View Single Post
Old January 4 2013, 12:06 PM   #137
Christopher's Avatar
Re: The Impossible Girl: Who IS Clara Oswin Oswald?!?

Gov Kodos wrote: View Post
For what it's worth her name, Oswin, means God's friend and Oswald, God's power. What of Vastra's comment that perhaps the universe does make bargains?
Heck, I did the name-etymology thing back in post #3 of this thread. The meaning of "Oswald" I found was "divine ruler," and I put forth the admittedly unlikely notion that "Clara Oswald," "bright divine ruler," could tie into "White Guardian" somehow.

ToddCam wrote: View Post
You are wrong. I have no desire to see Clara as a Time Lady. I want to see a return of Susan and Romana.
The motivation is irrelevant; the methodology is the problem. You just don't start with a conclusion and fudge the reasoning and evidence to fit it. That's not a way to assess realistic likelihoods, just a way to rationalize whatever notion you're trying to rationalize. It doesn't make it any less unlikely that Clara is some kind of Gallifreyan, or that the very, very un-regeneration-like thing she's doing is merely a variant on regeneration.

I also think Time Lords somehow all being inaccessible is stupid, given the premise of the time-traveler known as the Doctor. If the Doctor visited Earth right after the events of "The Dalek Invasion of Earth" would Susan somehow be dead? It's stupid.
Not entirely, because it's been established that the Time War altered history extensively -- that the two sides kept going back in time and altering events to turn defeats into victories and so on, waging the same battles over and over. And though RTD left it ambiguous, Moffat established right off the bat that the history of the Doctor Who universe is mutable, and that major events from the RTD era like the Cyber King's rampage and the Dalek theft of Earth could be completely wiped from the timeline.

So since it was a Time War, it's entirely possible (under the very flexible temporal physics and logic of the Who-verse) that it was waged throughout history, that the Time Lords weren't just killed at a certain point in their timeline, but were effectively erased from ever having existed at all.

But Clara herself? I can make rhetorical points (badly argued or not) without believing them to be the case.
And I can state what terrible ideas I think they are.

I do understand probabilities, and as you quoted, I said I have serious doubts. I think it's almost certain she isn't a Time Lady.
Then why argue with me when I said she probably wasn't?! Why waste so many posts on it? Just to be annoying?

So more Time Lords is unimaginative? Because there have been TWO of them as companions in 50 years?
It's not about companions specifically. Nor is it about Time Lords specifically. Such a narrow definition excludes River Song and Jenny, two of the main characters that have been implausibly proposed as Clara's true identity.

And it's not about who's a companion and who isn't, it's about how to interpret the mystery of what Clara is and what she's doing. Seeing a character lead multiple lives in separate eras and jumping to the conclusion that she's a regenerating Gallifreyan, ignoring all the ways that doesn't fit the evidence, is what's unimaginative. It's retreating into the trite and familiar rather than opening one's mind to novelty.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote