Do we not see the same thing when Rose is crying her eyes out at the end of Doomsday? Granted, it's been a much shorter time, but our last image of Rose is similar to Sarah Jane - devastated without the Doctor.
Again, I am left with the feeling that you didn't read what I wrote.
he (being the Doctor) was thrown (meaning surprised) by the notion that he was her (being Sarah Jane) life and that she couldn't move on without him.
The actual point being made is that the Doctor didn't understand why Sarah Jane felt that way -- he clearly both understood and shared in Rose's grief in Doomsday (as is made visually clear by his tears). My point was about the Doctor, not about Rose.
An unrequited love arc? Well, yes, it is generally helpful to have someone with an unrequited love.
You know, the part where I mention what goals he appears to have is in the very first sentence of my post: 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?
Missing the very first sentence of my post isn't helping your argument that you actually thoroughly read it.
The idea that Grace is the "ramp up" for the Doctor's sexuality, and RTD is using this as a coherent arc makes very little sense.
RTD has displayed a deep fondness for the movie (and for the Doctor/Grace snogging in particular), which would seem to make mentioning it relevant.
RTD considers the movie to be canon (as shown when he uses Paul McGann's face as one of the 'many faces' in the Doctor's journal in Human Nature/Family of Blood). Again, that would appear to make it relevant -- he picked up a thread that he liked (much in the way he picked up the Master, the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Autons, etc), tweaked it, and ran with it.
In any case, Rose is hardly the standout companion you want her to be. She was - and is - very important to the Doctor. However, "the difference between Rose and the rest of the Doctor's companions" is primarly that of romantic love.
Whether or not Rose is a stand-out companion is a matter of opinion -- I think she's clever, brave, compassionate, loyal, curious, and rather fantastic. You disagree.
And saying that I 'want her to be' is a rather odd way of putting it -- I had absolutely no preconceptions before watching the show and no need to pick out one character and place qualities into her. In fact, I find that rather sloppy viewing.
In other comments, you have asserted that you don't think friendship is less important that love, why does your point about Rose rest on the difference between the type of love?
Because something can be the same amount of importance without actually being the same. Though, really, I think that love is harder to classify than all that, which I've said in other places -- it's not something that can be easily quantified. For some people, romantic love is the pinnacle -- for others, familial love or the love of friends is more important. But romantic love is not, by default, the most important thing in the world, and that was the point I was making.
no subject
Again, I am left with the feeling that you didn't read what I wrote.
he (being the Doctor) was thrown (meaning surprised) by the notion that he was her (being Sarah Jane) life and that she couldn't move on without him.
The actual point being made is that the Doctor didn't understand why Sarah Jane felt that way -- he clearly both understood and shared in Rose's grief in Doomsday (as is made visually clear by his tears). My point was about the Doctor, not about Rose.
An unrequited love arc? Well, yes, it is generally helpful to have someone with an unrequited love.
You know, the part where I mention what goals he appears to have is in the very first sentence of my post:
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?
Missing the very first sentence of my post isn't helping your argument that you actually thoroughly read it.
The idea that Grace is the "ramp up" for the Doctor's sexuality, and RTD is using this as a coherent arc makes very little sense.
RTD has displayed a deep fondness for the movie (and for the Doctor/Grace snogging in particular), which would seem to make mentioning it relevant.
RTD considers the movie to be canon (as shown when he uses Paul McGann's face as one of the 'many faces' in the Doctor's journal in Human Nature/Family of Blood). Again, that would appear to make it relevant -- he picked up a thread that he liked (much in the way he picked up the Master, the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Autons, etc), tweaked it, and ran with it.
In any case, Rose is hardly the standout companion you want her to be. She was - and is - very important to the Doctor. However, "the difference between Rose and the rest of the Doctor's companions" is primarly that of romantic love.
Whether or not Rose is a stand-out companion is a matter of opinion -- I think she's clever, brave, compassionate, loyal, curious, and rather fantastic. You disagree.
And saying that I 'want her to be' is a rather odd way of putting it -- I had absolutely no preconceptions before watching the show and no need to pick out one character and place qualities into her. In fact, I find that rather sloppy viewing.
In other comments, you have asserted that you don't think friendship is less important that love, why does your point about Rose rest on the difference between the type of love?
Because something can be the same amount of importance without actually being the same. Though, really, I think that love is harder to classify than all that, which I've said in other places -- it's not something that can be easily quantified. For some people, romantic love is the pinnacle -- for others, familial love or the love of friends is more important. But romantic love is not, by default, the most important thing in the world, and that was the point I was making.