![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Doctor Who: Did we need Martha?
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.
no subject
he's utterly thrown by the notion that he was her 'life' and that she couldn't move on without him
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.
whether or not Martha was necessary to accomplish the goals that RTD appears to have
An unrequited love arc? Well, yes, it is generally helpful to have someone with an unrequited love.
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.
Yes, part of the TVM is Grace, and Eight's affection for her. However, it aired in 1996. It's hardly a ramp up when the next piece of the Doctor's characterization as a sexual being comes long after the average viewer has forgotten about Grace. RTD didn't write the TVM, and nor have we seen any major thematic continuations from it, save the themes that are in every incarnation of Who.
Occam's Razor. Grace has nothing to do with RTD's show.
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.
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?
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.
no subject
As am I (left with the feeling that you didn't read what I wrote).
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.
He is surprised, yes, but he also grieves for Sarah Jane (see: "imagine that happening to someone you - ", which is Not About Rose. No, seriously.).
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?
Given the assumption of an unrequited love arc, you need a character in unrequited love. Thus, your title question is quite easily answered. Given RTD's goals for S3, yes, Martha was needed.
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 the case of the Daleks, the Cybermen, and the Autons, they are obviously from the classic series. There is no connection between Grace and Rose, save that they were companions to the Doctor.
(Also, you might want to look into Eight canon other than the TVM. There's a hell of a lot more than the TVM.)
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...
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?
If you had read my point, I don't think there is a difference between Rose and Everyone Else, as you seem to think there is. However, you do think there is a difference between Rose and Everyone Else. Other than romantic love - which remains the only thing you've brought up - what is the difference?
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.
I don't, actually. I think Rose has many positive qualities. However, I think that Sarah Jane & Martha are equally fantastic. She can be a good character without being the best thing ever, and without being better than the companions that came before and after her.
But romantic love is not, by default, the most important thing in the world, and that was the point I was making.
Odd, that. That would be exactly my point, and why I think Martha's arc did not make her any less valid (or needed) of a character than Rose.