Yeah, see, that totally did occur to me as one of the parent-child permutations of this whole series (because I'm well aware of that quote about RTD's opinions on Moff's writing, and while I'm not a huge RTD fan in Who terms, he really did nail Mr Moffat with that one, and Jekyll is marvelous), but while i tihnk it needs to be out there as an option, there's a few things about it that don't add up (not that her being Amy and Rory's child does either, mind you).
In terms of "they can't do that, though, can they?!" I think there's a bit of that going on? River was an interesting idea from the start because from the start, built into the fact she could be his wife, is the mechanism by which she is not always present - by which she is, in fact, the only kind of wife he probably could have. Now, granted, time-travel ("Hey Amy and Rory, I'll be back in 10 years time for me, but next Saturday for you, River says it's my decade to handle the sprog!") presents a fix for this too, but again, it's an issue I think is worth not discounting?
But more than that, I think that I'm uncertain what the symbolism is telling me at this point, and I find that disconcerting?
Last year was all about marriage; this year is all about children, that's a progression that makes sense - I don't mean in terms of whether it's good in terms of personal preference, there's a reason lots of people don't want babies on their shows - what I mean is it's narratively logical, especially in view of Moffat's core themes.
Last year also had two distinct marriages under examination - Amy/Rory and River/Doctor. Amy/Doctor at the end of the Angels episode was an argument against a love quadrangle; a confirmation that these are separate but parallel stories, not interlocking ones, at least on the romantic front.
The question then becomes if that pattern holds - are we talking about two parallel stories about parenthood? That would make sense, but here's where I start losing track of the symbolism something chronic.
Because that mirroring, and duality, is already expressed in Amy's story due to the positive/negative aspect of her Schroedinger's pregnancy. Two kids is difficult enough to juggle when you have the thematic justification of OMGSPARALLELS but I'm not sure how this puzzle piece fits in.
Which is to say, I don't think you're wrong to point out the things you're pointing out, because I agree with all of them. But so far this season's themes are...I don't know. It reminds me that a cancer is only uncontrolled replication; pretentious perhaps, but the best way I can illustrate the vertiginous sensibility of so many familiar tropes and themes repeating and repeating until I can't recognise them anymore: until they seem sinister rather than familiar. Whether that's going to turn into disappointment or genius, I honestly, honestly can't say.
It is...not the way I expected to feel about this season. I think I was expecting one great big trip of trust, the way I felt after The Big Bang? Instead I feel like if he pulls this off, it'll be even better, but if he doesn't, it'll be...really weird.
All that said, the only new thing I have to add, without necessarily thinking this is likely, but thinking it may bear...noting -
If the story wants to really make us question whether Octavian was right (if not in terms of the specific reasons, at least in terms of the Doctor being horrified by something that River did), when he learns the truth about River, maybe we're approaching this the wrong way around. Maybe River is not Jekyll in this equation.
Maybe the Doctor is, and River stops him.
(Of course, how that ties in with the fact River does still kill a good man, with the fact I don't think the show would ever go quite as far as to have River sacrificing her own child on a family teatime show, etc., I'm not sure. But I do find myself asking if it's so horribly implausible, if that child is theirs, that River was forced to give her to the Silence - and then forget all about it - because it was better than some kind of alternative.)
no subject
In terms of "they can't do that, though, can they?!" I think there's a bit of that going on? River was an interesting idea from the start because from the start, built into the fact she could be his wife, is the mechanism by which she is not always present - by which she is, in fact, the only kind of wife he probably could have. Now, granted, time-travel ("Hey Amy and Rory, I'll be back in 10 years time for me, but next Saturday for you, River says it's my decade to handle the sprog!") presents a fix for this too, but again, it's an issue I think is worth not discounting?
But more than that, I think that I'm uncertain what the symbolism is telling me at this point, and I find that disconcerting?
Last year was all about marriage; this year is all about children, that's a progression that makes sense - I don't mean in terms of whether it's good in terms of personal preference, there's a reason lots of people don't want babies on their shows - what I mean is it's narratively logical, especially in view of Moffat's core themes.
Last year also had two distinct marriages under examination - Amy/Rory and River/Doctor. Amy/Doctor at the end of the Angels episode was an argument against a love quadrangle; a confirmation that these are separate but parallel stories, not interlocking ones, at least on the romantic front.
The question then becomes if that pattern holds - are we talking about two parallel stories about parenthood? That would make sense, but here's where I start losing track of the symbolism something chronic.
Because that mirroring, and duality, is already expressed in Amy's story due to the positive/negative aspect of her Schroedinger's pregnancy. Two kids is difficult enough to juggle when you have the thematic justification of OMGSPARALLELS but I'm not sure how this puzzle piece fits in.
Which is to say, I don't think you're wrong to point out the things you're pointing out, because I agree with all of them. But so far this season's themes are...I don't know. It reminds me that a cancer is only uncontrolled replication; pretentious perhaps, but the best way I can illustrate the vertiginous sensibility of so many familiar tropes and themes repeating and repeating until I can't recognise them anymore: until they seem sinister rather than familiar. Whether that's going to turn into disappointment or genius, I honestly, honestly can't say.
It is...not the way I expected to feel about this season. I think I was expecting one great big trip of trust, the way I felt after The Big Bang? Instead I feel like if he pulls this off, it'll be even better, but if he doesn't, it'll be...really weird.
All that said, the only new thing I have to add, without necessarily thinking this is likely, but thinking it may bear...noting -
If the story wants to really make us question whether Octavian was right (if not in terms of the specific reasons, at least in terms of the Doctor being horrified by something that River did), when he learns the truth about River, maybe we're approaching this the wrong way around. Maybe River is not Jekyll in this equation.
Maybe the Doctor is, and River stops him.
(Of course, how that ties in with the fact River does still kill a good man, with the fact I don't think the show would ever go quite as far as to have River sacrificing her own child on a family teatime show, etc., I'm not sure. But I do find myself asking if it's so horribly implausible, if that child is theirs, that River was forced to give her to the Silence - and then forget all about it - because it was better than some kind of alternative.)