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

[avendya.livejournal.com]

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.

I read your post, and strongly disagree with it. I also read the comments from lizbee and parrotfish, and your responses to them. Did you happen to actually read my comment?

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.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[avendya.livejournal.com]

First of all, I very much appreciate being patronized and having words put into my mouth. I'm so glad you're interested in having a discussion with people of a differing point of view.

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?