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

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

If you believe that romantic love is the only thing that matters, perhaps. If you believe that having a 'one true love' means that you never care about anyone else every again, perhaps.

I don't believe either of those things. The Doctor can have been 'in love' with Rose and that doesn't change his adoration of his granddaughter or his affection for Sarah Jane, Liz, Jo, Ace, etc.

The Doctor is capable of caring about many people, in many ways. And just because I believe that Rose is the only character that he was 'in love' with, does not mean that I believe she is the only character that he loved.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

I think I wasn't being very clear about what bothers me. It has nothing to do with how the Doctor relates to Rose. It's because in your essay and in the comments of the people who agree with your essay there seems to be a clear division between Rose and Companions Who Aren't Rose with Rose having more narrative importance than Companions Who Aren't Rose. But Rose does not have more narrative importance. Even if she and the Doctor were in love.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Well, in the past serials that I've seen, I've yet to see a character who had as much influence on the arcs and plotlines as 'Bad Wolf' Rose did. Perhaps that's yet to come.

Unless you mean in narrative importance to the Doctor, in which case... well, I still haven't seen all of the still-existing Who. So far, though, the only character that I would place as emotionally close to him, in what I've seen, is Susan.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

In the Eighth Doctor novels, Fitz has just as much influence on the plot as Rose does. (And in the Big Finish audio adventures Evelyn looked into the heart of the TARDIS lifetimes before Rose did.) As far as the focus of the television series goes, The Education Of Ace was a big part of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth seasons. UNIT and its associated personnel were an integral part of the Third Doctor's tenure. If you want for season-long arcs, we had the Valeyard fucking the Doctor's shit up during the the twelve-episode Trial Of A Timelord and oh yeah, the Master in his many forms has been influencing the plot since the seventies.

So, not just Rose. No matter how important she may be personally to the Doctor, she's not more special than anyone else to the narrative.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Thank you -- that's the sort of information that's helpful. Now I can seek out those specific shows and see what I think (though, question -- do the Valeyard and the Master count as companions? That seems like an odd system to me.).

Though I should possibly point out that, in my points above, I actually do mention that I don't think that I (or the show) think Rose is the most special person who ever lived, just that the Doctor held her as incredibly dear and special to himself. I mean, Rose Tyler is gone and yet the Doctor and his companion Martha still saved the world.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

Well, no, the Valeyard isn't a companion, unless you count companion as someone who's traveled in the TARDIS and, um, to explain what he actually is would involve spoiling you for that arc. Which I probably shouldn't do. And the Doctor only wishes the Master was his companion ;) But I was including them as examples of non-Rose characters that influence huge gobs of plot. The companion-ness (companionicity?) of UNIT is arguable, but I choose to treat them as such even though only Jo ever gets to ride in the TARDIS because they do assist the Doctor (when he doesn't assist them) and the old name for companion was assistant.

And I forgot Turlough. *facepalms* Who actually was a companion. Sigh.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Hee. Poor Turlough. Who, btw, I thought was kinda slashy with the Doctor (in a similar, though less forceful, way as the Master is). Five is totally my second favorite version of the Doctor.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

He was. Jamie, however, was married to the Doctor and one of the reasons I don't buy into your Rose Is The Doctor's One True Love theory is that Jamie is and all the evidence got burninated. Although despite that, there's enough stills of them clinging to each other that one could infer it anyway. Plus, eight lives down the line he still remembers Jamie in T&C.

I also don't buy that the Doctor's S3 emo was terribly much about Rose. It felt to me as more of a general Gallifrey Go Boom thing, with his recent loss of Rose just making everything worse.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Jamie is highly adorable. I'm not sure why more people don't pull him out as a counter-example, as textual evidence from the show tends to be far more compelling than the off-screen actions of the actors (ala Tom Baker and Lalla Ward).

I also don't buy that the Doctor's S3 emo was terribly much about Rose. It felt to me as more of a general Gallifrey Go Boom thing, with his recent loss of Rose just making everything worse.

Again, this argument is odd to me because I see such a difference in the Doctor between seasons 2 and 3. If the recent loss of Rose makes things that much worse that would appear to be an argument in favor of him being in love with her, rather than against it. Gallifrey was just as blown up in S2, after all.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

I do think the Doctor loved Rose. (The Doctor loves all his companions to varying degrees, even Peri and Adric.) I really don't believe she was his One True Love and I have my doubts as to if their love was romantic. Mostly I read it as a very affectionate friendship. And losing your best friend can make you just as emo as losing your boyfriend--more sometimes.

I suppose Jamie doesn't get pulled enough out as an example probably because of the whole burnination. It makes it hard to rejoice in his and Two's Utter Married-ness when most of their serials have holes in them.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Ah, for me, the thing that started me feeling as though it was romantic was the Doctor calling her 'beautiful' in episode three. And if that's a perfectly platonic statement to you, then things would read differently. Well, and there's the "woman you love" thing in Dalek and the dancing conversation in The Doctor Dances and so forth. For me, those are explicitly romantic things, as opposed to affectionate friendship (though I fully agree that losing a friend can be just as devastating as losing a lover).

Thinking about Jamie too much is terribly depressing. He barely even remembers the Doctor. It's horrifying, really. At least Rose has her memories.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

Thinking about Jamie too much is terribly depressing. He barely even remembers the Doctor. It's horrifying, really. At least Rose has her memories.

Ah, but that's why I'm a believer in 6B. Do you know of the theory? Basically, it is to the effect that the CIA (Celestial Intervention Agency, that is) got a hold of the Doctor before the other Time Lords could punish him and got him to carry out missions for him in return for letting him live. Later they gave him back Jamie in order to further bribe him. This is not ever explicitly stated in the text, but it's very much backed up by The Two Doctors with its visibly aged Two and Jamie. Anyway, as the theory goes, Two and Jamie went on missions together until Jamie died (at a ripe old age we all hope) and Two was so distraught that he told the CIA he wasn't going to work for them anymore, so they forced his regeneration and dumped him on UNIT.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Does the 6B theory say anything about Zoe?

But that's a rather nice fanwank of actor aging. Definitely better than lots that I heard about why the vampires on Buffy were getting older.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

I can't remember off the top of my head, sadly. But you could look it up, by googling "Doctor Who season 6B" or somesuch.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I'll check that out. Jamie was totally adorable, though I admit to having a soft spot for a man in a kilt (this is part of my love for David Tennant as well).

[nic]

Jamie, however, was married to the Doctor

I've not heard much about Jamie at all... are you speaking about how they interacted and how it appeared as a married relationship? Or something more than that? (I'm still learning about former companions!)

[biichan.livejournal.com]

Actually, come to think of it, the whole Bad Wolf thing with Rose was almost exactly like The Curse of Fenric in which we have a companion (both Ace and Rose) who is terribly important to the plot of the episode/serial and we find out things about them that extend--retroactively--to their very first episode on the show. And there's the whole wolf thing, what with Ace being a Wolf of Fenric. Of course Ace didn't look into the heart of the TARDIS, but Ace beats up Daleks with baseball bats, so.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

Ace didn't need to look into the heart of the TARDIS. (I tried to picture it, and ended up fearing for the universe just a little.)

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

If you believe that romantic love is the only thing that matters, perhaps. If you believe that having a 'one true love' means that you never care about anyone else every again, perhaps.

What is the point of the concept of "one true love" if not to elevate that love above others? And please don't bring people's children and mothers and brothers into it. We're not talking about children and mothers and brothers. If a man's wife dies, and he marries again, how do you suppose his second wife will feel when cousin Edna comes over and tells her, "Y'know, his first wife was his One True Love, but he loves you, too"?

As I said, I blame Rusty for throwing the OTP pass more than the people who just picked it up and ran with it. But I do think it's terribly disingenuous to insist that you're very happy seeing Rose as the OTP, but in no way does that taint past and future companions -- disingenuous on Rusty's part as well as the fans. If he wanted to reinvent the series, he should have done so in a more honest way, along the lines of Battlestar Galactica, where the break with the old series is clear and up front. What's more, for Rusty to carry on with the series after he's compromised it, and to offer us new characters that he intentionally undermines (opening up opportunities for fans of his "authorized" ship to ask whether they new character is even NECESSARY) -- I mean, why?

Unless he's going somewhere with all this. Hope springs eternal. Cuz right now, it's a bloody mess.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

If a man's wife dies, and he marries again, how do you suppose his second wife will feel when cousin Edna comes over and tells her, "Y'know, his first wife was his One True Love, but he loves you, too"?

Some men's wives die and they marry again. Some men's wives die and they never do. Is the second choice an invalid one? Falling in love is... unpredictable. For some people, it does happen more than once and that is a blessing. For some people, it never happens at all. And, for some, they only fall in love once.

And, in neither of those cases, does that love tarnish what came before and what comes after. Love cannot be quantified nor can it be forced, borrowed or stolen. Honestly, the notion that romantic love taints all other kinds of love is so utterly alien to me that it's like we're speaking two separate languages.

[ladymako71.livejournal.com]

Honestly, the notion that romantic love taints all other kinds of love is so utterly alien to me that it's like we're speaking two separate languages.

Now that I've picked my jaw off the floor at that, I'll add my 2 cents, for what it is worth. You are right, love is unpredictable. I'll give you that one. But the idea that romantic love doesn't taint? Hooo boy...It can and it does I'm afraid. And this is someone speaking from experience.

It's easy to get blinded in a relationship...so so easy, let me tell you. The next thing you know you've invested all the time and energy in and sometimes it gets thrown in your face and you are left devastated. To the point that seeing, reading, or watching the perfect romantic story, is enough to make you want to gouge your own eyeballs out and toss them into the fire pit in the hopes of ridding yourself of the imagery.

I will admit that I am a little jaded and cynical after my own experiences at life and love. But those experiences are what can help me in the long run should I end up meeting someone that is interested in me. And yes, romantic love has tainted my views on love...all forms of it. Just ask members of my own family who noticed a drop in affection from after my disaster.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I'm very sorry that you got burned in a relationship. It sucks. My mother was quite badly burned in her relationship with my father, though, and she's currently living with someone she loves very much so my experience, and what I've seen from the people that I know and care about, tells me that it doesn't have to be that way.

Regardless, I'm not entirely certain what your story had to do with what I was saying, as I was talking about how a successful and happy love doesn't destroy the friendships that a person has.