Howling:The Little Girl's True Identity

The Howling → The Little Girl's True Identity

There be spoilers about un-released stories here.
Run back to the forums if you're scared.

I finally discovered who the little girl is, and it is actually pretty obvious if you think about it. The little girl has the power to regenerate, but the only timelord left alive (the doc) is a man, so he can't be a little girl. However, if you have played THe Mazes of The Dead, then you will know that Amhy also, apparently has the power to regenerate. Therefore, the little girl is either Amy herself, or more likely, the daughter of Amy and Rory. If it is Amy and Rory's daughter, then because Amy has the power to regenerate, there wouldn't even need to be any interference from the silence or the tardis, or the doctor being the father. 69.251.176.120 00:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Who says a male Time Lord can't regenerate into a little girl? The 4th Doctor said he could, and there have been other such references in the show. And Moffat definitely knows about those references, since he talked about them after he wrote [The Curse of Fatal Death], a parody where the Doctor _did_ regenerate into a female. --99.33.26.0 04:26, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

The girl is obviously not Amy, but the previous poster does raise an interesting point. If this wiki does consider video games to be canon, than does that mean that we have to consider Amy's odd ability to regenerate to be canon, despite the fact that it will most likely never be addressed on the TV show?Gowron8472 00:42, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Is Amy's regeneration a major plot point of the game, or is it just some minor thing, and was Moffat or one of the other writers of the current season involved with writing the plot of the game. If Moffat was involved, I doubt that he would reveal such a major plot point in a video game, and if he was not involved, I don't think we should allow a video game to define such a major plot point.Icecreamdif 03:22, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

It was written by Oli Smith, who's written (at least) an NSA and the two Nintendo games, but no TV episodes. Also, IIRC, the game was written "in consultation with" Moffat, Willis, Wenger, and BBC Wales. But anyway, unlike the Adventure Games, no one from the show has gone out of their way to tell us it's canonical. So, I'd say it falls into the same category as the Nintendo games or the Flash games on the BBC website.

More importantly, it's not really a plot point so much as part of the game mechanics. The characters only die if you screw up, and regeneration is just how you get your "next guy". It's just like the way time rewinds itself to the start of the scene if you screw up in the Adventure Games--but, even though those games are canonical, we're not expected to believe that the Whoniverse works that way. For that matter, the fact that Pacman reappears at the center of a maze every time he dies in the game wasn't a plot point in the Pacman cartoons.

PS, it's [The Mazes of Time], not The Mazes of the Dead. Go check it out in the App Store. --99.33.26.0 04:26, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

I just downloaded the game, and have already experienced Amy regenerating a few times. The problem is that normally when a character dies and then comes back to life at an earlier part of the level, you are just meant to pretend that the character never died and is continuing on. However, the character's death would normally be depicted as you would expect it to happen. For example, if Pac-Man were ever to die, his mouth really would open wide and he would sort of collapse in on himself. In this case, if we are to consider the game to be canon, we have to assume that if Amy were to die she would regenerate. We don't see the completed regeneration, because the player(the real person who is holding their i-pad) essentially travels back in time a few minutes, and we see Amy from before she died, and in this timeline she hasn't been killed. However, if we were to somehow continue to watch the events unfold, we have to assume that Amy would have regenerated into a new body. Since the TV show will obviously never pursue this, we should probably consider the game non-canon, since the alternative would be to assume that Amy could regenerate.Icecreamdif 01:33, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

As a big nerd and a big video gamer, I feel I should point out that things done for gameplay purposes may not be canon. Sometimes, continuity sacrifices must be made for the purposes of making a good game. Sorryaboutthatchief 05:41, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sorryaboutthatchief. I don't think Amy's regenerations in the game are meant to imply that Steven Moffat told Oli Smith that Amy is a Time Lady. Also, keep in mind that this isn't a cinematic, looks-like-an-animated-episode type of game; it's less directly representational than the Adventure Games. (Again, unlike the Adventure Games, we haven't heard from Moffat and Wegner that it definitely is part of the Doctor Who continuity anyway--but I think that, even if the game in general is considered canonical, I don't think this bit is.) --99.33.26.0 02:24, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Where is this game? Don't think I've heard of it before JCRendle 11:17, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

It's a cheaply produced iPhone game which you can buy on the app store. I wouldn't look to deeply into the Amy regeneration thing though, the game reuses maps constantly so to reuse a death scene doesn't seem that out of place when you're playing on it. --Revan\Talk 12:19, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

You can watch Matt Smith playing it on the iPad at http://www.combom.co.uk/2011/05/matt-smith-plays-doctor-who-mazes-of.html. For some reason, he keeps calling the companion "Karen" instead of "Amy", so maybe it's Karen who can regenerate. :) --99.33.26.0 03:39, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Matt keeps calling her Karen because that's the name of Amy's actor. He's probably just used to

calling her that :) Sorry if it's just a joke that flew over my head. 82.23.86.126 19:21, May 13, 2011 (UTC)Ghadius

Yes, it was a joke. Who would seriously wish for Karen Gillan to regenerate into a different body than the one she has now? :) He also says the game is rubbish when you're playing Karen, and great when you're playing the Doctor, which is pretty funny. --99.33.25.110 13:53, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think the little girl is a child of The Doctor and River. Weird theory, but makes sense. There are parts that don't, (For example, River would already know who the girl was if they do meet in reverse order all the time) but I can bet she isn't Amy.

That idea has been brought up before on lots of forums. There are some interesting points for it (e.g., in the novels, hybrids with Time Lord mothers are human, while hybrids with Time Lord fathers are Gallifreyan) and against it (like the one you pointed out), but the biggest thing for me is that it seems odd to put all this emphasis on Amy's possible pregnancy only to drop a River baby on us instead.... --99.33.26.0 03:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

If we assume that the little girl is a Time Lord child, there is still no reason to assume it is the child of a Time Lord in current existence. The Master was wandering around the Earth for a long time, so was the Rani, so was the Monk and there was Professor Chronatis(sp>) at Oxford. Furthermore, we've seen DNA swabs taken and the hint that the Doctor's body might be of some value was mentioned in THE IMPOSSIBLE ASTRONAUT and there was a Silent around the site of his death and we know they have some time travel. For the moment it's an interesting speculation and little more. Let's wait for further information.

And I, for one, do not consider an app to be canon. It's just a cool reset function that should amuse the casual WHO fan, not the fanatics who populate this wiki.Boblipton 20:34, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

No, the regenerate feature on the app is a mere novelty. It's not canon and, as the above says, it just there to make it more Who-related.----Skittles the hog--Talk 20:38, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor isn't the only Time Lord who survived the Time War. The other one who did, the Master, had a far greater opportunity to leave behind a daughter. ~18:21, May 26, 2011

Forget other timelords or past enemies I think we're dealing with all the main players here. I'm betting the little girl is River, she's Amy and Rory's forgotton child thanks to the Silence. Is she a Timelord no, it's a little more complicated than that! Oh and if I'm right, then when the Doctor says "I'm sorry" it's to River, for good reason :) 202.44.78.200 05:27, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Steven Moffatt has said, in an interview when he could have refused to answer, that River is 100% human. The girl rather obviously is not purely human. That means the girl is not River. Presumably, the girl isn't purely Time Lord, either, or the Doctor would have been aware of her existence before he was. Is she one of the "main players"? No, not if you mean one of those we saw before The Impossible Astronaut. She's someone new, introduced by SM. Of course, that doesn't mean she won't become a main player herself. She certainly has the potential to do so. It's not just her ability to regenerate. She seems rather competent at operating on her own, as her manner in the New York alleyway showed. She's resisting the Silence who are trying to use her. ("Incredibly strong and running away. I like her!" as the Doctor said.) On top of that, the Doctor, a Time Lord who roams throughout time and space in a TARDIS, has "the strangest feeling she's going to find us." 89.242.68.115 06:07, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'll agree the regeneration does suggest she's more than human, but this is Doctor Who so I'm open to options here! I definitely think there's more evidence to support River as the little girl. Here goes hold on to your Fez! I may be completly wrong but I think this theory has a good fit, yes not to all of the puzzle but a chunk of it.

The little girl kills the Doctor, she doesn't mean to infact I think she had lots of help (not just from the Silence), if you recall the Doctor gesturing. Also the disappearing sounds like an invisible Tardis to me, (possibly piloted by River on the suggestion of the Silence). It's not like she'd tell them anyway because she killed him in the first place. I think the sickness River felt was a reaction to the subliminal messages. So the Doctor dies the first time River Song meets him. Nice symmetry isn't it. "It's alright I know it's you" (he knew all about her, she knew nothing about him). "Rule 1 - The Doctor Lies" , she didn't know she was going to kill him by doing what he said. Likely he dies becuase he knows this will save her life, it sounds very Doctorish, the Silence may have bet on this. "I'm sorry" is to River for what he did, she's obviously very upset seeing it all again now that she understands what's happening and what he did. This may also explain why crackshot River couldn't hit the side of a barnwall when she shot at the girl.

So the doctor dies and what happens? it definitely changes the little girl, my bet is the Doctors conscienious transfers to the little girl/River. This is how River knows so much about the Doctor, why she seems like his wife, if you recall she said "could it ever be that simple, the Moff said it's complicated), can write high gallifrayen, can fly the Tardis possibly better than the current Doctor. It's likely this is why she's in Stormhold as well as she's now a very danerous individual, but yes ultimately because of the Doctors death. I expect she may go off the tracks a bit.... you bad girl you.

Now assuming the little girl does hold the doctors conscienious, so she is something new, something we've never seen before, but yes defintely human. But is it possible that she could regenerate either becuase the Doctor is onboard or because she was so close when he died in mid-regeneration? 27.32.72.200 08:36, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're failing to distinguish between "evidence" and "speculation". The above is speculation. It isn't evidence. Other points apart, it would be difficult to find any moment in any episode where it would not be possible for an invisible TARDIS to be involved, especially if its engines were on silent. 2.96.25.48 08:50, May 29, 2011 (UTC)