----------------------------Original message----------------------------

        I enjoy a nice civilized conflict as much as the next

testosterone junkie, but Jeremy's reminder is well-received.  Some of the

recent postings have been merely educated versions of the "flame wars"

which perpetuate elsewhere on the net.  Nonetheless, I too feel the need

to enter the arena of debate (though I will doubtless regret it later):

 

1.  Marilyn Robinson has "exposed" the Center for the Study of Pop

Culture with which Larry Jarvik is affiliated as a "conservative think

tank."  Recently, a number of contributors to this list were up in arms

regarding the continuing demonization of the term "liberal."  I

wholeheartedly concur that there are no grounds for deeming "liberal" a

derogatory term.  However, must we engage in a similar rhetorical

disservice by invoking the "conservative" as a dreaded spectre of

oppression?  Must we now have the "c-word" in addition to the "l-word"?

I may not personally agree with any conservative agenda the CSPC might

possess, but I feel that the implication of Marilyn's posting--that this

agenda somehow renders Larry's opinions inherently unworthly of

consideration--is dangerous.  We *all* have something to contribute--even

silly moderates like me.

 

2.  Molly Olsen suggests that DTS invalidates PBS' position as a widely

available source of non-network programming.  It is my understanding--and

please correct me if I'm wrong--that DTS charges periodic fees to

continue to receive programming.  If this is the case, DTS users are not

merely paying for the *equipment*, but also for the programming; such a

situation equates DTS with cable.  Viewing PBS requires that one

necessarily possess a television first, but the fact remains that the

*programming* is free--a fine distinction, but an important one.  Larry

Jarvik posits that one *does* pay, albiet indirectly; however, a viewer

may receive PBS regardless of his/her status with regard to taxation.  In

other words, the tax-exempt (for whatever reason--I'm thinking of students

here, though) don't pay for PBS, even indirectly.  The bottom line is that

PBS doesn't make anyone dole out any filthy lucre for entertainment up front,

which places them in an entirely different category ideologically.  The

whole idea of PBS is that people deserve this programming, and that they

deserve it for free.

 

3.  Shawn Levy's response to Freelancer is on the money in stating that

any critical perspective on a public work of art is a basically valid one,

but Shawn makes a serious error in stating that the production conditions are

absolutely meaningless.  One can argue over intentionality until the cows

come home (wherever *that* is), but Shawn's own position states that a

critical view based upon presumed intentionality is at least worthy of

consideration.  Heavy analysis of a work *can* interfere with one's

enjoyment of the work, but this phenomenon doesn't mean we should all put

down our keyboards and accept everything at face value.

 

4.  I saw the "Western" episode of AMERICAN CINEMA over the weekend, and

I find my opinion of the series dropping with each installment (though in

its defense, I thought the description to Welles as "the first

director-star" was a reference to his *starring* in KANE as well as

directing, rather than to his lofty status as a director).  The series

is limited in its scope by its very concept (which precluded a necessary

dicussion of the Spaghetti Western in the recent episode); furthermore,

the producers of the show have narrowly concentrated on the 1930-1960 and

1980-1994 periods.  Hollywood's Golden Age and recent successes receive

great steaming wads of attention, while the innovations of the sixties

and seventies receive little more than a footnote.  While the series does

make use of difficult-to-acquire clips, these clips are as Gene Stavis

writes, from well-established films.  Additionally, these clips are run

to death:  "The Western" painfully overused clips from the same six

films.  At this point, the series is better left to video store regulars

than scholars.

 

        I could go on to state that PBS' educational content (which

certainly *is* present) necessitates mass availability--or that PBS

*does* run mass-appeal, non-"elitist" programming--or that, contrary to

what MafiaCat writes, the overwhelming majority of the entertainment

community is *not* leftist--or that Henry Jenkins might be right that

this entire business might be a ruse--but I won't.  I've gotten enough

off my chest.  Now can we just go back to a lively discussion of PULP

FICTION?

 

                                John McInnes

                                University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign