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.

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.

vampAngel was episode six, actually, and direct/indirect sunlight didn't become a big issue until they started doing more shooting in indirect sunlight--for me this wasn't a big issue until AtS and/or BtVS S4, but YSunlightIssuesMV. And the concept of the Hellmouth was explained in episode one, even if it was elaborated and justified better in the Mayor arc.

But mostly, just what Nutty said.

Sorry meeant, Angelus as opposed to vampAngel.

this wasn't a big issue until AtS and/or BtVS S4

Yes, this is the point I was making.

this wasn't a big issue until AtS and/or BtVS S4

Well, this is a subject they retconned considerably - in What's My Line, Willie mentions that Angel is going to need a few days to recover, and he was just sitting there watching the sunlight creep closer and getting weaker. By season 1 Angel he can practically go outside on a cloudy day (plus Spike running around with a blanket).

>this wasn't a big issue until AtS and/or BtVS S4

Yes, this is the point I was making.

Then I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Sunlight wasn't an issue for me because they seemed to be reasonably consistent about it for the first few seasons. This is very different from it being a critical piece of background setup for one of the characters which is frequently referenced and in contradictory ways.