowly as it does? Angels (including the other statues in New York that the Angels had "converted", in whatever way) have always moved EXTREMELY fast in very very short moments of time. We can't even be sure that they "walk" in the normal sense of the word. Even during the fraction of a second when someone blinks or a light goes dim, they're much closer than they were before, and certainly in a way that walking would not accomplish. Now, they apparently need to use elevators and stairs to move vertically, so they are moving rather than teleporting, but they still move at a high rate of speed. (That does bring me to wonder why Angels can't use their "powers" on themselves or even other Angels- at the very least their ability to move in space, even if not in time. It wouldn't seem that the space-moving trick gifts them with the energy they feed on, so it wouldn't seem like they would be unable to do it to themselves without somehow causing damage.) Honestly, I would have an easier time believing someone had built the Liberty Angel as more of a robot and disguised it as an actual Angel, for whatever reason. But the paradox having cancelled the entire event out means that they probably won't ever explain it, since there's really no point. Saghan  ☎  17:10, October 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Saghan: As far as Liberty, I just assumed that an Angel that big is slower and needs more time to move (as 87 just said), so the gaps of a few seconds here or there weren't enough to let her zap Rory. Or you could be right that Liberty is just there to watch, and she's waiting for the regular Angels to get to the roof. Really, I don't think that's the interesting mystery.


 * The big mystery is the one everyone keeps raising: "Surely someone else in NY must have seen her, so how did she walk across the river in the first place?" There is a possible answer in the episode, but it just raises even more questions: For some reason, in "the city that never sleeps" (which I think they even call it in the episode, twice), there are a grand total of 0 pedestrians and 3 cars in all of the night street scene shots (the one car we see into has no passengers, just a driver). Have the Angels so thoroughly dominated NY in that timeline that everyone's in bed asleep at night? (Chapter 2 of the book _is_ called "The Angels Take Manhattan"… as is the episode… But they didn't seem to be _that_ in control, judging by Grayle.) Or is something else strange going on?


 * As for the chapters, yes, we _are_ missing most of the story of chapters 1-6. We only saw a little bit of what River was doing before Rory showed up and Grayle captured them, and we only heard a few paragraphs from either late chapter 6 or early chapter 7. So it's no wonder the chapter titles don't mean much to us. (Whether it was just Moffat the writer wanting to hint that there was a lot more backstory for River than we got to see, or Moffat the producer intentionally teasing the book, I don't know, but I don't think it matters much.) --70.36.140.233talk to me 03:05, October 2, 2012 (UTC)