Everybody hates Clara

I've been toying with the idea of writing this post for a while, though I hadn't quite found the time in between posts about each episode. But after feeling really underwhelmed by Saturday's episode 'A Nightmare in Silver', I couldn't summon the enthusiasm to write about it specifically. I'm not sure that I can accurately get across what I didn't like about it, other than it not living up to my expectations for an episode written by Neil Gaiman. It may also have to do with the sudden realisation that the next episode is the last one this series and we're still no closer to finding out what Clara's secret is.

It seems like a lot of people have been quick to claim that this half-series is the worst period of the show ever, with Clara being their common problem. Penny Arcade Report have a whole article on the subject from someone who started watching in the Amy Pond period but I've seen the same criticisms from fans of companions written by Russell T. Davies. I've been doing my best to give her the benefit of the doubt but I'm not sure if I'm grudgingly starting to agree with this assessment.

It can be hard to agree though when some people seem to veer so close to attacking her portrayal as a whole rather than just the way she's written. Jenna Louise Coleman still seems to be doing pretty well with the material she's given and I don't find anything about her actively offensive. And while she's perhaps lacking in character development I wouldn't describe her as a complete cardboard cut-out either - I was reminded again of Mr. Plinkett's Star Wars reviews and how people hilariously struggled to describe Queen Amidala in the Phantom Menace. Clara by comparison has had some nice human touches and you could certainly come up with a list of characteristics to describe her.

If anything she perhaps comes across as not having a consistent character as she can be scared one episode and then taking charge in another, also occasionally seeming to be written more like Amy Pond. But mostly people seem to just describe her as a 'normal person' with nothing 'special' about her, which seemed like an unfair assessment - something already highlighted in 'Hide'. I can understand that some people might have been upset that she wasn't more like her incarnations in 'Asylum of the Daleks' and 'The Snowmen' but I felt it cemented the fact that she was definitely a different character.

The problem seems more to be that the show has built up the idea that she's a huge mystery to solve but then the Doctor seems to do almost nothing to investigate it. I can count about two instances where the idea has been pushed forward in any way - The Doctor's initial investigation of her past in 'The Rings of Akhaten' and surreptitiously taking her to see a psychic in 'Hide'. Any other mention of her mystery has been a variation on "Ooh, you're so impossible, tell me who you are", when the audience is already on board with the idea of her knowing nothing about her past lives.

Coincidentally, both episodes that featured any kind of progress were by the same writer - I don't know if that's significant or if the episode's writer would not have much choice in what was revealed about Clara. If that's the case, it feels like in most episodes the writers weren't given anything new to reveal, leaving both her character and the mystery in a holding pattern - not willing to do anything exciting with her character lest they contradict some unknown end goal.

But then after so much time treading water, it seems like the trailers and adverts for the final episode are quite happy to 'spoil' Clara's purpose. I don't know whether to take the radio advert at face value but it consists of a voice over from Jenna-Louise Coleman talking about how she has existed many times, feels like she is everywhere at once and knows she was born to save the Doctor. It might just be a hook to get people to watch the show but it felt like lazy exposition to me, to have her character suddenly come out with these motivations when everything has suggested she doesn't know anything consciously.

I mean people have kind of been coming to this conclusion already I suppose, due to the fact that nearly every episode has been resolved by Clara not the Doctor. I suppose some of these instances have felt a little forced but it still feels like too subtle an approach to take. If some of the episodes had tied into her protecting the Doctor more, it would have helped to keep people's interest and reveal the mystery more gradually.

So we're then left with a final episode that's either going to have to cram in a lot of explanation or leave a lot unresolved. Another common complaint this series has been that 45 minutes is just too short to really let the stories shine but sadly this doesn't seem likely to change. I can't see the length of an individual episode changing (although I think an hour would be more suitable) and Steven Moffat has previously talked about not wanting to do two part episodes anymore.

His reasons for doing so might seem very practical (it doesn't save them money and almost always results in declining audience figures) but while it might make sure the show survives on a long term basis, I can't help but feel that it could be limiting it. Surely whatever is the best way of telling a given story should come first, if something would work better as a two parter then it should at least be an option. And while it must be difficult to plan an overall series arc when you can jump anywhere in time, it really needs to find a good middle ground between every episode being connected and having no development whatsoever.