‘Doctor Who’ fans, here’s what the ‘sleep’ in your eyes really is

After seeing Sherlock writer Mark Gatiss’s ‘Sleep No More’ episode of Doctor Who last season, did you wonder what the ‘sleep’ in your eyes actually is?

Unfortunately it’s not really the Sandmen from Le Verrier Space Station.

The clever folks at todayifoundout.com explain that the “sleep” is in fact a type of “rheum”, known as “gound”.

Doctor Who Sleep No More

The trivia website writes: “Gound is made up of a mixture of dust, blood cells, skin cells, etc. mixed with mucus secreted by the conjunctiva, as well as an oily substance from the meibomian glands.

“The meibomian glands are a type of sebaceous gland that line the rim of the eyelids with about fifty on the top and twenty five on the bottom of each eye. They secrete an oily substance called meibum that performs a variety of functions including: helps seal your eyes in an air tight fashion when they are closed; prevents tears from spilling onto your cheeks; and helps keep tears that coat your eyes from evaporating. It is this oily substance that is one of the primary components in gound, mixed with mucin from the conjunctiva and various foreign particles in your eye.”

> Read their full blog post here.

What did you think of ‘Sleep No More’? Let us know below…

  • Dr. Moo

    “What did you think of ‘Sleep No More’? Let us know below…”
    Okay, I will.

    It was crap.

    • Mack59

      With the worse acting in season 9 as well. I realise that they’ve got to experiment a bit to keep things from getting stale but surely someone must’ve realised that this was a dud, or was a case of Emperor Gattis’ new clothes ?

      • Barry McCann

        Not a dud. An anxiety dream played out to dramatic effect. Its ironic of Hoffman was also a clever touch. Emperor’s new clothes? Don’t talk clart.

        • Mack59

          Load of amateurish tosh. I don’t know about anxiety dream ……………. more like a Gattis wet dream.

          • Barry McCann

            Then, by your own admission, your conclusions are uninformed.

          • Mack59

            In my time I’ve been uninformed, informed and uniformed. My opinions are just that,opinions I have them and whilst I may not agree with someone else’s opinion I have the good grace not to denigrate then for their opinion and do not tell them they are talking “clart” or any other local colloquialism of the same meaning. I watched the episode twice I know what Gattis was intending to do, and I applaud him for trying something different, but in my humble uninformed opinion I think it failed in the execution. That’s my opinion, yours is obviously different and the world would be a very bland place if we all thought the same.

          • Barry McCann

            I was simply responding to your own words “I don’t know about anxiety dream”, which I took as meaning you were not familiar with the concept and, therefore, not informed as to the narrative intention. You say you have the good grace not to denigrate, yet you make derogatory remarks about Gattis? If you had stated in the first place you appreciated what he was doing, but it simply did not come off for you, then that is fair comment which I would acknowledge as such. Calling it a “wet dream” or inferring those who appreciate it of falling for the Emperor’s New clothes is an entirely different matter. It rather negates any claim on the moral high ground and will invite derision.

          • Mack59

            Guilty as charged !!! I do tend to be facetious at times, mainly because at my age I’ve realised you can’t be too serious because life is too short. I’ve heard people make worse remarks about episodes that I love but wouldn’t dream of personally attacking that person. As for my remarks about Gattis they were made in good nature as I do like the man and think that he is immensely talented and also think that he has a good enough sense of humour not to take offence. The “wet dream” remark was in regard to his great love and affection for the old Hammer horror movies and anything eerie and strange. So I think that you are taking offence at that remark which was meant affectionately.

            Comments made in places such as this are often taken the wrong way because we don’t know the personality of the commenter or if he / she was just getting up to a bit of mischief. People who have read my comments in the past will know I like to have a bit of fun. I don’t usually bother to defend myself as at the end of the day we are all fans of the same TV programme which I have enjoyed for nearly 53 years and believe me you needed a sense of humour 20 years ago to admit being a fan of Doctor Who.

          • Barry McCann

            Fair reply. Yes, I agree the problem with cold text is we know what the words mean, but not necessarily how they are being meant, hence my misinterpretation of your authorial intention. I actually met Mark Gattis at a dinner party couple of years back and he does not half love his Hammer films! Very nice chap and gave interesting insights in how BBC drama is made these days. Take care and carry on enjoying Doctor Who.. when it eventually returns.

    • Barry McCann

      Sorry, but no. It is a superior tale. One ahead of its audience.

      • Dr. Moo

        Monsters made of sleep dust = Superior tale

        Sorry, no. I’m guessing you stopped watching it after the first minute or two if you thought it was acceptable. (I say this as someone who otherwise found no fault with series nine.)

        • Barry McCann

          Sounds like you stopped watching as it was explained the creatures were the result of cells genetically aggravated by the Morpheus machine, which then absorbed the bodies and DNA of their hosts. Any less acceptable than the concept of a man who travels time and space in a police box bigger inside than out?

          • Dr. Moo

            The time-travel, regeneration, etc has some logic to it and has a sense of coherency. The entire plot of Sleep No More has none of that. If Gatoss wasn’t Moffat’s bestie he’d have been laughed out the building when he pitched that idea.

          • Barry McCann

            That is retreating into rhetorical selectivism. There is no solid scientific logic in the concept of a time and space machine bigger inside than out and piloted by a man who can regenerate his entire appearance, personality and apparently gender as causally as Suzy Wong changes her knickers. The concept of creatures evolving from genetically reactivated cells that parasitically feed off and absorb the DNA of their host is, however, rooted in the biology of Morphogenesis. The plot and its structure is also a very shrewd externalisation of the anxiety dream complete with the raison d’etre that tends to be its closure. Basically, Gatiss was tapping into the collective unconscious while putting a cleverly ironic twist on Hoffman. Unfortunately, a lot of the audience did not get it. But Patrick McGoohan’s The Prisoner was similarly derided upon first showing. It was later reappraised when audiences finally caught up with it.

  • Jeremy Parks

    I loved Rasmussens little speech at the very end. The rest was crap.

  • Derek Schmitt

    Loved the fact that they tried to do the “found footage”, and most aspects of it sound good on paper (evil sandmen on a base crashing into Neptune??), but very disappointing to watch. Very sloppy and rushed as the episode stretched on, and come on, are we REALLY supposed to believe that humans need sleep to avoid growing giant monsters from our eye crust? Too confusing of a story to be a standalone episode, and NOT the premise to try found footage on.

    • Dr. Moo

      They tried something different and so they deserve some respect for that. However we need to judge them on what we got and that was not good. At all.

      At least they proved that a 52 year old show isn’t afraid to try something new.

  • russell

    Mark is capable of solid story structure, good humour, and sparkling, witty dialogue…But eye goo monsters? Not a good idea. The notion should have been junked from the start.
    Okay- so enough gloop, has managed to turn itself into human form – multiple times (woah!)…But how did they become sentient? If so bright- why so grouchy? Why not eye gloop monsters who like a nice cup of tea and a slice of cake? It’s hard to take a threat seriously,when that threat is derived from what is in essence a bodily function.A bodily function, which involves material being secreted. YEP, such a concept sounds like a load of old poop. Come on Mark- that was a chance to do something sexy !!…Your very own WHO creation. What you came up with, should have been rejected at the pen and paper stage…The Sandmen were a nightmare for all the wrong reasons..

  • Eter Puralis

    Right up there with Love and Monsters as one of the absolute worst New Who episodes. And, unfortunately, the episode I ended up actually catching in person on my one trip to England, together with friends who hadn’t seen Who in years, so thanks for that humiliation. Here I am, exalting just how great season 9 had been so far, and we’re showed that piece of garbage.

  • Geoff Platt

    Here’s a theory – Clara is still in the Morpheus capsule. Everything that has happened since ‘Sleep No More’ is Clara’s dream. All of a sudden everything make sense. 🙂