Now My Wings Fit

Archive for the category “Theories and Analysis”

Why I always fight for the Imperials

Like most games, Skyrim is filled with choices. Do you follow Hadvar or Ralof when escaping Helgen during the quest Unbound? Do you follow Delphine’s instructions to kill Paarthurnax in order to join the Blades? Do you tell the Alik’r warriors where Saadia is, or go after Kematu in order to get to the bottom of the story in the quest In My Time of Need? There are, however, few opportunities to choose between two sides of a conflict or cause.

As I understand it, there are three such choices in the game: at the beginning of the Dark Brotherhood questline, during the Dawnguard questline, and before the Civil War questline. Granted, one choice that you can make about these factions is to ignore them all completely; you don’t have to visit Aventus Aretino in Windhelm; you don’t have to buy the Dawnguard DLC, or go to Fort Dawnguard at all even if you have the DLC; and you can go the entire game without joining either side of Skyrim’s civil war. Yet each of these factions have two sides that you can choose between if you choose to engage with them, and it would seem that none is more contentious in the community than the Civil War questline.

Do you fight for the Imperials, or the Stormcloaks?

There are many reasons to fight for either side. Some of them are more superficial than others; some involve going into the lore and deciding which side the player thinks is ‘right’. Others, like the author of the following Skyrim Confession, has a very subjective reason for choosing to fight for the Stormcloaks.

When I started my first playthrough of the game, I was convinced that I was going to fight for the Stormcloaks, for one reason and one reason only: viva la revolution! I ended up not doing the Civil War questline at all in that playthrough, but over the course of that playthrough I changed my mind, and in my second playthrough I fought for the Imperials.

I do, admittedly, have subjective reasons to fight for the Imperials. What first turned my opinion against the Stormcloaks was the first time I met Elisif, who captured my heart immediately. Her grief ran so true, and made me began to question Ulfric and his motivations. My desire to fight for the Stormcloaks dropped even further when I found out that, if Ulfric wins the civil war, Jarl Balgruuf is no longer the Jarl of Whiterun. I truly believe that Balgruuf is one of the best Jarls in the game, because he really seems to give a shit about his people. It’s a refreshing change from the trope in the fantasy genre of having tyrannical leaders who only care about their own power.

So with the superficial reasons out of the way, I will venture into the lore-based reasons. As the Senile Scribbles put it, the only true ideological differences which will make a difference to the day-to-day lives of the citizens of Skyrim between the two sides of the Civil War are that Stormcloaks are for religious freedom but not racial equality, the Imperials are for racial equality but not religious freedom, and both support same-sex marriage.(1)

I would argue, however, that the reality is more complicated. If you fight for the Imperials, you are not fighting against religious freedom; on the other hand, if you fight for the Stormcloaks, you are fighting against racial equality.

The Stormcloaks claim that the White-Gold Concordat has effectively made Skyrim’s most popular religion, Talos worship, illegal. I do not dispute that. Yet what the White-Gold Concordat dictated and the reality of its enforcement are different things.

If you follow Hadvar during Unbound, you have the opportunity to speak to his family in Riverwood, and Alvor has this nugget to tell you: “We didn’t pay much attention to it [the clause of the White-Gold Concordat which outlawed Talos worship] when I was a boy – everyone still had their little shrine to Talos. But then Ulfric and his ‘Sons of Skyrim’ started agitating about it“.(2)

You can see this in the world of Skyrim itself. Once you fight for the Imperials, the Talos priest in Whiterun, Heimskr, disappears (and in a mod he ends up in the Dragonsreach dungeon), but this is a superficial change. You can still find Amulets of Talos in the world, and the several Shrines of Talos that dot Skyrim’s landscape are not torn down.

Shrine of Talos.png

A Shrine of Talos near Whiterun; http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Elisif%27s_Tribute, accessed 05/05/17

Talos worship lives on, even after Ulfric dies.

On the other hand, when the Stormcloaks win, there is even more hostility against non-Nords in Skyrim.(3) What’s more, is Ulfric seems to be that which is far more common for a fantasy ruler to be: a tyrant.

As we have already seen, Ulfric has no need to fight for the right to worship Talos. What Ulfric wants, really, is to be High King.

Of course, another contentious issue is whether Ulfric was fair in his killing of High King Torygg. I personally agree with Roggvir on this one; Ulfric engaged Torygg in a duel which he won fairly, even if his method was gruesome and unnecessarily violent.

Even taking that into account, however, we see that Ulfric had one motive and one motive only: he wanted to become High King. His reason for the uprising was to take power for himself, not to reinstate Talos worship (which hadn’t even disappeared anyway). While a Stormcloak victory gains Skyrim its independence from the Empire, this is barely mentioned,(4) and therefore it has no real consequences on the running of the country.

What Ulfric is really doing, then, is telling Nords that they are being persecuted when they aren’t, and drawing them in to fight and die for the sake of raising his own station.

Yes, there are subjective reasons for my fighting for the Imperials, but the way I see it, they have done nothing wrong – unlike Ulfric. I have nothing against Stormcloak soldiers other than their racism, because they have been played like pawns in Ulfric’s bigger game. Yet, on the whole, the Imperials seem to me to be the better side to choose.


Notes:

(1) https://youtu.be/mv3ScKLD1Vc?t=3m11s (Accessed 20/05/17).

(2) Quote is an edited transcript from http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Alvor (Accessed 20/05/17).

(3) One example of this can be seen in the treatment of Imperial Adrianne Avenicci after a Stormcloak victory during the Battle of Whiterun: “If the Stormcloaks win the Battle for Whiterun, Adrianne … notes that if it weren’t for her Nord husband, the Stormcloaks would have stopped purchasing from her altogether, due to her Imperial background.” Quote is taken from the trivia section of the page http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Adrianne_Avenicci (Accessed 20/05/17).

(4) http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Stormcloaks (Accessed 20/05/17).

 

Dragonrider versus the Cleric Beast

I am sitting in my usual seat in the living room. One of my housemates (we’ll call him Housemate 1) is playing Dark Souls 2; he’s fighting Dragonrider, an early game boss and the first boss he found (he’s playing the game blind). Another of my housemates (Housemate 2) is playing World of Warcraft. In a moment of peace, Housemate 2 looks up at the TV screen and declares, “Wow, that boss is really boring”.

It was a statement with which I agreed wholeheartedly. Dragonrider is a terrifically boring boss. He is a large man in armour with a shield and a one-handed weapon and, while stronger than Housemate 1’s character, had one main attack: lunge with weapon.

That the boss battle was difficult and Housemate 1 died several times to it (sorry, he didn’t; it’s a zero death run…) did nothing to make it more interesting.

When Housemate 1 had beaten Dragonrider, he began to compare it with the Cleric Beast from Bloodborne, which is the boss most players find first and was indeed the first boss Housemate 1 played when he played Bloodborne. The difference, he said, was that the Cleric Beast was interesting, both in design and attacks. Dragonrider simply wasn’t; even his name was uninteresting. “I think he rides dragons,” he remarked.

My theory on this is that the different genres of the Souls series and Bloodborne is the main reason for the differences in the boss designs.

15971548456_402a88efc4_o

Dragonrider from Dark Souls 2. Taken from: http://darksouls.wikia.com/wiki/Dragonrider

When Arin of Game Grumps began his playthrough of Dark Souls 3, he described the biggest difference between the Souls series and Bloodborne as being that Bloodborne is more “European, Gothic” – more, to use my own word, steampunk – whereas the Souls series is more “medieval”.(1) This, I believe, is the key difference between the Souls series and Bloodborne which affects things such as boss designs.

hbomberguy, in his analysis of Bloodborne, mentioned the ‘dudes in armour’ argument: the argument which recognises that many of the bosses in the Souls series are “dudes in armour”.(2) While hbomberguy had no issue with such a concept, I think that it was this that lead to Dragonrider being so frightfully dull, especially compared to the Cleric Beast. There are only a few variations you can have between ‘dudes in armour’, especially when not only bosses are ‘dudes in armour’ but several of the normal minion enemies you face are also of the same ilk. The path to Dragonrider is filled with Dragonslayers, who are – you guessed it – ‘dudes in armour’.

This is not the case in Bloodborne. Where you have a steampunk horror game with a lore that includes humans turning into beasts and alien psuedo-divine beings who inhabit a realm known as the Nightmare, you instantly have a game where there can be more variety in bosses, both in their appearance and in the strategies required to overcome them.

cleric_beast_profile_extra

The Cleric Beast from Bloodborne. Taken from: http://bloodborne.wiki.fextralife.com/Cleric+Beast

In contrast, a medieval-style game has little choice but to have lots of ‘dudes in armour’, as that fits the genre in a way that lots of beasts do not, unless the presence of Bloodborne-esque beasts has been established in the lore. While there are groteqsue and monstrous bosses in Souls games, these remain limited by the medieval setting in a way that Bloodborne bosses aren’t.

Dragonrider is, then, a victim of his own setting. The first boss cannot be the most interesting of the game – and indeed the Cleric Beast is not the most interesting boss in Bloodborne – but the genre and setting of Bloodborne means that the Cleric Beast can be vastly different from the other bosses in the game. Dragonrider, on the other hand, is limited by lack of variety that the setting and genre could provide for bosses. All in all, it made for a wildly boring first boss.


Notes:

(1) https://youtu.be/Zk2wuSJOjCs.
(2) https://youtu.be/AC3OuLU5XCw?t=1h2m9s. This link jumps to the particular part of the video where hbomberguy starts talking about the ‘dudes in armour’ argument. It should be noted that hbomberguy doesn’t mind there being lots of dudes in armour in Dark Souls, which he mentions in another video (https://youtu.be/SRTfcMeqhig).

The problem with Batman Begins

I’m not a fan of DC, but I was very excited to watch the Nolan Batman trilogy for the first time. Hands down, The Dark Knight is the best installment. I don’t often get scared watching films, but the Joker was played perfectly and to the point where he’d be talking – nothing else; just talking – and I would be so terrified of what he would do next that I found it difficult to keep my eyes on the screen.

Batman Begins, however, was a completely different story.

I did get into this film, at first. I love origin stories, and it was really interesting to see where they were going with this particular incarnation of Batman. My issue with this film didn’t appear until much later – when there appeared to be an overarching plot.

One of the tropes of initial episodes/films/books etc. that are intended to begin a series is that the reason for everything kicking off needs to somehow fit in with the overall plot of that single story. Sherlock did this amazingly well: the theme of Sherlock’s constant need to be right and to be the smartest person in the room is directly linked to the climax with the cabbie.

Batman Begins, however, didn’t do this so well. There seemed to be too much all crammed into the one film, where so much of the beginning was dedicated to the origin story.

Personally, I would have been fine with just watching Batman… begin. There didn’t necessarily need to be a villain in the film: no plot that leads to a climax and a resolution. Just telling the story of how Bruce Wayne became ‘the Batman’ would have been enough.

As it stands, I’m a little confused as to what this film was. Was it an origin story, or a film with its own plot that just had to explain how Batman began before it could get to what it really wanted to talk about? With the amount of screen time that is given to the former, the attempt to turn it into the latter seems more like an afterthought than a seamless transition.

Level 1 or backstory

I’ve been thinking a lot about RPGs lately, mainly because I recently got back into Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, which I used to play as a kid. Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks are basically text-based RPGs, which involve making choices and going through a quest by turning to different paragraphs as you make different decisions.

At the beginning of the quest, you create your character, which involves the rolling of dice to determine your stats: skill, stamina, and luck. These stats will affect how you fare throughout the game. Yet while the books give instructions on how to create your own character, it is not the case that you have to create your own character. In Eye of the Dragon, there are three characters given – complete with backstories and pre-prepared stats – from which you can choose if you don’t want to create your own character. In a fan-made Fighting Fantasy novella, Roar of the Dragon (which can be found to play on the Fighting Fantasy amateur adventures webpage), you cannot play as an original character: your character is given to you at the beginning of the quest, along with your initial stats.

This is how most video game RPGs begin. Before I begin talking about specific RPGS, I would like to say that I haven’t played these games myself. My knowledge is based on information from playthroughs, my friends, and other Internet sources. I will be speaking specifically about Skyrim and Xenoblade Chronicles.

In these games, you start off as Level 1 characters, with weak stats which you are supposed to raise throughout the game. The presence of side quests in such games exist for the sole purpose of leveling up your character so that they can become stronger and fight the bigger bosses as the game progresses. Granted, Skyrim is a little different in that the side-quests and leveling up your character aren’t that important when it comes to completing the main quest, but the general point still stands. At the beginning of most RPGs, you are Level 1: weak, and in need of strengthening.

This, I think, disregards your character’s backstory. In Skyrim, you create your character at the beginning of the game. You choose which race your character will be, what sex, and even what they look like. But you cannot choose to have a character higher than a Level 1. Even in Xenoblade, where your character is created for you, you still have to level up your character in order to be strong enough to complete the game.

Shulk in Xenoblade is already a weapons expert, and so should have reached a level higher than Level 1 by the beginning of the main storyline. Similarly, your character in Skyrim has not just appeared on the way to be executed. These characters have lived, and if merely living levels up characters, as seems to be the case with NPCs (non-player characters), then surely these characters should be higher than Level 1 at the start of the game.

Fighting Fantasy takes into account your character’s backstory, even if you haven’t bothered to give them one. Your stats are determined by a roll of the dice, and you can work out why your character is so strong (or so weak) from there.

I understand that the need to level up characters makes the games more interesting, and gives players the opportunity to explore the often open worlds of RPGs such as Skyrim and Xenoblade Chronicles and complete the side quests which are hidden away in them. But that your character begins at Level 1 at just the point in their lives when the story begins is unrealistic. In fact, it could even be more enjoyable to have a similar stat allocation system to that of Fighting Fantasy: your level and strength at the start of the game is determined by some random factor, like a dice roll. That way, everyone has a unique experience of the story, because everyone has to level their characters up in different ways and at different times.

And yes, I understand the irony of saying that Skyrim needs to make the experience of playing it more unique for each player.

Is there room for Kingdom Hearts in OUAT?

Once Upon a Time’s USP is that it takes classic fairytales, myths, legends, and Disney movies and adapts them, fitting them together into one coherent story. Most of them are Disney movies, or are affiliated with Disney.

There are lots of articles all over the Internet about which story should be included in OUAT at a later date. But one that I have seen on a Buzzfeed article – which, admittedly, was rather tongue-in-cheek – was Kingdom Hearts.

I would absolutely love to see Kingdom Hearts in Once Upon a Time, and I don’t think it would be that difficult to fit it in, especially in light of one of the main themes of series 5.

Looking from the outside in, it would certainly fit in with OUAT’s MO to have Kingdom Hearts in the show. After all, it basically does what KH itself does: adapt Disney stories and characters for its own purposes. Granted, the uses of Disney characters in KH would have to be scrapped, and there would possibly be issues with getting some of the Final Fantasy characters in (but, come on, imagine Cloud and Sephiroth, in their KH incarnations, in OUAT. Just imagine it). But overall, that KH is linked with Disney would make it easy to fit it in.

From the inside, series 5 has left loads of room for KH. Series 5’s main plot is centred on the Dark One and its creation. We’ve known for a while how the Dark One came to be in its simplest sense: the darkness of the world needed to be tethered to an individual.

The Dark One became the epitome of dark magic, the complete antithesis of light magic. We have a pretty good definition of what light magic is from the previous series – magic that is born out of and used for and because of love – but up until series 5, the exact nature of dark magic has been somewhat ambiguous. How does dark magic come about? How does someone ‘go dark’?

The answer is now clear: even the lightest of sorcerers can go dark, as soon as they use magic to kill. This was made apparent in Birth.

This juxtaposition between light and dark and the ability to ‘go dark’ based on your choices seems very Kingdom Hearts. All you would need is Sora and Riku in there with their Keyblades protecting people from going dark.

A male companion?

WARNING: Massive spoilers for the latest episode of Doctor Who, Face the Raven. If you haven’t seen this episode, please do not read! And if you do, please don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to the Companion Page on the TARDIS Data Core website for some useful information in compiling this post

Last week’s Doctor Who episode has left a question on every Whovian’s lips. Granted, it’s one that’s been there ever since Jenna Coleman announced that she was going to be leaving, but now that it has made its way into canon, it seems everyone is actually beginning to ask it: who is going to be the Doctor’s next companion?

It was certainly a question that the newspaper The Metro was asking mere hours after we saw Clara fall to the ground. They released an article on their website with a list of possible candidates for the next companion. The only problem I had with this list was that every single entry was a woman.

There are a lot of issues which have been raised with the casting choices of Doctor Who companions. They are usually centred on the idea that most of the companions are women while the Doctor – despite it being canon that Time Lords can change sex during the process of regeneration – remains a man. While it would be nice to see a female Doctor, that is not what I want talk about. I do not wish to talk about why the female protagonist has to be the companion rather than the Doctor. I wish to talk about why the companion has to be female.

There have been numerous male companions over the years. Indeed, the very first TARDIS line up had an even male:female ratio. What I think Doctor Who is lacking, however, is the Doctor travelling exclusively with a male companion for any extended period of time.

This has happened a few times in Classic Who. The First Doctor traveled with Steven Taylor and no other companion for a while, and the Fifth Doctor traveled with Turlough alone for a while (although he wasn’t human).

In NewWho, however, this has never happened. None of the Doctors from Nine to Twelve have ever traveled with just a male companion, with one exception. In the gap between The Almost People and A Good Man Goes to War, the Doctor traveled alone with Rory while Amy was being kept on Demons Run. However, I do not count this, as we did not see any individual televised adventures with just Rory. As far as we are concerned as viewers, the Doctor still had two companions during this time.

For the next companion, I would really like to see a male companion traveling with the Doctor on his own. As it stands, all male NewWho companions have been accompanied by a female companion. That dynamic is beginning to bore me. Whether or not this will happen, I think that a sole male companion aboard the TARDIS will be a refreshing change to the show.

Is Rory the ‘good man’ in A Good Man Goes to War?

I spend quiet a lot of time reading about Doctor Who episodes on the Doctor Who Wiki/TARDIS Data Core website. In particular, the little trivia that gets put at the bottom of the articles, lending some more insight into the episode.

A few weeks ago, I was reading the page for A Good Man Goes to War, and saw this paragraph:

The title of this episode is much more ambiguous than one would think, partly because of the Doctor’s own admission that he is not necessarily a “good man” because he “has so many” rules, and also because of Amy’s opening narration, which misled the viewer into thinking she was talking about the Doctor rather than Rory. These two instances lend weight to the idea that the “good man” of the title may refer to Rory rather than the Doctor.

TARDIS WikiaA Good Man Goes to War, accessed 15/11/15

I would love for this to be true. Mainly because I adore Rory, and the only Doctor who I like more than Rory is Nine. At first, I thought it could just be wishful thinking and didn’t have enough substance behind it to actually be a worthwhile headcanon, but there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye.

One of the tropes of the Eleventh Doctor’s era (particularly from the beginning of series six) is ambiguous speeches which seem to be talking about the Doctor and which are actually talking about Rory. As the writer of this paragraph says, one such speech is the one Amy gives to baby Melody at the beginning of the episode. What’s more, the very title seems to suggest that it’s more about Rory than about the Doctor, for it is referring to a good man going to war. Out of the two of them, only Rory fights at the Battle of Demons Run; the Doctor is mostly working in the background to free Melody.

It’s not much, I know, but I think it does lend weight to this idea that the ‘good man’ being referred to in the episode title is Rory. For, as the writer of this paragraph says, the Doctor says himself that he isn’t a good man. So, as is one of the themes of the Eleventh Doctor’s era, if something seems to be referring to the Doctor and isn’t, it’s probably referring to Rory.

Why Harry was right to break the Elder Wand

I’d like to begin this post by admitting that I have made a mistake. While doing the 30 Day Once Upon a Time Challenge, I said that Harry was wrong to break the Elder Wand at the end of the Deathly Hallows Part 2.

I was wrong. Harry was right to break the Elder Wand, no matter how much the fandom hated it.

One of the reasons that I can think of for people hating Harry for breaking the Elder Wand is that it didn’t happen in the book. In fact, Harry decides to lock the Wand away so that no one can get at it, and reasons that if he dies a natural death the Wand would belong to no one.

But this presents a plot hole in Harry Potter. Admittedly, this should probably be going in my next plot holes post (which I am in the process of compiling), but bear with me.

Throughout the series, Harry only directly kills one character: Voldemort. By the time that Harry kills Voldemort, the Elder Wand is already his. This is because of a fundamental part of the transition of the Elder Wand’s ownership: it doesn’t have to happen through murder.

Voldemort believes that the Elder Wand did not obey him because Snape was the one who killed Dumbledore, and therefore ownership of the Wand transferred to Snape. Yet that is not what happened. It didn’t matter that Snape was the one to actually kill Dumbledore, because Draco had already Disarmed him, thus overpowering Dumbledore and becoming the rightful owner of the Elder Wand. When Harry takes Draco’s wand in Malfoy Manor, the ownership of the Wand transfers to Harry.

No killing involved.

But if it isn’t necessary for someone to kill the current owner of the Wand in order to take ownership of it, then surely the nature of Harry’s death does not necessarily matter when it comes to the Elder Wand. Anyone could overpower him in any number of ways and take ownership, which – and admittedly, this is an assumption – would be a terrible thing.

The only way to ensure that the Elder Wand could never again wreak havoc was to break it.

Although he probably should have used it to repair his phoenix feather wand before he snapped it in half, like he did in the book. Come on, Potter. Ollivander’s in no shape to make you a new wand just yet.

The Time Lady Clara Splinter: Part 2

Spoilers for: The Fires of Pompeii, The Name of the Doctor

Last week, I discussed the possibility that one of Clara’s splinters designed to save the Doctor’s timeline from destruction by the Great Intelligence was a Time Lady, capable of regeneration rather than immediate death after she has met the Doctor. Indeed, this Time Lady met the Doctor twelve times, once for each of her regenerations, before finally dying and making way for the next Clara splinter. I also argued that this Time Lady could turn up in the show again, and that we’d already seen her once before.

When it was first announced that Peter Capaldi was going to be the Twelfth Doctor, I was a little upset, for one particular reason: he’d already been in Doctor Who, and if he was going to play the Doctor, then there would need to be some kind of explanation as to why he had the same face. I have heard that this explanation will be given in series 9, so I wait in hope.

But it got me thinking about other people who had been in Doctor Who more than once, and the phenomenon of recurring actors. Indeed, Karen Gillan was in The Fires of Pompeii – the very same episode Peter Capaldi was in (though unless this is somehow related to the reason behind the Doctor having the same face, that really is just a coincidence) – before coming back as Amy Pond.

What does this have to do with Clara? Well, I have already argued that the Time Lady splinter we see telling the First Doctor which TARDIS to take is the first regeneration of the Time Lady Clara splinter, and – like the other Clara splinters – she resembles Clara.

But what about her regenerations? What would they look like? Seeing as this Time Lady is unlike any other Time Lady – she was created by and for the Doctor’s timeline – her regenerations can’t be as random as normal Time Lords’. Her regenerations would have to be inspired by the Doctor’s timeline. And so, when the time comes for Clara to save the Doctor at Pompeii, the Time Lady regenerates from her previous encounter with the Doctor into (possibly yet another) face from the Doctor’s timeline: this time, Amelia Pond.

The Time Lady Clara Splinter: Part 1

Spoilers for: The Name of the Doctor

Not so long ago, I wrote a fanfiction based on a specific part of The Name of the Doctor: the scene where Clara is seen telling the First Doctor which TARDIS to take. As I was writing this fanfiction, it got me thinking; seeing as the Doctor steals the TARDIS from Gallifrey, this scene must have taken place on Gallifrey. Could it be that this splinter of Clara is a Time Lady? And what if she is still out there?

There are two main common characteristics of the Clara splinters: they all resemble Clara in some way (or, in Oswin’s case, they did), and they all die shortly after meeting the Doctor. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this Clara splinter – the Time Lady Clara splinter – died shortly after meeting this Doctor.

But if that splinter was a Time Lady, then that doesn’t necessarily have to mean that she was killed for good after meeting the First Doctor; she could have merely regenerated, and had twelve other lives before finally dying. Now, it is probable that this Clara splinter has, in fact, had all of her regenerations, as it is kind of implied that a new Clara splinter cannot be created until the last has died, and so this splinter must have died for Clara to end up in the limbo of the Doctor’s personal timeline at the end of The Name of the Doctor.

But that doesn’t have to mean that we will never meet her again, and in fact – as I shall argue in part 2 – we already have. For if she is a Time Lady, then she likely has access to a TARDIS or at least some form of time travel. Thus, while her personal timeline has come to an end, her appearances in the universal timeline do not have to have all occurred. She could be in the show now, two series after Clara came out of the Doctor’s timeline.

But if she can appear in the show after The Name of the Doctor, could she have appeared before? This is what I will be exploring in Part 2.

Post Navigation