Howling:River's Timeline in Light of TATM

Howling: → Howling archive → The Howling archives → River's Timeline in Light of TATM

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on The Howling if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

It was pointed out on another board that The Angels Take Manhattan doesn't appear to properly follow the sequence of River moving backwards relative to the Doctor's timeline, as she has been pardoned and is Professor Song. I don't have the expertise to speak to this myself (at least, not without a bit more research), but I'd love to hear what others think. AthertonX ☎ 21:43, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, Ath. Her first post-Library adventure was the Byzantium, and this is definitely set after that in her timeline, after her pardon and professorship. So, in theory, she is at the point in her timeline where the Doctor's memories of her should be regressing. Yet, this is the first time we see them together as a married couple, and they end by setting out together for some unspecified period of time. Very possibly they've had off-camera adventures together before this, when he knew less and she knew more, and I'd be willing to be that some of her undated appearances (end of Demons Run) probably are from later in her timeline... Still, at the Byzantium, their married life seemed to be in the past, and their first/last kiss was while she was still in jail, so what's up with having their first on-camera married journeys being 'after' her last kiss? Tough holiday. Wibbly-Wobbly ☎ 22:39, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

The statement of River's timeline moving backwards relative to the Doctor's timeline is totally wrong. If it was true, there would be no need for the little tardis blue book the River has to keep track of their adventures. The fact is River and the Doctor's timelines cross randomly without any specific order. To be more specific, the last time River meets the doctor is the first time he meets her (Silence in the Library), however the first time she meets him is not the last time he meets her (Let's kill Hitler). Also, in last season's finale, when River visits Amy after she supposedly killed the doctor, she states that she just met them on the Byzantium. Therefore, there is no specific chronological order for their meetings, hence the need for the blue book to keep track of what adventures each of them has experienced.--62.84.91.6^{talk to me} 22:43, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. It's been a perennial topic on past threads. The back-to-front timelines interpretation is completely incompatible with the diary-sync interpretation. I've always seen the 'back-to-front' timelines issue as more of a general trend in their meetings that River has noticed, which leads to her fear about the Doctor forgetting her. But the end of Day of the Moon seemed to establish a literal reverse order, because River 'knew' that his first kiss would have to be her last. The problem now is that she was in jail then, and is out now (therefore forward on her timeline from the 'last' kiss) yet they are both in the TARDIS, married, and setting out to travel together. We're no longer just quibbling about interpretations, this seems to violate established events in her life. Their life together seems to be just beginning at a point in her timeline after it was supposed to have tragically ended. Anyway, I am happier with us in the diary-sync version, so it's more an observation than a complaint. Wibbly-Wobbly ☎ 23:33, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

River was convinced the first kiss in the Doctor's timeline was the last in hers but it's entirely possible she got a pleasant surprise & found out she'd been wrong about that. As has repeatedly been said by those paying attention (& by Moffat), the "going in opposite directions" thing is at most a general trend. It may not even be that. If you list the numbers 1 to 10,000 in genuinely random order, you're very likely to have parts of the list looking as if they follow a pattern. The "going in opposite directions" thing could be the same. We look for patterns & see them even when they're not really there. (I'm usually 89 but I'm 2, just now.) --2.96.17.102^{talk to me} 23:49, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Much of her previously-established timeline never happened now. Up until this episode it was clear that she spent years, probably centuries in Stormgate Prison. She was sentenced for what, 12,000 consecutive lifetimes? And since around 200 years passed for the Doctor between The Time of Angels and The Wedding of River Song, one might assume that 200 years passed for River, too (but in a different order). But now the Doctor has erased his name from all of history; the authorities at Stormcage quickly discovered that the man she was convicted of killing could not be proven to have ever existed, and she was pardoned "long ago." As a result, all those years spent in prison in order to convince the Doctor's enemies that he was really dead didn't happen. What's more, there would be no point in her serving time to make the Doctor's death look good now that no one knows who the Doctor was; if she wasn't pardoned, she just would have escaped and never come back. In the old timeline, River is out on parole in The Time of Angels. In the new timeline, she was never paroled because she was pardoned instead. While their 'last kiss' might have happened in prison in the old timeline, in the new timeline River and the Doctor won't kiss for the last time until long after she was released. So my point is, you can't accurately try to fit River's adventures up to this point up with what she says in The Angels Take Manhattan, because they take place in different histories. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎ 15:37, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Or the records didn't show that the Doctor never existed until sometime after The Time of Angels for River, they pardoned her after that, and she was just wrong about it being their last kiss.Icecreamdif ☎ 15:44, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

River thought it was their last kiss in her timeline because it was their first in the Doctor's timeline. She was assuming that the "meeting in reverse order" thing actually works. We already know it doesn't really work, so there's a fair chance River got a pleasant surprise when she found out she was wrong. --89.240.242.255^{talk to me} 16:37, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that it's never been said that the Doctor himself is removing signs of his existence. Him telling River "You said I got too big." doesn't really imply that he did it. Also, the Doctor DOES still exist, so the timeline hasn't technically been altered, only the databases containing information about him have. Even in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, the Doctor didn't seem already convinced that Solomon wouldn't find information about him, he was just pleased to find out that Solomon didn't. If it were the Doctor himself deleting the information, you would think he would start with the Daleks, instead of Oswin doing it for him. He was surprised when that happened as well, and again similarly pleased about this fact. He may have no idea who or what is causing it, but he seems to be enjoying it too much to really care to find out. (That, or he does know the cause, but also knows that whatever/whoever is doing it seems to not be meaning any harm to the Doctor. Though even that is starting to slowly look wrong, since I have a feeling this is going to end up being a massively bad thing for him.) Not to mention UNIT clearly still knows about him, so he still exists to people outside of the TARDIS crew. There just happens to be a very select few of those people. Saghan ☎ 17:39, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan, "it's never been said that the Doctor himself is removing signs of his existence": Good point. You've got me wondering if the removal of information about the Doctor is part of the Series 7 story arc. The series is said (by Moffat, who can't always be believed) to be "less arc-heavy" than Series 6 & the vanishing information would fit with that, being rather less obtrusive than apparent murders & memory-editing aliens. It also featured notably in the opening episode, intimately associated with a character played by Jenna-Louise Coleman, who's billed to play the new companion. There's also been talk of stuff happening out of chronological sequence but no very obvious evidence of it -- unless it's the information loss. Perhaps, in that reference by River to the reason she was let out of clink, we're seeing the effect of something that we'll not see being done until later in the series. (Like the Doctor wearing a jacket when telling Amy to "remember" in Flesh and Stone being a result of events we didn't see until the Series 5 finalé.) --89.240.242.255^{talk to me} 19:09, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

I agree about it being a story arc. In fact, since the very moment Solomon scanned him in DoaS, I've assumed it was the story arc. Even if all the other references and connections between the episodes thus far turn out to be unrelated to the current story arc, this one most certainly will be. I already was assuming that this wasn't the work of the Doctor, and was a bit worried when the conversation started about it between River and him, but was glad to see he never actually admits to it. (Though even if he hadn't denied it, I would never put it past the Doctor to take credit for something he's suspected of doing, especially one that seems (rather big emphasis on "seems") beneficial to him.) I'm definitely interested to find out for certain who or what is erasing him, and the consequences of it. One thing to worry about is how many people tend to need the Doctor's help. How will they contact him or call for help if he doesn't exist in any database? Obviously there are other ways, (as both freak accidents and the TARDIS herself have led the Doctor to places that need his help) but it still limits anyone not already familiar with how to contact him from being able to. So, what if the time comes when he's drastically needed, and they call out for the Doctor or attempt to look him up, and they're smacked in the face with "Doctor who?" Or even worse, what if he tries to pull his most famous trick of threatening an enemy by reminding them who he is, only to once again be hit with "Doctor Who?" Imagine how differently so many moments would have occurred if the enemy he was facing didn't already know who he was, and/or had no way to find out. (The Pandorica, the Library ("look me up"), and countless other moments.) Worse still, the enemies that still know him now believe him to be dead. Even though that may give him an element of surprise, it also once again limits his ability to threaten an enemy, since they believe to know for a fact that he died, and that it was a fixed point. The Daleks are, admittedly, somewhat of a special case now because they only fall under the category of "enemies that do not fear the Doctor". Since Oswin essentially hacked their brains rather than just a database, they don't just think he's dead- they never knew about him in the first place. So even if they could have been convinced that he simply didn't die, it won't matter because he means absolutely nothing to them now. This is one hell of a double-edged sword. (I'd like to also note how interesting it would be if the Daleks trapped in the Time War ever manage to escape or be set free. Would their knowledge of the Doctor override the missing information? Or it could simply cause massive amounts of confusion between one set of Daleks going on and on about needing to exterminate their greatest enemy, the Doctor, while another group of them (once again) fires back with "Doctor who?" Though that could work out to be half of a good thing if the Time War Daleks destroyed the rest of the Daleks for "malfunctioning" or something.) I also wonder if Oswin herself is behind it, though I don't yet know enough about her to be able to imagine why she would do it, since the Dalek memory-wipe was just a quick fix to help him out.

I'm also a firm believer of the idea that he's travelling out of order- or more-so that the episodes aren't happening in order. We have been given visual evidence of this being confirmed for at least one instance. Rory's cellphone charger got left behind in Henry VIII's chambers during that episode, but it was talked about in A Town Called Mercy. That means that they didn't travel to Mercy until either after The Power of Three, or that it (like the visit to Henry VIII) happened during that episode when they were on the honeymoon trip. The importance of this is anyone's guess really, unless they explain it later. There may even be no reason behind it at all, but it most certainly happened. Saghan ☎ 20:11, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I got distracted earlier and forgot to mention something. I find it interesting that if River has only recently a professor (from our most recent point of view), then the Doctor being erased from the databases has always been coming. Otherwise she would not have been able to "officially" become a professor, being too busy stuck in prison. Yes, some prisons offer education, but "professor" tends to imply that she's done some sort of teaching in her own personal timeline, as well as there never being any evidence that Stormcage houses such programs. (Nor does it seem very likely to me that they would, honestly.) Even if they did, I can say with a high degree of certainty that they would not then let her teach. Saghan ☎ 20:24, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

River was a professor & was not a prisoner when we first saw her in Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead (in which she died). As far as I can remember -- & someone's sure to say if I'm wrong -- that story & The Angels in Manhattan are the only ones in which she's been Professor, not Dr, River Song. The oldest of the Rivers in Last Night presumably was a professor, as she & the Doctor were about to leave on their last tryst before she went to the Library, but her title wasn't mentioned.

As an aside, some US viewers may be missing the significance of the title because they don't know that, in British academia, "professor" is a high academic rank -- head of department or thereabouts -- not just "someone who teaches".

Being Professor River Song means she has a departmental chair (head of department) or a personal chair (same rank but without the burden of admin), which generally requires much more than "some sort of teaching". She must be well established in her field, with plenty of high-quality research to her credit. (I was 89 not long ago but I'm 78 now.) --78.146.184.166^{talk to me} 21:13, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the professor issue to my attention. Though I will say I was not trying to imply that it meant she had only spent time teaching, I'm still glad you defined it further. That also leads me to bring up another point.

I posted some of this in another thread on here just prior to this, but some of it is a bit more relevant on this one, so I'll try to sum up some of the points I made there: Though I could be wrong, I believe the River we see in TATM is from much further ahead in her own timeline than the ones we're likely to see in her next few appearances. Most likely from a point after the "Silence" is finally completely dealt with, since it seems like her only reason to keep returning to prison is to keep the Silence from suspecting that she didn't actually kill the Doctor. As someone else brought up, it seems unlikely for them to pardon her just because he's not in a database. They would still already know. She may end up being pardoned (or just breaking out for good once the Silence are dealt with permanently) but it could also be for another reason, and she's just lying. Again.. I believe all of this this for several reasons.

1. She has suddenly matured quite a bit more than when we last saw her, and much closer to how she was in the Library. She still has her silly little quips, but even those were approached with a bit less of her normal childish attitude. She has also (upon this meeting with her) become much more willing to scold the Doctor. She has done this once before in A Good Man Goes to War, but only because it was absolutely necessary.

2. We're never properly told why she was in New York in the first place, and it would appear she's been there for some time. She already knew quite well what was going on with the "time issues" around the city when Rory showed up, and she was already known as Melody Malone by Grayle- who also knew she had been studying Angels there. It may just be that she was having her own little adventure when her family happened to show up.

3. Even her dialogue suggest that she came from further ahead than usual. "Pardoned ages ago"- this erasure of the Doctor from databases is a new development, and she seems to have been out of prison now for quite some time indeed. (Especially thanks to the fact that she would have had to do a lot of work to become a professor, as was stated above.) She also mentions that she would "travel with the Doctor, but not all the time" shortly before she leaves (meaning "not now either"). Personally I think its not because she can't travel with him permanently, but because this River simply already knows she didn't. It would also explain why she tells him not to travel alone if she knows he's supposed to find a companion- already knowing that he did in her own personal past, possibly even later being told that he found said companion "because you told me to".

4. We've already concreted the fact that she isn't moving in a linear "back-to-front" manner but in more of a jumbled order that generally heads backwards, so an appearance like this would be bound to happen anyway.

5. There was no diary swapping this time. That's pretty unusual for both River and even the show itself. It could have been on purpose so that they could reveal her "late"ness here later.

There are a few more examples, but I can't specifically recall. It's also still possible for me to just be wrong, and that's fine. Either way, it just seems like this River is much further ahead than usual. I'd be happy to see him call her "professor Song" in the next episode she's in, and her react by saying "that still hasn't happened yet" (since it would be the second time he's made that mistake).Saghan ☎ 22:13, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

"A new development" doesn't mean much when you're a time traveler. Relative to what year? The Doctor is a century or so older now, from his perspective, than he was in The Wedding of River Song, and he seems to have been busy spending the last century or so of his personal history erasing himself from all records, for a span of thousands of years. Even if someone else has been doing it, that person clearly has access to time travel, since he's vanished from quite a few different centuries. In the few episodes since Oswin begun the process, we've seen databases in 19th century America and a 24th century spaceship fail to include him and River Song herself, a 52nd century archaeologist with a doctorate in the Doctor's history, has confirmed that he's vanished from public knowledge (which means, I guess, that she would have had to get her doctorate in some other historical subject). River remembers him because she knows him personally; Kate Stewart remembers him from her father's stories. I think River's dialogue in Angels Take Manhattan clearly indicates that the process of doctor-erasing has already changed history, and her time in prison was much shorter than before. Instead of being paroled under the close watch of the Church, she was pardoned outright, which means that as far as the authorities are concerned her crime is absolved and there was no need to parole her. We can't assume that any of the previous River stories that involved her prison time still happened the way we saw them before. I agree that there are some signs that River might be older now, but we can't use her time in prison to compare her to other episodes directly. She's a full professor now, but she seems to have begun her teaching career much earlier than she did in the previous timeline. It's also not clear that the Doctor has any enemies remaining that remember him, since lately he's been killing them off. The whole point of erasing himself is to prevent groups like the Silence, devoted to targeting him, from existing. The authorities who run Stormcage have never heard of the Doctor in this new timeline; River is very clear about that. It's not just that he isn't in databases - nobody knows him, not the Shadow Proclamation, not the Church, not the Headless Monks, not Torchwood (apart from people like Jack and Gwen who've met him). I wouldn't be shocked if they reveal that the Silence never formed, the Battle of Demon's Run didn't happen, and Melody Pond had a normal childhood at her parent's house in Leadsworth, interrupted only by the occasional time-traveling adventure. Or if I'm completely wrong then at the very least, I think it's clear that we can no longer safely make assumptions about how well the Doctor is known based on previous stories. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎ 02:32, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

One thing worth mentioning about the "professor" thing: Do we know that River is _really_ a professor? After all, Professor Summerfield wasn't a real Professor, but later became a real Doctor. (If you don't know the novels, Benny was the witty archeologist companion from the future with a sketchy backstory, raised by foster parents, who spent a lot of time in prison; famous for her extensive diary, for sleeping with the Doctor, for meeting the 6th Doctor well after her travels with the 7th in her timeline, for getting her age set back a few years, and for being from two different centuries in a way that nobody ever made sense of…) --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 05:01, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan, I wasn't having a go at you over the "she's done some sort of teaching" bit. If I seemed to be criticising you, it was unintentional. It was just that you reminded me of the difference between the US & UK use of the title "professor". Since the topic is River's timeline & that difference is important in working out her timeline, I thought I'd better explain it immediately. It means that the point you were making is substantially stronger than it would appear to someone who was thinking of the US meaning of "professor". To have reached that rank, River must have been out of prison for quite a long time -- long enough to have done major research, get it published, build up a strong academic reputation & (on the basis of that) be appointed to an important post with a university or similar academic institution. That would take years, which ties in with "pardoned ages ago".

Where you say "I believe the River we see in TATM is from much further ahead in her own timeline..." etc., I agree. As I said, the only other time River has appeared & been titled "Professor River Song" was at the end of her life. The River in The Angels... is almost certainly the 2nd-oldest we've seen in an episode so far (ignoring the DVD-only mini-episodes). She must be far further along her timeline than she was in the scene with the "first time/last time" kiss with the Doctor (so she presumably was wrong about it being the last time she'd get to kiss him).

I'm not sure the lack of "diary swapping" was for any reason except that there wasn't time for it. They were pretty busy throughout the episode, after all. There might be more to it than that but there doesn't have to be. The pace of events would be enough reason on its own.

Rowan Earthwood: You're right that whoever has been erasing information about the Doctor must have access to time travel. You're also right that Kate (& some others) would still remember because personal memories can't be hacked into & erased the way online data can be. You may be a bit too sweeping, though, when you say that River's timeline has changed drastically. We don't know how long she spent in prison. We never have, so it'd be difficult to tell if the length of time had changed (which might be why Moffat's never given us the numbers). We don't know River's aging rate but we have some pretty strong hints that it's not the normal human rate (& that's pretty variable, anyway), so we can't use that to work out how long she was in prison -- or to work out anything else, for that matter.

So far, we've got good evidence of the removal of information about the Doctor. I don't think we have the evidence to conclude that that's associated with changes in history. You say, "Instead of being paroled under the close watch of the Church, she [River] was pardoned outright" but there's so far no evidence of that. She could have been pardoned outright after (not instead of) being paroled. The only time we saw her on parole & supervised by the Church was in The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone (& the brief scene at the end of The Wedding of River Song, where she's "just climbed out of the Byzantium"). In The Time of Angels, she wasn't yet a professor -- the Doctor introduced her to Amy as "Professor River Song" & River said, "Oh! You mean I'm going to be a professor, someday."

There's no evidence (yet) for "It's not just that he isn't in databases - nobody knows him, not the Shadow Proclamation, not the Church, not the Headless Monks, not Torchwood (apart from people like Jack and Gwen who've met him)." What River said about her pardon was that she was in prison & the authorities suddenly found that they couldn't prove her supposed victim had ever existed. She did not say the authorities didn't know whose existence it was that they couldn't prove. She did not say the authorities suddenly found themselves with a prisoner whose crime was unknown to them. What she said demonstrated that they knew she was in prison for murder & they knew enough about who her supposed victim had been to be able to check & find they'd no records of him having existed. --89.242.70.8^{talk to me} 06:28, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

70, "Do we know that River is _really_ a professor?": Only dialog. The same evidence we have for her being "Dr River Song", earlier in her timeline. The organisers of the expedition in Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead had included her because she was known to be the best in her field. She was "Professor River Song" to them & they were not the type of people to have done that without checking that she really was Professor River Song & really was the best in her field. There's absolutely no countervailing evidence that she isn't really a professor. The Library expedition wouldn't have accepted her as Professor River Song on the basis of a nickname (like Ace calling the Doctor "Professor"). They were legalistic & humourless -- the kind of people who'd require documentary proof of absolutely everything. In triplicate. --89.242.70.8^{talk to me} 06:50, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

With how randomly time time travel works in Doctor Who, I can't prove that the Doctor's erasure from public knowledge changed history, but it's strongly implied. Almost everyone seemed to know who he was before, and now almost nobody knows him. River gives this erasure as the reason she was pardoned; in the old timeline, when he was common knowledge, she couldn't have been pardoned for the same reason, and was unlikely to have been pardoned at all. Since she given 1200 consecutive life sentences, it's unlikely that short of an outright pardon she would've gotten out quickly, even with good behaviour (and a prisoner who escapes as often as she did is not going to be let off for good behaviour). In the new timeline, when she had no reason to stay in prison and they had no justification for keeping her, it's exceedingly unlikely she remained in Stormcage as long as she would have in a timeline when she was convicted of murdering a great hero and kept returning to her sentence just to make sure it was convincing. Absent further evidence, it's possible to argue that she spent the same amount of time in prison that she always had, but I think it's staggeringly unlikely. The way the dialogue was read, and the context it appeared in, signaled that River's history had become very different and the Doctor was somewhat surprised. Just be careful in treating previous stories as valid evidence in this debate. They aren't anymore. The odds are good that history has changed. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎ 14:06, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Rowan Earthwood: Caution in using previous stories as evidence is certainly merited & I wasn't trying to say otherwise. What I was trying to say is that we need to be just as cautious about regarding things as having changed -- until we've more information. At the moment, we know that information about the Doctor has been erased. That's likely to mean there have been other changes, too, but we don't yet know what they are, how extensive they are, how they were made or (rather importantly) who's been causing the changes. Ever since Moffat took over from RTD, I seem to have spent much of my time saying (in one set of words or another) "We don't have enough information yet, so reserve judgement until future episodes tell us more." That's not a complaint, just an observation. (I was 89 but I'm 2, just now.) --2.96.26.113^{talk to me} 15:21, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

First of all, in reference to being corrected about River being a professor: I absolutely took no offense to it. If anything, that's my entire reason for being a part of these conversations. I would much rather be corrected than continue on assuming a false or incomplete fact were absolute truth. It wasn't even as much of a correction of my statement as it was an addition to the information within it, and I certainly appreciate that. Also I don't mind admitting when someone brings up a point that makes me change or even completely contradict my own previous opinions, as I'm probably about to do.

Also, this is not an attempt to correct, scold, or rudely prove anyone wrong here, it's only an attempt to make it able for us all (including myself) to be able to look back at it if needed. Here is the exact conversation River and the Doctor had about the deletion:

River Song: Turns out the person I killed never existed in the first place. Apparently there's no record of him. It's almost as if someone's gone around deleting himself from every database in the universe.

The Doctor: You said I got too big.

River Song: And now no one's ever heard of you. Didn't you used to be somebody?

The Doctor: Weren't you the woman who killed the Doctor?

River Song: Doctor Who?

All I can gather from that (and this is just me personally, honestly, since I had even forgotten the exact words and had to turn on the episode) is that the removal of information does seem to be limited to actual physical data. Her mention of "never existed" isn't literal, just a point made about no information existing.

It's been brought up that whoever (or whatever, to keep an open mind) is altering the Doctor's known existence must certainly have access to time travel, and that is an excellent point. It does then bring up more questions, but I'm reasonably sure that we've established that we can't possibly know the answers to some of them quite yet. (Though I'll probably still ask.) Also, while 89's count-point about there not being any evidence that nobody knows about him is certainly true, (and mirrors a point I poorly attempted to make) at the same time it also does make sense to assume that if he had been deleted from so many databases then it would alter the events that have already happened. Until otherwise shown I still think it's safe to assume that people who have been involved with the Doctor personally would still know he existed. But anyone whose knowledge of him came solely from a database (using that term as widely and as generally as I can) would never have known who he was, so would have been clearly affected by this. Also affected are places that use those "databases" as a form of rules or laws, like Stormcage, since even if they still remember him, they can't prove he existed. Under the agreed assumption of time travel being involved (which is pretty clear) in the deletion process, then Stormcage would have never had records of the Doctor.

Wouldn't that mean that River would have been pardoned even further back, if not completely avoiding prison entirely? When I say that, I'm purposely leaving out the idea of her staying in prison to fool the Silence, because (correct me if I'm wrong) even though we (myself very much included) have assumed that's her reason for staying in prison, we don't know it for a fact. Not to mention it's starting to seem like her staying in prison wouldn't fool the Silence in any way. I hardly believe they don't know how many times she broke out during her stay there. She never once attempted to even be covert about escaping. If anything they would be more suspicious that she kept going back. The only thing she needed to do to make them believe she killed the Doctor is to simply go to prison for it, not stay in prison for it. Even then, why would they much care if she went to prison or not in the first place? The only important piece they've needed so far was to see the Doctor's death. Since there was at least one Silent watching at Lake Silencio, that's taken care of.

Though even that may not be true, because until we see Trenzalore, we have no idea what their true motives are for stopping it. We don't know what will actually happen when the question is asked. Saghan ☎ 16:49, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that Professor was a nickname for River, but that it was a fraudulent credential. Of course I'd forgotten that _both_ of those were true for Benny at different points in her life before the Doctor; apologies for the confusion. Anyway, she was able to fake it well enough to get funding to lead expeditions, and grad students to assist her on them; River is a better liar, with access to time travel and the ability to tweak her appearance, so if she wanted to do the same thing, I'm sure she could.

Anyway, this is all just a minor side point. The larger point is that, on top of all of the confusion about time travel, history changing, and meeting out of order, you have to keep in mind that River lies. There are large parts of her history that we not only don't know yet, but probably never will. Moffat will never reveal enough to remove all the mystery. I suppose one day in 20 years there will be an MA/PDA-style novel that fills in all her background detail, as happened for most of the classic-series companions, but that won't be the story that Moffat intended; it'll be another writer's story that just fits with what Moffat told us. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 04:50, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

As for who may be travelling through time erasing all mention of The Doctor, it's pretty obvious from River's words, (quoted by Saghan above), that River definitely believes The Doctor is doing it himself. For her to say "It's almost as if someone's gone around deleting HIMSELF from every database" is just an oblique way of saying "You're doing it, aren't you?" The Doctor's answer confirms her suspicions to be true. Therefore I strongly suspect that the need to wrack your brains to come up with another candidate for this act would be pointless. It's obviously The Doctor who is removing his own information from the history books. This also ties in with his statement to Dorium at the end of the last series. [Unsigned but appears to be 82.12.226.234, 12:47, October 3, 2012‎ (UTC)]

Please remember to sign.

Yes, it's obvious that River thinks it's the Doctor. The Doctor's answer is equally obviously intended to be taken as confirming her suspicions. He doesn't explicitly say that they're true, however. It's the sort of answer people use when the want to leave themselves room to say later, "I didn't actually lie to you; I just didn't correct your false assumption." --89.240.251.36^{talk to me} 15:25, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

89 just started the point I was going to make, but furthering on that: I like the idea that they both may very well be staying intentionally vague during this conversation. I don't think her saying what she said necessarily implies that she believes it's the Doctor's work. Since it's frequently brought up, I suppose we do have to always remember that River, as well as the Doctor, often lie. However, I'll go ahead and be the first to admit that the "lying" is kind of a weak plot device, and it's getting old rather quickly. It basically gives them an opening to fabricate new stories that would contradict anything revolving around knowledge based on past episodes since they can just claim "Oh, that was a lie, it didn't happen that way." I'm afraid that if they continue using that as a plot device, theorizing about Doctor Who won't be as much fun anymore, since everything we use as references might "turn out to be lies". [It already tends to be brought up in a lot of plot theories and/or arguments against them. I realize I just did that very thing, but I normally try not to use it due to how weak and unimaginative I find it. I'll also be attempting not to use it in any further argument on this particular topic.]

As far as speculating that someone/something else is responsible: Another thing to add is that (immediately before the conversation I copied above) when she tells the Doctor she's been pardoned he pauses and says "..Pardoned?.." (and it seemed to me that the look on his face was one of genuine confusion) I would think if he were responsible for Stormcage's lack of information on her, he would have expected her to be pardoned- if not having intentionally done it for that reason.

89: I don't consider it necessary to speculate that someone/something else is responsible, because I agree that in all likelihood the Doctor is going to end up having been responsible it all along. However, we've got quite a long wait ahead before we'll have the chance to confirm it 100%. What better to do in that time than speculate? The entire point of speculation and theorizing is to take the evidence we have access to and use it to guess what may happen in the future. So I'm not insisting the Doctor didn't cause it, I just think it's interesting (and fun) to look for evidence that he may not have. But as I said, you'll probably end up being right, and he will be the one responsible. Saghan ☎ 17:39, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

On the vagueness: Think about the situation the Doctor & River are in with respect to each other (generally, not just in this episode). They're 2 time travellers who meet in a fairly random order. At any given meeting, one of them will know about things that, for the other one, are still in the future -- "spoilers", to use their term. Sometimes it'll be River who needs to be careful about "spoilers", sometimes it'll be the Doctor. (It ought to be a fairly even divide, about 50:50.) They'll both be in the habit of keeping it vague, when they speak of events, except when they've been able to compare diaries & each has figured out where the other is in his/her timestream. In this episode, they'd no opportunity to sit down & compare diaries. They were plunged straight into fast-moving events. Sometimes, vagueness won't be enough & they have to lie. River told Amy that in the garden scene at the end of The Wedding of River Song. Occasionally, they slip up. The Doctor did in The Time of Angels, when he introduced River to Amy as "Professor River Song" & River pounced on that: "You mean I'm going to be a professor, someday."

It's possible -- no more than just possible -- that River slipped up this time & that that's why the Doctor replied the way he did. If so, it would mean that it is the Doctor who's erasing the records but that he hasn't done it yet. River's comment (combined with the memory of what Oswin did in Asylum of the Daleks) has tipped him off & he's now going to start erasing the records, so we'll see him doing that in later episodes of the series. A major theme of the episode was that they were doing things because they'd found out that they were going to have done them. (Urgh! English tenses ain't designed to cope with time travel. We need a "future past perfect" tense, among others. The future perfect isn't quite what I mean.) His reply could have been intended to conceal from River that she had slipped up & given him information about his personal future. (I was 89 but I'm 2 again, just now.) --2.99.198.167^{talk to me} 20:51, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I like this bit, 89-now-2: "it would mean that it is the Doctor who's erasing the records but that he hasn't done it yet."

Also, may I add I feel very welcomed that my first post here has continued to be interesting to others.AthertonX ☎ 21:35, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

89/2:I can certainly agree with the possibility of the things you just said. His responses very would could be in light of the fact that River tipped him off to something he didn't know yet. If he is already the one who has been erasing himself, this would have been his reminder that he needed to hit Stormcage's databases as well- having not yet done it. (Though in contrast, I would kind of think he'd start with Stormcage since his wife is there.)

Either way, I already suspect at least one other case of the "I only did it because I knew I would" theme showed up at the end of the episode. (For the sake of the following theory, assume this River is from further ahead in her timeline than the next few times we'll see her.) I suspect (or rather "hope"- simply because I'd like to see it happen) that her insisting that he not travel alone was based on something she already knows. I also suspect that when he does finally have Oswin in the presence of a pre-TatM River there will be a conversation along the lines of: [River:]- (eyeing Owsin suspiciously)"Doctor, who is this?.." [Doctor:] "You told me not to travel alone, dear. So I'm not." If anything even approaching that situation happens, it will mean that not only was her saying it a "because I knew I would" moment, but it would be a perfect circle of it happening more than once. Meaning she only told the Doctor not to travel alone because she remembered asking him, and he told her it was because she told him not to. I would be entertained by that, because that would mean that both of them had slipped up, and that the slip-ups evened each other out. It would also interesting to watch because this would all mean that the next time he meets River she won't know about what happened to her parents. So she would really be more likely to ask, "Who is this?.. Where are Amy and Rory?.." His answer to that could be another purposely-vague moment where he lies but tells the truth by saying that they're at home just fine- only failing to mention that 1938 is their home now. It would be a good chance to see the Doctor try to hide the pain he would certainly still be feeling.

AthertonX: You're more than welcome here, as I'm sure everyone else would agree. I have a long wait for the next episodes and I have no intention of letting things stagnate around here. At least not as far as I can help it. I know I will certainly continue to post on as many of these topics as often as I possibly can, and I expect it will be the same for most of the regular theorists around here. Vote Saxon. Saghan ☎ 22:12, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

AthertonX: I concur. Anyone is welcome here if they've interesting things to say and/or have interesting topics to raise (& do it politely, of course).

Saghan: If -- if -- my idea is right, the Doctor probably will start with the records needed to spring River from Stormcage. That might not mean the Stormcage records themselves will be first, because it'd depend on all the connections. There'd be no point erasing things from Stormcage only to have them check up with some other database & find out what's going on. (That, though, is the professional database programmer side of me talking & I don't suppose we'll be taken through the process in detail. No reason why we should be.) Anyway, we already know that the erasure was done well enough to get River out & (importantly) to get her out unconditionally. She's not on parole, on temporary release, subject to recall or anything like that. She's free & clear. If (again) my idea is right, it would also mean that the pardoned River has just inadvertently started the process that will get her pardoned, which appeals to me. --2.99.198.167^{talk to me} 23:23, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

It appeals to me as well. That's essentially what I was aiming for with my last post- that the whole "circling back on itself" is quite entertaining to me. Admittedly, this is a form of a paradox, but they've already used it on the show plenty of times. Even River herself was named through a paradox. Amy named Melody after her childhood friend, Melody- who then turned out to be the same one.

Speaking of Amy Pond, I just could not neglect to say this anymore: I live in an extremely boring part of America, stuck at the bottom of Alabama in a town with barely enough population worth mentioning. Guess who absolutely blew my mind a few days ago by not only showing up here, but is continuing to stay to film a movie? Karen Gillan. She frequents the Starbucks right down the road where my friend works. So in all likelihood, I may get to meet Amy Pond. I'm sure for some people meeting celebrities isn't a big deal or even uncommon- but for her to show up here is the most amazing thing to happen to this town in.... ever. Not only that, but if I could have chosen anyone to meet from Doctor Who, it would have been her. (Please pardon my fanboy ramblings, I just can't get over my excitement.) Saghan ☎ 02:10, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan: Fanboy ramblings duly pardoned. I also live in a fairly small town, though not as small as yours seems to be. However, the small town in my case is St. Andrews, which not only has a university (the oldest in Scotland) but is also the "Home of Golf", so we're tripping over celebrities so much it soon stops mattering. Not KG, though, as far as I know. Maybe she doesn't play golf. (If so, sensible girl! Boring game.)

Back to River: It's not just the causal loop ("bootstrap paradox") that appeals to me. As you say, it happens pretty frequently in DW. The particular appeal to me is the idea that River might have got herself pardoned by accident & without realising she'd done it!

There's another such paradox associated with River that we learned of about the same time we learned the one involving her name. Just after she's regenerated in Let's Kill Hitler, the Doctor says, "Spoilers," to Melody (having picked up the term from River's frequent use of it) & Melody, freshly in her River incarnation but not yet knowing she's River, responds, "Spoilers? What's 'Spoilers'?" -- so the Doctor picked up the expression from River & River got it from the Doctor. That "Spoilers" is itself a paradox is delicious. (I'm usually 89, sometimes 2, but I seem to be 78, today.) --78.146.185.60^{talk to me} 12:23, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

You're lucky Saghan. I grew up in NYC and Wasington DC, so I can hardly say that I'm from a small town, but the only celebrities I've ever met have been a couple of CNN and PBS contributors. I'd much rather meet a Doctor Who star. Anyway, back on subject, Doctor Who has always been filled with paradoxes like that, the best examples being Blink and Mawdryn Undead. It was pretty much the events of The Pandorica Opens and A Good Man Goes to War that caused the Doctor to erase himself, both of which did involve River.Icecreamdif ☎ 21:03, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I grew up in LA, and went to school with the children of people like Mick Jagger, Bruce Dern, and Walter Koenig, and later shared a house with a TV writer and a set designer. But the only companion I've ever met was Kylie Minogue, and that was in Boise, Idaho, of all places. I have met some of the writers, although I think Platt is the only one who'd actually written for the show before I met him. Anyway, back on topic: The fact that River's story is causal loops within causal loops wasn't very surprising to anyone who remembers Continuity Errors, The Curse of Fatal Death, and Moffat's pre-River RTD-era stories (Blink, Time Crash, …). But it's still hard not to be impressed with how well Moffat crafts them. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 05:30, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

70, "it's still hard not to be impressed with how well Moffat crafts them": Part of the reason they work so well is that Moffat manages to use them for much more than making the story logic work. The causal loop with the name Melody is a classic example. It's not really needed to make the plot hang together but it very definitely is fun: "You named your daughter after your daughter." The "Spoilers" one is the same. Even these ones aren't only fun, though, because they help the audience to get the "feel" of the situation. They're not components of the structure but they are very clear illustrations of it &, because they're fun, they're memorable, helping the audience to keep track of what's going on. --89.242.66.17^{talk to me} 12:57, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and very well put. I was only thinking about the first half of that, the "fun" part—even casual viewers get the point of Melody's name, and enjoy it, which isn't true of the equally-clever timey-wimey written by people like Marc Platt or Paul Cornell. But you're right about the second half, too: in a universe where Melody is named after herself, a plot about the Doctor discovering and preventing his own future death feels like it fits. That may not matter much to the hardcore fans who care more about _understanding_ that it fits than _feeling_ like it does—which is why he also gives us things like Good Night—but to the casual viewer, it's all that matters. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 01:24, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the "casual viewer" to whom it matters. Not long ago, although it's been archived now, there was a topic here about the Doctor "murdering" Ganger-Amy at the end of The Almost People. The problem with that event was that, although the narrative logic was there (Ganger-Amy was never an independent entity), the emotional support for the logic was absent, which resulted in many viewers -- not just casual ones -- misunderstanding the situation. The discussion of that topic ended with the conclusion: Logically it's probably OK but it still doesn't feel right. People who start & contribute to discussions here are not what I'd call "casual viewers" -- maybe not the hardest of hardcore but definitely not "casual". How people feel about the Doctor is important, so making sure there's proper emotional support for the narrative logic is almost as important as the logic itself. Episodes misfire if the "feel" is wrong, even when the logic is right. And, for all of us, the logic's much easier to grasp if it's presented well than if it isn't. (I'm usually 89, sometimes 2, but I seem to be 78 again, this time.) --78.146.187.111^{talk to me} 10:34, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

You're right. So, in that light, let me revise what I said: The distinction is that fans demand that a story work logically under scrutiny _as well as_ feeling right, not instead of. And actually, Moffat said a similar thing to your point in an interview about his 1996 short story Continuity Errors: He wanted a story that feels like it so obviously works that you don't have to think about it, but it also had to work if you do think about it. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 07:12, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

He may not always (does not always) hit the target but he's at least aiming in the right direction with that. And I'd agree with you about fans -- the type who frequent sites like this, anyway.

An aside about formatting: If, where you're putting an underscore on either side of a word or phrase, you put a triple apostrophe on either side of it, it'll show up as bold, like this. If you use only a double apostrophe, it gives you italics, thus. If you use a quintuple apostrophe, it gives you bold italics, but that's really OTT. (I'm 2 again, for the moment.) --2.96.17.194^{talk to me} 12:12, October 8, 2012 (UTC)