In the Doctor Who episode S5E1, The Eleventh Hour, The Doctor and Amy walk past a small pond. The Doctor asks about it, and Amy calls it a duck pond:

What is that?
It's a duck pond.
Why aren't there any ducks?
I dunno, there's never any ducks.
Then how do you know it's a duck pond?
It just is, is it important, the duck pond?

So, what's with the duck pond? Did the ducks get eaten by the cracks, or was there something else going on here?

  • 1
    I don't recall any other mentions of this. Of course, being Doctor Who, it could come back around at any time.
    – Xantec
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 20:11
  • 4
    I think the Doctor may have made mention of this again in the 2nd part of the Weeping Angels episode... where it dawned on him why she didn't remember the ducks, or the Daleks or [a couple other things i think], because of the crack erasing things from being.
    – eidylon
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 20:17
  • 1
    I think it was just supposed to be a funny scene. But it was important for them, at the original location there was no pond, so they made an artificial one (lower right corner): maps.google.de/…
    – Till B
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 20:26

1 Answer 1


There are a few ways you could interpret the duck pond scene, other than it just being comic relief. I imagine it could have any one (or all) of the following meanings:

  1. It could be related to the "Amelia is now called Amy" issue that the Doctor questions:

    Old Lady: Amy, who's your friend?

    The Doctor: Who's Amy? You're Amelia.

    Amy: Yeah, now I'm Amy!

    The Doctor: Amelia Pond! That was a great name!

    Amy: ...Bit fairytale.

    In other words, it's another case of calling a pond by a different name (Amelia Pond calling herself Amy Pond, calling a regular pond a duck pond), which the Doctor seems to see no point in.

  2. It was meant to be a literal example of things disappearing through the cracks in time and going unnoticed, which could then be realized later by the Doctor in the episode "Flesh and Stone" (as pointed out in eidylon's comment):

    Cracks in time, time running out... No, couldn't be. How is a duck pond a duck pond if there aren't any ducks? And she didn't recognise the Daleks! OK, time can shift. Time can change. Time can be rewritten. Ah! Oh! ... Time can be unwritten. ... It's been happening and I haven't even noticed!

  3. It wasn't simply a literal example of things disappearing, but instead foreshadowing for the general cracks-in-time storyline. In other words, it's an example of Amy accepting a glaring absence as "It just is" and not questioning it, even though she knows at some subconscious level that it makes no sense. There may never have been ducks in that pond in the first place. People might have started calling it a "duck" pond, and it just stuck, with everyone simply accepting that that's what it is even though they've never seen ducks there.

    In this way, the duck pond scene parallels other situations where Amy accepted things as they were even though they made no sense. For example, the fact that she lives in a huge empty house, claiming to have no mom or dad, but not ever (to my knowledge) explaining where they went. She clearly has memories of them still ("I used to hate apples. Then my mum put faces on them."), but these memories don't ever seem to trigger a "Wait a minute, then where did they go?" kind of response.

    The duck pond scene shows the Doctor trying to open Amy's mind, to get her to pay attention to those nagging little details that don't add up, to look "Exactly where you don't wanna look. Where you never wanna look. The corner of your eye." He's starting her off on her journey to become a time-traveler, to look at things differently, which will ultimately be what helps her remember the Doctor later and bring him back in "The Big Bang".

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.