Doctor Who: Did we need Martha?

[butterfly]

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.

Comments

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

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.

And, as you point out, Rose brought out some pretty nasty qualities in the Doctor.

Which leaves us with two possibilities: One, that Rose pretty much needed to be the end of Doctor Who, because she ruined the premise of the series. Or two, that Rose is not The One and Only -- she is One of Many -- one who was affected intensely by the Doctor and who affected him in turn, but who will ultimately be One of Many.

If you look at Rose's tenure, you see that her character is carefully constructed to illustrate how desperate the Doctor is now that he's "the last" -- and that's really what her story is about. But the Doctor's story goes on, and it's a process of discovering how to live with that. Martha is crucial in that process, forcing him to face the fact that he is living in the past, with Gallifrey AND Rose. And Martha's story isn't done -- the magnitude of her accomplishment and the effect she's had on the Doctor hasn't played itself out yet. And then there's Donna, whose "Get over yourself" attitude will no doubt slap the Rose emo around quite a bit.

If not, there really isn't any point watching.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

It is actually allowable for people to get different things out of a television show. Just because, for me, Rose Tyler is the love of the Doctor's life, doesn't mean that a) she has to be for you or b) that believing that the Doctor had and lost the love of his life will suck the joy of the show for me. Which, incidentally, it hasn't. I actually really enjoyed S3 (some episodes more than others, but on the balance, quite a lot).

You may not feel that there's any point in watching a show where the main character had a 'love of his life', but I (quite obviously) feel differently. I also quite enjoyed the Bourne movies, where Jason fell in love with Marie in the first movie, lost her and then (quite pointedly) did not fall in love with Nicky in the third, despite there being a clear similarity in the situations involved.

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

Of course any individual audience member can interpret things as s/he chooses. But that doesn't mean that the reading is necessarily supported by the text, or if it is, that it's the best choice to keep the franchise dramatically viable. It doesn't help that the text itself can't seem to make up its mind in this case, where the entire storyline seems to be about recovering from loss and moving on, which works against the notion of unique love. I'm responding to your supposition that the character of Martha is intentionally introduced as a whipping girl, a "not Rose." You may be right, but I think that's a dreadful dramatic choice to make for an ongoing drama, making everything that comes next into an extended, unpleasant epilogue.

Anyway, I seem to have ruffled your feathers by disagreeing, so I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for engaging in an interesting discussion.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Well, if you weren't trying to imply that yours was the only correct view, then I apologize. Your language choice came across as hostile to me, but that may very well have been unintentional. Sorry -- I do get ruffled when I feel that someone is trying to tell me that I don't have the right to my opinions.

[gene-lee.livejournal.com]

I think what gets problematic in topics like these is that it shows up on who_daily, and in this case, under the provacative title you provided. So not only do people approach this topic in your journal as one would an open discussion, but also in a common fashion many try to say their point. I don't think any hostility was intended and parrotfish did provide an existing viewpoint many fans, especially classic fans, do hold of the series.

Both of you represent opposite spectrums of WHO viewers, and I think its important to the question you pose that both your arguments get introduced. 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.

Martha and her family did not get the intense focus that Rose had, yes, but in season 3 the paradigm switched to being more the Doctor's story than the companion. And that was an existing complaint some had with the show as it progressed into season 2. Rose Tyler as a character, benefitted as being the jumpstart companion to NuWho, because it was necessary to re-introduce the Doctor through her eyes and see the pros and cons of travelling with him as it impacted her and her family... but then you get a sense of the same with Martha and her family as they represented [as stated by Russel] a much darker and negative repercussion of being acquainted with the Doctor. So maybe Rose and Martha had the same substitive intention by the writers, just Martha's was less overtly detailed.

As for Martha alone, she did get a bit horse-kicked in the gut over being made to feel a substitute to Rose as represented in S-Code and Gridlock, and that did shake her sense of competancy throughout the season. However, she had many significant moments outside that poorly-concieved sub-plot that helped give her an identity, as well as being a clear deviance from the choices that Rose made. Martha, at the very least, ended the season with many obvious developments that showed how different and separate her storyline was to her predecessor.

Ultimately though, as much as it can't be argued that Rose holds a significant place with the Doctor, it equally can't be denied that Martha has her own place in the canon of the show, or else RTD would not have furthered her character in the franchise by putting her in Torchwood, as well as bringing her back as the Doctor's companion in season 4.

And that's another note of the susbtitiveness of Martha's design, because within one season, she has the plausible premise and development to be able to have her own adventures without the Doctor in another show. 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. JMO~

Quick reply (more detailed one later today)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I think what gets problematic in topics like these is that it shows up on who_daily,

Ah! This, actually, explains a lot. I haven't posted in over a month (and then two right in a row) and I don't actually read who_daily anymore, so my posts appearing on there were not something that really crossed my mind. I'm clearly a bit out of practice.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

You said what I was thinking! I think I love you.

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. JMO~

*nodnodnod* And that was one of the problems with Rose, that her major character arc was complete by mid-season two. The rest of the season was just a holding pattern, and actually undid some of the characterisation of the first half of the season. They are clearly trying to avoid making the same mistake with Martha.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I think that they may have gone a little too far in the other direction. Because I felt that Martha was in an emotional holding pattern from the end of Gridlock to the beginning of Utopia and it was a little boring to see the same kind of stuff from her week after week.

Plus, with Martha, they took away the strength of the character we met in Smith and Jones, turned her into someone much more insecure than she'd originally come off as, and had her 'develop' so that she could end up in the same emotionally-strong place that we'd met her in at the beginning. Martha is my big disappointment from RTD (much like The Girl in the Fireplace was my big disappointment with Moffat), because I know he can do better.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say "Gridlock" -- I think up to "42", there was a strong arc developing her character and her relationship to the Doctor, to the point where they had reached a stable Doctor-companion relationship. Which is promptly undermined by "Human Nature"/"Family of Blood" -- how can you say she had no character development there? -- and then after that, the narrative focus shifts firmly to the Doctor, up until "Last of the Time Lords".

Plus, with Martha, they took away the strength of the character we met in Smith and Jones, turned her into someone much more insecure than she'd originally come off as, and had her 'develop' so that she could end up in the same emotionally-strong place that we'd met her in at the beginning. Martha is my big disappointment from RTD (much like The Girl in the Fireplace was my big disappointment with Moffat), because I know he can do better.

I never had any faith in RTD, but I too was put off by the way Martha was diminished. It made the Doctor look like a jerk, which is interesting, but not really appropriate for the premise, and it's definitely not a good way to write a character who's been kicking around for 44 years.

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.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

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?

[gene-lee.livejournal.com]

Yes, suffering. Common typo, thanks. But it doesn't change my point.

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

So was the scenario. In Martha's equation, we had the Master, who the Doctor out of extreme desperation was trying to save/spare at all costs. Even enough, that he was sort of putting the attempt to help him above the potential cost to humanity, Martha's family included.

Both Martha and the Doctor were trying to put their "family" first.


So... being underwritten is a positive thing?

In some cases, yes. Viewers saw enough that was likeable in Martha, that even if it wasn't fully fleshed out, with the intent to further her character later, there's enough to work with without fear of stagnation.

Plus, it's adding something to the dynamic. Because her time with Ten and the experience she'll gain at Torchwood, her medical career is being utilized to include xeno-studies. That alone will add to the things she can do once she's beack on the TARDIS.


With Rose... she had so much focus in her two years that she almost eclipsed the Doctor at various points. As I said earlier, nothing wrong with that in the beginning, because it was necessary for viewers to get to know the Doctor again through her eyes. However, by mid-second season, they were ramping up her family, closing off her relationship with Mickey, while playing up her relationship with the Doctor. The writers were trying to give closure and this epic build-up for her departure at the same time, that prior to the finale, she was stuck in a holding pattern that chipped away at the characterization she built in season one.

Basically, they were making her romance with the Doctor the most important, defining thing to her that it becomes the "death" of her character and her defining exit. In order to create the saddest, most epic good-bye, Russel kind of capped-off her character a bit. In my opinion, he tied so much of her heart into the Doctor, that being seperated from him, ripped it out.

It's ironic that, Rose has so much more creative material to work with in the Alt-verse, had Rusty allowed a spin-off, than she does in this universe.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Yes, suffering. Common typo, thanks. But it doesn't change my point.

Is it? I hadn't ever seen it before. Hence the confusion. Most of your typos were easy to figure out, but that one was new.

So was the scenario. In Martha's equation, we had the Master, who the Doctor out of extreme desperation was trying to save/spare at all costs. Even enough, that he was sort of putting the attempt to help him above the potential cost to humanity, Martha's family included.

Both Martha and the Doctor were trying to put their "family" first.

Ah, we appear to be talking about completely different things. I was talking about the Doctor's reaction to Rose versus his reaction to Martha.

In some cases, yes. Viewers saw enough that was likeable in Martha, that even if it wasn't fully fleshed out, with the intent to further her character later, there's enough to work with without fear of stagnation.

Some viewers. Others wondered if she'd ever get interesting.

Plus, it's adding something to the dynamic. Because her time with Ten and the experience she'll gain at Torchwood, her medical career is being utilized to include xeno-studies. That alone will add to the things she can do once she's beack on the TARDIS.

If she acts like someone actually interested in medicine on Torchwood, I would be thrilled. So far, she hasn't done much that anyone with a CPR course couldn't handle (I mean, I can diagnose a concussion and the best treatment for it and I only had high school Health). The most involved thing she's done was the 'bones of the hand' speech, which anyone with a good memory and a course in Anatomy could pull off.

With Rose... she had so much focus in her two years that she almost eclipsed the Doctor at various points. As I said earlier, nothing wrong with that in the beginning, because it was necessary for viewers to get to know the Doctor again through her eyes. However, by mid-second season, they were ramping up her family, closing off her relationship with Mickey, while playing up her relationship with the Doctor. The writers were trying to give closure and this epic build-up for her departure at the same time, that prior to the finale, she was stuck in a holding pattern that chipped away at the characterization she built in season one.

*tips hand*

Points of view. I felt an evolution in Rose that started in Rose and continued all the way to Fear Her (the pinnacle of her development as the Doctor's partner before their relationship underwent its possibly finale change in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday). You clearly disagree. I suspect we can both provide evidence for our feelings. It seems to be subjective to me.

Basically, they were making her romance with the Doctor the most important, defining thing to her that it becomes the "death" of her character and her defining exit. In order to create the saddest, most epic good-bye, Russel kind of capped-off her character a bit. In my opinion, he tied so much of her heart into the Doctor, that being seperated from him, ripped it out.

Well, Russell was writing a love story. Generally, in love stories, losing the person you love does rip out your heart. Doesn't mean that it won't ever recover, but it is very painful in the start.

It's ironic that, Rose has so much more creative material to work with in the Alt-verse, had Rusty allowed a spin-off, than she does in this universe.

It's ironic that she's been given everything she ever thought she wanted (before she knew the Doctor), but without him it lacks its shine.

[jedi_of_urth]

So.....now what? We watch Doctor Who for a decade thinking how unique Rose was?

I can't speak for butterfly but what I think she's getting at is the show moving away from the romance aspect. Martha was the ramp down from having so much focus on that sort of relationship. That Rose's relationship with the Doctor was unique even if Rose herself wasn't necessarily.

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.

I think you're confusing "loved differently" with "loved more." Do I think that the "in love" aspect will stand unique for years to come? Yes. Do I think that makes other companions less? No. Martha thought it did, but that's another point.

she ruined the premise of the series

Changed it yes, not ruined. Showed us the chance for the Doctor to have a life partner and in a romantic relationship; changed him by showing him that he *could* have that and that he wanted it with her. But that's character growth which in my book is a good thing.

And her being the "one and only" that he falls in love with does not ruin the premise. I'm not entirely sure I see how it would.

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for butterfly but what I think she's getting at is the show moving away from the romance aspect. Martha was the ramp down from having so much focus on that sort of relationship. That Rose's relationship with the Doctor was unique even if Rose herself wasn't necessarily.

Martha may have just been there to prove that Rose is The One, as contrast. Or she may have been there to "ramp down from having so much focus on that sort of relationship." But it doesn't make any sense for her to be there to do both at the same time. If the point is, "He was in love with Rose and not Martha," then the unrequited stuff makes sense. If the point is, "Let's not focus on that sort of relationship," then it doesn't.

I think you're confusing "loved differently" with "loved more." Do I think that the "in love" aspect will stand unique for years to come? Yes. Do I think that makes other companions less? No. Martha thought it did, but that's another point.

It's not me confusing them -- it's the series. Had we actually SEEN the Doctor really bond with Martha and enjoy her, then maybe it wouldn't mean other companions are diminished. But S3 utterly failed to show us that. Given the fact that Rusty went out of his way to give us a really intelligent, beautiful, courageous character, the Doctor's offhanded treatment of her reads as the Doctor saying, "Not Rose = not interested." It's possible that the Doctor will realize what an ass he's been next season, in which case Rusty is just drawing out the character growth, which speaks to your point:

Showed us the chance for the Doctor to have a life partner and in a romantic relationship; changed him by showing him that he *could* have that and that he wanted it with her. But that's character growth which in my book is a good thing.

My problem is that I didn't see character growth. If anything, I saw the Doctor grow bitter and walled off, and not just with Martha. His response to Jack is cold and flat as well. But I think what gets my goat most is the notion that there's "in love" that's qualitatively different than other forms of love. That's just -- well, let's say that's a naive view for a guy who's been around a millenium. It's...reductive. Again, who knows. Maybe we're meant to wonder why the hell he would do that, and next season we'll find out that he HAS grown because of his relationship with Martha.

And her being the "one and only" that he falls in love with does not ruin the premise. I'm not entirely sure I see how it would.

It would because it implies a greater level of importance, attachment, caring, concern, involvement, affection, etc. etc. for this companion over all others, from the Doctor's POV. It taps into the pervasive cultural notion of that annoying Disney version of love (I'm sorry to keep bringing Disney into it, but it's exactly what I mean -- romantic love that is exclusive, eternal, fated, unchallenged, etc etc.) It boxes the character in and trivializes the range of all his other experiences.

[leeson.livejournal.com]

But I think what gets my goat most is the notion that there's "in love" that's qualitatively different than other forms of love.

I see both sides of the argument y'all have going, so I'd rather not get into that. However, I would like to comment that a lot of people qualify 'in love' as necessarily romantic, whereas they qualify 'love' as more general or more all-encompassing for romantic and no-romantic affection.

Which is a bit off the cuff, I think...But that might just be me.

He may leave or lose them all, but he's always got that one constant companion. And thus, doctard. :D

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Martha may have just been there to prove that Rose is The One, as contrast. Or she may have been there to "ramp down from having so much focus on that sort of relationship." But it doesn't make any sense for her to be there to do both at the same time.

Well, my entire point in my post is that those goals are compatible and were part of her purpose. Though I don't think she was 'just' there for any one particular purpose. That would have made her a much shallower character than I believe came across.

How are those goals compatible? Because the point is to distance the Doctor from romance. We have this sexualized/romanticized Doctor that evolved over the course of the last three Doctors and you can't just... throw away the characterization, especially not when you have pretty David Tennant as your leading man. So, you have your point of view character (Martha) identify the Doctor as attractive/sexualized from the start and make the entire point of their relationship her realizing that he isn't going there (anymore). So that the audience becomes used to a Doctor who doesn't get romantic with his companions while not trying to pretend that you haven't... given him that sexual identity in the past.

Had we actually SEEN the Doctor really bond with Martha and enjoy her, then maybe it wouldn't mean other companions are diminished. But S3 utterly failed to show us that.

He seemed fairly thrilled with her in Last of the Time Lords. There are the various times he thanked her, hugged her. Right from the start, he told her that she was brilliant. He's casual and off-hand, yes, but... that's the Doctor. I've been catching up on my old Who and that's just who the character is. He's not treating Martha any worse than he's treated several other companions in the past.

The difference is that we now have how he treated Rose to compare that to (but Rose isn't the only time when the Doctor has privileged one companion over the others -- he very clearly does so with Susan in the first few serials that I've watched.).

Most of the Doctor's companions are courageous and/or intelligent and/or beautiful. And yet... he behaves that way with most of them, as well.

and two...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

My problem is that I didn't see character growth. If anything, I saw the Doctor grow bitter and walled off, and not just with Martha. His response to Jack is cold and flat as well.

He did grow bitter and walled off for quite a while -- character growth does not, to me, imply constant forward progression, which I would find highly unrealistic. The man was still in a state for mourning for the majority of the series. Of course, he's bitter and closed off -- Rose is, as he reminded us in Utopia, trapped in a parallel universe and the walls have closed.

But I think what gets my goat most is the notion that there's "in love" that's qualitatively different than other forms of love.

Qualitatively? That seems to go against the whole nature of love to me. Love... can't be measured so easily. The Doctor loved Rose intensely. Would I say that he loved her more than he loved anyone else in his life? I'd say, rather, that the question is meaningless. Does he love Rose more than he loved Susan? Does my mother love me more than my brother? Questions like that don't seem to lead anywhere helpful. Love fills people up -- my mother's love for me enhances her love for my brother, and vice versa. The more love you give, the more love that you have to give.

Do I think that the Doctor is 'in love' with Rose? Yes, as much as any fictional character can be in love with another. Every form of love is unique because it is defined by the people in the relationship. The Doctor's love for Rose and her love for him are not identical, either. My brother doesn't love me the same way that I love him.

That's just -- well, let's say that's a naive view for a guy who's been around a millenium. It's...reductive.

You really do seem to be defining growth as 'moving towards the way that I (parrotfish) view the world', as though you are the only person who has a clear view of what love, life, and everything are all about and you are the only person who can define 'maturity' or 'love'.

I don't pretend that I know all (or even any) of the answers. I only know my interpretation of what I see on the screen. What I see the Doctor doing, the choices that I see him make, and what I think of those choices.

It would because it implies a greater level of importance, attachment, caring, concern, involvement, affection, etc. etc. for this companion over all others, from the Doctor's POV.

Do you believe that all romantic love trivializes all other love? Does my romantic love mean that my love for my family and my friends means nothing?

Pair-bonding is a concept as old as the written language (older). The notion that two people make each other stronger, that they're more together than just the sum of their parts. Love isn't a box (or, at least, I don't believe it should be). Love is freedom. Love is wings.

Re: and two...

[sensiblecat.livejournal.com]

The notion of exclusive pairbonding love taps into something a little deeper, I think. Are we looking for a realistic story or a romantic one? Often, people watch movies and TV shows to get something a little simpler and more upbeat than real life. The way RTD and Julie G write about DW suggests to me that they see it as a romantic show. I mean, romantic in the sense that it isn't afraid to be a little cheesy from time to time. To give the people what they want, "Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, make 'em wait."

Anything as popular as DW will be pulled two ways. One, the general audience, wanting closure, the big clinch. The illusion that, on the whole, the universe is unfolding as we'd like it to, and good people get their happy endings. Two, the "fannish" audience, wanting conflict, darkness, lack of resolution. Much of S3 didn't work for me (although there were moments of brilliance that topped S2) - because there didn't seem to be a unity of purpose about that.

Re: and two...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

The notion of exclusive pairbonding love taps into something a little deeper, I think. Are we looking for a realistic story or a romantic one?

The implication that pairbonding doesn't happen in real life, that loving that way is inherently unrealistic, is something that I do disagree with (and that would cause a difference in how the show is viewed as well). I mean, the concept that two people are destined for each other is one thing, but the notion that two people who have found each other can form a life-long and exclusive bond is another.

Which is to say, I don't see realism and romance as being mutually exclusive.

Often, people watch movies and TV shows to get something a little simpler and more upbeat than real life.

True. And, sometimes, people watch television that excites them and makes them think about the world, life, friendship, love, the meaning of it all. Some people watch television because there are pretty people on it (this is, sometimes, a very compelling reason for me). Some people watch movies and television that makes them want to cry, scream, or laugh to bits. I mean, I don't own the movie A Requiem for a Dream because it's more upbeat than real life. People watch television and movies for all sorts of reasons, often at the same time.

The way RTD and Julie G write about DW suggests to me that they see it as a romantic show. I mean, romantic in the sense that it isn't afraid to be a little cheesy from time to time. To give the people what they want, "Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, make 'em wait."

I agree that DW is being written primarily as an entertainment show, a show meant to engage the feelings and through them, the mind (which, honestly, works much better than the other way around, at least for myself).

I'm also not sure that there's such a huge gap between the general audience and the fannish audience, as I definitely know members of fandom who want closure and a happy ending... or, rather, a happy resting place (I'm fond of happy stopping points, myself, but I'm also fond enough of the quote 'there are no happy ending, because nothing ends' to have it on an icon). Periods of lightness and happiness are needed in most shows that attempt to deal with serious issues.

And I know people who are not at all fannish, but still prefer to watch things that are darker and lack resolution. It's just that some people prefer one thing and some the other -- some of both sets of people are in fandom. Personally, I like both -- I love full circles (just witness my love for due South and Stargate: SG-1), but I also love hanging endings (like Angel, which pissed off a lot of people but fit perfectly for me).

People are more complex than some wanting a happy ending and some wanting conflict.

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

[coneyislandbaby]

"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.

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

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

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).

Re: and two...

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

Do I think that the Doctor is 'in love' with Rose? Yes, as much as any fictional character can be in love with another. Every form of love is unique because it is defined by the people in the relationship. The Doctor's love for Rose and her love for him are not identical, either. My brother doesn't love me the same way that I love him.

I've seen this argument made before -- but in this case, the text is in your face with an answer about the kinds of love. Rose is constantly asked to choose between the Doctor and everyone else. In fact, so is Martha. There's this drumbeat about ultimately making a choice between family and Doctor. Rose pointedly and repeatedly chooses HIM, even after she's made her mother frantic with worry for a YEAR, indicating a difference in attachment levels.

You really do seem to be defining growth as 'moving towards the way that I (parrotfish) view the world', as though you are the only person who has a clear view of what love, life, and everything are all about and you are the only person who can define 'maturity' or 'love'.

I do hold the opinion that to look at Doctor Who and see "pair bonding" as growth in the Doctor is ... let's call it a re-imagining of the premise. And I'm defining growth not as coming to my world view, but within the text as producing positive change in the character. The thing is, I don't think that's what RTD gave us. I think he intentionally gave us a situation where the "pair bonding" sets BOTH characters (the Doctor and Rose) back. There are places where they seem to be "very much in love," and places where they seem to be "very much screwed up." Which is perhaps RTD's point -- though he doesn't seem to be able to make up his own mind, either.

Re: and two...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

let's call it a re-imagining of the premise.

I think, fundamentally, that this is the difference between us -- you see Doctor Who as having a premise that is incompatible with a romantic relationship and I don't. My premise for Doctor Who is -- "hey, there's this alien who travels through time and space, often with companions of various sorts and always getting into trouble." And that premise has absolutely no conflict with the notion that the Doctor can fall in love. If your premise differs from mine, perhaps yours has a clause that does exclude romantic love, but it has nothing to do with the premise that I've picked up from the show.

There are places where they seem to be "very much in love," and places where they seem to be "very much screwed up." Which is perhaps RTD's point -- though he doesn't seem to be able to make up his own mind, either.

But that's life. Love doesn't... fix everything. The Doctor still has issues. Rose still has issues. They still have places where they need to work the kinks out. If they didn't have the occasional fight or the places where they didn't quite fit, then I probably wouldn't ship them because they would strike me as a highly unrealistic relationship. No relationship is perfect and without flaw or dissent.

Re: and two...

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

I think, fundamentally, that this is the difference between us -- you see Doctor Who as having a premise that is incompatible with a romantic relationship and I don't.

I prefer to put it this way -- from the show that gave us a hero who's committed genocide and a heroine with an Electra complex, I was hoping for a central relationship more complex and nuanced than the one in Disney's Alladin.

But that's life. Love doesn't... fix everything. The Doctor still has issues. Rose still has issues. They still have places where they need to work the kinks out. If they didn't have the occasional fight or the places where they didn't quite fit, then I probably wouldn't ship them because they would strike me as a highly unrealistic relationship. No relationship is perfect and without flaw or dissent.

Issues? Yeah, genocide'll give you issues.

I see your point of view -- there IS a love story in among all the rest of it -- but I think "issues" and "places where they don't quite fit" willfully ignores the dark side of the Doctor/Rose storyline of a doomed mismatch. But I can't actually blame you, because you're seeing the gloss that RTD put there. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too -- he's making mass-market pop tv, but he wants a "serious" edge to it, and he doesn't always reconcile them sensibly. For example, I have NO idea what message I'm supposed to take away from the story about Rose and her father, where the lesson seems to be about learning to confront loss and let go of grief -- until the author waves the magic wand and brings Daddy back to life, makes him fall in love with Mommy, and gives his little girl a baby brother or sister. It's a classic example of the urge to take a sharp turn into left field just for the sake of a happy ending.

Sorry for digressing. Anyway, thanks again for the chat.

[okelay.livejournal.com]

no need to put it in black and white.
like a widower (which, in many ways, he is) the Doctor will learn to live with the loss of Rose. there will be new companions.
Rose won't be a sore point, he'll be able to remember her fondly instead of painfully.

and so will we,supposedly.