As I pointed out, this is obviously not the case. You don't seem to make the distinction between the tenth Doctor and all of the Doctor. Even with Ten, we are told, rather than shown, how wonderful she is.
Because Rose doesn't investigate things on her own (like in The Idiot's Lantern) or show compassion (like in Love and Monsters) or save the Doctor (like in Rose) or show knowledge about science (like in The End of the World). Yeah, it's all told.
No, but you do argue that Rose is the better - and more needed - character. You imply that RTD needed Rose (requited love), but not Martha (unrequited love). Yes, the storyline about love could have been condensed to six episodes. However, how much could Rose's storyline have been condensed? Was every episode with Rose important, while not every episode with Martha was? If not, than why is love the only difference you discuss?
If I'd been talking about Rose's storyline, then those would be valid questions that I hadn't brought up. I wasn't. I was talking specifically about one aspect about what I believed RTD was showing.
'Unrequited love' is hardly all Martha is
Apparently, you missed where I said that "Martha was, in part, all about..." In part more than implies that it's not all that's shown, it flat-out says it.
You argue that Rose is important because the Doctor loves her. (No, this is not a misreading of your post. You point out that it's set up as Rose and Everyone Else, and the only differentiating factor you give is love.)
Well, it's good that you're here to tell me what I really said, because, of course, you have so much more insight into my beliefs than I do. What I'm arguing is what I believe RTD to have been intending to say with Martha's arc -- which is, in part, that the Doctor didn't fall for Rose because she had X qualities, but because she was a specific person.
If I were talking about Rose qua Rose in this post, I would have mentioned all the reasons why I think the Doctor's love for her made sense and why she's such a strong character. I was, however, talking about Rose in the context of Martha's arc, and her qualities are irrelevant to the discussion.
In my comment, I discussed love for Old School companions. Admiration and affection, yes, in all cases. He loves them all.
Do you think that he cared for Peri and Adric as much as he did Sarah Jane or Jo? Or even that his feelings for Peri could be classified as 'love'?
Maybe I just put more power in the word 'love' than you do -- there are plenty of people that I admire and feel affection for. I don't love all of them.
Honestly, when reading your comment, I still get the impression that you only skimmed my post, skipping over words here and there. Maybe that's not true, but it's certainly the impression that I get.
no subject
Because Rose doesn't investigate things on her own (like in The Idiot's Lantern) or show compassion (like in Love and Monsters) or save the Doctor (like in Rose) or show knowledge about science (like in The End of the World). Yeah, it's all told.
No, but you do argue that Rose is the better - and more needed - character. You imply that RTD needed Rose (requited love), but not Martha (unrequited love). Yes, the storyline about love could have been condensed to six episodes. However, how much could Rose's storyline have been condensed? Was every episode with Rose important, while not every episode with Martha was? If not, than why is love the only difference you discuss?
If I'd been talking about Rose's storyline, then those would be valid questions that I hadn't brought up. I wasn't. I was talking specifically about one aspect about what I believed RTD was showing.
'Unrequited love' is hardly all Martha is
Apparently, you missed where I said that "Martha was, in part, all about..." In part more than implies that it's not all that's shown, it flat-out says it.
You argue that Rose is important because the Doctor loves her. (No, this is not a misreading of your post. You point out that it's set up as Rose and Everyone Else, and the only differentiating factor you give is love.)
Well, it's good that you're here to tell me what I really said, because, of course, you have so much more insight into my beliefs than I do. What I'm arguing is what I believe RTD to have been intending to say with Martha's arc -- which is, in part, that the Doctor didn't fall for Rose because she had X qualities, but because she was a specific person.
If I were talking about Rose qua Rose in this post, I would have mentioned all the reasons why I think the Doctor's love for her made sense and why she's such a strong character. I was, however, talking about Rose in the context of Martha's arc, and her qualities are irrelevant to the discussion.
In my comment, I discussed love for Old School companions. Admiration and affection, yes, in all cases. He loves them all.
Do you think that he cared for Peri and Adric as much as he did Sarah Jane or Jo? Or even that his feelings for Peri could be classified as 'love'?
Maybe I just put more power in the word 'love' than you do -- there are plenty of people that I admire and feel affection for. I don't love all of them.
Honestly, when reading your comment, I still get the impression that you only skimmed my post, skipping over words here and there. Maybe that's not true, but it's certainly the impression that I get.