I try not to spend too much time disliking a main character, so I don't really dwell on whether I like either Rose or Martha that much. I liked them both, for different reasons. But..I guess, if I had to say which one I have more in common with and empathize with, it's Martha.
As the stand-in for the audience's POV, having flawed companions is a good idea. I don't look at the companions as there for the Doctor's benefit, although objectively/traditionally they are. I think of them as there for my benefit, or their own, if I am in sympathy with the character in a certain scene. So it isn't a relevant question to me (although obviously it is to other people) whether Martha was needed as a contrast. I see that the Doctor is learning all the time from his companions, but his journey is only as important as theirs is, so in that sense, Martha, Sarah, Jack, Mickey, and Rose all had their own truths to learn from him and their adventures. To me, that's exactly as interesting as his own character growth. If it was just the Doctor traveling and doing his TIme Lord thing, the story would feel sterile and not as real.
no subject
As the stand-in for the audience's POV, having flawed companions is a good idea. I don't look at the companions as there for the Doctor's benefit, although objectively/traditionally they are. I think of them as there for my benefit, or their own, if I am in sympathy with the character in a certain scene. So it isn't a relevant question to me (although obviously it is to other people) whether Martha was needed as a contrast. I see that the Doctor is learning all the time from his companions, but his journey is only as important as theirs is, so in that sense, Martha, Sarah, Jack, Mickey, and Rose all had their own truths to learn from him and their adventures. To me, that's exactly as interesting as his own character growth. If it was just the Doctor traveling and doing his TIme Lord thing, the story would feel sterile and not as real.