For Whom the (Cloister) Bell Tolls, or Why We Hope Steven Moffat’s DOCTOR WHO Is an Island

For people who were so enjoying Doctor Who, we’ve been pretty silent on all things Whovian around here lately. The Steven Moffat era of Who returns to Auntie Beeb and BBC America tonight, and…well, we’re not sure we’re returning along with it. We just aren’t loving The Amazing Cold-Hearted and Illogical Adventures of the Eleventh Doctor and His Companion, The Skirt. And not loving something we were so enamored with makes watching the new stuff all the more difficult.

So what’s the problem? There are certainly things to applaud in Moffat’s Who. While we’re not sure it always works, the decision to explicitly stretch story arcs across the entire season is both ambitious and a wink back at Old School Who. Trusting established “outsiders” like Richard Curtis and Neil Gaiman has resulted in stand-out episodes. The child characters Moffat creates tend to be very successful, perhaps revealing how much he adores his own kids and how much his version of Doctor Who is directed toward kids. There’s been some brilliant set-up (those Silence-sighting hash marks are creeeeeepy).

And if some of that set-up hasn’t paid off, well, how different is that from the Russell T Davies-era Who we so loved? It’s not like we didn’t forgive RTD for sins against storytelling similar to what Moffat is committing. For every example of Moffat ruining something wonderful he’d done before, like taking the Weeping Angels out of the Wester Drumlins basement, you can find an example of Davies doing the same thing. I still refuse to acknowledge that ridiculous “Doctor 10.5 riding off into the sunset with alternate universe Rose disaster that undid the beautiful ‘Doomsday’” thing ever happened. While Moffat sometimes seems to fall in love with an idea and pursues it down a bad, bad road regardless of what it does to the story (no one tell the Doctor someone will kill him in the future, or he’d have to take sensible action!), Davies did that, too (Yoda Doctor of “Last of the Time Lords” is nigh unforgivable.)

But it turns out that nigh unforgivable isn’t the same thing as unforgivable. While our purpose here isn’t to pit Davies against Moffat—they both have strengths and weaknesses—their consecutive eras make for a sad comparison: why were we so willing not just to forgive but to embrace Davies’ sometimes lumpy Who, but we’re about to change the channel on Moffat’s?

  1. Puzzle Problems

It’s not like previous eras of Who locked down excellent science fiction logic. Why, for example, does Meglos need a human to fabricate a Doctor disguise…you know what, don’t even bother trying to answer that. Davies, in particular, made up egregious Point B nonsense to wrest the story from Point A to Point C (“It’s a magic diamond! That the Time Lords threw from inside the Time War! Wheeee!”). Moffat’s stories, however, tend not to bother with things like connective tissue at all. Instead, he merrily hops from Point A to Point C without worrying about whether that shreds the story beyond recognition. How does Rory go from being dead to having his consciousness in a plastic body that’s supposed to behave like a Roman? “Don’t know—he feels himself dying and then feels fuzzy and then feels Roman.” But…how? “Don’t know—doesn’t matter. Got to blow something up now.” But that doesn’t make any sense. “Eh. Call it a miracle.” Moffat doesn’t try to connect Thing A to Thing C at all—he just declares it to be so.

Perhaps the worst offense is the use of the TARDIS as a magic wand. There’s a reason stories about time travel employ rules preventing the characters from going back in time and removing the dramatic catalyst: without the dramatic catalyst, there’s no drama. Moffat’s blatant disregard for general sci-fi tropes about time travel and paradoxes—let alone rules actually established over decades of Whovian lore–remove any sense of tension or consequences from the story. Need a way out of trouble? The Doctor will pop in in a bubble of time and provide the solution. You know what that is? The last 20 minutes of Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, where they think to go back and provide themselves with conveniently placed garbage cans and key chains.

But what bothers me most, and this has its roots in the puzzles themselves being a failure, is that the reason puzzles work in stories is because the way they slam together in the end provides emotional catharsis (which, as you’ll see, will lead to our #1 complaint about Moffat’s Who). Sometimes that catharsis is joy, sometimes it’s relief, sometimes it’s a chill down the spine, but it’s emotion. Moffat’s puzzles aren’t providing that emotion, at least in part because their construction is shoddy.

The thing that’s so frustrating is that Moffat has shown he can make the puzzles work to provide emotion. I know I’m in the minority, but I love, love, love “The Girl in the Fireplace,” and it’s got nothing to do with Reinette. I love it because the reveal of the puzzle at the end—the audience learning something that the Doctor will always be haunted by but will never know—makes me cry every time I see it. The puzzle resolution itself has an emotional power that seeing a coffin being carried away doesn’t. Sally Sparrow’s delight and relief at figuring out that she’s the Doctor’s key is actually a big fat cheat, but it’s not as much of a cheat as what Moffat’s trying these days, and it’s an emotional catharsis that completes the entire episode. To paraphrase the great CJ Cregg, “The puzzles are bad. If the puzzles were unknown, I could help you, but they aren’t. They’re just bad.”

  1. Gender Issues

I’ve been trying to be patient with Moffat’s gender problems, but I finally reached my boiling point around the time they started making a game of Amy’s reproductive system. Kay Reindl’s tough but accurate piece on this development outlines very nicely why using Amy’s uterus as a plot point is misogynistic rather than cute, and Moffat’s problems with women hardly begin and end there.

Who are the women in Moffat’s vision of Doctor Who? Alien queens, nurses, soldiers. The problem is the pattern that emerges when looking at them all together: virgin/love interest, wife, mother. The whores or the wombs, the pretty or the evil. Over and over and over. It’s fine that Nancy’s a mother, both to the empty child and to her little band of WWII misfits. After all, the manager of the Flesh plant is a woman. It’s not a big deal that Reinette is, to be delicate, a courtesan—after all, the cool Sirulian Sherlock Holmes and her sidekick are women. But line them up. All four of Moffat’s Davies-era female characters fall straight into the major feminine archetypes: mother, whore, virgin (as far as Larry’s interests are concerned), wife. Now Amy’s a supplicant and a womb. Yay. Is Liz 10 a virgin queen? The “Vampires of Venice” baddie is just trying to protect her offspring—mommy. There are women in “Victory of the Daleks” and “The Lodger,” but they exist to be in love. And so on and so on, ad infinitum. Which is a long damn time when there’s a TARDIS involved.

What of Moffat’s most prominent women, Amy and River? The Amy we know has mostly been rendered non-existent—literally, what we thought was her was not, more than once—and the real Amy gets to be wife and womb. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a woman being married or having kids—in fact, those things are great. But when Moffat got a chance to create a Doctor Who companion, he made one who is nothing but those roles instead an actual human woman with thoughts and feelings of her own that include but are not limited to her family connections and responsibilities. Luckily, Amy’s been available to wear short skirts.

And River? At least she’s fun. But she’s fun because she’s just Captain Jack all over again, minus the Y chromosome. River is Moffat’s replacement Mary Sue, which is why she’s kind of awesome, yet oddly lacking any real depth.

It’s not terribly hard to see the gender issues playing out in Moffat’s overall handling of female characters, but he has trouble with his male characters, too. Looking over his body of work, he seems only to write immature men. And his immature men can be lots of fun when that’s what the story’s supposed to be about: Sherlock and Watson (whom we are loving—there’s the Who we wish Moffat had made), or Captain Jack, or Jeff and Steve and Patrick. But when he forces the Doctor into that box we get a Time Lord who becomes something heartless and twisted, with the brutally self-centered attention deficit of a child. Matt Smith is trying hard, but he’s being asked to play a Doctor who’s coming up on a thousand years old but who could show up on an American sitcom with a wife who is way out of his league. Part of the fun of the Doctor is that he sometimes bursts his seams and shows us an intelligence and perspective beyond human experience. Moffat’s immature Doctor is an all-too familiar brand of fake humanity.

  1. Moral Dilemmas

Again, we don’t mean to pit Davies against Moffat, or to imply that Davies-era Who has no flaws. But in thinking about what we’re missing from Who these days, we fell into discussing “The Waters of Mars,” a story we’ve not yet reviewed at TV Bacon. While we’re split on the end—Susannah doesn’t enjoy watching the dark turn it takes, while I dance around in a little circle singing, “Valeyard! Valeyard!”—we are both staggered by the difference between that episode and Moffat’s stuff. The Doctor’s dilemma in that episode, as in so many of the best of Davies’ episodes, was a moral one. It wasn’t a problem that could be solved by being clever or using the sonic or the TARDIS to fix everything. There was no winning scenario—the Doctor had to choose the best of two bad outcomes and it hurt to watch him do it. It made us hurt for him, which made us love him all the more. The Doctor knows what fixed points in time are, so can he refuse to save Pompeii? Should he have prevented the Dalek race from ever being born? Was it wrong to destroy the Racnoss, or was it just wrong to take steely pleasure in it? Was it wrong to depose Harriet Jones? There’s a moral question like that underpinning all the best of Who.

There’s very little of this exploration in Moffat’s Who, which creates an Eleven who is that arrogant, dangerous Time Lord Victorious from the end of “Waters of Mars.” He doesn’t have moral dilemmas, he’s not bothered about the consequences of his actions, he doesn’t even pause long enough to worry about the people who might get trampled under his feet or feel bad when innocent bystanders end up as collateral damage. Consider the particularly nauseating example of the solution to the Silence infestation of Earth in “Day of the Moon”: humans being hypnotoaded into being weapons of niche destruction. Perhaps it’s a testament to the vividness of his storytelling, but think about what Moffat has created here: in that world, thanks to the Doctor, every time you or I turn around we might feel a compulsion to splatter open a skull. There’s very little to love about a character with so much power who wields it so carelessly.

Part of what’s so maddening is that Moffat often has the opportunity to explore the moral dilemmas right in front of him and refuses to do anything with it. “The Beast Below” was more interested in playing with pointless clown police than in grappling with the moral issues the story set up. Matthew Graham’s Flesh two-parter had all kinds of moral shades available to play with, but right after showing that Flesh and Human should get along the Doctor dispatches Flesh!Amy for a shock reveal. “The Waters of Mars” slaps the Doctor with consequences almost immediately after his bad choices. If there’s a consequence to the Eleventh Doctor’s behavior, Moffat’s hiding it inside a strangely constructed Rubik’s Cube, and we’re no longer convinced he isn’t more interested in playing with the puzzle than finding what’s inside.

  1. Emotional Connections

While we (obviously) have some issues with the details of Moffat’s sci-fi, our biggest complaint is that we feel nothing. We were willing to critique but ultimately overlook hot plot messes in RTD’s work when we got big emotional payoffs, and the same is true for Moffat—as much as crossing the timelines drives us batty, we’d likely get over it if a huge emotional payoff was attached.

There’s no love anymore. No heart. No joy. No sincere affection or emotion of any kind, far too much of the time. (We suspect this is why Rory is so popular, and our favorite Moffat-era character: he’s the only one who consistently displays any genuine feelings for anything or anyone. Everyone else is too busy being glib and clever and showing off.)

And yes, the Doctor has always been glib and clever with a predilection for showing off. But he’s also been a man with two hearts overflowing with affection for the people who cross his path (until/unless they prove themselves unworthy of that affection, and then they better watch out). He used to look at the whole of the universe with a childlike joy and sense of wonder. Now we’re too busy twisting into pretzels to experience wonder or attachment or loss.

Consider our favorite episodes of Moffat’s reign—both “Vincent and the Doctor” (Richard Curtis’ work) and “The Doctor’s Wife” (hello, Mr. Gaiman) tie the Doctor to love. One person he loves is a new friend; one is his oldest friend of all. Both tether him to something outside of himself, stretching the Doctor so that he’s bigger on the inside. The Master once mocked the Doctor’s choice of moniker: “the man who makes people better.” But watching Vincent have a moment away from the ache of his mental illness to hear a museum curator discuss his work as timeless is so moving that it makes the Doctor’s rule-breaking worth overlooking. Seeing the one being who always makes the Doctor better finally get to say hello to him is nearly 50 years’ worth of emotional payoff. Compare that to the revelation of River’s identity, which should be a huge moment and instead feels like a magician shouting “ta da!” and pulling nothing out of his hat.

One of our greatest frustrations is that Moffat has shown in previous work that he can bring the emotion. The Doctor’s pure joy in “The Doctor Dances” is a sure tearjerker. Donna asking if “I’m all right” is Time Lord for “really, really not all right” in “Forest of the Dead” is one of the most piercing moments of Season 4 of New!Who. So why doesn’t he want to make us cry now?

We wonder if weak characterization is part of the emotion problem, not just with the main characters but compared to RTD’s ability to draw colorful, memorable one-off characters we immediately cared about. It’s a good part of why Gaiman was successful—every new person on screen was interesting and, to some extent, deeply sad. Fake and imaginary Amys make it impossible to create deep characterization, and the Doctor doesn’t seem interested in anyone else. That leaves a lot of emotional weight for Rory to carry, with very little help from either side characters or plot to get there. If the theft of a baby can’t make us cry, we’re having a hard time connecting with your world.

While we’d stand by the argument that some parts of Moffat’s Who are simply not well-executed, it’s also true that there’s nothing inherently wrong with flattening out the moral aspects of the show or going for sprung traps over emotion. We suspect that Moffat thinks he’s making a return to Old School Who, and maybe he is. I do think he takes his kids into account when writing this stuff. And the Davies era really was a major update to modern television expectations in terms of infusing emotion into the show. So yay for Moffat if a retrofit is what he wants. We’re just not enjoying watching it with him.

11 thoughts on “For Whom the (Cloister) Bell Tolls, or Why We Hope Steven Moffat’s DOCTOR WHO Is an Island

  1. Wonderful piece, thank you. It echoes many of the feelings I’ve been having myself about seasons 5 and 6. Such a disappointment they’ve ended up to be, and just about every episode leaves me feeling emotionally flat. I particularly agree with the section on “moral dilemmas,” and Waters of Mars is an excellent example to use. It tugs the heartstrings one way and then another, builds tension, makes you care for what are really nothing more than stock characters (RTD does character development so well, even when there’s only room to make a few brushstrokes), and leaves you thinking hard at the end about the hero and what he’s done, albeit with the best of intentions. Moffat is so blinkered by his desire to write clever plot twists and clever quippy dialogue that he loses sight of what actually should be the heart of the story, if indeed he ever had it in his sights; the episodes with him as producer are so poor compared to the gems he wrote for RTD that I wonder at times whether RTD had a heavier hand in guiding and editing them than we realise.

    To add to your comments about gender, River Song has slid down that slippery slope and is now lying in the bog. I loved her character when she was first introduced, it was an interesting concept, and she seemed like a strong person with a big heart. All credit to Alex Kingston for the way she has continued to bring to character alive and prevent her from being the complete train-wreck she would quickly have become with a less talented actor. But now we see that her sole existence is wrapped up in the Doctor, he is the reason she became an archaeologist, and there seems to be no meaning to her life apart from him. I have lost most of my respect for her, and Moffat really did her a terrible disservice in season 6 with the hamfisted way he . . . well, spoilers sweetie, if you haven’t seen it yet. Though I guarantee you’ll be wanting to throw a brick at the TV by the end.

  2. Spot on! This is the first real article I have read about the problems with Moffat’s era of Doctor Who! Whenever I visit the fan sites, you just get die hard Moffat fans telling you that you must be stupid or that you don’t get it. I get it, but I just don’t like it. Which is what Moffat tends to do too, when his writing is criticised.

    My biggest gripe with the Moffat era is that lack of emotion and emotional elements, which you have mentioned perfectly! RTD could really write characters. Moffat cannot.

    I just can’t bring myself to watch the Moffat era. I was a huge fan of the RTD era, and even when he had his dodgy moments, he could be forgiven, just as you say. But with Moffat, I just switch off.

    I am just looking forward to Doctor #12, and hopefully a change of show runner. Even if RTD and Moffat wrote together it would be good. But as it is, I’m just npot watching it anymore. And it’s disappointing, as Doctor Who is one of my all time favourite TV Shows.

  3. sorry but River is no longer fun! Actually I never found her fun, I found her to be an obnoxious pain in the butt. All she did was throw her gross self at the Dr and act like she was still 20 yrs old. pathetic! And it takes more then a gun to be badass. Sorry if some children have yet to figure that out.
    The nicest way a couple of guys put it was (as far as her TRYING to be sexy) “She tries to act like a sexy Lauren Bacall but insted she comes across like a drunken aunt at a wedding.” lol
    And (in regards to this farce of her being badass just because she has a gun RME) “She looks like a soccer mom with a gun.”
    Actually she reminds me of Estelle Getty in ‘Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot’. lol
    And what did we learn of her in series 6? That she enjoys killing in cold blood? That is NOT “Badass”! That is a Sociopath! And then in the farcical ‘Wedding of River Song’ where after she accidentally caused the Time Line to veer off into an alternate time line because she couldn’t kill the Dr (okay that bit is understandable) BUT all of her childish prattle about “Love” had NOTHING to do with Real Healthy Love and EVERYTHING to do with an unhealthy obsessive sick infatuation. And when The Doctor pleaded with her to let him fix the universe (otherwise Trillions upon Trillions of people would die) she said NO! Because she loved him? NO!! Because she didn’t want to feel bad about being the one who killed The Dr. Talk about a Narcissist! And then when he kept insisting she finally agreed PROVIDING he marries her vile self! UH, I guess some children are too ignorant to figure this out BUT what she did was hold the ENTIRE UNIVERSE hostage and demanded The Dr marry her as A RANSOM DEMAND! That is NOT the actions of a woman in love but one who is insane! And some fools are running around babbling about what a great love story this is? WTF?! Are they insane?! Well that actually goes without saying! And I don’t care how hurt some are! If you don’t like the truth, then crawl under your bed! River is a bona-fide Sociopath! She fits the Description to a T! Some have childishly tried to deny this!
    “She loves the Dr therefore she can’t be a sociopath”. LOL!! Please! Again, not one fn word that came out of her mouth during that story had ANYTHING to do with Real Love! Only a Sick obsession! And yes, Sociopaths often become obsessed with one person!
    She saved the Dr’s life so she can’t be a sociopath! LOL!!! Uh, Ted Bundy once saved the life of a 3 yr old child from drowning. And Yes! The Same Ted Bundy who raped and murdered over 30 Women! And I would think he more then qualifies as a sociopath. The problem is Moffat while he has SOME talent, he has NO COMMON SENSE! He doesn’t realize what he has written!
    Like this BS about the Time Vortex penetrating the Tardis Force Shield! Uh, The 4th Dr in ‘Pyramids of Mars’ stated “Nothing can enter the Tardis.” Except a powerful mental force. And the Time Vortex isn’t a mental force. so there is no way in HADES that River acquired Time Lord LIKE capabilities from the Time Vortex. The ONLY Place she could have acquired them is from the Tardis Matrix! And the ONLY Time Lord DNA The Matrix has access to is THE DOCTORS! So River and The Doctor are Genetically Related! So their already GROSS Relationship is now even more gross by the fact that is is 100% INCEST! So Moffat better NOT be planning on any sexual crap from now on!
    UNLESS he establishes Rory or Amy as being (somehow) half-Time Lords themselves! THAT is the ONLY way to save him from EXTREME embarrassment!
    How much does anyone care to bet that moron is not only too stupid to realize that Time Lords traveled for millions of years through time and space and would have long ago developed force shields that would have kept OUT ALL external forces!? Including the Time Vortex and only those who are an extra-special kind of stupid would fail to grasp this?!
    So IF Clara turns out to be The Dr and Rivers child! Moffat WILL find himself in BIG TROUBLE!

  4. Yes, yes and yes: this is more or less exactly how I feel about Moffat-era Who, and it’s such a shame – I had such high hopes for Moffat after the fine work he did during the RTD era, but now I’m just waiting for his time to be over, or for Matt Smith to leave (he’s been a decent actor in other productions, but he’s just all wrong for the Doctor), or both.

  5. 100% agree, if only RTD would return perhaps I wouldnt be so bored and totally disappointed with the current Who. Its shallow dull and heartless stuff. Its unpleasant in places and mostly irritating in general. It amazes me that people rave over it, I am so glad I am not alone in thinking Moffat has made the Doctor into a twirling arrogant muppet.

    • I have noticed Moffat apologists can be downright bullies. They seem incable of accepting another persons point of view, and they turn to nasty comments when they are thwarted. Its really creepy. I never find that same level of fanaticism with RTD lovers. Maybe the reason is that RTD brought warmth and humour to the episodes and like minded folk respond to this, whereas Moffat fanbois seem to have either Amy obsessions, or get carried away with all the ‘so called’ clever plot twists, which they fail to see they are empty and vacuous.

  6. Okay I am not a Moffat apologist, Obviously but I wanted to say that Just In Case anyone thinks I’m some “foaming at the mouth hater” (like little children like to claim) I actually LIKE some of Moffats work! I’ve said on other pages (and is of course promptly ignored by his psychotic fans) that I like his 2007 Childrens Special with Peter Davidson and David Tennnet, that was VERY GOOD! See?! I can say positive things about him! I DON’T hate him! Anyone saying that is a liar! Period! I hate his writing BIG difference! At least to those living in the world of reality.
    And I liked Blink. That’s it for whole stories. And what have I said about his other stories? They START OUT promising and then crash and burn. Okay what’s so “hateful” about that? The FOOLS focus on the crash and burn and IGNORE the part about STARTING OUT PROMISING! Typical of the psychotic fans! I liken them to a bunch of Don Quixotes! These morons charge into battle against all kinds of imaginary dragons and as a result, make complete fools out of themselves! lol
    And as for my (NORMAL) hating of an EVIL character who (As I’ve already pointed out) a complete and total sociopath that is a normal response from someone who has a good head on her shoulders and BOTH feet planted firmly on the ground. But in spite of my hatred of a FICTIONAL character I have plans to use her in my fanfic. I put to rest any doubt (within my stories lol) that she IS NOT married to the Doctor! In fact every time Steve has her saying that she and the Dr are married, he is just making her look that much crazier. I actually make her pay for holding trillions upon trillions of innocent (and not so innocent) people hostage all because that Narcissistic Puke decided that SHE would suffer more then anyone else if the Dr died! PUHHHHHLLLEEEESE! It was all I could do to keep down my lunch when I heard that insane RUBBISH! But anyway, I think I’ve found the APPROPRIATE punishment for such a massive sociopath! But I DO NOT have her suffer physically but mentally and emotionally! She pays for her crime! As she should! Saving a few lives here and there JUST to show off for the Dr is just SICK! Some loser on another page said she is the only good character on the show! I’ll assume he hadn’t seen the wedding of river song when he made that idiotic comment!
    I know Moffat the Moron had her refer to herself as a psychopath BUT she isn’t a psychopath! She IS a Sociopath! And the Doctor is NOT a psychopath! Further Proof of what an idiot Moffat is! How dare he suggest such a thing! That is a total insult not just to this Doctor but to ALL of the Doctors!
    He clearly has no grasp on who The Doctor character is suppose to be! RTD was closer but he too missed the mark! Time to fire both Moffat and his backwards producers and hire REAL writers who love and more importantly UNDERSTAND who the Doctor character is all about!
    Wanting someone fired is not hateful! sorry if the little children have trouble comprehending that. I don’t care what unoriginal garbage he does to Sherlock! Oh why do I call it Unoriginal?! Because a modernized version of Sherlock was first done by Universal Studios back in the 1940’s!! LOL! Unless anyone thinks that World War II took place during Victorian times? 😛

  7. His characters suck, the skin people, the red stupid things in the anniversary episode, the way he rewrote the time war without any credible explanation except memory time crosses, his stupid filler explanations and plot holes a mile wild ruined the show.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s