I too initially liked the symmetry of that idea, but symmetry is less important, I think, than thematic depth. The more I thought about her killing him, the more it seemed like the only real effect of that would be inducing angst--and I don't know that that's sufficient reason for Moffat to write a storyline (although he'll certainly tease at it, knowing audience expectations). If we could find out in some way that she was going to be the one to finally, really kill him, that could be interesting . . . but I don't know how you'd manage that. If she's only causing him to regenerate, though *shrug* and would he really care, now that he's not Ten anymore? I'd much rather whoever she kills be a point of philosophical/moral contention between them. Conceivably she could kill him as a way to prevent him from doing something she disagrees with, but the most she's going to accomplish with that is taking him out of commission while he regenerates, and we've already seen her accomplish much the same with a right hook and some handcuffs. If she killed him to stop him and didn't know yet that he can regenerate so that when she did it she thought she was killing him for real . . . ok, I hadn't thought of that option before, that could be worth pursuing.
But there's something a bit unappealing, narratively, about all the options for her killing him when she first meets him. If it's deliberate like she's an assassin or something, it becomes a "Doctor redeems a bad person" storyline. If it's an accident, that makes for some angst, yes, but accidents are less interesting than choices and it still feels a bit like a redemption via Doctor storyline because there would still be the forgiving and the getting over the guilt, etc, etc. If it's to save the world/because he asks her, ok, maybe, but I've written that and again, it mostly feels like angst for angst's sake. Basically, anything that you could accomplish in terms of the Doctor's character development by having River kill him has pretty much already been accomplished by him 1) facing the idea that she might kill him and not running away and 2) willingly sacrificing himself to the cracks. True, you might do interesting things with River's character development by having her kill him, but at the end of the day it is the Doctor's show. But say she kills someone else in opposition to him. To have someone on his own "side" oppose one of his decisions in such a brutal manner? Then he has to re-examine himself. Far more interesting.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 21 Dec 2010 05:18 pm (UTC)But there's something a bit unappealing, narratively, about all the options for her killing him when she first meets him. If it's deliberate like she's an assassin or something, it becomes a "Doctor redeems a bad person" storyline. If it's an accident, that makes for some angst, yes, but accidents are less interesting than choices and it still feels a bit like a redemption via Doctor storyline because there would still be the forgiving and the getting over the guilt, etc, etc. If it's to save the world/because he asks her, ok, maybe, but I've written that and again, it mostly feels like angst for angst's sake. Basically, anything that you could accomplish in terms of the Doctor's character development by having River kill him has pretty much already been accomplished by him 1) facing the idea that she might kill him and not running away and 2) willingly sacrificing himself to the cracks. True, you might do interesting things with River's character development by having her kill him, but at the end of the day it is the Doctor's show. But say she kills someone else in opposition to him. To have someone on his own "side" oppose one of his decisions in such a brutal manner? Then he has to re-examine himself. Far more interesting.