butterfly | Doctor Who: Did we need Martha?

Entry tags:

dw: series 3

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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

These are some excellent points--I think that if Martha had been written better, the choices that RTD was making could have been much stronger and clearer to the audience as a whole. And I really like your idea of linking Grace-Rose-Martha, and how the two 'unsuitable' choices were both doctors. Great point, and one that I hadn't realized at all.

I try not to spend too much time disliking a main character, so I don't really dwell on whether I like either Rose or Martha that much. I liked them both, for different reasons. But..I guess, if I had to say which one I have more in common with and empathize with, it's Martha.

As the stand-in for the audience's POV, having flawed companions is a good idea. I don't look at the companions as there for the Doctor's benefit, although objectively/traditionally they are. I think of them as there for my benefit, or their own, if I am in sympathy with the character in a certain scene. So it isn't a relevant question to me (although obviously it is to other people) whether Martha was needed as a contrast. I see that the Doctor is learning all the time from his companions, but his journey is only as important as theirs is, so in that sense, Martha, Sarah, Jack, Mickey, and Rose all had their own truths to learn from him and their adventures. To me, that's exactly as interesting as his own character growth. If it was just the Doctor traveling and doing his TIme Lord thing, the story would feel sterile and not as real.

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.

Oh, oh, brilliant - there we go. Just poor planning on TPTBs' parts I guess; I don't think they realized how tedious her arc would be and how unnecessary it was to drag it out and emphasize it the whole season. As you said, she had a specific purpose to serve, and she had her own arc, but there wasn't enough investment in her as a character to sustain her presence the whole time (nor was Freema able to add to the writing). At least we should see something completely different with her in the future though, and she should be much more palatable in small doses, with tight arcs. I'd be surprised if she doesn't get more development in three eps of Torchwood than she had all season in Who *sporfle*

There's a lot of really good point here. I hadn't really considered Martha as the ramp down companion, but in that sense I can see the purpose her crush served to the overall story (aside from making it clear that Rose was different).

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

Yeah, pretty much every time there was a third person on board it was the Doctor and Rose, and one more. Whether they were conspiring for her to show Adam the way of things or their dance around in front of Jack or their insolur world not including Mickey, it was *them* and their companion. And then Jack comes back in season three, and suddenly he's the Doctor's companion at least equal to Martha if not closer, it certainly wasn't two and Jack; if anything it was two and Martha (or three and Martha since Rose was so *there* in that story).

made very clear when he calls her over to help him with the wiring and takes her out of the 'active fighter' count

I just love how lady-programmer picks up onto that instantly. The Doctor plucks Rose out of their army because he will not let her go into danger like that and just like that it's clear that she isn't fighting. Nothing for Jack (companion) and Lynda (almost companion), just Rose because she's different from everyone else.

how unnecessary it was to drag it out and emphasize it the whole season.

Nothing about Martha-as-introduced makes me believe it would take her so long to figure out that this guy isn't going to feel for her the way she feels for him. She's smart and pretty and seems to have plenty of self-confidence when we meet her. Yet, one slightly disparaging comment from a grieving Ten and her self-confidence begins to crumble. It took all season for her to regain it. That doesn't make a bit of sense.

I wouldn't say Rose is the best person for the Doctor. But she did fit very well with him. And I would disagree that Martha didn't like him, I think she did but she recognized he had flaws. I do wish Martha had a stronger storyline and I'm definitely NOT a fan of the unrequited love stuff but she was so awesome that it made up for it. I just wish she had gotten a chance to be him when he wasn't so sad about Rose which is just bad timing. I don't think they clicked as well though so a different timing wouldn't necessary change that.

I don't see Rose as the be all, end all of specialness as right after a person *dies* to you, of course you're going to feel horrible about it and mention them a lot. Not to minimize their relationship but that's how I see it. And as I disagree with the romantic/sexual implications as much that colors my view definitely.

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.

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.

Martha's character arc may have theoretically been intended to serve a long-term narrative purpose, but as executed it fell totally flat on its face. I think the fault is mostly that of TPTB. The writers got very lazy with the writing of their main characters in Series 3. Whether this is because they were used to having two leads who just completely inhabited their characters, I don't know. But as I've noted elsewhere, you can't severely underwrite a role unless the actor's capable of essentially writing it for themselves in their head (e.g., David Tennant, Billie Piper), or is largely playing him or herself (e.g., John Barrowman). If they wanted to allow the writers to sketch their characters in shorthand, then TPTB needed to cast someone with more experience/confidence. Knowing that they had cast a newbie, they should've leaned on the writers to be very specific and very thorough about what they wanted out of Martha.

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.

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.

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.

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

She really did have a comparatively weakly written arc which... bad form, RTD. I can understand why writing the unrequited love story isn't as much fun as writing the giddy joy of the Doctor and Rose, but that's all the more reason to get it right.

And I really like your idea of linking Grace-Rose-Martha, and how the two 'unsuitable' choices were both doctors. Great point, and one that I hadn't realized at all.

And Grace listened to the opera. There's something in that, that it's the most deceptively unimportant person who ends up being the most important to the Doctor. Because Grace and Martha are (planning, in Martha's case) to be healers -- Rose had the ability, but no real way to use it to any great effect. The Doctor gave her that chance to... have a meaningful life.

I try not to spend too much time disliking a main character, so I don't really dwell on whether I like either Rose or Martha that much. I liked them both, for different reasons. But..I guess, if I had to say which one I have more in common with and empathize with, it's Martha.

Oh, yeah, it's frustrating to dislike a main character. I think the last time I really did that was... Angel, where I didn't fall for the lead until the end of the fourth season. Made watching those first four seasons a bit of an odd experience, as I cared much more about the people around him than I did the lead character (I had moments of disliking Sam on SG-1, but they were fairly brief in duration and I generally liked her -- and while Martha has bugged me from time to time, I've never genuinely disliked her).

I can understand Martha's motivations (once they'd been given enough clarity) and I certainly sympathize with her emotional plight. But I never really connected with her the way I did with Rose.

If it was just the Doctor traveling and doing his Time Lord thing, the story would feel sterile and not as real.

That is so true.

I look forward to seeing what they do with her on Torchwood. I have hope that she'll have a self-contained character arc.

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.

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.

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.

I just wish she had gotten a chance to be him when he wasn't so sad about Rose

Yeah, I agree. There is no way to compete with a ghost, to compete with someone's memory of someone that they lost, and it sucks for Martha. She's trying to compete with a dead girl, and no matter how awesome Martha can be at times, it's just not something that can be done heathily.

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.

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.

Posting binge. Hadn't realised how much I missed your occasional posts to make me think more deeply about DW than I tend to.

I found while watching season three that I enjoyed the Doctor's arc with Martha far more than hers with him. She went around in circles, which isn't so much fun to watch. But his emotional arc was far more complex.

Well thought out essay. I'm not sure if I have anything of note to add now, but I would like to think it over. Maybe if I have something worthy of commenting I will added it later.

In a lot of ways, Martha is a 'better' person. Higher class (which matters to some people). More education.

It woes me that people (and I'm not saying you) consider those to be ways in which Martha is a 'better' person. A better identification figure for them, a better stand-in for their own fantasies, certainly. A better person, never.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 11

Doctor Who: Did we need Martha?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

and two...

no subject

no subject

Re: and two...

Re: and two...

no subject

no subject

no subject