From Newsgroup: rec.arts.drwho.moderated
From Address: jameskuyper@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Angels take Manhattan plot holes

On 10/23/2012 04:21 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> In article ,
> James Kuyper   wrote:
>>> -- Regeneration energy to fix River Song?  What?  Really, that was totally
out
>>> of left field (and raises the question of why the Doctor never did that to
>>> help anyone else, including people who were actually dying).
>> A) she's his wife. B) his entire current supply of regeneration energy
>> (which is apparently sufficient to support at least a couple of
>> additional regenerations) came from her; he was appalled that she gave
>> it to him, and is looking for excuses to give some of it back.
> 
> That raises its own can of worms: we assumed that the regeneration energy
> she gave him was used up.  If it wasn't used up, and all he had to do was
> wait until he got well enough that he could give it back, it wasn't even a
> sacrifice.

I never assumed that. I don't have a recording of the episode, so I
can't be sure what exactly was said - but my impression was that she
gave him all of her regeneration energy, enough for several
regenerations. I think it's reasonable to assume that the transfer of
regeneration energy is lossy, so that he received less regeneration
energy than she lost. A lossy transfer would also explain why she
objected to getting some of the energy back; and if we assume it was
lossy, it was definitely a sacrifice, even if some of the energy could
be returned.

>> It's a fixed point in time - no matter what you attempt to do to change
>> things, something will normally happen to interfere. We've seen what
>> happens if you're unfortunate enough to be clever enough to find a way
>> to break a fixed point in time.
> 
> What's a fixed point in time?  They didn't know she broke her wrist.  They
> knew there was a book where she writes of breaking her wrist.  No reason to
> believe she wrote the truth in the book (her name certainly isn't Malone).

I'd never claim DW is a model of consistency. This episode made it much
easier than it should be to create a fixed point in time, and the rules
governing such creations are far from clear, and probably inconsistent.
But the Doctor said that a fixed point in time had been created, and I
don't think there's anyone who's a better authority on such matters than
he is. Of course "Rule 1: The Doctor Lies", but there doesn't seem to be
a reason for applying Rule 1 in this context.

> Furthermore, when the Doctor thought that she got out without breaking her
> wrist, his reaction wasn't "oh no!  Look what you did!  You violated a
> fixed point in time and that'll cause a disaster!"

Agreed - another inconsistency. That breaking a fixed point would result
in the defeat of the Angels, rather than the destruction of time itself,
is inconsistent with previous episodes.
-- 
James Kuyper

--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
 * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (1:2320/105.97)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
 * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)