----------------------------Original message---------------------------- From: Tony Williams English SIUC This is a really interesting issue and deserves exploration. There is certainly a bias today towards regarding the screenplay as anything other than a mechanical set of rudimentary directions having little value in itself as opposed to the director's interpretation. However, a good screenplay involves aspects of characterization, dramatic form, plot development, and structure - aspects all relevant to the supposedly different field of Literature (I speak here in terms of the usual definitions of canons and subject divisions). However, in this era of interdisciplinary studies and subject redefinitions, there is no reason why a Screenplay should not be considered as Literature. It is good to see Norton recognizing this. But they have included a "Name" so that this new entry "speaks" to the traditional modes of including any new element into a formerly exclusive area. What about the Screenplay structure per se? There are some really brilliant screenplays around which can be defined in the new definition of Literature (see "What is Literature?" PMLA, May 1994) such as Bertolucci's hithertoo unproduced version of Hammett's RED HARVEST. Others are just mechnaical set directions. Anyway, this does stimulate what should be an interesting discussion. I know of no workson this topic. So just thought I'd start the ball rolling here. Tony Williams.