I think you have described *Moffat's* mindset, not Davros'. Well, I think the problem is that Moffat himself sometimes doesn’t distinguish between the two, and that creates confusing dialogue or character actions, when it comes to who knows/believes/wants what. Hey, nobody’s perfect.
And no, I still don't think Davros has any idea that he somehow caught the Doctor in-between abandoning & saving him. From his POV the Doctor probably merely found a way to get through the handmines, that's why he momentarily disappeared. If he knew that the Doctor initially intended to leave him to his fate, he'd be FAR more impressed. See, that is a valid point when you consider Davros’s character, you are right. However, in my opinion, there are logical contradictions and inconsistencies within the episodes themselves, which force me to “read” the plot and the character actions/knowledge/motivations in an alternative manner to be completely satisfied. (For instance, again, if Davros doesn’t know, then why does he expect him to be willing to go to almost certain death just because his archenemy asks him to, why does he presume that the Doctor feels *guilty* -which the Doctor does- and exploits it?)
If you want, you can read my “Doctor Who: Concerning Davros's plan” (kind of) essay and (especially) its notes on my Deviantart, where I’ve put all the relevant details that I could think of together, to make a coherent analysis out of my point of view. Or we can just agree to disagree, you could be right anyway, and I know that you don’t have infinite amounts of time at your disposal ;)
Anyway, I think it’s quite obvious that there are often many alternative readings in DW, and that is half the fun. (For instance, I’m sure that if we showed Moffat Phoenixdragon's mercy theory -which I did see when you sent me and I meant to answer, but the stupid thing made me accidentally lose two paragraphs and I said screw it- he wouldn’t say that it’s canon, he wouldn’t even have thought about it in my opinion, but it’s still a very cool hypothesis I’m tempted to go with, even though I have my own theory). I’m not saying “enforce Death of the Author at all times”, but hey, if the author leaves things unclear occasionally or creates plot-holes for us over-analysers in his meta-fictional connect-all-the-things enthusiasm, why not? And extrapolation, analysis, and differing views are fun anyway, even when things are crystal clear in my opinion. Hey, what do you have this journal for? ;)
Re: Respectfully disagreeing about 12's mistake
Well, I think the problem is that Moffat himself sometimes doesn’t distinguish between the two, and that creates confusing dialogue or character actions, when it comes to who knows/believes/wants what. Hey, nobody’s perfect.
And no, I still don't think Davros has any idea that he somehow caught the Doctor in-between abandoning & saving him. From his POV the Doctor probably merely found a way to get through the handmines, that's why he momentarily disappeared. If he knew that the Doctor initially intended to leave him to his fate, he'd be FAR more impressed.
See, that is a valid point when you consider Davros’s character, you are right. However, in my opinion, there are logical contradictions and inconsistencies within the episodes themselves, which force me to “read” the plot and the character actions/knowledge/motivations in an alternative manner to be completely satisfied. (For instance, again, if Davros doesn’t know, then why does he expect him to be willing to go to almost certain death just because his archenemy asks him to, why does he presume that the Doctor feels *guilty* -which the Doctor does- and exploits it?)
If you want, you can read my “Doctor Who: Concerning Davros's plan” (kind of) essay and (especially) its notes on my Deviantart, where I’ve put all the relevant details that I could think of together, to make a coherent analysis out of my point of view. Or we can just agree to disagree, you could be right anyway, and I know that you don’t have infinite amounts of time at your disposal ;)
Anyway, I think it’s quite obvious that there are often many alternative readings in DW, and that is half the fun. (For instance, I’m sure that if we showed Moffat Phoenixdragon's mercy theory -which I did see when you sent me and I meant to answer, but the stupid thing made me accidentally lose two paragraphs and I said screw it- he wouldn’t say that it’s canon, he wouldn’t even have thought about it in my opinion, but it’s still a very cool hypothesis I’m tempted to go with, even though I have my own theory).
I’m not saying “enforce Death of the Author at all times”, but hey, if the author leaves things unclear occasionally or creates plot-holes for us over-analysers in his meta-fictional connect-all-the-things enthusiasm, why not? And extrapolation, analysis, and differing views are fun anyway, even when things are crystal clear in my opinion. Hey, what do you have this journal for? ;)