Howling:Theories about Clara

The Howling → Theories about Clara

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

I've seen a few different far off theories about Clara Oswin Oswald, thought we should have a good place to discuss them. This one was posted by User:Stormystormageddon:

Is it possible that Clara Oswin Oswald might be CAL? User:Stormystormageddon

Think about it, they both exist across different time periods, there can be multiple versions of them, and they can create there own reality per say. With Clara it was the crashed spaceship where she made soufflés and for CAL, it was the Library. This is just a theory but any thoughts?

She could be a new version of the Bad Wolf meme, too. I've had some odder thoughts, too. What about you guys? --ComicBookGoddess ☎ 17:25, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

I've seen this theory elsewhere and I don't think it's very likely. For starters, CAL is short for Charlotte Abigail Lux, not some combination of Clara, Oswin, and Oswald, like every other one of her forms. I also just think it would be a rubbish story line. CAL's story is over. I don't think they should ruin that beautiful ending by twisting it up with the rest of this Clara mess. Also, that would mean people would start doing the reverse of the whole "every new character could be the Rani" thing by instead going "every old character could be Clara". So, while it's possible that this could happen, I think it's unlikely the showrunners would actually do it, and I personally don't think it would make a very good plot twist. Imamadmad (Contact me) 06:09, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Imamadmad. I'm only surprised that I've not yet encountered anyone suggesting that Clara is the Rani, despite the drastic difference between Clara's apparent reincarnation with the same looks & personality -- & even turn of phrase -- & Time Lord regeneration with different looks & personality. Clara is not only a new character but a new kind of character. --89.242.64.79^{talk to me} 10:58, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

I think she's human, but there's something else that will be going on with her that caused a time splintering. I even saw somebody this week theorise she's the future child of River and the Doctor.--ComicBookGoddess ☎ 18:17, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it was inevitable that someone would suggest that but it doesn't fit. A child of theirs would be able to regenerate & Clara can't. If she could, she would have done so in The Snowmen.

I think you're right about her being human but with some extras, although we need more information before we can go further with our theories. From the previews of The Bells of Saint John (not the prequel with the swings), it seems we'll learn a bit more tomorrow but I'd be surprised if we learned enough in one episode to solve the mystery.

The prequel with the swings [1] suggests reincarnation. It makes it look as if each Clara is born & grows up normally, without memories of previous lives. That's about all it conveys, however, except a rather forward personality. "Don't talk to strange men" is advice she's unlikely to follow. --89.241.69.66^{talk to me} 20:33, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

From The Bells of Saint John, we have a small part of an answer & more questions.

The part answer is that Clara's computer skills are an unintended gift from the Great Intelligence. Is her (seeming) reincarnation the same? The Great Intelligence is associated with Tibet (The Abominable Snowmen, 1967), as is reincarnation.

A new question is: Who was "the woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS phone number & told her it was the best helpline "in the universe"? It could be River but it could also be someone else that we haven't yet met. It could even be Clara (disguised so she didn't recognise herself), at a later point in her timeline.

It looks as if the Doctor took young Clara's advice to find somewhere quiet to sit & think. Did the leaf in Clara's book come from the park where they met in the prequel? (I was 89 before but I'm 78 now.) --78.146.187.106^{talk to me} 12:09, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

I just watched the Bells of St John last night, and I thought of a theory. Maybe Futuristic Clara and Modern Clara are the same person, but just in different points in their timeline. There were a lot of hints/clues in the episode that made me think this, such as the mention of 'Nina' (Nina is Futuristic Clara's girlfriend at one point in her timeline), Clara gaining genius computer skills from the Great Intelligence (Futuristic Clara is a genius with computers), and Clara making up the nickname 'Oswin' (Futuristic Clara referred to herself as Oswin). Also, Futuristic Clara seemed rather familiar with the Doctor in Asylum of the Daleks. It wouldn't be surprising if she had met him earlier in her timeline. Chericola ☎ 23:41, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

Modern Clara did make up the name "Oswin", though the Doctor had already said it to her when he arrived at the Maitlands' front door (he asked "Clara Oswin Oswald?" & she responded "Just Clara Oswald."). However, Victorian Clara's full name was shown on her gravestone as "Clara Oswin Oswald". We have, of course, no way of knowing if Victorian Clara had computer skills, because there were no computers available for her to use.

Futuristic Clara had access to the information about the Doctor held in the Daleks' pathweb (until she deleted it all) & she showed no sign of recognising his face when she first saw it in Asylum of the Daleks. Also, Futuristic Clara didn't use the name Clara at all, calling herself "Oswin Oswald" only.

The Nina reference in The Bells of Saint John may be significant but that Nina was a friend of Angie Maitland, not of Clara, & that suggests (though it doesn't prove) that that Nina is about Angie's age -- much younger than Clara. Futuristic Clara (Oswin Oswald) spoke of having had a "crush" on Nina, which suggests (though again it doesn't prove) that "her" Nina would have been about the same age as Oswin was or perhaps a bit older.

We still don't have enough information to figure out how these versions of Clara/Oswin are connected -- which is presumably because Moffat doesn't want us to have enough. --78.146.184.78^{talk to me} 16:38, April 2, 2013 (UTC)