[WolvesAreRunning @replies]

Thanks for the link to the article @whohar and @thane16

It was a good read. I like the info on the memory tardis, and thought it was a good idea that opens up lots of possibilities for the writers.

There are a couple of points in the article I don’t agree with though. Firstly, the bit about the snow. ‘Magic realism’ is not an explanation, it’s a genre. Just like if Ruby had repeated visions of her death which were never explained, you couldn’t just say ‘Tragedy’. It’s a story, not a university thesis! But this isn’t a criticism of RTD, because I think he’s probably saving the explanation for a more appropriate time of year. I can just imagine the Doctor and Ruby walking through the snow in the opening scene of the Christmas Special. Then they go indoors… and it’s still snowing. That’s how they realise the Ruby mystery hasn’t been solved by finding her birth mother. After all, as other’s have said – the dad’s name is Garnett, and maybe that’s who’s under the hood (I’m hedging my bets here – I went with Mrs Flood earlier!)

But my bigger issue with the article was the assumption that people are disappointed by the mum’s reveal because she’s ‘ordinary’. That’s not the problem at all. The problem is that the show itself repeatedly said there’s something unusual about Ruby and the person under the hood. The hidden song, the snow, the hidden face, the fact she could travel back in time to warn her past self. You can’t just sweep all that under the carpet without an explanation. And even if you did, what would the message actually be? That Ruby is normal because she’s not normal? Surely that makes about as much sense as defeating death with death!

But again, I don’t think that’s what’s actually going on. I think there will be further revelations. I just wish that some of them had made it into the series’ finale!

[WolvesAreRunning @replies]

Yes, I like the idea that the woman under the hood isn’t Ruby’s mother. Maybe it’s Mrs Flood? When she points to the sign for Ruby Road she’s telling them where to find her – ‘I live on Ruby’s Road’.

(Although even if that turns out to be true, I still think it’s a mistake to conclude a series in such an unsatisfying manner.)

[WolvesAreRunning @replies]

@juniperfish

Yes, I agree with this. And I don’t want to sound too harsh in my previous post. My main takeaway from this series is that it felt like proper Doctor Who. Monsters and scares, limitless possibility and a good heart. I just think someone needed to ask RTD to give more thought to certain elements of his scripts. And by the way, I completely understand what he and Moffat always say about Doctor Who – that it’s the hardest show on television to write. Because you need to be good at everything – emotion, comedy, drama, plotting, etc.

[WolvesAreRunning @replies]

Well like many on here, I watched that episode with a sinking feeling. I’m not normally someone who talks to their TV, but even I found myself muttering ‘no no no’ as the Doctor screamed into space, blaming himself for something he had no control over. I mean, surely for that emotion to land he had to have actually done something wrong? Ignored some clear warning sign that the Lord of Death was hitching a ride? But there wasn’t one, as far as I could see, so he just came across as self-absorbed. It made me think of the 11th’s tears in A Good Man Goes to War. Moffat spent a season and a half building up to those, to make them feel warranted.

But I think my hopes finally settled on the sea floor when we learnt Ruby’s mother is a nurse living in Coventry. I don’t mind that as an idea (even though, if AI did an RTD script, that’s what it would come up with), but it was done in such a lazy way. There was no moment where you’re confronted with your own preconceptions. No moment where you’re made to realise you hadn’t thought a nurse from Coventry could be special. In fact, we were actively steered in the wrong direction – because what 15 year old was wearing a hooded cloak in 2004?? What young mother names her child by turning dramatically and pointing to a road sign? It just smacks of a writer trying to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand, they spice their scripts with all sorts of intriguing, mysterious moments, and on the other they say ‘ha! Gotcha! It’s actually the ordinary that’s extraordinary!’ Well, if that’s the case, don’t spend a whole series leaning on the mystery to keep viewers’ interest! It just comes across as a bit preachy and trite.

And I know this sounds harsh. I feel bad for writing it. But the reason I’m so disappointed is the RTD is such a fantastic writer. It’s a Sin is one of THE great series. And 73 Yards pulled off the amazing feat of overshadowing a Who episode penned by Moffat. But that just makes me annoyed all over again, because what explanation were we given for how Old Ruby went back in time? Or what she said (or was) to make everyone desert her? Just a throwaway line about how strange things can be seen at 73 yards?? That’s it?! Come on.

And actually, that highlights the core problem with not giving satisfying explanations for things like this – it tarnishes the stories. Not just the ones already gone, but the ones to come as well. Because next time there’s an episode like 73 Yards, I’ll know not to invest much time thinking about it too deeply, because the writer himself probably won’t have! (I know, I know, not everyone places importance on the same things.)

But I want to end on a more positive note, because up until Empire of Death, I really enjoyed the series. I watched the first two episodes with my five year old son, which is something I’ve been looking forward to for years. He loved Space Babies and we watched it together four times. And he’s now also developed a deep suspicion of pianos after watching The Devil’s Chord. Surely a rite of passage for any Whovian – developing an irrational fear of an everyday object, whether it’s pepper pots, statues, etc!

And just one final thing, to finish a train of thought. I loved the scene in Empire of Death with the mother in the tent. It almost seemed dropped in from another, better episode. An episode more confident and sure-footed in what needs explaining and what doesn’t. Because I didn’t need to know anything more about that mother, or her family, or her life. It was a fleeting, poignant glimpse, much as things are in real life. Not everything in a story needs an explanation (see Alien compared to Prometheus for proof of that!) But what you shouldn’t do is build your story around a mystery, and then offer no satisfying explanation. That’s just mis-selling.

[WolvesAreRunning @replies]

@cathannabel

Yes, completely agree with this. I don’t think it’s anything spooky Ruby says, it’s just what she is. And what is that, exactly? Tbh I’d be surprised if my theory is right, but I just think RTD is likely to go with an explanation that’s rooted in her abandonment. I can imagine him starting with the idea of Ruby having this primal wound, and then thinking about how people who carry around that sense of loss and rejection often end up driving people away, in a self-fulfilling prophecy. And then because this is Doctor Who, he takes that idea and has fun with it. So, what if that wounded side of her could be made flesh in some way (changeling, alien being parent, etc.) and then (because this is Ruby and she’s amazing) what if she found a way to put that side of her to good use? By stopping a nuclear war, say…

[WolvesAreRunning @replies]

Late to the party here, and first-time poster (loved following the discussions during the early Moff years, trying to wrap my head around the bootstrap paradox, etc!)

Anyway, I haven’t caught up on the latest posts for this episode, so apologies if I’m repeating things, but my theory is that spooky Ruby is a manifestation of young Ruby’s primal wound. The feeling of abandonment and rejection by the mother she never knew. And everyone who meets spooky Ruby manifests that original loss. We’ve already seen with the snowfall that Ruby alters reality, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch. But what’s interesting is that old Ruby said it never snowed again after spooky Ruby appeared. So maybe it’s only that part of her that has this effect? I think it points to some kind of supernatural parentage on the mother or father’s side – which would explain why Ruby could only go back to warn her younger self once the human part died.

[Author]

Posts