Arabian (arabian) wrote,

I am confuzzled, re: 'Doctor Who' books ...

So, I've been getting all of the Rose and Donna DW books (sorry, I just am not a big enough fan of Martha), and I'm quite confused about something. Rose was the companion for two series (with appearances in a third) and is featured in TWELVE books. Okay, cool. Martha was the companion for one series (with appearances in a second) and is featured in TWELVE books. Donna was the companion for one series (with appearance in a special) and is featured in FOUR books.

I do not understand this. Why is Martha -- the companion in only one series -- in the same amount of books as Rose -- the companion in TWO series. Furthermore, why is Martha in THREE times the number of books that Donna -- also the companion in only one series? I don't get it. I thought at first that maybe the popularity grew so much that by the time Martha came around, they realized there was a bigger market and so more books and that more Donna books would be coming. However, books are started to coming out (or will this year) of the Doctor alone, post-Donna. So I don't get it.

And on not getting it, why can't there continue to be Rose/Nine and Ten/Rose and, yeah, Ten/Martha, Ten/Donna books just because the actors are gone? They can still fill in adventures with them that wouldn't contradict what's on the show.

Anyhoo, just wondering.

ETA: Well, after reading responses I imagine it probably has to do with image licensing. Both Billie and Catherine Tate would know how to milk that stuff in a contract and Freema wouldn't. Ah well. Sucks, that means it's likely we won't ever see anymore Nine/Rose, Ten/Rose, Donna/Ten or any TenII/Rose period, books. Sigh.
Tags: books, doctor who

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.