The Impossibe Book

Even though "Journey" is not exactly a masterpiece, somehow it is still one of the most remarkable episodes of 'Doctor Who' because we'll always remember it to be the first time that a companion learns the Doctor's actual name. Up to now people weren't sure if he had one in the first place. Others thought that his name is  'the Doctor', as he's been telling people the past 5o years.But Clara's reaction on learning the Doctor's name shows us that there is more to it...

Now, revealing the Doctor's name is something that many fans regard as one of the big, golden Don't-s of 'Doctor Who'. And therefore, the scene in which Clara is reading "The History of the Time War" in the TARDIS library and finds out about the Doctor's name is simply wrong in some Whovians'  opinion.  Thompson tries to compensate this by making Clara forgetting the events of "Journey" as they become rewritten.

But it's not only Clara coming across the Doctor's name which seems to be out of place there. Putting some thinking into it you'll notice that "The History of the Time War" is at least as impossible a book as Clara is an impossible girl.  Because, the first, well second, emerging question after seeing that scene is the story behind that book.

So, what do we know about it? Not much. Taking into consideration that the TARDIS does not translate Gallifreyan automatically ("A Good Man Goes to War") it seems that "The History of the Time War" can't be written in the Time Lords' language, otherwise Clara wouldn't have been able to read it.

Then there is the question regarding its author. Well, it has to be someone who's familiar with the Doctor's name. And this makes the Doctor the most obvious candidate. But then he's trying hard to keep his name a secret, so I don't think he'd write it down in a book, even though it's stored away in the library of the TARDIS, which means that no-one who shouldn't read it is going to get the chance to do so. But the point is still standing. He simply wouldn't take the risk of writing his name down.

Another person about whom we know to know his name is River Song. And although she is an Archaeologist (i.e. interested into history) and an academic expert in all things regarding the Doctor, she didn't write the book either. Knowing the Doctor's secret she might have realised why he's calling himself the Doctor instead, and she's not the kind of woman who'd betray him, at least not in this way. Plus, if the Doctor or River had written that book, it's likely that they would have used Gallifreyan or even Old Gallifreyan to do so.

Then there is the Master. We know he's familiar with the Doctor's name ("Sound of Drums") and that he has reasons to keep his own name a secret. Might their reasons be related? Who knows. What makes the Master a likely candidate is the fact that it's not difficult to imagine that he'd be willing to reveal the secrets of his arch enemy, which would also solve the secret of why the book is not written in Gallifreyan. Besides, unlike River, he has been knowing the Doctor for ages, which is an important point, because the reason why the Doctor is avoiding to mention his real name has to lie far back in time, before he and Susan decided to park the TARDIS at 76 Totter's Lane. Already there he insisted on being called the Doctor.

However, the book could have been also written by some who fought against the Time Lords in one of the Time Wars, or vice versa. I'm partly curious why the Doctor got mentioned in that book, i.e. in which context. These days he seems to have a rather pacifist attitude... Well, not really. That's rather the 1oth Doctor then.

At this point it should be mentioned that it's interesting that the book's title does not say "The History of the Great Time War". Is it relevant? Or a mistake? Or does the obvious THE indicate that the book is about THE one great Time War? And why does Clara seem to recognise that name? She's not an expert on the allies involved in the Time War or Gallifrey's  history. So how does she know that the name she read is that of the Doctor? And why does it seem to be familiar to her? After all, she says "So that's who..." I really hope Moffat won't let us down this time because I guess I'm not the only one wanting some answers.

Sanity is not statistical.

I just finished reading 1984 by George Orwell and I have to admit it belongs to the best books I've ever read.
Just imagine a world, in which you seem to be the only one being aware of what is really going on, but where at the same time people who resist the government's insane system vanish and whether never come back, or they are made to change their world-view. And no, not exactly by having a few good arguments.

This is the world in which Winston, the main protagonist finds himself, in a love-banning and power-seeking world, a cold utopia reigned by hate, ignorance and censorship. Big Brother's Party controls everything, the past the present and the future simply by re-writing history. It also tries to be in charge of people's thoughts and feelings. If the Party says two plus two makes five it becomes a fact people aren't allowed to doubt. That's why Winston comes up with his own definition of freedom:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

But seeking 'otherness' isn't a safe thing in a world like that. Sooner or later Winston finds himself arrested and imprisoned behind the secretive walls of the Party's prison, the Ministry of Love.

This is also where one of the book's key scenes takes place; Winston is talking to O'Brian who is about to torture him and despite the obvious circumstances Winston still feels attached to his old friend who has betrayed him in the worst way possible. Nevertheless, he is thankful that O'Brian seems to understand his feelings, sometimes even better than Winston himself, and for this Winston just can't escape his former friend's influence.

O'Brian has his own way of maximising the party's principles, by saying:

'Obedience is not enough. Unless he [the individual] is suffering, how can you be sure he is obeying your will and not his own?'

However, the Party knows it can't win against humanity. The fight against it is an inherent part of their policy, despite being very much aware of how the world is going to look like without it:

'It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph... Goldstein [the enemy] and his heresies will live forever. Every day, at every moment, they will be defeated... - and yet they will always survive.'

The Party knows that there will be always individuals fighting its system, hence its main aim is to make heretics love the Party and "Big Brother" whose principles form the golden laws of this cruel society. After braking people's personality their 'victims' either want to die or they get killed anyway. Nevertheless, Winston is still fighting for his own ideas, he does his best to cling to his last, what he considers as a sane, idea

'To die hating them, that was freedom.'

This seems to be nothing, but in the end he fails to reach this seemingly small goal.

To sum it up, 1984 is shocking and touching at the same time, and the story does hurt. Especially the last chapter.
So, if you really want to read an excellent book then I can recommend it to you. It's a real masterpiece.

EDIT: I couldn't help noticing that the vast majority of people who end up reading this post in the first place googeled the words 'sanity is not statistical meaning'. So to please them, to me the tittle of this post means that other people can only say what they think is right or wrong. Let's take the famous example of Galileo Galilei. He was forced to deny his theory of the Earth rotating around the sun, although he and we know he was right. So to put Orwell's quote into Galilei's words: 'In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.' That's what Orwell was trying to say, and actually said.