First of all, I very much appreciate being patronized and having words put into my mouth. I'm so glad you're interested in having a discussion with people of a differing point of view.
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.
You appear to have the same problem you believe I have. My point was that not all of a companion's episodes must be All About Them. You pointed out why Martha's arc didn't work for you - I was simply rebutting that more-episodes-than-strictly-necessary is hardly a trait unique to Martha. If Rose's storyline worked for you, and Martha's did not, why? Relative depth of storyline is not a particularly distinguishing factor.
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.
And I go on to point out that that's the only point of Martha's characterization you discuss. If it's only in part about How Special Rose is, then it seems illogical to claim that Martha wasn't needed (see your title), if there was more to Martha than 'unrequited love'.
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.
No, they're not. If you're going to point out how the Doctor loved Rose because of who she was, you would also need to point out why. (Admittedly, your entire post is like that - a surface analysis only.)
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'?
I believe you pointed out earlier than love is not quantifiable. In any case, the Doctor was willing to risk his life for any of his companions. If that isn't love, how precisely would you define it?
no subject
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.
You appear to have the same problem you believe I have. My point was that not all of a companion's episodes must be All About Them. You pointed out why Martha's arc didn't work for you - I was simply rebutting that more-episodes-than-strictly-necessary is hardly a trait unique to Martha. If Rose's storyline worked for you, and Martha's did not, why? Relative depth of storyline is not a particularly distinguishing factor.
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.
And I go on to point out that that's the only point of Martha's characterization you discuss. If it's only in part about How Special Rose is, then it seems illogical to claim that Martha wasn't needed (see your title), if there was more to Martha than 'unrequited love'.
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.
No, they're not. If you're going to point out how the Doctor loved Rose because of who she was, you would also need to point out why. (Admittedly, your entire post is like that - a surface analysis only.)
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'?
I believe you pointed out earlier than love is not quantifiable. In any case, the Doctor was willing to risk his life for any of his companions. If that isn't love, how precisely would you define it?