Doctor Who: Why the revelation of Ruby's mother didn't work

Season One's reveal that Ruby's mother was an ordinary human felt like a disappointing resolution to what had been an intriguing mystery in Doctor Who. Especially since a similar mystery had been handled much better during Steven Moffat's era as showrunner.

Season One of Disney Who focused on the mystery of Ruby's long lost mother. It was an arc with a resolution that didn't quite work.
Season One of Disney Who focused on the mystery of Ruby's long lost mother. It was an arc with a resolution that didn't quite work. | BBC

Last year's season of Doctor Who definitely came with some highs and lows. Episodes like "Boom", "73 Yards", and "Dot and Bubble" gave us extremely original and memorable stories. On the other hand, "Space Babies" was a disappointing way of opening the season, and Sutekh's return in the two-part finale was disappointing. But not as disappointing as the resolution of the season's key arc: Ruby's mother.

The reveal that Ruby's mother was just an ordinary person isn't necessarily a bad reveal. Showrunner Russell T Davies said he was inspired by The Last Jedi's initial twist about Rey, who had been on a similar mission to find her parents.

"“This is kind of my reaction to – bear with me now – the Star Wars films. I can't remember their titles but, in the last trilogy, [The Last Jedi] said that was nothing special. There was nothing special about her parentage.""
Russell T Davies

Of course, this was massively retconned in The Rise of Skywalker when Rey was revealed to be the granddaughter of Emperor Palpatine, which Davies was less happy about. To be honest, I agree. It was a cheap retcon designed to capture some of the shock value of The Empire Strikes Back and failed spectacularly. Out of the two "reveals", while it's not perfect, The Last Jedi is the more satisfying take.

The Impossible Girl - A better example of "an ordinary human"

Honestly, resolving a mystery by revealing that a character isn't special isn't a bad solution. In fact, it's a resolution that Doctor Who has done before, and arguably better. Series 7 built up a mystery around Clara Oswald, of how the Doctor kept meeting multiple versions of her. Who was she? A trap? An old enemy? Perhaps even a Time Lord (or Time Lady, as Romana was often referred to)?

In the end, the answer was that Clara was just an ordinary person. Oh, she was intelligent and brave enough to be a companion of the Doctor. But beyond that, she was simply an ordinary human. One who makes a choice to save the Doctor's life, a choice that resulted in the creation of multiple Claras. It was her future and her travels with the Doctor that made her special, not her origins.

Series 7 might not be my favorite season, but it built up and resolved its central mystery with a satisfying answer. Maybe not everyone was happy with the resolution, but at least it didn't cheat the audience, even when it left questions to be answered in the following season.

A hollow resolution

This brings me back to the mystery of Ruby's mother. The issue with it isn't the resolution. If it had been handled right, the idea that Ruby herself is special not because of her mother, but because of who she is as a person, could've been a great ending.

The problem was the buildup along the way. Moments like snow appearing out of nowhere whenever Ruby thinks about the night her mother left her at the church. By the time the season finishes, we still don't have a satisfying explanation for it.

But perhaps the worst element is the time window sequence in "The Legend of Ruby Sunday". When you're watching it for the first time, it's not that bad, and it feels like a great piece of buildup. Especially when it's revealed that history itself is somehow changing when the mother points to the Doctor - something that we didn't see happen the first time in "The Church on Ruby Road".

So when it's revealed that Ruby's mother is simply an ordinary woman - and that there was no reason at all for time itself to change - it feels like a massive cheat. There's not even an explanation given that could explain why history changed at all. So the answer the Doctor gives - that everyone is important to someone - feels hollow.

Creating great companions

The funny thing is that in his original run, Russell T Davies was great at giving us companions who were important because of their actions, not because of their origins. Rose, Martha, Donna, even Mickey - they saved the day most often through their bravery as well as their intelligence, not because of where they came from or who their parents were.

By comparison, Steven Moffat liked to create mysteries, and he often made the companions the center of those mysteries. Amy and the Cracks; River Song, and of course, Clara. Yet at the same time, Moffat still ensured that these characters were fleshed out and believable. More than that - in the cases of Amy and Clara at least, whatever mysteries surrounded them, he also aimed to remind the audience that they were ordinary humans, too.

With this latest season, Davies tried to do the same thing - combine a companion's story with a mystery. And it didn't work. The mystery was built up too much with too many red herrings, making the resolution incredibly disappointing. Worse than that, it may have taken away some vital development for Ruby, making her feel a lot less important as a character than the narrative claims to be.


I hope that with the next season, Davies handles the new companion's journey better. As I mentioned, Russell knows how to create great companions. If he focuses more on Belindra Chandra's development and relationship with the Doctor more next season, with the mystery focused on something else, he might give us a more satisfying journey this time.