Talk:Oxygen (TV story)

We cannot say the Doctor is permanently blind
I have deleted two uses of the word "permanently" with relation to the Doctor's blindness. We do not know what is planned in the episodes to come. We do not know that the Doctor will be blind for the rest of this incarnation. To say so now would be a violation of the spoiler policy even if it has been announced as being the case. This obviously can be revisited after the 2017 Christmas special airs, should the Doctor still be blind as of the end of Series 10. 23skidoo ☎  03:08, May 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * Last words of the episode: "I can't look at anything, ever again. I'm still blind." We're working directly from the source material to say that it's permanent. It would be speculation to assume that what the Doctor explicitly says is permanent at the end of this episode, will not be so. If future narratives work around this somehow, that's something we can deal with when and if that happens. But right now, we work from what we've got, and what we've got right now says "I can't look at anything, ever again." 06:02, May 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that several of the (released) novels are set after this story and (presumably) don't feature a blind Doctor. It's illogical to move novels meant to be set after this story to before this story. OS25 (Talk) 06:23, May 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why that would have to be? I haven't read them yet personally, but as I understand, Diamond Dogs must take place after Smile and Thin Ice (and The Shining Man must take place after Diamond Dogs), but who's to say these can't take place before Oxygen? There's plenty of time between narratives this season for these other stories to take place in. Is there something I'm missing here? 07:01, May 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, you might be right, but I suspect that after a few more episodes have aired those stories will still fit more comfortably into later pockets in the season. OS25 (Talk) 07:20, May 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * @SOTO - Yeah, but that's also a cliffhanger. If an episode ends with the last line saying "Character X is dead" does that mean we change everything related to "Character X" and then have to change everything back a week later when Character X is proven to be alive and kicking? Heck, remember "Rule 1" also with regards to the Doctor. (Also, the duration of the Doctor's blindness has been addressed elsewhere, however of course that can't be discussed in this venue without violating the policy.) In any event, someone revised the reference to include "potentially" which is an OK compromise. 23skidoo ☎  01:32, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Enemy
Our page for The Aztecs has Tlotoxl as the main enemy and not tradition.

The Reign of Terror has Robespierre as the enemy and not revolutionary spirit.

Thin Ice has Lord Sutcliffe and not industry or greed or imperialism.

I think the main enemy for Oxygen should remain the smartsuits and not the more abstract enemy of capitalism. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, and we have Krasko as the enemy for Rosa and not racism. Template:Infobox Story/doc/TV story says that the field is for "Main enemies that appear in the story". I don't believe this applies to capitalism in this story. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "They're not your rescuers. They're your replacements. The end point of capitalism. A bottom line where human life has no value at all. We're fighting an algorithm, a spreadsheet. Like every worker, everywhere, we're fighting the suits."


 * The episode is very explicit on this point. The thing they're actually struggling against isn't the suits, per the episode itself. It's capitalism. The suits are just a manifestation of this larger struggle. This is not the case in any of the episodes you've listed, none of them emphasize that the currently listed main enemies are logical endpoints of the ideology in question. Indeed, based on how you're framing the first three, it would be effectively impossible for that to be true. Najawin ☎  18:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * And it could just as easily be argued that the struggle in Rosa is less against Krasko and more about the racism evident in him and the American people. Capitalism is to blame, sure, but it's not the "Main enem[y] that appear[s] in the story". Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  18:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm open to placing racism as well, if we can find quotes that suggest a certain level of authorial intent. The issue here is that the episode is explicitly saying that the suits are manifestations of capitalism and that they're fighting capitalism. The episode, in fact, explicitly tells us that capitalism appears in the story and that it's the main enemy. Let's not conflate "it could be argued" with "the episode literally tells us this". Najawin ☎  18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The talk page for World Enough and Time goes into greater detail as to why the wiki doesn't list ideas and concepts as main enemies. BananaClownMan ☎  19:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Capitalism is not an idea, it's a way in which an economy is organized. If we instead were to insist that we're talking about "capitalist ideology", then we're in the same bind if we ever say that the main enemy is the Nazis. But the very talk page you're referencing explicitly affirms that groups may be main enemies, so this doesn't work - groups that are inspired by ideologies are kosher.


 * Moreover, Snivy's suggestion as to why ideas aren't used as main enemies simply isn't applicable to this situation.
 * if we start falling down the line of adopting concepts as the enemy, that falls into vague abstractions that become enemies that would require elaboration for why those concepts should be the main enemy
 * Everything here is explicitly stated in the episode. Even if we were to misinterpret capitalism as something purely conceptual. And as pointed out in the edit summaries, we do sometimes list ideologies as main enemies, namely, The Enemy. Najawin ☎  20:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I really dont think the Enemy is comparable. The Enemy is described as a process, sure, but what that actually means isn't clear. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  20:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "The form of the Enemy was constantly shifting."


 * "Some theorised that the real War was against 'the archetypal concept of enmity itself'."


 * Is it 1 to 1? No, of course not. I fully cede that. But I think it's more than sufficient precedent for this situation where we have something that isn't even a concept - it's a way of structuring an economy, and is explicitly stated to be the antagonist in the episode. Najawin ☎  20:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The Doctor says that they're fighting the suits, a play on words referencing the term for a high-ranking executive. I can see an argument for Ganymede Systems being the main enemy, but capitalism itself? I strongly disagree.
 * And the Enemy is a baddie around whom contradictory grandiose and mythological statements have been made. They can't be compared to an economic system. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  21:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The first argument only works if you ignore the very clause before it. Every worker everywhere is not fighting Ganymede Systems. You have to wholly decontextualize that statement from the rest of the Doctor's comment in order to make that reading work. He's very clearly talking about capitalism - he mentions it by name. Indeed, the closing section specifically states that the workers revolt brings down capitalism. The episode is incredibly clear on this point. Moffat explicitly mentions capitalism in his introduction to the episode. Per Mathieson: "The line I was really happy they kept was 'the end point of capitalism, the bottom line where human life has no value.' Which I really thought in away it’s too political but in a way it’s the point of the episode. The point of the episode is this is where it could end up if we’re not careful. And in a way it’s a dark fairytale and it’s fantastic but the idea of corporations going if we could get away with it, the people at the bottom of the food chain would be worth nothing." It is the explicit intent of the writer, the showrunner, and the episode itself tells us this.

You also are underplaying the weirdness of The Enemy in order to try to get around how much of a precedent it serves as. See the section on metafiction. The contradictions are part and parcel of the concept itself. Najawin ☎  22:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)