I've seen it twice, but I can't remember offhand - how was Inara treated by the alliance in Bushwacked?

IIRC, Doug Savant was surprised that someone in her position would be associating with the Serenity crew.

Sorry - I know about Geishas, noble mistresses and the rest. And Companions are not an exact parallel. Geishas for example were part of a "floating world" that had a great deal of influence. But the power of the floating world was held by the people who owned the Geishas - not the Geishas themselves.

I'm not saying such a guild couldn't exist. But we are not really given enough clues as to how it works.

Ok I know the whole "not enough episodes" excuse. But the thing is - even though I don't know how the Blue Hand works, I get the feeling that the writers do. Even though I like to speculate on the nature of the Reavers (and in fact have a suspicion that the detials were never worked out) the role reavers play in the Fireflyverse society is pretty clear. What they are to othes - even if we don't know what they are to themselves. (And of course there is room for some hddien depths to be there for them to be related to others.)

When it comes to companions - I don't get the feeling that there role in any of the societies was really thought out. I suspect it was more - "Gee Gunsmoke had Miss Kitty; the great Westerns had whores. So our space western needs one too.. Plus isn't it neat to be able to say 'and there's a whore'."

I think that has been the problem with Inara all along. I actually think Inara is played by a decent actress, and has a reasonably consistent and convicing character. I think it is the social role she fills, the role of companion that is neither convincing nor consistent. I think the weird and unconvincing profession, sometimes rubs off on peoples view of the character.

And again, it is not the idea that there could be some such role as companion that fails to convince me. There have been several good fanwanks about what it could be. The idea of Companions as an arm of the govenrments is an interesting take. Or (to do my own fanwank) it could be an indenpent power like Revernend Mothers were in Dune.

But they have not shown us (well me at least) any of this. They haven't shown me that they have thought out any of this. I get the feeling that ME may have gone as far as doing a little historical research to get some quick comparisons. But I don't subjectively get an impression that they used any of this research to decide what companions actually are.

Sorry - I know about Geishas, noble mistresses and the rest. And Companions are not an exact parallel

I hear what you're saying, but, Gar, afaik nobody has said that Companions are an exact parallel for Geishas. Indeed, the roles of the high-class sex workers cited in Japan, India and Ancient Greece all sound pretty damn different, so an exact parallel is a nonsensical idea.

Like you, I've taken something not unlike Herbert's Bene Gesserit as a reference point, although whether that was ME's intention is anyone's guess. And I agree that the rationale for including this character was undoubtedly "Hey, wouldn't it be neat to have a whore?" rather than any dry planning of the social structures. But for the most part I haven't found it jarring, and I haven't found it disturbing that attitudes to Inara's role varied from place to place. In my limited experience, cultural attitudes and expectations do vary from place to place.

The Companion thing works well enough for me based on what we've got in the 13 episodes. Whether the ME folks were winging it madly for Companions, Reavers, Blue Hand blokes et al, we just don't know. I'd tend to hazard a 'yes', certainly for the first two -- but we just don't know. I'm happy that I don't find the question of Companions particularly problematic, because I could see that might have marred my enjoyment.

I think the Bene Gesserit parallel has the potential to be cool; so too, I like my own "cultural propaganda wing" idea. Neither of these have been shown, although neither one has been given evidence against. I'm not objecting to the multitude of cool ideas that can be overlaid on the companion concept: I'm objecting to the fact that we can overlay whatever we want on the companion concept, because we have been given so little evidence, and all of that contradictory.

In the absence of defining evidence, and in the presence of an episode full of all the idiot stereotypes I expect M.E. -- Joss especially -- to reject, all I can do is assume the worst: companions as a concept are something that basically fell out of Maxim magazine, akin to the gigantically endowed Vulcan and that catsuit-wearing Borg chick on Star Trek.

Sex work and sexual exploitation --- not necessarily the same thing, though often enough they are -- are topics too ambiguous and too revealing of deeply-seated attitudes to be thrown around casually. If M.E. wanted to sit down and talk about sex-work, fine, but they sort of have a responsibility not to make a surface-level dumbshow about the topic.

"Hey, wouldn't it be neat to have a whore?"

I'd add "and make her more respected than the preacher" to this statement. I doubt they worked through all the implications, given that ME doesn't seem to like setting up show "bibles" - see also Vampires in the ME-verse.

Given that the major arc for the season seems to have been the whole River situation (easier to discern with the original running order), I'm not bothered that they haven't fleshed out the companion concept more in 13 episodes.

13 episodes into Buffy. No vampAngel, no gayWillow, no Oz, no Anya, no Spike, no Tara, no Faith, no definite views on direct/indirect sunlight, no hint where Slayer powers came from, no sense of how easy/difficult magic was to use, etc.

Makes you wonder where they could've gone with Firefly. sigh

That's sort of a false parallel, don't you think UTTAD? Of course they hadn't introduced Willow being a lesbian. She wasn't one.

She was, however, coded as a nerd from the word "Sears", just as Xander was coded as a loser (and also in the very first episode). We knew what to expect out of Cordelia, and we knew what kind of person Giles was. At the end of WTTH/Harvest, Angel was the only character we didn't have a good handle on, although already we knew he was Mr. Billowy Coat King Of Pain. And when did we get introduced to him in totality? Episode Number Six.

When you're creating a completely fictional world, it's hard work to establish an understanding with your audience -- especially if they run counter to standard expectations. If companions are to make sense as a concept, i.e. be something the audience understands (and not in a wildly-different-interpretations way), then it behooves the writers to introduce that concept, bolster it, make it solid. And then two seasons later they can turn it on its head; but not till the audience is well versed in the expectations that surround the concept.

(It's like grammar: breaking the rules when you know them is arty; breaking the rules when you don't know them is artless.)

Yeah, but I'm happy in my mind on where Companions stand, so I don't have a problem with them. I'm happy to accept things at face value in the Fireflyverse. That's where I gain my entertainment from. You obviously delve deeper, that's where you get your entertainment from, maybe entertainment isn't the right word, but you know what I mean.

Plus, Buffy, while certain rules needed to be established, was set in the present day, modern American world with the same cultural signposts as the "real" world.

I tend to give a lot more leeway when a whole different society (or societies, as it seems to be) is being established. They just didn't have the time to establish everything - note how the Chinese aspect of the Fly-verse has never been clarified, either.