Sorry on the delay--was mulling answers and then forgot to come back :-\
I certainly think that in the end, everything has to come down to intellect + romance > brute force + cynicism, right? I mean, Moffat's Who, on a basic level, has never done anything else. If it did, I might cry. Me too. And, really, it's how he gets away with all the trolling and boundary-pushing and dark stuff and mind-fuckery--we trust him to keep adhering to that basic premise.
we'd need another chunk of infomration about that kid . . . before the end of the season, but her story might spill over into next year. (In that way does she also parallel River?) I think would say so. Of course, that's pretty much a feature of how Moff doles out information generally.
But on the motivations of it only, there's something horribly compelling about the Doctor being willing to commit an atrocity to save his child, and River being willing to kill a good man and stop the Doctor doing that/put her own child in danger, in order to stop something worse: the Timelord Victorious. Oooooo, ok I see what you're saying now. I could definitely see how what we've got so far could be a set-up for that. I'd even potentially believe it for the characters. If this were anything other than Who and specifically Moff Who I'd definitely be considering that one a strong possibility. It is bordering on Davies/Children of Earth territory--sacrifice one's own (grand)child to save the world. As you say, how something like that is done could matter a lot, but I'm feeling like that does cross a fundamental line in Moff Who: to have a basically sympathetic character shown to act against the interests of a child, no matter how good the reasons. Would Moff set up an RTD-style unsolvable moral dilemma around a child? Children tend to be the answers for him--the solutions and resolutions--not the problems. He sets up his stories so that saving the child is the same thing as saving the world, not opposite things. I guess that does make me wonder if he could successfully set up a storyline in which he seemed to subvert that and then righted it again in the end . . . sorry, I'm rambling by now, but it's an interesting hypothetical.
I really think we're being geared up for a moment where River is Judas. (Who, according to some theories, did so at Jesus' request). I suspect so too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 30 May 2011 02:12 pm (UTC)I certainly think that in the end, everything has to come down to intellect + romance > brute force + cynicism, right? I mean, Moffat's Who, on a basic level, has never done anything else. If it did, I might cry.
Me too. And, really, it's how he gets away with all the trolling and boundary-pushing and dark stuff and mind-fuckery--we trust him to keep adhering to that basic premise.
we'd need another chunk of infomration about that kid . . . before the end of the season, but her story might spill over into next year. (In that way does she also parallel River?)
I think would say so. Of course, that's pretty much a feature of how Moff doles out information generally.
But on the motivations of it only, there's something horribly compelling about the Doctor being willing to commit an atrocity to save his child, and River being willing to kill a good man and stop the Doctor doing that/put her own child in danger, in order to stop something worse: the Timelord Victorious.
Oooooo, ok I see what you're saying now. I could definitely see how what we've got so far could be a set-up for that. I'd even potentially believe it for the characters. If this were anything other than Who and specifically Moff Who I'd definitely be considering that one a strong possibility. It is bordering on Davies/Children of Earth territory--sacrifice one's own (grand)child to save the world. As you say, how something like that is done could matter a lot, but I'm feeling like that does cross a fundamental line in Moff Who: to have a basically sympathetic character shown to act against the interests of a child, no matter how good the reasons. Would Moff set up an RTD-style unsolvable moral dilemma around a child? Children tend to be the answers for him--the solutions and resolutions--not the problems. He sets up his stories so that saving the child is the same thing as saving the world, not opposite things. I guess that does make me wonder if he could successfully set up a storyline in which he seemed to subvert that and then righted it again in the end . . . sorry, I'm rambling by now, but it's an interesting hypothetical.
I really think we're being geared up for a moment where River is Judas. (Who, according to some theories, did so at Jesus' request).
I suspect so too.