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

[jedi_of_urth]

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.

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

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.

[leeson.livejournal.com]

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

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

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.

and two...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: and two...

[sensiblecat.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: and two...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

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?

The implication that pairbonding doesn't happen in real life, that loving that way is inherently unrealistic, is something that I do disagree with (and that would cause a difference in how the show is viewed as well). I mean, the concept that two people are destined for each other is one thing, but the notion that two people who have found each other can form a life-long and exclusive bond is another.

Which is to say, I don't see realism and romance as being mutually exclusive.

Often, people watch movies and TV shows to get something a little simpler and more upbeat than real life.

True. And, sometimes, people watch television that excites them and makes them think about the world, life, friendship, love, the meaning of it all. Some people watch television because there are pretty people on it (this is, sometimes, a very compelling reason for me). Some people watch movies and television that makes them want to cry, scream, or laugh to bits. I mean, I don't own the movie A Requiem for a Dream because it's more upbeat than real life. People watch television and movies for all sorts of reasons, often at the same time.

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."

I agree that DW is being written primarily as an entertainment show, a show meant to engage the feelings and through them, the mind (which, honestly, works much better than the other way around, at least for myself).

I'm also not sure that there's such a huge gap between the general audience and the fannish audience, as I definitely know members of fandom who want closure and a happy ending... or, rather, a happy resting place (I'm fond of happy stopping points, myself, but I'm also fond enough of the quote 'there are no happy ending, because nothing ends' to have it on an icon). Periods of lightness and happiness are needed in most shows that attempt to deal with serious issues.

And I know people who are not at all fannish, but still prefer to watch things that are darker and lack resolution. It's just that some people prefer one thing and some the other -- some of both sets of people are in fandom. Personally, I like both -- I love full circles (just witness my love for due South and Stargate: SG-1), but I also love hanging endings (like Angel, which pissed off a lot of people but fit perfectly for me).

People are more complex than some wanting a happy ending and some wanting conflict.

Dr Who is not a soap opera, though...

[coneyislandbaby]

"Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, make 'em wait."

And the reason I said that is that this quote is from Agnes Nixon, one of the most famous writers in daytime soap operas (a TV form I happen to be extremely fond of, for the record) and it was her philosophy on those shows. And much as i do love my soaps? Doctor Who would never and could never work with that aesthetic - because it just isn't one. So I don't think that's actually a very good aesthetic for Who to work under.

Re: Dr Who is not a soap opera, though...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I would be such a bad person to discuss comparing shows to soaps, because I have never watched an actual soap in my life (I don't... look down on them or anything, as I watch tons of shows that get compared to soaps, I've just never watched them. I'm mostly a genre sort).

I do know that RTD has said that he dislikes working in the soap format and under the soap aesthetic (that's one of the primary reasons that he created QaF).

Re: and two...

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: and two...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

let's call it a re-imagining of the premise.

I think, fundamentally, that this is the difference between us -- you see Doctor Who as having a premise that is incompatible with a romantic relationship and I don't. My premise for Doctor Who is -- "hey, there's this alien who travels through time and space, often with companions of various sorts and always getting into trouble." And that premise has absolutely no conflict with the notion that the Doctor can fall in love. If your premise differs from mine, perhaps yours has a clause that does exclude romantic love, but it has nothing to do with the premise that I've picked up from the show.

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.

But that's life. Love doesn't... fix everything. The Doctor still has issues. Rose still has issues. They still have places where they need to work the kinks out. If they didn't have the occasional fight or the places where they didn't quite fit, then I probably wouldn't ship them because they would strike me as a highly unrealistic relationship. No relationship is perfect and without flaw or dissent.

Re: and two...

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

I think, fundamentally, that this is the difference between us -- you see Doctor Who as having a premise that is incompatible with a romantic relationship and I don't.

I prefer to put it this way -- from the show that gave us a hero who's committed genocide and a heroine with an Electra complex, I was hoping for a central relationship more complex and nuanced than the one in Disney's Alladin.

But that's life. Love doesn't... fix everything. The Doctor still has issues. Rose still has issues. They still have places where they need to work the kinks out. If they didn't have the occasional fight or the places where they didn't quite fit, then I probably wouldn't ship them because they would strike me as a highly unrealistic relationship. No relationship is perfect and without flaw or dissent.

Issues? Yeah, genocide'll give you issues.

I see your point of view -- there IS a love story in among all the rest of it -- but I think "issues" and "places where they don't quite fit" willfully ignores the dark side of the Doctor/Rose storyline of a doomed mismatch. But I can't actually blame you, because you're seeing the gloss that RTD put there. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too -- he's making mass-market pop tv, but he wants a "serious" edge to it, and he doesn't always reconcile them sensibly. For example, I have NO idea what message I'm supposed to take away from the story about Rose and her father, where the lesson seems to be about learning to confront loss and let go of grief -- until the author waves the magic wand and brings Daddy back to life, makes him fall in love with Mommy, and gives his little girl a baby brother or sister. It's a classic example of the urge to take a sharp turn into left field just for the sake of a happy ending.

Sorry for digressing. Anyway, thanks again for the chat.

Re: and two...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I prefer to put it this way -- from the show that gave us a hero who's committed genocide and a heroine with an Electra complex, I was hoping for a central relationship more complex and nuanced than the one in Disney's Alladin.

Then perhaps 'ruined the premise of the series' wasn't the phrase that you were searching for. Also, I should let you know that I think Freud's research was seriously flawed and that he was, basically, projecting his own issues onto the whole of humanity.

Issues? Yeah, genocide'll give you issues.

Well, if it doesn't, you were probably fucked up already. Being with Rose couldn't fix the way killing his people felt. But she let him see the universe with new eyes and that... that's worth something right there.

But I can't actually blame you, because you're seeing the gloss that RTD put there.

Wow. That's... incredibly insulting. When you wrote that, were you aware of how insulting it was? I've been watching television for, oh, quite a while now. I've read a lot of meta and, also, actual literary criticism of various novels and plays. I'm not, as you seem to believe, someone who stumbled onto Doctor Who and said, "Ooo! The pictures move! Shiny!"

Re: and two...

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

Also, I should let you know that I think Freud's research was seriously flawed and that he was, basically, projecting his own issues onto the whole of humanity.

The point isn't whether Freud was right about the Electra complex in real life. The point is that Rose has one. She's written that way. There are huge, explicit issues surrounding abandonment by her father and the insecurity that resulted, along with a sexualization of the surrogate father figure. I think Freud was full of shit, too, but his theories have made for some interesting drama over the years.

Wow. That's... incredibly insulting. When you wrote that, were you aware of how insulting it was? I've been watching television for, oh, quite a while now. I've read a lot of meta and, also, actual literary criticism of various novels and plays. I'm not, as you seem to believe, someone who stumbled onto Doctor Who and said, "Ooo! The pictures move! Shiny!"

I would have though someone who would post something entitled, "Doctor Who: Did We Need Martha?" might have been prepared for spirited debate -- which is all I've done.

Re: and two...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

The point isn't whether Freud was right about the Electra complex in real life. The point is that Rose has one. She's written that way. There are huge, explicit issues surrounding abandonment by her father and the insecurity that resulted, along with a sexualization of the surrogate father figure. I think Freud was full of shit, too, but his theories have made for some interesting drama over the years.

There are issues about her father dying, yes. Does that mean that she's automatically looking for a father figure? Not necessarily. In Father's Day, she's very clear about the father figure that she's looking for, and it's Pete Tyler. Rose isn't confused about that in the slightest.

I would have though someone who would post something entitled, "Doctor Who: Did We Need Martha?" might have been prepared for spirited debate -- which is all I've done.

Spirited debate is one thing. Accusing people of only buying into the surface of a show is something else. Insulting people isn't the same as debating them. You opened your 'debate' with me by building a straw man argument ('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.'), embellishing and twisting what you believe shippers to think in order to make your point, which is really poor debating technique.

Then, of course, you then went on to lecture me about what Rose's story 'was really about' (did you notice how I started my own post with how I thought RTD 'seemed to feel' and ended with how he 'appeared to believe', thus not claiming my interpretation as the only possible one?).

I'm not entirely certain how I'm not supposed to find that insulting. You've pretty much talked down to me this entire discussion and I don't find patronizing attitudes conducive to healthy debates.

Re: and two...

[stoplookingup.livejournal.com]

Spirited debate is one thing. Accusing people of only buying into the surface of a show is something else.

How so? It's not valid to say I think you've avoided evidence that doesn't fit your theory? This is like saying I'm rude just because I think you're wrong.

You've pretty much talked down to me this entire discussion and I don't find patronizing attitudes conducive to healthy debates.

No, I've just expressed a dissenting opinion unapologetically in response to your original controversial post.

This is me, walking away.

Re: and two...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

How so? It's not valid to say I think you've avoided evidence that doesn't fit your theory? This is like saying I'm rude just because I think you're wrong.

If you say what you're trying to say in an insulting manner... yes, it is rude. You can think I'm wrong all you like -- I don't care. Telling me that if I just think about it a little harder I'll see it the right way (your way) is flat-out patronizing.

No, I've just expressed a dissenting opinion unapologetically in response to your original controversial post.

A dissenting opinion expressed using very poor debating technique, as previously mentioned.

This is me, walking away.

Hope you enjoyed your stay!