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]

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.

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

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.

One of the really interesting revelations is that Rose IS Gallifrey -- someone who had all that messy last-of-his-kind genocide-committing guilt in the Doctor's head displaced onto her poor, 19-year-old head. He KNEW she was a talisman, a kind of protective device from all that...and that she would leave him, too, and it would all come crashing down worse than ever. But he did it anyway. And that's what played out in S3 -- it's when everything he's put off comes crashing down around him, with the Master as the personification of the Doctor's desperation.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

"I lied to her. And I liked it."

That line in "Gridlock" basically sums up the Tenth Doctor's relationships with all his companions to a certain extent. That and "I'm so old now. I used to have so much mercy" perfectly encapsulates Ten for me.

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

"I lied to her. And I liked it."

Need icon. Just saying.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

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.

I admit to being a bit baffled by this argument, to be perfectly honest. Though the Doctor has angst in both seasons, it is very clearly shown to be sharper and more pervasive in S3. The only difference between the two seasons is Rose. His planet was just as blown up in S2, but he was all about 'seeing the universe with these eyes' with only brief stabs into things like 'I'm so old, I used to have so much mercy', while in S3, the ratio is quite the reverse.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

I admit to being a bit baffled by this argument, to be perfectly honest. Though the Doctor has angst in both seasons, it is very clearly shown to be sharper and more pervasive in S3. The only difference between the two seasons is Rose. His planet was just as blown up in S2, but he was all about 'seeing the universe with these eyes' with only brief stabs into things like 'I'm so old, I used to have so much mercy', while in S3, the ratio is quite the reverse.

Are you sure? I haven't done an exhaustive count, but it seemed like he had quite frequent lapses into angst in S2 -- starting in New Earth, when Hame speaks of the "lonely god, the wanderer without a home". He says nothing, but he looks simply devastated. Next ep, Victoria's speaking of her wish that lost loved ones could communicate from beyond.

And so on throughout the season. It rarely happens in the presence of Rose, which annoyed me, because it meant she only got half the picture, but it was quite consistent. Anyway, I think her absence was necessary to highlight her role as emotional ... "band aid" is an awful term, but it's the closest thing I can come up with. (Just woke up from a nap. Not too coherent, I think.)

With Rose around, the first person he'd connected with since the destruction of Gallifrey, the Doctor's genocide-related pain was numbed. When she left -- as he always knew she would, and he was quite happy to send her away in "Doomsday" -- I guess it would be like going cold turkey on your pain meds. *shudder* And all that old muffled pain came rushing back at full force.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

as he always knew she would, and he was quite happy to send her away in "Doomsday"

We clearly have very different definitions of what a 'happy' expression is. This may explain much of our confusion with each other.

Do I agree that having Rose there helped the Doctor handle the pain of genocide? Yes, much in the way that having my mother there helped me when my aunt died. I still had to work through the pain and she didn't fix anything, but I don't view her as an 'emotional band-aid' either.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

We clearly have very different definitions of what a 'happy' expression is. This may explain much of our confusion with each other.

*facepalm* I was being facetious. He wasn't happy to send her away, but he did it. And he was most absolutely unhappy -- I might even go so far as to say "angry" -- when she returned and refused to leave his side. Just for a moment, but it was tense enough that I was worried they'd end up parting on bad terms.

Do I agree that having Rose there helped the Doctor handle the pain of genocide? Yes, much in the way that having my mother there helped me when my aunt died. I still had to work through the pain and she didn't fix anything, but I don't view her as an 'emotional band-aid' either.

I did say that "emotional band-aid" wasn't a good term. *flails about*

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

He wasn't happy to send her away, but he did it. And he was most absolutely unhappy -- I might even go so far as to say "angry" -- when she returned and refused to leave his side. Just for a moment, but it was tense enough that I was worried they'd end up parting on bad terms.

Well, yes, of course he was pissed off. He sent her off so that she'd be safe and she went right into the lion's mouth again. I also notice that he brought up two anti-gravity grips, so I'm sure some part of him was aware that she'd come back to him (as she did in The Parting of the Ways).

It reminds me, actually, of a quote from another show -- "She was curious. That's why Fred didn't put it into containment immediately. How things work. What makes them special. She was always searching for what other people couldn't see. She was just curious. I think I hate her a little for that."

She wanted to know more about an object and it ended up killing her and he hated that, despite adoring her with every fiber of his being.

The Doctor loves Rose's independent streak and her loyalty and love for him, but hates it when those things puts her in danger. It's nothing that I haven't seen in dozens of other love stories. It's quite common, actually.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

It's quite common, actually.

Goodness, really? You amaze me! /sarcasm.

Possibly our mutual confusion stems from the fact that you see DW as a love story and I see it as an adventure with romantic subtexts?

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Goodness, really? You amaze me! /sarcasm.

Well, it didn't seem to be a romantic convention that you were familiar with, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you just aren't a romance-genre sort of person. My mom hates genre romance (I, on the other hand, am quite likely to read it in between my non-fiction stuff, to lighten everything up a bit).

I mean, if you are familiar with that convention, then I'm not sure why you'd use his anger in that moment as an argument against D/R being a romance. It just... doesn't make much sense to me.

Possibly our mutual confusion stems from the fact that you see DW as a love story and I see it as an adventure with romantic subtexts?

It could, if I saw Doctor Who as a love story. But I agree with you -- it's primarily an adventure story, with the love story mostly existing in grace notes and undertones, with the occasional more obvious exception.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

Well, it didn't seem to be a romantic convention that you were familiar with, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you just aren't a romance-genre sort of person. My mom hates genre romance (I, on the other hand, am quite likely to read it in between my non-fiction stuff, to lighten everything up a bit).

I'm not, really, but I read a lot of the stuff in my my youth, and still love novels and series that combine romance with plot.

And I wasn't using that moment to argue against D/R, but to demonstrate that the Doctor knew that Rose had to eventually leave him.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

And I wasn't using that moment to argue against D/R, but to demonstrate that the Doctor knew that Rose had to eventually leave him.

Every relationship ends, eventually -- Rose was going to die (or, at the rate he's going, the Doctor was going to run through his last few regenerations and kick the final bucket) at some point. Living dangerous lives, it's inevitable.

But, at the point of Army of Ghosts/Doomsday, we have him asking how long she's going to stay with him and smiling when she says, "forever". Like I said, of course he wanted her stay and was pissed that she wouldn't stay that way -- he didn't want her hurt. The last time they faced the Daleks together, one of them died.

So, again, the evidence, to me, appears to weigh in favor of 'yeah, he knew he'd lose her eventually, but he wanted her with him as long as possible'. Which, again, sounds like love to me. He wants her with him, but not at the cost of her life.

[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.

[gene-lee.livejournal.com]

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.


I think we might have to come to a draw on this topic. The preceptions on Rose's storyarc will ultimately be opinion. I can respect that.

But I don't understand the reasoning on why you put weight on a non-existing element versus the several examples seen in the canon of the show, in particular Martha's interest/use of medicine. Martha stated from the beginning, even well into FoB, that she was pursing her studies to become a doctor. She wants to become a doctor. Period. And even if you choose not to consider her using her basic knowledge of CPR and treating a concussion, you still have her utilizing the more complex knowledge in the Lazarus Labs. It's what moved that plot forward.

But you're going to ignore all that and argue the platform that because she didn't have medical jargon shooting out of her mouth at every opportunity or wasn't performing an alien autopsy on poor Boe or whoever, that suddenly it must be the writers trying to tell you that "OMG. She has no interest in medicine!", despite the fact they continually tell and show you that she has an interest in medicine.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Her dedication to her field seemed rather skin-deep to me. And that's also subjective -- you read a lot different things into what was said than I did.

But you're going to ignore all that and argue the platform that because she didn't have medical jargon shooting out of her mouth at every opportunity or wasn't performing an alien autopsy on poor Boe or whoever, that suddenly it must be the writers trying to tell you that "OMG. She has no interest in medicine!", despite the fact they continually tell and show you that she has an interest in medicine.

I don't think that I ever said anything about the writers not wanting me to believe she was interested in medicine. I just don't think they were very good at making it believable. Those are quite different things.