in response to the "scandalous question of the relationship of academic affiliation to one's perspective on "texts" let me answer with the following a. i teach in an english dep't b. my degree is from an english dep't, but as long as i worked within an english dep't my emphasis tended to be on formal matters, on the language and structure of novels c. then i took a year to retool myself in cinema studies, spending that time in a department of "visual studies" where i began--isuspect--to develop the views i have now so this path trhough the field seems to work against the grain of the scandalous question but since it's so hard to determine whether structure is a matter of form or of content (is a "flashback" a feature of the narration or of the diegesis?) let me suggest that the categories: LITERATURE/CINEMA/THEATER may turn out to be not as useful as the distinction between those who DO cinema (that is participate in whatever way in the creation of films) and between those who READ cinema (that is, those who want to study/read/analyze/examine films but have no interst in making them) for myself i have to say that i have virtually no interest in making anything, but an intense interest in understanding how texts are made, why they are made, what they mean, and why they are valuable an analogy: i'd rather be a great batting coach who knows all there is to know about hitting but can't swing a bat, than be the world's greatest hitter who cannot explain anything abnout his skill mike frank ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]