----------------------------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