butterfly: (Time Lord Science)
butterfly ([personal profile] butterfly) wrote2007-09-21 08:05 pm
Entry tags:

Doctor Who: Did we need Martha?

Because Russell T Davies seemed to feel that the show needed to have a character who would fall in (unrequited) love with the Doctor, thus illustrating the difference between Rose and everyone else. Did it?

In some superficial ways, Martha is quite a lot like Rose -- pretty, clever Londoner girls, both of them. They even get some echo dialogue in the early episodes. The show puts them in comparable situations frequently. There are both parallels to draw and contrasts to mark.

Mostly, though, there's the Doctor.

I wasn't surprised about Martha's emotional arc. And, though it was heavy-handed at times ("He had to fall in love with a human... and it wasn't me."), I actually do agree with RTD that it was necessary. In order to establish someone as One Thing, you need to establish someone else as Other Thing. And, in this particular context, he wanted to make a distinction between one character and the entire history and future of characters to come.

Yes -- Martha was, in part, all about how special Rose was. Which sucks if you hate Rose. If you hate Rose Tyler, then a series of television that is basically saying, "Yeah, that blonde chick? One of a kind," is pretty much guaranteed to piss you off (and, of course, to the person desperately missing Rose, having episode after episode point out how irreplaceable she was is hardly going to help in the process of getting over her).

But... as the show makes very, very clear -- Rose isn't special in the ultimate 'best person ever' way. She's special in the 'best person for this one specific character/relationship' way. The Doctor writes out that she's 'perfect Rose' and, to him, she is. Now, was Rose actually portrayed as a 'perfect' character?

*bursts out laughing*

She could be petty and jealous. She wandered off. She had a tendency to throw herself into dangerous situations for personal reasons. She nearly destroyed the world because she couldn't listen to instructions. Rose Tyler was flawed.

In a lot of ways, Martha is a 'better' person. Higher class (which matters to some people). More education. Better at staying put and following instructions. Tends to do the right thing. Not so apt to get into trouble. Again, not a perfect person (she, too, had the flaw of 'jealousy'), but from an objective standpoint, probably a better bet to make. But, as they say, the heart has reasons that reason cannot know.

Now, Martha is not the first time that New Who made the distinction between Rose and Other Companions. In fact, every time that the Doctor took on someone else, it was made clear that the Doctor and Rose were a unit and other folk were nice but not necessary (something that Jack took much more easily than Mickey). Rose is the person who invites Adam and Jack on board and is also clearly the impetus for the Doctor inviting Sarah Jane on board.

There are two pre-S3 examples of the difference between Rose and Everyone Else. The first is in The Parting of the Ways, when the Doctor sends Rose home, keeps her out of danger, while everyone else is involved in the fighting (made very clear when he calls her over to help him with the wiring and takes her out of the 'active fighter' count). The second is in School Reunion and the conversation in the street that ends with the Doctor telling Rose that she won't be left behind and very nearly telling her that he loves her ("Imagine watching that happen to someone you-").

And SR, of course, has Sarah Jane -- who serves as our stand-in for Old School Companions. The Doctor very clearly has both admiration and affection for Sarah Jane (just as he does for Martha), but he's utterly thrown by the notion that he was her 'life' and that she couldn't move on without him (we see this echoed when Martha says that the Doctor is 'everything' to her, while she's basically a side-note to him -- a fun, smart, lovable side-note, but a side-note nonetheless). And both Sarah Jane and Martha have to choose to say good-bye to the Doctor in order to start getting over him.

Back when S3 was first airing, I pondered the notion that RTD was using Martha to 'ramp down' from the idea of the Doctor as a sexual/romantic person. Grace was the ramp up, a person that the Doctor was interested in who liked him not his life; Rose was the bridge (the apex; the climax; the transformation), someone he adored who adored both him and the life he offered; and Martha was someone who liked the life he offered, thought he was attractive, but didn't seem to know or like him very much as a person. Going right from Grace and Rose to a Doctor/companion relationship that was completely lacking in romance/sexuality would either be a bit of a harsh break or possibly lead to confusion. So, in order to make his divisions clear, RTD put in an intermediary position where the Doctor was clearly still a sexual/romantic figure ('lost prince') but had no interest in pursuing sex or romance (and I find it so fascinating that both of the 'unsuitable' choices were doctors -- it may show that the Doctor needs someone who complements him, not someone who echoes him).

RTD appears to believe that Martha was a necessary character to show the difference between Rose and the rest of the Doctor's companions. In balance, though I think her part could have been more strongly written, I agree.



ETA: In the end, I think the real problem with Martha is that they only had a six-episode story to tell with her (Smith & Jones through Gridlock and Utopia through Last of the Time Lords). She would have worked better if she hadn't stayed the whole season.
coneyislandbaby: (Default)

Dr Who is not a soap opera, though...

[personal profile] coneyislandbaby 2007-09-23 03:29 am (UTC)(link)
"Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, make 'em wait."

And the reason I said that is that this quote is from Agnes Nixon, one of the most famous writers in daytime soap operas (a TV form I happen to be extremely fond of, for the record) and it was her philosophy on those shows. And much as i do love my soaps? Doctor Who would never and could never work with that aesthetic - because it just isn't one. So I don't think that's actually a very good aesthetic for Who to work under.

[identity profile] katesutton.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 03:30 am (UTC)(link)
I think the 'Time War: doing it WRONG' one would about cover the bases here.

[identity profile] principia-coh.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 03:33 am (UTC)(link)
As opposed to y'all coming in and telling people who like Rose that they're insane? My point is that there are people who are fans of almost every companion who like to think that there is companion is 'OMG the bestest evah!' and that there's very little that can be said to dissuade them, because it's their strong personal belief.

I don't think Rose is the absolute best companion the Doctor's ever had. I adore old-school-style companions like Ace (nice icon), Romana (I'm partial to Romana I, actually), Tegan (you wanna talk about somebody who didn't put up with the Doctor's crap?), Leela... the list goes on. But there's a big difference between saying that other companions have been wonderful too, and denying what RTD's written because you don't happen to like it. I know that if we have another series of the Doctor doing everything save chucking himself under a bus over his Rose/Gallifrey/Master angst (not necessarily in that order), I don't know how much of the audience they're going to retain. I certainly hope they're going somewhere with this, that doesn't involve some handwaving to just act like his depressive period - for lack of a better term - never happened.

[identity profile] principia-coh.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 03:37 am (UTC)(link)
To the objective observer in 2007, she has not missed more than about four days in 2007 time. To the subjective observer - Martha - she has lived through about two years away from school by the end of Series 3.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

Re: Dr Who is not a soap opera, though...

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 03:37 am (UTC)(link)
I would be such a bad person to discuss comparing shows to soaps, because I have never watched an actual soap in my life (I don't... look down on them or anything, as I watch tons of shows that get compared to soaps, I've just never watched them. I'm mostly a genre sort).

I do know that RTD has said that he dislikes working in the soap format and under the soap aesthetic (that's one of the primary reasons that he created QaF).
coneyislandbaby: (Default)

[personal profile] coneyislandbaby 2007-09-23 03:46 am (UTC)(link)
Personally, I think it's because a lot of fans either forgot Nine, moved on, or came to the show for David Tennant, myself, with a heavy lean to moved on, and bit of emo "they forgot him" angst at times. Because there are a lot of times I feel people do forget Nine - and as a Chris fan, it annoys the hell out of me.

[identity profile] principia-coh.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 03:50 am (UTC)(link)
Knowledge once thoroughly absorbed is often retained. But rarely perfectly, and in the cases of a lot of activities, it takes a great deal of relearning to come back up to speed.

Case in point, a lot of time is wasted at the beginning of the year in schools here in the US having to reteach what kids have forgotten over their extended summer vacations. Which is one of the reasons there are a lot of people who advocate for year-round schooling.

If you're convinced that Martha somehow magically remembered everything she learned in school despite being away from it for so long, there's not going to be anything I can say to dissuade you. I'll be interested to see if/how they handle it in TW and DW next year.

Re: and two...

[identity profile] stoplookingup.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 03:56 am (UTC)(link)
Also, I should let you know that I think Freud's research was seriously flawed and that he was, basically, projecting his own issues onto the whole of humanity.

The point isn't whether Freud was right about the Electra complex in real life. The point is that Rose has one. She's written that way. There are huge, explicit issues surrounding abandonment by her father and the insecurity that resulted, along with a sexualization of the surrogate father figure. I think Freud was full of shit, too, but his theories have made for some interesting drama over the years.

Wow. That's... incredibly insulting. When you wrote that, were you aware of how insulting it was? I've been watching television for, oh, quite a while now. I've read a lot of meta and, also, actual literary criticism of various novels and plays. I'm not, as you seem to believe, someone who stumbled onto Doctor Who and said, "Ooo! The pictures move! Shiny!"

I would have though someone who would post something entitled, "Doctor Who: Did We Need Martha?" might have been prepared for spirited debate -- which is all I've done.

[identity profile] katesutton.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 03:58 am (UTC)(link)
*barges in* As a card-carrying Doctor/Rose shipper(we even have a secret handshake!) it irritates me because people act like Nine doesn't count, from both a shippy perspective and as the Doctor. I *heart* Nine, liek woah. I would have killed for another season with him.

And since I'm sharing, although I love both iterations of Doctor/Rose-am also up for past!Doctor/Rose, for that matter-I do not in any way, shape or form, ship Billie with either of her costars. I have no desire to see her shack up with either of them and NO, I will not go away, fandom, if the next Doctor is old or ugly. Too bad for you. Since you (didn't) ask. Hmm. Needed to get that off my chest, there.

[identity profile] ladymako71.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 04:29 am (UTC)(link)
Honestly, the notion that romantic love taints all other kinds of love is so utterly alien to me that it's like we're speaking two separate languages.

Now that I've picked my jaw off the floor at that, I'll add my 2 cents, for what it is worth. You are right, love is unpredictable. I'll give you that one. But the idea that romantic love doesn't taint? Hooo boy...It can and it does I'm afraid. And this is someone speaking from experience.

It's easy to get blinded in a relationship...so so easy, let me tell you. The next thing you know you've invested all the time and energy in and sometimes it gets thrown in your face and you are left devastated. To the point that seeing, reading, or watching the perfect romantic story, is enough to make you want to gouge your own eyeballs out and toss them into the fire pit in the hopes of ridding yourself of the imagery.

I will admit that I am a little jaded and cynical after my own experiences at life and love. But those experiences are what can help me in the long run should I end up meeting someone that is interested in me. And yes, romantic love has tainted my views on love...all forms of it. Just ask members of my own family who noticed a drop in affection from after my disaster.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

Re: and two...

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 04:33 am (UTC)(link)
The point isn't whether Freud was right about the Electra complex in real life. The point is that Rose has one. She's written that way. There are huge, explicit issues surrounding abandonment by her father and the insecurity that resulted, along with a sexualization of the surrogate father figure. I think Freud was full of shit, too, but his theories have made for some interesting drama over the years.

There are issues about her father dying, yes. Does that mean that she's automatically looking for a father figure? Not necessarily. In Father's Day, she's very clear about the father figure that she's looking for, and it's Pete Tyler. Rose isn't confused about that in the slightest.

I would have though someone who would post something entitled, "Doctor Who: Did We Need Martha?" might have been prepared for spirited debate -- which is all I've done.

Spirited debate is one thing. Accusing people of only buying into the surface of a show is something else. Insulting people isn't the same as debating them. You opened your 'debate' with me by building a straw man argument ('So.....now what? We watch Doctor Who for a decade thinking how unique Rose was? Oh, here's a new companion...he loved Rose more. Wait this one's interesting....nope, loved Rose more. This one doesn't want to shag him...good thing, cuz he loved Rose more.'), embellishing and twisting what you believe shippers to think in order to make your point, which is really poor debating technique.

Then, of course, you then went on to lecture me about what Rose's story 'was really about' (did you notice how I started my own post with how I thought RTD 'seemed to feel' and ended with how he 'appeared to believe', thus not claiming my interpretation as the only possible one?).

I'm not entirely certain how I'm not supposed to find that insulting. You've pretty much talked down to me this entire discussion and I don't find patronizing attitudes conducive to healthy debates.

Re: and two...

[identity profile] stoplookingup.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 05:03 am (UTC)(link)
Spirited debate is one thing. Accusing people of only buying into the surface of a show is something else.

How so? It's not valid to say I think you've avoided evidence that doesn't fit your theory? This is like saying I'm rude just because I think you're wrong.

You've pretty much talked down to me this entire discussion and I don't find patronizing attitudes conducive to healthy debates.

No, I've just expressed a dissenting opinion unapologetically in response to your original controversial post.

This is me, walking away.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 05:12 am (UTC)(link)
But I don't think season 3 was about Rose -- she was the red herring -- the Doctor's real, lingering angst was about Gallifrey, and in the end, Martha (and Jack) took second place to that.

I admit to being a bit baffled by this argument, to be perfectly honest. Though the Doctor has angst in both seasons, it is very clearly shown to be sharper and more pervasive in S3. The only difference between the two seasons is Rose. His planet was just as blown up in S2, but he was all about 'seeing the universe with these eyes' with only brief stabs into things like 'I'm so old, I used to have so much mercy', while in S3, the ratio is quite the reverse.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

Re: and two...

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 05:22 am (UTC)(link)
How so? It's not valid to say I think you've avoided evidence that doesn't fit your theory? This is like saying I'm rude just because I think you're wrong.

If you say what you're trying to say in an insulting manner... yes, it is rude. You can think I'm wrong all you like -- I don't care. Telling me that if I just think about it a little harder I'll see it the right way (your way) is flat-out patronizing.

No, I've just expressed a dissenting opinion unapologetically in response to your original controversial post.

A dissenting opinion expressed using very poor debating technique, as previously mentioned.

This is me, walking away.

Hope you enjoyed your stay!

[identity profile] purplemonster77.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 05:28 am (UTC)(link)
Hehe. I love fandom. Wank away, my friends. Wank away. No day is complete without someone attacking Rose/Martha/David Tennant/Classic fans/New fans/RTD/That Random Extra In That Episode ...

*Pats fandom on the head fondly*

I quite liked your essay, by the way. Other than that, I have nothing to add except a big grin.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 05:35 am (UTC)(link)
Hee. Thank you.

Fandom is just a whole big bag of special, isn't it?
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 05:40 am (UTC)(link)
I'm very sorry that you got burned in a relationship. It sucks. My mother was quite badly burned in her relationship with my father, though, and she's currently living with someone she loves very much so my experience, and what I've seen from the people that I know and care about, tells me that it doesn't have to be that way.

Regardless, I'm not entirely certain what your story had to do with what I was saying, as I was talking about how a successful and happy love doesn't destroy the friendships that a person has.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 05:43 am (UTC)(link)
Jamie is highly adorable. I'm not sure why more people don't pull him out as a counter-example, as textual evidence from the show tends to be far more compelling than the off-screen actions of the actors (ala Tom Baker and Lalla Ward).

I also don't buy that the Doctor's S3 emo was terribly much about Rose. It felt to me as more of a general Gallifrey Go Boom thing, with his recent loss of Rose just making everything worse.

Again, this argument is odd to me because I see such a difference in the Doctor between seasons 2 and 3. If the recent loss of Rose makes things that much worse that would appear to be an argument in favor of him being in love with her, rather than against it. Gallifrey was just as blown up in S2, after all.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 05:44 am (UTC)(link)
But Nine is love! Nine is so much love.
nostariel: Rogue from the X-Men, captioned "Don't touch me." (Default)

[personal profile] nostariel 2007-09-23 06:02 am (UTC)(link)
Ooh, that would be perfect!

The sad thing is, that's my favorite one and I keep forgetting to save a copy. :(

[identity profile] biichan.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 06:08 am (UTC)(link)
I do think the Doctor loved Rose. (The Doctor loves all his companions to varying degrees, even Peri and Adric.) I really don't believe she was his One True Love and I have my doubts as to if their love was romantic. Mostly I read it as a very affectionate friendship. And losing your best friend can make you just as emo as losing your boyfriend--more sometimes.

I suppose Jamie doesn't get pulled enough out as an example probably because of the whole burnination. It makes it hard to rejoice in his and Two's Utter Married-ness when most of their serials have holes in them.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 06:14 am (UTC)(link)
Ah, for me, the thing that started me feeling as though it was romantic was the Doctor calling her 'beautiful' in episode three. And if that's a perfectly platonic statement to you, then things would read differently. Well, and there's the "woman you love" thing in Dalek and the dancing conversation in The Doctor Dances and so forth. For me, those are explicitly romantic things, as opposed to affectionate friendship (though I fully agree that losing a friend can be just as devastating as losing a lover).

Thinking about Jamie too much is terribly depressing. He barely even remembers the Doctor. It's horrifying, really. At least Rose has her memories.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 06:41 am (UTC)(link)
I can agree that Rose is being made by the writers to be regarded as different and special, but its not that Martha only existed for that type of suffrage as a character.

I'd like to respond to this comment, but I'm not sure how Martha's right to vote is relevant to the conversation.

So maybe Rose and Martha had the same substitive intention by the writers, just Martha's was less overtly detailed.

Possibly, but the Doctor's reaction to each character was markedly different.

Russel can be accused of not delving deep enough into her character, I agree. At certain times, you only saw glimpses of her motivation. But he also didn't strip-mine her either, which leaves her as having untapped material to be delved out in other areas too.

So... being underwritten is a positive thing?
ext_6531: (Default)

[identity profile] lizbee.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 07:00 am (UTC)(link)
I admit to being a bit baffled by this argument, to be perfectly honest. Though the Doctor has angst in both seasons, it is very clearly shown to be sharper and more pervasive in S3. The only difference between the two seasons is Rose. His planet was just as blown up in S2, but he was all about 'seeing the universe with these eyes' with only brief stabs into things like 'I'm so old, I used to have so much mercy', while in S3, the ratio is quite the reverse.

Are you sure? I haven't done an exhaustive count, but it seemed like he had quite frequent lapses into angst in S2 -- starting in New Earth, when Hame speaks of the "lonely god, the wanderer without a home". He says nothing, but he looks simply devastated. Next ep, Victoria's speaking of her wish that lost loved ones could communicate from beyond.

And so on throughout the season. It rarely happens in the presence of Rose, which annoyed me, because it meant she only got half the picture, but it was quite consistent. Anyway, I think her absence was necessary to highlight her role as emotional ... "band aid" is an awful term, but it's the closest thing I can come up with. (Just woke up from a nap. Not too coherent, I think.)

With Rose around, the first person he'd connected with since the destruction of Gallifrey, the Doctor's genocide-related pain was numbed. When she left -- as he always knew she would, and he was quite happy to send her away in "Doomsday" -- I guess it would be like going cold turkey on your pain meds. *shudder* And all that old muffled pain came rushing back at full force.
ext_1774: butterfly against blue background (Default)

[identity profile] butterfly.livejournal.com 2007-09-23 07:13 am (UTC)(link)
as he always knew she would, and he was quite happy to send her away in "Doomsday"

We clearly have very different definitions of what a 'happy' expression is. This may explain much of our confusion with each other.

Do I agree that having Rose there helped the Doctor handle the pain of genocide? Yes, much in the way that having my mother there helped me when my aunt died. I still had to work through the pain and she didn't fix anything, but I don't view her as an 'emotional band-aid' either.

Page 6 of 11