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]

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.