DW S6.2 Day of the Moon. Meta heavy review.

[elisi]

Now then boys and girls - who was paying attention during ‘A Christmas Carol’?


TIME CAN BE REWRITTEN
(People can’t)
Let me start with a picture plus yet another call back to calapine's ‘What the Doormouse Said’:



Because here’s the thing: The Doctor’s death has re-written time.

We are now in an AU.

(Possibly an AU like the one in the Star Trek re-boot, as someone clever suggested. Whatever the case, the Doctor’s previous [future] timeline has gone belly-up.)

Now, as is to be expected we see this shift most clearly in River, who of course is directly wound up the Doctor’s personal time stream.

From Time of Angels:

"It's so strange when you go all baby face. How early is this for you? . . . I've got pictures of all your faces. You never show up in the right order, though--I need the spotter's guide."

From The Impossible Astronaut (from memory):

“It’s all back to front. Every time we meet I know him a little more, and he knows me a little less.”

River’s adventures with the Doctor get cut off when he’s killed. From the scene in the diner when they compare diaries we see that they are literally on the same page - and then he’s killed, which only leaves a younger!Doctor for her to interact with. Plus, all her adventures with other Doctors (Twelve, Thirteen...) no longer exist/have never existed. (Hence the sudden tragicness to her story, and the literal ‘going in opposite directions' shift. In Moffat's Who, if something doesn’t make sense, it’s like that on purpose.)

So, River’s fatalism is [partly] due to having been ‘re-written’.

Now, what does this have to do with A Christmas Carol? Well, promethia_tenk and I have spent a great many months taking that episode apart, turning it inside out and upside down and oh, it all fits.

You see, A Christmas Carol is very much a standalone. It doesn’t further the narrative of the characters, what it does is something else: The whole thing is a metaphor; a beautiful exercise in thematic foreshadowing. In the notes to The Waste Land, T.S. Elliot remarks how all the women in the poem can be seen as one woman, and all the men as one man. A Christmas Carol is like this. Kazran is the Doctor, and Abigail is every woman (/Companion) he has ever loved - their time with him always finite. I know there were a lot of complaints about how she was fridged, literally, but it’s a beautiful illustration of the impossible love between a mortal and an ‘immortal’ (Kazran ages too, of course, just much more slowly).

Anyway, the central message of the episode is summed up in this exchange:

Amy: Time can be rewritten.
Kazran: People can’t!

We are seeing this all over again. River has been rewritten now, but she’s still River.

To what an extent are we our memories? To what extent can time be changed before it breaks? S6!River is more tragic than the River we had before, but to quote calapine again:

There is a story and there is a lie and she is somewhere in-between.

Was rewritten!Kazran less real than the other Kazran? Don’t trust your lying eyes or ears or memories. (And hello Silence! *waves to literal manifestation of series’ theme* I’ll get to you in a bit.)

Time is in flux. The narrative is in flux. The characters are in flux. (Even the state of Amy’s pregnancy is in flux, and I think this is because of time being rewritten. The Doctor’s death causes ripples, and they affect Amy. My most humble gratitude to Promethia for this brilliant insight, which she dubbed Schrodinger’s pregnancy - in the original ‘verse she was pregnant, but now she isn’t... Time is having trouble adjusting, since obviously her pregnancy is important.)

But, all this re-writing doesn’t mean that what we are watching is somehow going to be undone, or doesn’t matter:

Everything that exists should be as real as everything else.

Time rearranges itself. If it encounters a dam, it finds a way round it, forging a new path. (Unless time is broken completely - like a crack in the universe, through which people and worlds can fall and be lost forever...) It’s entirely possible that River’s heartbreaking speech to Rory is only real in this new, rewritten timeline. (Since the whole ‘impressionable young girl’ thing is somewhat problematic...) But it’s still heartbreaking. As is her face after that ‘last kiss’. *hugs poor River and her broken timeline* (Also, it’s unclear to what extent she is aware of what’s happened. Does she still remember her other adventures?)


RIVER
(One day I'm going to be someone that you trust completely)
Actually, let’s talk about River for a moment, and how she’s been revealed to us. Moffat says that her identity will have ‘layers’, and this I can well believe since she already has layers. A new one for every season:

Layer 1: Storyteller
S4 River is out of her element, out of time, out of step with the narrative, and out of sync with the Doctor. She's a messenger from the future, a storyteller of stories that cannot yet be told. Remote and removed from the viewers, who see her only through the Doctor's eyes, she is carefully keeping hold of her secrets. (And then she ends up as only a storyteller, in The Library, after her death. But... I could always hear her whisper, like dream!Fred in ‘Underneath’ (AtS 5.17): “This is only the first layer. Don't you wanna see how deep I go?”)

Layer 2: Action Hero
S5 River is a walking, talking HBIC, BAMF and BDH. She's resourceful, self-sufficient, capable, faithful to a fault, constantly taking the initiative, and doesn't ask for anything in return [emotionally]. The POV is fairly omniscient, and she's still quite enigmatic. But we can see what the Doctor sees in her.

Layer 3a: Tragic Lover
S6 River is all of the above, but she is now also shown as Tragic Love(r). For a lot of the time in the first two episodes we are in her POV, the keeper of her secrets, knowing the pain that his words cause her.

Layer 3b: Killing Machine
S6 River is also something else. You know that 'We've replaced River Song with River Tam - let's see how soon the Doctor realises?' icon... Judging by the skills we’ve now seen her demonstrate? It could take a while before he noticed. To rewrite a popular phrase: Speak softly and carry a big stick bring a River Song. (“Oh the first seven, easily!”)

I am now going to copy and paste huge chunks of Promethia’s comments to me, because it’s simpler than re-writing them, and she beautifully explains how every layer that’s revealed ties in to what came before, throwing a different light on it, and also confirming it (and how EVERYTHING ties back to The Library):

~~~

The thought I had in response, I'm not quite sure if it's basically the same ideas framed slightly differently or if it's just a related set of ideas. But basically I think that everything we know about her now has been telegraphed from back in the Library episodes. If you go back to season four, it's like it's all there in germ form. And I'm not saying that there haven't been any surprise reveals along the way (especially the news that she killed somebody), but you can definitely see the lines of progression. And the different facets of her character get elaborated and explored in this process where the things that are subtext one season become text the season afterwords, which in turn draws up new subtext to explore. So for example:

1) In the Library episodes the subtext is the question of whether she's the Doctor's wife.
2) In season five, the subtext becomes text: "Is River Song your wife? . . . She's all like, heel boy!" And the question is essentially answered by the end of the season. The new subtext is a bit more nuanced: we can watch her to try to learn more about her emotions. If you're looking right, there are two big things to pick up on: she is quite overwhelmingly in love with him, and she's very upset about how distant he is.
3) This season that emotional subtext has been made very obvious text.

Then there's another thread:

1) In the Library episodes we start from Ten's suspicion of her. There are audience suspicions about her being a conwoman, etc.
2) Season five the question of her trustworthiness and her morality becomes text. And we're given a big focus in the question of who she killed. The subtext becomes to try to work out why she would do something like that. Does she read as a cold-blooded murderer? No, her actions don't match that. So under what circumstances would she kill someone? Out of necessity, apparently, or to protect the Doctor somehow.
3) This season how/why she would kill is front and center. The "good man," we're told, is going to die, so that question will be answered. In the meantime Moff's elaborating on the reasons she would kill. We've seen her calmly let the Doctor walk to his death twice now, and twice we've seen her shoot something that had attacked the Doctor in a fit of rage/grief immediately after learning he has died. And how much do I love this dialogue?:

Doctor: "Don't let them build to full power!"
River: "I know--there's a reason why I'm shooting, honey! What are you doing?"
Doctor: "Helping!"
River: "You've got a screwdriver, go build a cabinet!"

She may be enjoying herself, but that's a very utilitarian perspective presented right up front as text: a gun is the right tool for the job.

[...]

I find it interesting the way her action hero side has been built up. Because in the Library episodes, while she's very obviously an active woman, she's not presented as a fighter, and her gun is just the squareness gun. Season five she is all BAMF, but aside from a brief bit of defensive shooting with the Dalek in the finale, she's not actually much of a fighter either. Every time she shoots something in season five, there's a lot of thought behind it and it comes with an explanation--she basically uses her gun, airlock, etc., as I put it once, as "punctuation to the mental bitchslap she's delivering." It's only this season that we've seen her just shooting at things, and I think it's important that that's only happened after the audience has been brought around to her p.o.v.

~~~

Back to me again, I find it fascinating how over the course of three years, fandom [in general] has gone from 'Who is this irritatingly smug know-it-all?' to 'Oh River, how so awesome and heartbreaking?' Patience, and careful storytelling, clearly pays off.


THE SILENCE
(You should kill us all on sight.)
Now, apparently the Doctor’s solution for dealing with the Silence has not been universally well received? Well allow me to illustrate the most problematic aspect (good god I love re-using quotes, esp when a new spin makes them far more relevant):



And yet - which is worse? Humanity as unknowing victims, or as unknowing weapons? (Plus, humankind is hardly innocent...)

To quote William John Locke’s ‘The Rough Road’, a book written about The First World War (this is from memory, but the sentiment has always stayed with me):

‘If someone comes along and aims lots of big weapons at you, it’s no good to say:“Please take those horrid things away!” No, the only thing you can do is get a lot of big weapons of your own and aim straight back.’

The Doctor can’t let the Silence carry on the way they have. And he can’t fight them in any conventional manner. His solution is ingenious, and by far the best I can possibly think of, given the circumstances.

Here, let me to embroider his speech a little, to show you where I'm coming from:

“So, you’ve been ruling this world with post-hypnotic suggestion ‘since the fire and the wheel’. You can do anything you like, make people do anything you like, kill anyone you like, and no one will ever remember. You will go on to crack the universe, destroying/killing/unmaking my Companions (and goodness knows how many other people/species), let my enemies band together and throw me in prison, blow up my TARDIS and cause the universe to never have existed... But what’s the point of having two hearts if you can’t be a little forgiving now and then?”

People think he was harsh for giving them a choice between staying and being killed or leaving the planet for good? I think he was extremely lenient.

Because the quote I used in my picture above was quite deliberate. If you want a valid comparison to The Silence and what they are planning/already did, then Davros and his Daleks are the best you’re going to get:

DAVROS: Across the entire universe. Never stopping. Never faltering. Never fading. People and planets and stars will become dust. And the dust will become atoms and the atoms will become... nothing. And the wavelength will continue, breaking through the Rift at the heart of the Medusa Cascade into every dimension, every parallel, every single corner of creation. This is my ultimate victory, Doctor! The destruction of reality itself!

Do people think TenToo too harsh for killing them? Do they balk at Sarah Jane (yes, peace loving Sarah Jane!) with her warpstar, who was ready to blow up the Crucible? Or at Martha and the Osterhaagen Key, ready to destroy Earth in order to save the rest of the universe? Desperate measures, but it was a desperate situation.

What the Doctor does, is he gives humanity the only possible way of defending themselves. Yes it’s somewhat problematic ethically, but compared to what the Silence can do? To quote Promethia again:

~~~

[Take a moment to consider] the deep threat these things represent to free will, autonomy, memory . . . people's very self-hood. [...] What gets to me is Dr. Renfrew and what a shell he is, carrying out the Silence's will all while desperately trying to communicate his own distress to himself. Or the way we saw them manipulating Amy. And just the way perception and suggestion work around them--you can't remember them, you can't remember what they do to you, they can make you do things you don't mean to do, that you don't understand why you're doing them. They essentially cut off parts of your experience and memory from the rest of your experience: they divide the self. I don't know about other people, but I think about this stuff too hard and I feel physically ill. And these kinds of things--the memory and suggestion stuff--it's suggested is going on constantly, to everyone. Not as severely as to Renfrew, but still . . .

~~~

How often have you found yourself, say, going upstairs and then realising you don’t know why you just did that? Imagine that there was an alien, malignant force in the world behind every instance of this. And you could never fight it or stop it or even remember it. That? Is one of the freakiest ideas ever.

(Also see calapine’s brilliant posts on the subject. And selenak in her review talks about how his solution - using their inherent strength to defeat them - is pure Seven.)

Plus, even the unfolding of this monster story is timey-wimey - the Doctor has already re-created the universe after the Silence unmade it, yet the Silence don’t know that yet. (There are still too many unknowns for me to delve deeper.)

Also they demonstrate the ever-present circularness of the show - their looks inspired by Munch’s Scream and Greys, in the world of Doctor Who their looks explain why people have come to think of aliens as looking like Greys.

The beginning is the end is the beginning...

By the way: Has anyone talked about how this ties in with Torchwood in general (all that retcon), and ‘Adam’ in particular? If you can control someone’s memories, you can control (undo) *them*. And actually this is a theme that stretches right back to Moffat’s first episodes:

JACK: Woke up one day when I was working for The Time Agency - found they'd stolen two years of my memories. I'd like them back.
ROSE: They stole your memories?
JACK: Two years of my life. No idea what I did.
The Doctor watches him.
JACK (CONT'D): Your friend over there doesn't trust me. And for all I know... he's right not to.

And this is the thing about The Silence - with them around you can’t trust ANYONE. Not even yourself.

THE DOCTOR: “Does it ever bother you, Amy, that your life makes no sense?”
~
“DONNA: I was asleep, ON my bed, IN my clothes, like a flippin' kid! What did you let me do that for?! “

And from ‘What the Dormouse Said’:

(It’s worse than that: the memories change. Sometimes she can feel them, wriggling around her mind like silver fish. There is now and there is then and there is something in-between that is so very, very quiet it can’t possibly be screaming.)

The Silence can do worse than kill you - they can unravel you, unmake you... They’re Donna’s fate lurking in the corner of your eye.

(ETA: Addendum. The Doctor and the Silence.)


CANTON
(I just wanted to get married)
Part of me wants to cheer for the return of the Gay Agenda. And yet, Canton’s story is kinda the opposite. Canton doesn’t have an agenda. Canton just wants to get married.

And that's something that’s simple enough for a child to understand.

Canton was the everyday hero who helped the Doctor, the kind we get in pretty much every episode. From the BBC website:

[Younger Canton] is a charismatic former FBI agent. Quick witted and resourceful he's not intimidated by authority and speaks his mind even if it means offending the President of the United States. No wonder the Doctor likes him.

Canton helped in the fight against the Silence and even filmed the video content that became instrumental in defeating them. He was prepared to take risks, had a wry, dry sense of humour and proved a good friend to the Doctor.

In many ways he was the anti-Jack (who is of course one of the shining stars of the gay (or anything else) agenda). Canton wasn’t different because he was gay. It was society which made him different, by denying him something which should be an obvious right...

Amy: So you were kicked out because you have problems with authority.
Canton: No, I just wanted to get married.
Amy (puzzled): Is that a crime?
Canton: Yes.

Really, I can’t imagine a better starting point for talking to children about these issues. Also, Canton was just awesome and I'd love to see him again, y'know?


AMY AND RORY
(I’ll always come for her)
I was totally going to write something, but just don’t have the energy. Suffice to say that I love them, didn’t mind the fact that Rory is still uncertain (just because you’re married doesn’t make all problems evaporate), and loved the Doctor/Rory conversation, and the fact that both the men in Amy’s life could equally well be described as ‘Stupid Face’. (Slightly bothered by Amy’s damselling, but it would seem that the next episode will reverse the roles, so...) Oh, and I LOVED the fact there was an instance of 'overhearing something that could be misinterpreted', but it was dealt with upfront and lead to good discussions between the characters about important issues, instead of making people jump to the wrong conclusions. (The latter is one of my major turn-offs, so I am GRATEFUL!)


THE KISS
(Well...try and be all nervous and rubbish and a bit shaky.)
I have said before, and will say again, that EVERYTHING comes back to the Library episodes. Because what is the very first thing we learn about River, even before we see her face? It’s this:



Here’s the relevant dialogue:

DOCTOR: Yeah, I kind of, sort of lied a bit. I got a message on the psychic paper.
[He shows it to Donna - the message is "The Library. Come as soon as you can. x"]
DOCTOR: What do you think? Cry for help?
DONNA: Cry for help - with a kiss?

You see? It’s right there. Never mind the question of marriage - River is The Woman The Doctor Kisses On A Regular Basis. It’s taken for granted to such an extent that she even signs her note with it.

I just. *hands*

Has there ever been someone like that before in the Doctor’s life? Like, EVER? (His first, Gallifreyan, wife excepted.) Not that he doesn’t get around, but it’s always transient, or surprising, or with some kind of mitigating or unusual circumstances (body swap, distraction, etc), or a tragic last kiss before someone dies. Not ever has it been presented as ‘This is normal for us’. Which again ties in with the ways in which his Companions are never on an equal footing with him, plus the fact that he knows he’ll lose them. (It's Kazran and Abigail again.) But he can’t lose River because he’s already lost her...

See this is one of the things I love so much: River is the Doctor’s. He knows that she will never leave him, and that he’ll never leave her behind (by design or accident) - that she chooses him, always. (“Not those times. Not one line! Don't you dare!”) Yes their love is in many ways as Moffat has put it: ‘The ultimate tragic love story’, but it is also one where both parties know that they can trust each other completely. It may be the only kind of love story the Doctor can really have, one where the threat of the other being taken from him isn’t always casting a shadow over them. As angearia so beautifully put it, re. the scene where they’re back to back:

They stand back to back, so that they're never turned away from the Silence surrounding them. Her eyes are his eyes, his eyes are hers. And if they trust each other implicitly (which I think the Doctor does, but he willfully wishes not to because he doesn't know her so how can he trust her?) then they don't need to remember because their other half will.

The visual of them back-to-back also symbolizes how they experience time together. They're facing in opposite directions and every time they meet, they trust each other to not spill the beans.

The Doctor is always the one pressing for knowledge from River (spoilers! He can't resist a mystery, especially when he embodies the mystery with his implicit trust of her) -- but it goes both ways as he knows how she'll die.

It makes me think of how one may view marriage as being the person entrusted with your partner's secrets -- only to the point where you know more than your partner does. The Doctor tells Amy his life is in her hands, but it's almost like a willful choice -- he knows his life is already in River's hands, his future is in her mind, and he can't know it. His turning to Amy is part rebellion for how River has control over him always (he'll choose! he's in control!) and part sincerity for his connection to Amy. I love that moment, how Alex Kingston closes her eyes in quiet resignation when he deliberately rejects her and turns to Amy -- she can tell he's acting out, she knows him better than anyone, and she accepts it because there's more important matters.

Anyway, onto the kiss:

Now the Doctor describing the incident as ‘unexpected’ just makes me laugh like mad - best summed up by mswyrr (who made my beautiful, gorgeous new banner):

I love that Eleven can talk a fantastic game with River, flirting madly, facing down danger pressed back to back with her, his mouth writing a check that he has no expectation of his ass and/or lips having to cash. LOL.

Really... ’Unexpected’??? Oh Eleven, you really are from another planet. And I love how you can see the way the Doctor processes this ‘unexpected event’ by following his body language:

??? -> Oooh kiss, this is nice -> No wait! We *kiss*? This is normal for us? I need to just pull back and process this and make sure....

Which is in complete contrast to River, who thinks he’s just playing games, walking away without kissing her (“Am I forgetting something?”/“Oh, shut up you!”) - and who then kisses him like she owns him. No really, the way she wraps her arms around him speaks volumes. ('I may be in prison, but at least I’ve got this, and it is mine.')

♥
And that’s all for now - I’m not going to talk about The Girl, or anything else. There are too many unknown unknowns, and I'll need a far better grip on the metaphors before I plunge into all that. As for the girls, then they LOVE S6 so far, and 'Please can we rewatch Doctor Who?' is a daily chorus in my house. :)

Comments

[elisi]

If Moffat had wanted to show the bad guys being defeated by their own strength he would have figured out a plot that had them being brainwashed into leaving or even turning on themselves.
True, but I don't think that's what he's doing. I wrote an extra post about where I think he might be heading, so I think the moral and ethical dilemmas are there on purpose.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

You have more faith in Moffat than I do. Still all your extra post suggests is that there's a problem with Eleven having driven the Silence out without destroying them (although they can't have been only running Earth before he expelled them or where would the alien tech inside the spacesuit have come from if they needed humanity to design the suit because they can't create things themselves)? More than that, this potential plot direction even if you feel it deals with the ethical issues of what Eleven did to the Silence, doesn't address the ethical issues with what Eleven did to humanity. The Eleven who walks to his death still describes 1969 as the year he couldn't stop saving you (humanity) or something along those lines - he's not self-critical about how he saved us. Eleven deciding to finally stop running from death doesn't address it either - that's his problem not ours.

[elisi]

You have more faith in Moffat than I do.
I do, rather. Partly because his writing is so meticulous.

although they can't have been only running Earth before he expelled them or where would the alien tech inside the spacesuit have come from if they needed humanity to design the suit because they can't create things themselves
Aliens have been coming to Earth for millennia - just look at all the tech Torchwood and UNIT have. So scrounging stuff for themselves shouldn't be a problem for the Silence. It does raise the question though, of where the Silence came from and why they're on Earth in the first place.

More than that, this potential plot direction even if you feel it deals with the ethical issues of what Eleven did to the Silence, doesn't address the ethical issues with what Eleven did to humanity.
I can't imagine that Moffat hasn't thought of this. (Esp since it's such a direct manifestation of that Davros' quote.) It also ties in with the way he manipulated Kazran, and the inherent dangers in that kind of power. I'm not saying we'll see his actions here addressed *directly*, but I am as certain as I can be that Eleven's methods will come under severe scrutiny.

The Eleven who walks to his death still describes 1969 as the year he couldn't stop saving you (humanity) or something along those lines
The line is:

"Human beings... I thought I'd never get done saving you..."

Immediately afterwards older!Canton arrives, and then the astronaut. Yes, it follows on directly from the talk about 1969, but it is actually the Doctor talking about his impeding death, being a direct reference to this exchange from The Time of Angels:

OCTAVIAN: "200 years later, the planet was terraformed. Currently there are six billion human colonists."
DOCTOR: "You lot, you're everywhere! Like rabbits! I'll never get done saving you."

Still, there are too many unknowns for me to discuss it properly, since I am trying to argue about where I suspect that the story is heading, and that's rather flimsy ground to stand on. But, lines like these (again from The Time of Angels), also play with the same themes:

What if we had ideas that could think for themselves? What if one day our dreams no longer needed us?

With Moffat I tend to go straight for the metaphors & themes, and once I have those straight in my head I can get a better grip on where the story is headed. So I might get back to you. :)

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

More than that, this potential plot direction even if you feel it deals with the ethical issues of what Eleven did to the Silence, doesn't address the ethical issues with what Eleven did to humanity. (from aycheb)

I can't imagine that Moffat hasn't thought of this. (Esp since it's such a direct manifestation of that Davros' quote.) It also ties in with the way he manipulated Kazran, and the inherent dangers in that kind of power. (Emphasis mine.)

Ironically this was the very thing I was trying to point out in my original comments in solitary_summer's post a month or so back. Eleven is certainly acting like he's bigger than the universe right now. He consciously manipulated Amy's life, manipulated Kazran's, now he's manipulated all of humanity against the Silence. Kinda like Time Lord Victorious. Ten ultimately rejected that power when he sacrificed himself for Wilf.

I'm not saying we'll see his actions here addressed *directly*, but I am as certain as I can be that Eleven's methods will come under severe scrutiny.

I hope so. If he doesn't, then Moff's basically said it's okay that the ends justify the means.

[elisi]

I can assure you that Moffat is doing this VERY DELIBERATELY. If there's one thing I'm sure of, that is it.

Ten ultimately rejected that power when he sacrificed himself for Wilf.
Hmmm. I'm not sure he rejected it, he just sacrificed himself. As did Eleven for Amelia. It's what he does, it's part of who he is. But I'm not sure Ten ever outright rejected those powers. (I'm being awkward now, and don't really want to argue. But you made me think. I'll get back to you if my thinking goes anywhere.)

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

On the Hesperus, Ten said: It's not like I'm an innocent. I've taken lives. And I got worse, I got clever. Manipulated people into taking their own. Sometimes I think a Time Lord lives too long. Later, when Wilf's trapped in the radiation chamber, Ten ended his rant with the words "Lived too long." Ten knew he was manipulating Wilf with his rant, he knew Wilf would have died for him. So Ten stopped himself and saved Wilf before he could go any further. So yes, IMHO that meant Ten willingly surrendered his power.

[elisi]

It's not like I'm an innocent. I've taken lives. And I got worse, I got clever. Manipulated people into taking their own. Sometimes I think a Time Lord lives too long
Well now, I've had a good long think about this, and I think he's wrong. I think Davros happened to come up with a very successful instance of inception, and planted an idea in the Doctor's head that he completely embraced as his own. I'm not saying that the Doctor isn't manipulative, but not in that sense. To go all biblical for a second:

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. [Or for random strangers, even.]

One of the things that make the Doctor the Doctor is his willingness to sacrifice himself, to fight for what's right no matter what, and he inspires others to do the same.

ROSE: The Doctor showed me a better way of living your life. [To Mickey] You know, he showed you too. [passionately] That you don't just give up. You don't just let things happen. You make a stand. You say no. You have the guts to do what's right when everyone else just runs away, and I just can't--

Is that 'manipulation'? If so, then I can't see it as necessarily a bad thing. (JACK: I was so much better off as a coward.) Like you say, you can't blame the Doctor for his Companions' actions in JE. Plus, they inspire others - look at Jack and Sarah Jane, bringing others into the good fight. (Yes it kills them, but it's their choice. If you want to blame the Doctor for 'manipulating' then Sarah Jane is equally guilty in how she drags mere children into the Good Fight, if not moreso.)

Now, where there *is* a case, is in Rory's assertion:

RORY: You know what's dangerous about you? It's not that you make people take risks. It's that you make them want to impress you. You make it so they don't want to let you down. You have no idea how dangerous you make people to themselves when you're around.

OTOH I'd also like to bring in River's perspective:

RIVER: Father Octavian, when the Doctor is in the room, your only mission is to keep him alive long enough to get everyone else home. And trust me. It's not easy.

There is an un-sentimentality to River that I like. She's not arguing that the Doctor is worth protecting because of her own feelings, but because he's the one best equipped to deal with the crisis at hand.

Re. Wilf, then yes, I suppose you could say that Ten was manipulating him, but it was so over the top that I never took it seriously. Like DT said, the Doctor had a bit of a rant and a rave, but there was no way he was ever going to let Wilf die. It's not fair is the heart of it, and that's nothing to do with Wilf, just with the way life springs stuff on us.

What Ten did was surrender that particular body (and even so he fought the regeneration every step of the way), not his power. Like others have said, RTD probably wished that he could write the Doctor's final death, but couldn't. Moffat, I think, has gone and done it. Because Ten's death was Doctor-y to the core (RTD's initial idea had been to let him sacrifice himself for a complete stranger, but settled on Wilf in the end - the principle still stands.) We see this over and over again - f.ex. in the Library when he was going to sacrifice himself without a second's hesitation (in what *would* have been his final death) in order to save the 4022 people stored in the computer. We see it again when Eleven stepped through the crack to save Amelia/the universe. What Moffat is doing might be what RTD touched on, but never examined properly - how much power does the Doctor have and who is keeping him in check? (Or variations on that. Remember, Moffat has already thrown him in prison, for being the Worst Creature in All the Cosmos.) Rusty was thinking in terms of Ten taking control of who lived and who died (neatly referencing Voyage of the Damned, the whole godhood/monster thing), and by sacrificing himself stepping away from that particular temptation. (ETA: Or rather, showing how empty/illusory that power could be - in Wilf's case *someone* had to die. The only choice available was *who*.) But that's different from examining the Doctor's inherent abilities and powers.

[TBC]

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

(Now I can edit, with supper and soccer and karate over...)

As you say below, RTD's monsters as well as the Doctor were more human, so while Davros may have planted the idea the Doctor manipulates others into sacrificing themselves for him, there is definitely a kernel of human truth to it. Davros framing it as "turning people into weapons" is twisted, but from his viewpoint that's exactly what the JE companions were. I think Rory's insight directly ties in to Davros'. Part of wanting to impress the Doctor is to emulate him. The Doctor willing to sacrifice himself is one thing but I don't think the Doctor expects or even wants his companions or others to sacrifice themselves, either. Especially for him.

Like you say, you can't blame the Doctor for his Companions' actions in JE. - Can you remind me where I said that? I don't recall.

(River's perspective is IMHO irrelevant here, so I won't address that.)

Like others have said, RTD probably wished that he could write the Doctor's final death, but couldn't. Moffat, I think, has gone and done it. Because Ten's death was Doctor-y to the core

And? It still doesn't change the fact that Wilf pleads with Ten to leave him in the chamber, or that Ten believed he was on the edge of taking Wilf at his word. (If he had, then all bets would be off.) Yes, it was a given Ten was going to save Wilf all along--but I don't think that's the point. It doesn't matter that Ten fought his regeneration, either. Ten had just survived the Time Lords when he'd expected to die with them--the Time Lords who went Victorious themselves, which was why he had to destroy them in the first place. Ten was upset that his second chance was snatched away, yes--but I think one could also argue he knew he was in danger again of becoming what they were, and he stopped his rant before that could overwhelm him.

"Lived too long" is admittedly ambiguous: it could have meant either the Doctor, or Ten's incarnation specifically. The Doctor may be the Doctor may be the Doctor in terms of memory and experience, but each incarnation of him is unique in personality. It's entirely reasonable Ten thought the temptation was specific to his incarnation. But it's obvious now, I think, the temptation did not die with Ten. Ten rejected it, but I do think Eleven's increasingly embraced it.

Bringing your quote down again, It also ties in with the way he manipulated Kazran, and the inherent dangers in that kind of power. Again, this is what I tried to say in my comments in solitary_summer's post. The Time Lord Victorious is about exerting control. Every time Ten tried to exert control, e.g., resurrecting Astrid (the opposite of River, interestingly, by retrieving stored computer data), or saving Adelaide against her will, he got slapped down, until he eventually gave up that impulse with saving Wilf. That meant, he had to accept the universe was bigger than he is. Every time Eleven's exerted control (manipulating Amy twice to choose Rory, manipulating Kazran, manipulating humanity against the Silence), he's succeeded. At the same time, each manipulation has gotten more drastic. To me that's a sign Eleven's getting bigger than the universe. I know you already disagree with that.

What Moffat is doing might be what RTD touched on, but never examined properly - how much power does the Doctor have and who is keeping him in check?

In RTD's Who, it was clear the companions--and their humanity--kept the Doctor in check: Rose in "Dalek," Sarah Jane in "School Reunion," Mr. Copper in VotD, Donna in TRB and S4, Adelaide in WoM and Wilf in TEoT. When they weren't around, as in FoB when Ten punished the Family, we saw him do things like lock people in time and space and mirrors.

(TBC)

[elisi]

Part of wanting to impress the Doctor is to emulate him. The Doctor willing to sacrifice himself is one thing but I don't think the Doctor expects or even wants his companions or others to sacrifice themselves, either. Especially for him.
Of course not. No disagreement here.

Can you remind me where I said that? I don't recall.
It was probably someone else then. I've got a number of different conversations going on...

Ten was upset that his second chance was snatched away, yes--but I think one could also argue he knew he was in danger again of becoming what they were, and he stopped his rant before that could overwhelm him.
Oh I don't disagree. But there are certainly ways in which it feels as if the problems have just been postponed, rather than dealt with completely.

The Time Lord Victorious is about exerting control. Every time Ten tried to exert control, e.g., resurrecting Astrid (the opposite of River, interestingly, by retrieving stored computer data), or saving Adelaide against her will, he got slapped down, until he eventually gave up that impulse with saving Wilf. That meant, he had to accept the universe was bigger than he is. Every time Eleven's exerted control (manipulating Amy twice to choose Rory, manipulating Kazran, manipulating humanity against the Silence), he's succeeded. At the same time, each manipulation has gotten more drastic. To me that's a sign Eleven's getting bigger than the universe. I know you already disagree with that.
Hmmm. I'll leave the size of the universe to the next comment, but I think there's a difference here. Ten (because of all his losses) wanted to control life and death ("If you could choose Doctor, who lives, and who dies, that would make you a monster...") Eleven manipulates time and people - he rewrites Kazran in order to save the lives of the people on the spaceship, trying to prevent a preventable accident. Notice that he doesn't try to save Abigail's life (could he? Should he?). It's a difference that I'm finding a little hard to pin down, so I might come back to it. But Eleven has generally seemed to accept life and death as absolutes (like Vincent) - it's everything else that he messes with.

In RTD's Who, it was clear the companions--and their humanity--kept the Doctor in check
Absolutely. I'd say that this is one of the cornerstones of the whole thing.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

(so long, it's 2 parts. Sheesh.)

I think it should be noted, RTD commented in The Writer's Tale that he felt he couldn't take the Doctor too far into the dark in WoM, not if the Doctor was to remain an essential force for Good. (I think that's why RTD created Torchwood, where he could go there with CoE.) And to be fair on my part I think it's brilliant that Moffat is taking Eleven to the dark side--but he is playing a very dangerous game by doing so. Look at the heated discussions of the morality of Eleven's treatment of the Silence, for example. It's true, an alien's morality is not that of a human--but the show itself is still framed in human morality. Eleven's already done some notably un-Doctor-y things (e.g. not guaranteeing the freedom of the people frozen in ACC, not really caring that he contributed to shortening Abigail's life, laughing at how he defeated the Silence). People have noticed. So please, Moffat, explain.

Sorry, this is rushed, I have to run. I hope this makes sense. I know it rambles. tl;dr: We'll have to agree to disagree.

[elisi]

I think this all ties in with the shift in perspective and the Doctor being returned to a Trickster role, rather than more-or-less straightforward hero. The Doctor of old was much more of an ambivalent figure. Not that I've seen much, but in the few bits of Old!Who that I have seen, the Doctor lies and cheats to get his own way...

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

But it doesn't matter that the Doctor's back to a Trickster role. It's true the Doctor sometimes needs to perform questionable actions to save the day. What matters is whether the narrative addresses the morality of those actions. From the few episodes of Classic Who I've seen and heard of, the narrative did comment. IIRC, Barbara stopped One from braining a caveman with a rock. When Ace asked Seven if they'd did good re the destruction of Skaro, Seven replied, 'Perhaps.' Not to mention Four's dilemma of whether to commit pre-emptive genocide of the Daleks to prevent future suffering. All these Doctors were Tricksters--and the narrative raised the question of whether the ends justified the means in each case.

In contrast, DotM portrayed Eleven's actions re humanity uncritically. I've said elsewhere, I'd have been fine with his actions, if the narrative had addressed them as problematic. Right now IMHO the Doctor is morally no better than the Silence, for manipulating humanity against their knowledge or consent, and being smug about it.

[elisi]

I've been thinking about finales.

S1: Rose is 'posessed' by an alien force (the TARDIS) and commits genocide destroying the Daleks. She later boasts about this.

S2: The Doctor is practically dancing with glee when he tells people how he's going to suck the Daleks and Cybermen into the Void.

S4: Interestingly, when TenToo does exactly what Rose and Ten did in S1 and 2, this is framed as him 'being dangerous and genocidal', because Ten needs to manipulate Rose into choosing to look after him.

(Basically I parallel the Silence and the Daleks since they both destroy the universe. Except Daleks at least just kill you.)

S3: The Paradox Machine gets broken, and time rewinds as the Toclafane are sucked back to the most horrific fate in the whole of the Whoniverse. The Doctor holds Martha's hand, goes 'Wheeeee' with joy, and their fate is NEVER mentioned again. Ever. Except this is now how the universe ends: With humanity screaming against the dark, terrified and desperate. (The Master saved them, the Doctor condemned them. I'm not saying he was wrong to do that, I'm just saying there is problmatic stuff everywhere you look. And I'm pretty sure that the Doctor is being set up to fall, in a far more significant way than WoM.)

Anyway we should probably leave it, since I *think* we are now talking about what we want/need from the story and those things clearly don't mesh, so we won't agree. :)

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

Well, re S1 and S2, Rose and the Doctor were separated at the end, so their boasting and glee actually became hubris. Queen Victoria set up Torchwood in response to their earlier *and similar* gleetastic behavior in "Tooth and Claw," so their own actions set their separation in motion.

Re S4, Human!Ten didn't gloat when he destroyed the Daleks, however. Had human!Ten stayed in the Doctor's universe he'd still be "dangerous and genocidal." Exiling him to Pete's World was simply convenient. (I'm not arguing it wasn't problematic.) And I do think that action also contributed to the Doctor's fall in WoM.

It's splitting hairs in S3, but without the Master interfering, the Toclafane!humans would have succumbed screaming against the dark at the end of the universe anyway. "Everything dies and everything ends" was the natural law in RTD's Whoniverse. Breaking the Paradox Machine simply restored that natural law. Also, the Master did die, which was Ten's punishment.

I agree, there's problematic stuff everywhere, but it doesn't change the fact that the moral issues haven't been addressed (yet) in *Moffat's* Who, which is the point of discussion. And you're right, we won't agree on this. :-)

[solitary-summer.livejournal.com]

Sorry to jump in like that, but...

I think the difference is that with RTD most of the time the ambiguity of the situation isn't established after the fact, but beforehand. In TPoW there's the exchange between Nine and the Dalek emperor, and it's explicitly made clear that Rose possesses a power no one should have, certainly not a Time Lord. And before that there were Dalek and Boomtown, addressing the same themes.

Admittedly there aren't a lot of ethical debates in the S2 finale, partly because the moral ambiguity is Torchwood's, while the Doctor and Rose's story is primarily emotion-driven, partly, I imagine, because it would have been a bit too repetitive after S1, but as topaz_eyes said, the ending assures that neither the Doctor nor the audience will remember this as a triumph. It's war and there are going to be casualties, even if it's not in the literal sense.

The whole of S3 sets up the Doctor's ambiguous nature starting with VoTD, and in the finale itself you have his treatment of Jack and Martha, his loneliness and exclusive emotional focus on the Master, the fact that both Martha and Jack leave in the end, the fact that those who remember are deeply hurt by the events of the year, the tragedy of humanity... There may be a brief moment of victory, but again, this isn't the note on which the story ends, or what one remembers. And, as topaz_eyes said, destroying the paradox machine simply restored the inevitable natural order of things.

The S4 finale is the exception with its explicit condemnation of the human Doctor's act. (And In my personal opinion RTD was simply trying to juggle too many balls there, bringing in all the companions. Even he knew the Rose/human Doctor ending didn't really work.)

You could of course argue that what RTD does is effectively trying to have it both ways, the moral dilemma and the (relatively) tidy solution, but I think part of the problem is that the Daleks and the Cybermen are a fictionally constructed, one-dimensional enemy with whom it's effectively impossible to argue or reason, and whom it's impossible to re-write without changing fundamentally, so there is little a writer can do with them, if he's going to use them at all, except emphasise the moral ambiguity and tragedy of the situation, and there were quite a few episodes that did that. All the moments you list happen within a certain context that puts them in perspective, something that so far I'm largely missing in SM's writing; there was Amy's Choice, but the general impression after S5 still seems to have been that Eleven was a kind person, more so than Ten. But as you said before, SM might be playing a long game.

[elisi]

I hope this makes sense, it's still early.

To try to parse it down, then RTD's monsters are on the whole achingly human (and scary because we see ourselves reflected), and Ten fell because of his too-human flaws. Moffat's monsters are frightening in their Otherness, and in our inability to understand them, and if his Doctor falls, it'll be through his Otherness.

At least, that's my prediction. :)

ETA: Oh. Also it would be helpful for you to read Evilness vs. the Doctor, which beautifully lays out the differences in perspective, and how the Doctor and his actions aren't the center of everything anymore.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

RTD's monsters are on the whole achingly human (and scary because we see ourselves reflected), and Ten fell because of his too-human flaws. Moffat's monsters are frightening in their Otherness, and in our inability to understand them, and if his Doctor falls, it'll be through his Otherness.

And? They're mirror processes, in the end. As I see it, Ten fell because his human flaws paradoxically made him Other. (Does this mean Eleven will fall because his Otherness will paradoxically make him human?)

TBH I don't find Moffat's monsters frightening at all. That's because he always explains how they work up front. Once you know how a monster works, you can find a way to defeat it eventually. The true fright for me is in the *not* knowing. That's why I find the "Midnight" Entity so terrifying in comparison--it was never explained.

Also it would be helpful for you to read...

Okay, please stop condescending to me, Elisi, it's not appreciated. I am aware of the differences, thanks. I did read the fic long before you so kindly linked it. I thought it was clever.

[elisi]

I'm very sorry if I came off as condescending, that wasn't my intention at all. But the thing is that I re-read that fic and suddenly had a minor epiphany, which helped me enormously. It's about the size of the universe...

In Watsonian terms, then yes, I think you're probably right. Eleven is shown to manipulate the world to a far greater extent (and with far less consequences - yet) than Ten did. I can see what you mean.

However. In Doylist terms, Ten was the heart of the show. Everything was about him, other people's stories generally mattered in relation to how they affected him, and his choices and his morality was the centre of the narrative.

Eleven and his actions, on the other hand, is just one part of the story now. An important part, yes, but not the only one. I have about five million thoughts in my head after watching this two-parter, and - as my review showed - the ethics of Eleven's choice was not even the most prominent. Eleven is not bigger than the story (= universe) even though he's in some aspects the driving force. It's one of the reasons River's "I live for the days when I see him" jars so terribly to my ears, and is something I hope will be undone - that singular focus doesn't work for me in this context.

I'm not saying either perspective is better or worse, they're just different, and I'm happy to have managed to pinpoint the differences for myself. I don't know if they'll help anyone else. But this is my interpretation, and it goes a long way to explain why I'm not that bothered about the Doctor's actions - I don't particularly see him as the moral centre of the show, even though I believe that he is at heart a good man.

And that's all for now. RL is calling me...

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

*nods* That's fair.

Eleven is not bigger than the story (= universe) even though he's in some aspects the driving force. It's one of the reasons River's "I live for the days when I see him" jars so terribly to my ears, and is something I hope will be undone - that singular focus doesn't work for me in this context.

TBH this bothers me a lot too. "I live for the days when I see him" is not inconsistent with the idea that Moffat's female characters seem to be Women Who Wait For The Doctor. Reinette waited, Amy waited, now River seems to as well--to me it implies the Doctor's the focal point of their stories.

Right now, River's prison situation, as it's currently portrayed, actually reminds me a bit of Abigail's in ACC: she gets out when the Doctor needs her, and she goes back in when they're done. It's strange--River can let herself out, but why would she want to return so willingly? I can't work that out.

(And I just remembered earlier today, "cooler" is a slang term for "prison." Really, Moffat?)

[elisi]

TBH this bothers me a lot too.
Well it's inconsistent with River's previous MO. So I'm pretty sure that something is up.

It's strange--River can let herself out, but why would she want to return so willingly? I can't work that out.
Well she KILLED someone. And she says 'I made a promise' (which presumably was to the Doctor and about staying in prison unless urgently needed). River clearly accepts that her actions required justice be served, and doesn't think herself above the law.

(PS. I sincerely doubt that Moffat connected 'cooler' and 'prison' - it's a very American term, and not one that *I'd* ever use, or even think of.)

ETA: Reinette waited, Amy waited, now River seems to as well--to me it implies the Doctor's the focal point of their stories.
Donna waited, Rose crossed universes (and this was presented in a positive light - and both women talked about 'forever'), Jack waited (and got an explanation in the end, but not an apology). Whereas Amy's waiting was shown to be something that contributed to screwing her up. River we don't know enough about yet (but she can break out any time she wants, and ends up with a team of her own, rather than pine for the Doctor). (ETA2: Just realised that you meant Reinette waiting for the Doctor when he promised to take her out travelling. Well she had a pretty good life before that, and he should have known better. Plus: Waiting -> heartbreak. It's not shown as a good thing.

Hm. I'm REALLY not trying to start an argument, as a matter of fact I'd like to leave it well alone, because this is all about our own perspective on things and no one can ever be 'right'. Can we talk about how Joss fails at feminism instead?

[promethia_tenk]

Well it's inconsistent with River's previous MO. So I'm pretty sure that something is up.

Weirdly, I think you've picked out the one line of that speech that really didn't bother me and I feel no need to fanwank with an AU. And then everybody jumped all over it, and I was like hmmmmm . . .

I think I think of it this way: we're used to hearing a line like that from a young, idealistic romantic heroine who will then proceed to let her every action be dictated by infatuation, as if that line were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. With River, you're right, it's inconsistent with what we've seen of her. But that line is a raw moment. It's a statement of longing--it's a raw emotional truth. But that doesn't mean it's the whole truth or that the rest of the truth is unimportant or unsatisfying, and pretty much everything else that we know of her suggests that this is the case.

Yeah, she's got some powerful, sweeping emotions going on there. But we're perhaps a little too used to being told that powerful, sweeping emotions are the only things that matter.

[topaz-eyes.livejournal.com]

she says 'I made a promise' (which presumably was to the Doctor and about staying in prison unless urgently needed).

That's the point, isn't it? For now, someone else (presumably the Doctor, or someone on his behalf) controls her agency, rather like Abigail. IMHO it'd be kinder to River in some ways if she stayed in prison, but she has to be let out periodically so S5 can happen as necessary for Eleven.

You bring up Donna, Rose and Jack: the difference is, they were proactive while waiting. They actively searched for the Doctor to the best of their ability and resources. Donna went wherever she thought the Doctor might show up, Rose built the Dimension Cannon, Jack joined Torchwood. Reinette and Amy waited passively, and for now the narrative suggests River passively waits until she's needed as well. (It's worst for Amy--a child has extremely limited agency, so she really couldn't search for him at all.)

she can break out any time she wants - not according to the current narrative, apparently. In fact, as I said above, she has to break out if only so Eleven's future can unfold as it should. (I just realized, now we only can assume River had a team of her own in SitL/FotD. How do we know anymore she wasn't still a prisoner in those episodes? Perhaps her "team" were actually her jailers a la the clerics in TToA/F&S. She says at the end of F&S she hopes she can finally earn a pardon. We can't know if she did though, because we meet her as she progressively gets younger, not older. And Eleven told her she'd be a Professor in her future, so logically she'd use that moniker when she meets him next. Geez, Moffat, my brain hurts.)

I'd love to talk about how Joss fails at feminism, but I've never watched any of Joss' shows. Also, it's irrelevant. How Joss fails, or how RTD fails, is in no way related to how Moff fails at feminism, when Moffat's work is the topic of discussion. When it's Moffat's show, what RTD did with his companions has nothing to do with what Moffat's doing to his companions. Those are straw man arguments. Once those come out, I agree, the discussion's over. I'll go away now.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Partly because his writing is so meticulous.
He writes like a magician. He meticulously constructs his illusions full of sound and fury to distract the audience but signifying rather less than they seem to when all is said and done. The "Neil Armstrong's foot" twist is brilliant on one level but the trick depends crucially on the shot alien to oh so conveniently utter the fatal words about how his kind should be shot on sight. It's not really as clever as it seems.

he has themes he returns to like all writers. The scary things that lurk just out of sight, the impressionable young girl entranced by the Doctor, the idea that memories are as real as the real thing. I doubt he sees River's ending as in any way problematic. She preserved as a memory locked in a computer but the S5 five ending makes the whole universe a Red King's dream that Amy dreams.

Human beings... I thought I'd never get done saving you..."
Whether it's referring to 1969 specifically or his whole life it still positions him uncritically as our saviour.

[promethia_tenk]

He writes like a magician. He meticulously constructs his illusions full of sound and fury to distract the audience

The scary things that lurk just out of sight, the impressionable young girl entranced by the Doctor, the idea that memories are as real as the real thing.

She preserved as a memory locked in a computer but the S5 five ending makes the whole universe a Red King's dream that Amy dreams.

Moff places his characters and his audience in uncertain realities and psychological situations in which the important question becomes how to find and maintain order and meaning and identity and personal connection in conditions in which almost nothing can be taken for granted. Which is not to say that ethics isn't important and doesn't play a role, but it's not the focus of what's going on here. The core issues are about how can we know ourselves? How can we know others? How can we know our reality? And how do we negotiate between these things and find meaning and purpose in them? Are there ethical issues attached to all these things? Yes, certainly. But what this really is is metaphysics.

Personally, I find all of that to be of tremendous weight and importance, and I fully expect the problematic nature of the Doctor's intervention into the minds of the whole human race to be addressed within that specific context. But if that doesn't speak to you then, yes, Moffat's storytelling is always going to feel empty. I suspect you're simply not going to be getting what you're looking for out of it.

[elisi]

What Promethia said. Also Moffat's focus is vastly different from Rusty's. Rusty's overarching theme in everything he's ever written is humanity - the good and the bad, the inherent monstrousness, the grace. He loves nothing more than set up a no-win situation (like Waters of Mars or Children of Earth), and if he'd written about the Silence the focus would absolutely have been on the way the equally problematic natures of humans as unknowing victims or unknowing killers.

But Moffat's attention is elsewhere. His interest lies in stories and storytelling, in what constitutes selfhood... (Also see Evilness vs. the Doctor for a further exploration of the differences between the two writers.) Or to quote thornyrose42 from a different conversation:

Because the things that Moffat picks up on are the things that really freak you out when you are a kid. The fear of the dark, the thing under your bed, the statue that might have moved etc. So his stories work with children because there is the stuff that is in their brains up on screens but (if you can watch to the end) he also shows the tools that you can use to defeat the bogey man. He gives them the poker to reference Terry Pratchett.

(As I was walkin' up the stair
I saw a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh how I wish he'd go away

This is the Silence. And Moffat/the Doctor makes it go away.)

He writes fairy tales. This is why I say that I need to understand the metaphors before I can really talk about the story. There is the story level, and then all the stuff that goes on underneath.

However I know that there are a lot of people for whom this just doesn't work, and who find his writing empty and dull. If it doesn't do anything for you, it might be better to just leave it.

Whether it's referring to 1969 specifically or his whole life it still positions him uncritically as our saviour.
Well isn't he? He has saved the planet about a million times. Saving people is what he does. It doesn't address how he goes about it, true, but then if the season is heading where I suspect then this will probably be addressed. But possibly not in ways you'll find sufficient. (Moffat has replaced the 'Lonely God' title with 'Madman with a Box' - his Doctor isn't a hero, he's a Trickster. That shift is also crucial.)