geez, talk about jargon, how did this discussion get so out of hand? it seems the problem was as follows: > > How 'bout translating some of your jargon into English, Jeremy? 'Sounds > > like interesting stuff, but I don't have the background. For example: > > discourse theory, text-oriented, audience-oriented, the viewer as > > "subject" and so on. > > --Fiona > > The reason that "jargon" gets used is that if you had to explain > what "discourse theory" means every time you wanted to use the > word, you'd never get to _say_ anything: you'd spend all your time > defining words. > > M. Tepper Brown University IMHO M is right, i personally dont see anything so complicated in the terms: discourse theory, text-oriented, audience-oriented, and the viewer as "subject". these are things explained in my introduction to film text. something was deleted from M's argument, in which she points out that most of us are on this list because of a background in film and theory. these things should be understood for the most part. this goes along with the argument on cinema-l about spoilers, if something is being discussed that you dont know about, it seems only logical to not read it (to not spoil it for yourself) or maybe research on your own, or maybe just email directly to the person who wrote what confuses you and not start silly marxist arguments on the whole list. this suggested book sounds interesting: >One book that I would recommend to those new (and even not so new) to >communications theory is _Key Concepts in Communication_, by >O'Sullivan, Hartley, Saunders and Fiske (Methuen: New York, 1983). but with the length of the definition, those who want simple reference to some common film jargon, may just want to pick up _Film_Art_ by Bordwell and Thompson, the intro to film text. i just dont feel this was worth all that argument. suzanne [log in to unmask]