Six years after it returned to our television screens, Doctor Who remains one of Britain's most highly rated shows. But one person is not eagerly awaiting next Saturday's episode. "I seem to be the only person in the universe who can't stand the new Doctor Who," comic-strip artist Chris Weston once complained. "Why do I hate it? Where do I start?" Would Antony Wainer of the Doctor Who Appreciation Society be able to win him over? Emine Saner brought them together.

Chris Weston: So what's so good about Doctor Who?

Antony Wainer: I am not a huge sci-fi fan, but Doctor Who is not a sci-fi show. I would imagine for purist sci-fi fans it's too self-indulgent. But I like that. It's a kind of soap opera over 50 years.

CW: The "New Who" could definitely be described as a soap opera. The old? Less so. The old show had very little cross-story continuity. I'm not a fan of soap operas.

AW: Did you grow up with it? Older fans talk about liking it when they were little.

CW: When I could, I would watch it. A lot of my youth was spent abroad without access to TV … I remember enjoying watching the monsters on the occasions I did see it. But I'm not a hardcore fan of the old Doctor Who.

AW: Maybe that's why you can't get into the new. Cross-story continuity certainly existed in the old show – the Daleks being a good example of that, and the Cybermen. But the companions had very little backstory. That's certainly played up now. You must accept Doctor Who has been a very successful TV series. In TV terms, lasting 50 years is quite exceptional.

CW: Are you counting the years it was off air?

AW: Yes – as does the BBC. It needed a break and the money to make it stand up to modern TV science fiction. The premise was always good.

CW: There's no doubting it's built on strong foundations. I have no problem with the premise, just the current execution.

AW: I think the Doctor sits with other established literary characters such as Holmes and Potter. What would you do differently?

CW: Lose the soap opera aspects and beef up the science fiction. Make it less inconsistent. Rein in the number of cross-episode plotlines.

AW: I agree the cross-episode plots test even the diehard fans such as myself. Doctor Who was always an anthology TV show [where the story and much of the cast changes from week to week].

CW: In truth, my biggest problem is with the overall tone of the series: I find it knowing, patronising and flippant. It has no emotional integrity or verisimilitude. It has emotion, tons of it – sometimes the programme is unbearably sentimental. But "emotional integrity" is different: you never feel the characters believe in the situations they are involved in.

AW: The Doctor always appears to uphold the notions of emotional integrity! Russell T Davies [who masterminded the show's revival after a 16-year hiatus] helped that. He felt the companions should be real and have a backstory. That's why Rose is a shop worker with a mum, a dad and a boyfriend.

CW: Really? The Doctor may be able to travel in any direction in time and space, but he's lacking a moral compass. Based on the Silence [the race of aliens wiped out by the Doctor earlier this year after manipulating human history], he's a murdering hypocrite who should be extradited to the Hague on charges of genocide. I see him as some kind of intergalactic Ratko Mladi´c, because he seems hellbent on cleansing the Earth of all non-humanoid immigrants and will happily kill to achieve this end – although he prefers to manipulate others into doing his dirty work.

AW: The Doctor does have a moral compass – in a [1975] story called Genesis of the Daleks he mentions the "right" to wipe out a species. On so questioning himself, he stops!

CW: The Ganger storyline [in which the latest Doctor and his companion came face to face with their doppelgängers] is a good example of his double standards: he spent two episodes lecturing people on the sanctity of life and then happily disintegrated his assistant when she turned out to be a clone. Is this someone we really want our kids to idolise?

AW: I agree that was an area of plotting that does not hold true. I found that difficult to accept, given what we know about the Doctor – his love of life and humanity … So, do you think Doctor Who will be around in another 50 years?

CW: I suspect it's now seen its best viewing figures. It seems to be doing its best to alienate the casual viewer and frustrate the faithful with its format of inter-crossing stories spilling over from one episode to the next – none of which seem to be resolved or adequately explained. Sure, it's convoluted and complicated, but in much the same way a toddler's scribbles can be. It's as if the creators can't trust the viewers to stay hooked through just quality, and instead keep them constantly dangling, desperately seeking answers for the ever-amassing pile of questions the show poses. It's like having a kid screaming, "I know something you don't know … but I'm not telling!" in your face non-stop for 45 minutes.

AW: Which is strange, given that Steven Moffat has such a background in writing successful TV. Would you support the idea of Doctor Who being an anthology series again, then?

CW: Absolutely. It should get back to exploring philosophical and ethical dilemmas in alien or future settings.

AW: I don't think many would disagree with you. I like classic Who for fond memories, the monsters and the level of creativity produced on a limited budget. I like New Who for its budgets and it spectacle.

CW: I can't fault the production values. They are top-notch.

The Doctor Who Appreciation Society can be found at dwasonline.co.uk. Chris Weston is at chrisweston.co.uk