Comments from the Citizen Kane/Simpsons thread reminds me of a question I've always had about intertextuality. Do you have to know the reference in order to find it funny/striking/etc.? I don't think you do. It isn't simply that some Simpsons viewers don't recognize the Kane references; they can recognize that something is being referred to and find it funny without knowing exactly why. Case in point: I was watching _Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure_ with a 14 year old relative of mine over the Christmas holidays, and he was laughing hysterically during the Sigmund Freud section (no pun intended). He then turned to me and asked, "Who's Sigmund Freud?" (Collective mon over the state of American public education). I then proceeded to tell him that Sigmund Freud was an early persona of David Bowie's. Similarly, I have some friends whose knowledge of the Arthurian legends was gained primarily through _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_. They knew the parody before they knew the text being referred to, and they found it funny down to the minutest details. It's fascinating to consider how someone might be able to piece together the "real" version given access to the parody alone. Would it change our notion of how intertextuality works if viewers can recognize and find pleasure in references without understanding them? Greg M. Smith [log in to unmask] University of Wisconsin-Madison