The two best seasons of all time, S9 being a tremendous run of creativity, even its worst stories being stories that in other seasons would be their best. (Yeah, I said it. Sleep No More would be a good Chibnall episode. It would look good in S2 or S3.) And Heaven Sent and Hell Bent are, of course, the two best episodes of all time.

@Najawin Even accounting for taste I cannot abide Heaven Sent and Hell Bent being the two best episodes of all time. For one thing Heaven Sent has constantly changing rules that flit in and out of existence as the Moff deems it necessary. Every room re-sets when he leaves it, and yet... not the final one. What a relief. Otherwise it would literally go on forever instead of just feeling like it.

Soooooooo it has one rule you don't like. And it's just because you don't understand it. The abzantium is the boundary of the confession dial, that's why it's not reset. It's not part of the internals of the closed system.

But, you know, I'm glad you can't abide the most popular episode of all time, as well as the best reviewed episode among critics and among the obsessive section of the fanbase in particular, being the best episode. Maybe you're just wrong?

@Najawin Given he went to the lengths of giving it a specific room number, I don't think expecting it to follow the same rules as the other rooms that he invented is an outrageous affront to logic. Maybe it wouldn't have killed him to explain in the script why this was different, maybe it would. Do we know how Capaldi manages to find a fresh coat on the first trip round? Maybe we just don't care. I certainly can't fathom why he felt the need for the almost unbearable mind palace scenes with Clara in the Tardis, so I guess this isn't too far off.

Yep, me being wrong is certainly an option. I mean, I think you're wrong about loads of things, so that's fair. But I don't share your industrial-scale faith in the idea that "everybody thinks this, therefore it must be right". My personal feeling is that people like what they like. For one thing, yes, it won the overall DWM poll, but it actually didnt win the individual Capaldi vote. So had the vote been formatted differently, it wouldn't have even made the shortlist. If that's the basis for calling it the most popular episode, it's a little shaky at best—I felt that even when I saw the poll in isolation. (I assume we're not discussing the small matter of viewing figures. How many people have actually seen the "most popular episode of all time" compared to, say, Voyage of the Damned?)

Critics, I mean. They can think what they think, and get paid to think it, and then to write it. I enjoy reading criticism but don't believe the purpose of it is to be taken as fact. What does one base it on? The number or percentage of 5-star reviews? The balance of positivity to negativity? It's at best arbitrary, and at worst actively skewed. Unless you have the same people reviewing everything, you're not comparing like with like.

And I'm not sure what you mean by the "obsessive section of the fanbase", and suspect I don't want to. They don't sound like the first group of people I'd go to for a reasonable discussion.

"Given he went to the lengths of giving it a specific room number, I don't think expecting it to follow the same rules as the other rooms that he invented is an outrageous affront to logic."

You are, once again, confusing being in the dial with being part of the dial's boundary. The room is in the dial. The wall is part of the dial's boundary. These are two distinct things that are clearly and obviously different. It's confusing (0,1) with [0,1].

"I certainly can't fathom why he felt the need for the almost unbearable mind palace scenes with Clara in the Tardis"

You did watch Hell Bent, right? It's very clear in Hell Bent, the juxtaposition of the Clara in his mind vs the Clara in reality.

'But I don't share your industrial-scale faith in the idea that "everybody thinks this, therefore it must be right".'

I certainly don't believe this? I gave a variety of data points, general popularity is only one of them.

"For one thing, yes, it won the overall DWM poll, but it actually didnt win the individual Capaldi vote. So had the vote been formatted differently, it wouldn't have even made the shortlist."

Aka "Yes, it's the most popular episode of all time, but when you have a smaller sample size of voters by pairing the episode with the least popular Doctor in recent memory you can get some weird results."

"Critics, I mean. They can think what they think, and get paid to think it, and then to write it. I enjoy reading criticism but don't believe the purpose of it is to be taken as fact."

Shockingly, when experts tend to agree on things, that makes that thing more likely to be true.

"And I'm not sure what you mean by the "obsessive section of the fanbase", and suspect I don't want to."

Oh, r/Gallifrey. It kept winning their "best episode" polls by such an extreme extent that they had to ban it to give anything else a chance.

@Najawin I'm not going to address everything here, not least because it feels a little bit like banging my head against an incredibly verbose brick wall. But I'll have a go.

I know everybody on Reddit likes to believe they are a philosopher, but them voting for the same thing over and over again is still not evidence it's true. It's probably the same people voting every time! So of course it's going to be the same result. I'm pretty sure if this was negative it would be understood as review bombing—I'm not suggesting that people are voting for it in bad faith exactly, but Reddit is a small sample, singing the praises of an episode which comparatively few people have actually seen. And while I'm sure Steven Moffat would be grateful to you for the admirable defence, you cannot seriously be telling me that something that is part of a room should "clearly and obviously" be subject to different rules because it's also part of the boundary. But I do appreciate the notion that the readers of DWM are so unfamiliar with the Whittaker era that they didn't bother to vote for the Capaldi ones either.

I think you're probably aware that I did in fact watch Hell Bent, and I don't entirely appreciate the condescending tone, although I'm definitely used to it. Yes, I saw it, and yes, I thought it was an error on Moffat's part for featuring Clara in this at all. This is a protracted 3-episode tale of her sort-of avoiding her death (3 long episodes), and yet she's virtually present throughout. It never feels like she's gone, so it's difficult to actually care about her when she does peg it. This is, IMO, a fundamental problem with Moffat's writing of Clara. She's actually quite difficult to like, so this magnificent (and did I mention lengthy) serenade wears incredibly thin.

And I think there is a very clear distinction between critics and experts. Many experts are not critics. And very many critics are not experts.

"but them voting for the same thing over and over again is still not evidence it's true. It's probably the same people voting every time! So of course it's going to be the same result."

This would surely be the case over a short period of time, not over a period of years.

'And while I'm sure Steven Moffat would be grateful to you for the admirable defence, you cannot seriously be telling me that something that is part of a room should "clearly and obviously" be subject to different rules because it's also part of the boundary.'

YES!?! Boundaries are often times radically different from internal behavior. (0,1) contains no integers. [0,1] does. The behavior at the boundary is markedly different. This isn't even slightly controversial, I'm just astounded that someone actually thinks there's a point to be made here.

"But I do appreciate the notion that the readers of DWM are so unfamiliar with the Whittaker era that they didn't bother to vote for the Capaldi ones either."

"Uninterested" is the word, not "unfamiliar".

"Yes, I saw it, and yes, I thought it was an error on Moffat's part for featuring Clara in this at all."

So did you think Moffat was mistaken for doing the thing he did, or did you not understand his reasoning? These two explanations are at odds with each other. If it's the first, well, "eppur si muove". And this trilogy isn't about her death or about her avoiding death per se, but about her ascension. It would be weird for her not to haunt the narrative given that context. If it's the second, I reiterate my previous point, he had a specific reason to do so, a reason you said you didn't understand, not merely that you disagreed with.

"Many experts are not critics. And very many critics are not experts."

I mean, sure? I'm not including any random guy with a podcast, I'm talking about people who engage with Doctor Who and/or media in general critically for a living. Often with degrees in relevant subjects or published works.

@Najawin "I'm not including any random guy with a podcast": might I suggest then that cherry-picking which people you consider as valid and which ones you don't may lead to a skewed result. I understand you can't use everyone, but one could even be forgiven for believing that you were choosing people on the basis of whether they liked the episode.

I find the idea that "this isn't about Clara's death, it's about her ascension" such a silly one I think it's safer just to pretend I've never read it. She's human, so it's the same thing. The idea of companion as audience surrogate seems to have gone out the window entirely to create this pompous storyline, the result being something that it's really difficult to engage with. The best thing I read while trawling for people talking about these two episodes was in relation to the line: "nothing's ever sad until it's over". Proving that in Moffat's Who, nothing can ever be sad, because nothing is ever over.

"might I suggest then that cherry-picking which people you consider as valid and which ones you don't may lead to a skewed result"

Who said I'm cherry-picking? Your criticism was that "critics" wasn't the same as "experts" and my response was that I'm not including random people who aren't published as "critics", so I have a further metric. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

"I find the idea that "this isn't about Clara's death, it's about her ascension" such a silly one I think it's safer just to pretend I've never read it. She's human, so it's the same thing"

She stole a TARDIS from Gallifrey, has an irregular heartbeat, a companion, is unable to die, and is on the run from the Time Lords. She's the Doctor. It's about her ascending into her role as the Doctor. This is all very blatant.

"Proving that in Moffat's Who, nothing can ever be sad, because nothing is ever over."

So the last time companion departures were sad was Adric? This is silly. Come now. But certainly it's intentional that in Moffat's work the Doctor is able to keep sadness at bay - he has a time machine. It would be a moral abomination for him not to.