Doctor Who: Did we need Martha?
Sep. 21st, 2007 08:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
butterflyBecause 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 05:20 am (UTC)My point about what I believe to be RTD's intentions with Martha's arc?
I hate to be rude, but did you actually read my post? I'll quote from it, since you seem to have skipped everything that wasn't the title.
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.
At no time do I attempt to argue that Rose is the better person because the Doctor loves her. Mostly because I don't believe that and partly because it's irrelevant to the question at hand, which was what I believed to be RTD's intentions with Martha's arc and whether or not Martha was necessary to accomplish the goals that RTD appears to have.
All relationships the Doctor has with humans are, by definition, transitory.
All relationships that humans have with humans are, by definition, transitory. All the relationships that the Doctor had with other Time Lords were transitory (though a large part of that was because he hated his people and spent as much time away from home as possible!).
Everything ends. Mortality isn't a special trait that only humans have. The Doctor doesn't live forever -- even he will die someday. Should someone dying from cancer be barred from falling in love with a healthy person? Sometimes, something is all the more precious because it is transitory. As the Doctor said, some people live more in twenty years than others do in eighty (paraphrased).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 08:49 am (UTC)I read your post, and strongly disagree with it. I also read the comments from
I disagree with your assertion that Rose is the best person for the Doctor, and that the Doctor didn't love Martha/Sarah Jane. I also disagree that Martha was only used for the unrequited love arc.
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.
As I pointed out, this is obviously not the case. You don't seem to make the distinction between the tenth Doctor and all of the Doctor. Even with Ten, we are told, rather than shown, how wonderful she is.
At no time do I attempt to argue that Rose is the better person because the Doctor loves her.
No, but you do argue that Rose is the better - and more needed - character. You imply that RTD needed Rose (requited love), but not Martha (unrequited love). Yes, the storyline about love could have been condensed to six episodes. However, how much could Rose's storyline have been condensed? Was every episode with Rose important, while not every episode with Martha was? If not, than why is love the only difference you discuss?
'Unrequited love' is hardly all Martha is (and certainly not the only way she is different than Rose). You seem to think that the "love" theme is the most important thing in the show, as it's all you discuss, while I'm quite sure there were other reasons for creating and using Martha's character. (I quote: "Yes -- Martha was, in part, all about how special Rose was.")
If it was all about unrequited love, which is the only theme you discuss in any detail, why is RTD bringing her on to Torchwood & back to Who next season? If it's not all about unrequited love, why does that make Rose special?
To also paraphrase the Doctor, his companions can spend the rest of their lives with him. He can't spend the rest of his live(s) with them. If Rose is the best person for him ever, that rather dooms the Doctor, doesn't it? Unless, of course, Rose isn't the best person for him in all possible ways, and he can love others. Love is transitory (and I am well aware that that does not just apply to the Doctor, thank you) and just because he loved Rose, it doesn't make Martha any less important.
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)... the Doctor is 'everything' to her, while she's basically a side-note to him
In my comment, I discussed love for Old School companions. Admiration and affection, yes, in all cases. He loves them all.
If you're going to compare Sarah Jane and Martha, Four states in canon that Sarah Jane is his best friend. Hardly a sidenote.
You argue that Rose is important because the Doctor loves her. (No, this is not a misreading of your post. You point out that it's set up as Rose and Everyone Else, and the only differentiating factor you give is love.) This is true of all his companions. He even loves Martha, although not romantically.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 02:53 pm (UTC)Because Rose doesn't investigate things on her own (like in The Idiot's Lantern) or show compassion (like in Love and Monsters) or save the Doctor (like in Rose) or show knowledge about science (like in The End of the World). Yeah, it's all told.
No, but you do argue that Rose is the better - and more needed - character. You imply that RTD needed Rose (requited love), but not Martha (unrequited love). Yes, the storyline about love could have been condensed to six episodes. However, how much could Rose's storyline have been condensed? Was every episode with Rose important, while not every episode with Martha was? If not, than why is love the only difference you discuss?
If I'd been talking about Rose's storyline, then those would be valid questions that I hadn't brought up. I wasn't. I was talking specifically about one aspect about what I believed RTD was showing.
'Unrequited love' is hardly all Martha is
Apparently, you missed where I said that "Martha was, in part, all about..." In part more than implies that it's not all that's shown, it flat-out says it.
You argue that Rose is important because the Doctor loves her. (No, this is not a misreading of your post. You point out that it's set up as Rose and Everyone Else, and the only differentiating factor you give is love.)
Well, it's good that you're here to tell me what I really said, because, of course, you have so much more insight into my beliefs than I do. What I'm arguing is what I believe RTD to have been intending to say with Martha's arc -- which is, in part, that the Doctor didn't fall for Rose because she had X qualities, but because she was a specific person.
If I were talking about Rose qua Rose in this post, I would have mentioned all the reasons why I think the Doctor's love for her made sense and why she's such a strong character. I was, however, talking about Rose in the context of Martha's arc, and her qualities are irrelevant to the discussion.
In my comment, I discussed love for Old School companions. Admiration and affection, yes, in all cases. He loves them all.
Do you think that he cared for Peri and Adric as much as he did Sarah Jane or Jo? Or even that his feelings for Peri could be classified as 'love'?
Maybe I just put more power in the word 'love' than you do -- there are plenty of people that I admire and feel affection for. I don't love all of them.
Honestly, when reading your comment, I still get the impression that you only skimmed my post, skipping over words here and there. Maybe that's not true, but it's certainly the impression that I get.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 07:21 pm (UTC)If I'd been talking about Rose's storyline, then those would be valid questions that I hadn't brought up. I wasn't. I was talking specifically about one aspect about what I believed RTD was showing.
You appear to have the same problem you believe I have. My point was that not all of a companion's episodes must be All About Them. You pointed out why Martha's arc didn't work for you - I was simply rebutting that more-episodes-than-strictly-necessary is hardly a trait unique to Martha. If Rose's storyline worked for you, and Martha's did not, why? Relative depth of storyline is not a particularly distinguishing factor.
Apparently, you missed where I said that "Martha was, in part, all about..." In part more than implies that it's not all that's shown, it flat-out says it.
And I go on to point out that that's the only point of Martha's characterization you discuss. If it's only in part about How Special Rose is, then it seems illogical to claim that Martha wasn't needed (see your title), if there was more to Martha than 'unrequited love'.
If I were talking about Rose qua Rose in this post, I would have mentioned all the reasons why I think the Doctor's love for her made sense and why she's such a strong character. I was, however, talking about Rose in the context of Martha's arc, and her qualities are irrelevant to the discussion.
No, they're not. If you're going to point out how the Doctor loved Rose because of who she was, you would also need to point out why. (Admittedly, your entire post is like that - a surface analysis only.)
Do you think that he cared for Peri and Adric as much as he did Sarah Jane or Jo? Or even that his feelings for Peri could be classified as 'love'?
I believe you pointed out earlier than love is not quantifiable. In any case, the Doctor was willing to risk his life for any of his companions. If that isn't love, how precisely would you define it?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 08:51 am (UTC)he's utterly thrown by the notion that he was her 'life' and that she couldn't move on without him
Do we not see the same thing when Rose is crying her eyes out at the end of Doomsday? Granted, it's been a much shorter time, but our last image of Rose is similar to Sarah Jane - devastated without the Doctor.
whether or not Martha was necessary to accomplish the goals that RTD appears to have
An unrequited love arc? Well, yes, it is generally helpful to have someone with an unrequited love.
The idea that Grace is the "ramp up" for the Doctor's sexuality, and RTD is using this as a coherent arc makes very little sense.
Yes, part of the TVM is Grace, and Eight's affection for her. However, it aired in 1996. It's hardly a ramp up when the next piece of the Doctor's characterization as a sexual being comes long after the average viewer has forgotten about Grace. RTD didn't write the TVM, and nor have we seen any major thematic continuations from it, save the themes that are in every incarnation of Who.
Occam's Razor. Grace has nothing to do with RTD's show.
In any case, Rose is hardly the standout companion you want her to be. She was - and is - very important to the Doctor. However, "the difference between Rose and the rest of the Doctor's companions" is primarly that of romantic love.
In other comments, you have asserted that you don't think friendship is less important that love, why does your point about Rose rest on the difference between the type of love?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 03:08 pm (UTC)Again, I am left with the feeling that you didn't read what I wrote.
he (being the Doctor) was thrown (meaning surprised) by the notion that he was her (being Sarah Jane) life and that she couldn't move on without him.
The actual point being made is that the Doctor didn't understand why Sarah Jane felt that way -- he clearly both understood and shared in Rose's grief in Doomsday (as is made visually clear by his tears). My point was about the Doctor, not about Rose.
An unrequited love arc? Well, yes, it is generally helpful to have someone with an unrequited love.
You know, the part where I mention what goals he appears to have is in the very first sentence of my post:
Because Russell T Davies seemed to feel that the show needed to have a character who would fall in (unrequited) love with the Doctor, thus illustrating the difference between Rose and everyone else. Did it?
Missing the very first sentence of my post isn't helping your argument that you actually thoroughly read it.
The idea that Grace is the "ramp up" for the Doctor's sexuality, and RTD is using this as a coherent arc makes very little sense.
RTD has displayed a deep fondness for the movie (and for the Doctor/Grace snogging in particular), which would seem to make mentioning it relevant.
RTD considers the movie to be canon (as shown when he uses Paul McGann's face as one of the 'many faces' in the Doctor's journal in Human Nature/Family of Blood). Again, that would appear to make it relevant -- he picked up a thread that he liked (much in the way he picked up the Master, the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Autons, etc), tweaked it, and ran with it.
In any case, Rose is hardly the standout companion you want her to be. She was - and is - very important to the Doctor. However, "the difference between Rose and the rest of the Doctor's companions" is primarly that of romantic love.
Whether or not Rose is a stand-out companion is a matter of opinion -- I think she's clever, brave, compassionate, loyal, curious, and rather fantastic. You disagree.
And saying that I 'want her to be' is a rather odd way of putting it -- I had absolutely no preconceptions before watching the show and no need to pick out one character and place qualities into her. In fact, I find that rather sloppy viewing.
In other comments, you have asserted that you don't think friendship is less important that love, why does your point about Rose rest on the difference between the type of love?
Because something can be the same amount of importance without actually being the same. Though, really, I think that love is harder to classify than all that, which I've said in other places -- it's not something that can be easily quantified. For some people, romantic love is the pinnacle -- for others, familial love or the love of friends is more important. But romantic love is not, by default, the most important thing in the world, and that was the point I was making.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 07:39 pm (UTC)As am I (left with the feeling that you didn't read what I wrote).
The actual point being made is that the Doctor didn't understand why Sarah Jane felt that way -- he clearly both understood and shared in Rose's grief in Doomsday (as is made visually clear by his tears). My point was about the Doctor, not about Rose.
He is surprised, yes, but he also grieves for Sarah Jane (see: "imagine that happening to someone you - ", which is Not About Rose. No, seriously.).
You know, the part where I mention what goals he appears to have is in the very first sentence of my post:
Because Russell T Davies seemed to feel that the show needed to have a character who would fall in (unrequited) love with the Doctor, thus illustrating the difference between Rose and everyone else. Did it?
Given the assumption of an unrequited love arc, you need a character in unrequited love. Thus, your title question is quite easily answered. Given RTD's goals for S3, yes, Martha was needed.
RTD considers the movie to be canon (as shown when he uses Paul McGann's face as one of the 'many faces' in the Doctor's journal in Human Nature/Family of Blood). Again, that would appear to make it relevant -- he picked up a thread that he liked (much in the way he picked up the Master, the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Autons, etc), tweaked it, and ran with it.
In the case of the Daleks, the Cybermen, and the Autons, they are obviously from the classic series. There is no connection between Grace and Rose, save that they were companions to the Doctor.
(Also, you might want to look into Eight canon other than the TVM. There's a hell of a lot more than the TVM.)
In any case, Rose is hardly the standout companion you want her to be. She was - and is - very important to the Doctor. However, "the difference between Rose and the rest of the Doctor's companions" is primarly that of romantic love...
In other comments, you have asserted that you don't think friendship is less important that love, why does your point about Rose rest on the difference between the type of love?
If you had read my point, I don't think there is a difference between Rose and Everyone Else, as you seem to think there is. However, you do think there is a difference between Rose and Everyone Else. Other than romantic love - which remains the only thing you've brought up - what is the difference?
Whether or not Rose is a stand-out companion is a matter of opinion -- I think she's clever, brave, compassionate, loyal, curious, and rather fantastic. You disagree.
I don't, actually. I think Rose has many positive qualities. However, I think that Sarah Jane & Martha are equally fantastic. She can be a good character without being the best thing ever, and without being better than the companions that came before and after her.
But romantic love is not, by default, the most important thing in the world, and that was the point I was making.
Odd, that. That would be exactly my point, and why I think Martha's arc did not make her any less valid (or needed) of a character than Rose.