I don't know that they would knowingly sell their daughter to be tortured, but they might develop a blind spot if it was a real status thing.

Raq's take is my take as well. Still, not particularly a sympathetic view of Mama and Papa Tam.

Mr. Broom, in Safe when River says, "Daddy will come to take us home," I believe she's referring to Mal. Not that she really thinks of Mal as her daddy or mistakes him for her father, it's just that things get confused in her mind, i.e., male authority figure/protector = Daddy, Mal = authority/protector, thus Mal = Daddy. She never mentioned "Daddy" coming to save them any other time, which if she were fantasizing about her actual father saving them, I think she would've. In Train Job, when Simon tells her they can't go home, she just looks sad, and then nods and accepts it. She doesn't even ask where their parents are.

I think it's very significant of the Tam family relationships that in this episode, Simon and River's relationship with their father is so strongly contrasted with their relationship with Mal. Their father was angry about leaving a dinner party to bail his son out of jail, and completely dismissive of the possibility that his daughter might be in danger, despite the evidence Simon presented, and made good on his repeated promise/threat that he would not come rescue Simon again. Whereas Mal took a huge risk for them as total strangers taking them on board, and then went back to get them when he could have been rid of them and their problems with no trouble. From the look on Simon's face after Mal said, "You're on my crew," I don't think the distinction was lost on him. Simon is not used to having a real family, except for River. I don't think Simon is accustomed to being valued for anything except what he can do. Mal might not like him, but it's clear that Simon is now "family", crew. And Mal isn't keeping Simon just because of the doctoring he can do. Serenity made it fine without Simon, and River is a liability so great that Simon's doctoring skill is not worth the risk of her. Mal knows this, as is apparent in the scene where both Jayne and Zoe tell him life would be simpler without them. Mal went back for Simon (and River, package deal) because he's family/crew, not because he's a good doctor.

I'm running on, sorry, but I really think that the fact that these scenes of Simon's former family life were placed in this episode (hell, this episode is about family and what it is to be safe, to be home) mean that the audience is supposed to draw the conclusion that I've drawn: Simon, as a person, means more to Mal than he did to his father. That's the why of River referring to Mal as Daddy, and the meaning of Simon's whole discussion with the settler woman about this not being their home, and her asking him where was home, then. That question is answered, by Mal, at the end of the episode.

I agree with Zenkitty. I never thought for one minute that River was referring to her biological father. It seemed obvious she was referring to Mal.

Thirding, and it's kind of lovely also that River instinctively reciprocates Mal's irrational adoption of her and Simon. River knows shit.

I agree with the previous three posts.

Zenkitty, that was a great post.

Yes it was! I got chills reading it, Zenkitty.

Ditto. I'd third or fourth it, but I'm no good at math. Seriously, the little hairs stood up on my neck and arms, reading that. Chills, the good kind.

I agree with your entire second paragraph, Zenkitty. It's very incisive and makes me nod a lot because it gets to the heart of something I always thought about that episode but never had the exact words to explain myself. Kudos.

The first paragraph, though, feels like conjecture. She very well could be referring to Mal, but I don't see any reason other than the viewer's personal taste why it should be so, just like the (frankly, extremely irritating to me) incestual subtext inserted in the exchange about the hodgeberries just prior to it. If you feel they make the episode richer, you're more than welcome to have those takes on it. I just don't see where there's anything to actually substantiate them.

Sorry if I'm feeling adversarial to anyone. The paradigm for interaction on this board is several orders of magnitude more polite than that of most others, so I'm at all times trying to balance my desire to get my point across firmly with a desire not to insult people, something I've never had to do.

I agree totally with Zenkitty. That was my interpretation the first time I saw it and the 30 or so subsequent viewings. Thank you for articulating it so well.

Mr. Broom, StY and I had this discussion while watching Safe last night. He's firmly of the same mind as you, and argued fervently from that point of view. I conceded merit in his every point, as I do to yours. He kindly afforded me the same courtesy.

When you get right down to it, unless the writer comes and tells us exactly what was meant--and it may not have been clear to him/her at the point of the writing, or it may have become fuzzy in the intervening time, or it may have been deliberately left obscure simply to promote speculation--it remains a matter of personal opinion. Which I'm fine with. Anyone's welcome to read any degree of sibling incest into the hodgeberry scene and attribute it to two young actors finding a moment of serendipity onscreen and letting it run, or to River's lack of internal governors generated by the Alliance experimentation, or to a previous incestual history between the characters, or to a playful mood by either the characters or the actors. Whatever.

To me it read as deep affection and a disturbing slippage of River's judgement indicative of the damage she'd suffered, but that's my own point of view. Someone upthread chuckled at the fact that it took this long for the Ender's Game connotation to surface, but actually it did come up earlier, either at the time of airing or dvd release, so this isn't the first discussion on whether the Tams sold River out, or were just oblivious. I like the discussion. I like sharing my perspective and seeing how many share it, how many disagree and to what degree. I don't feel a particular need for consensus. And I don't think the discussion's been adversarial, just discussatory, which, you know, right up my alley.