Again, we are trying to fit our experiences into the words we have for describing them. Rich starts out thinking he's seen narratives and seen spectacles and wants to talk about them, but immediately somebody tells him to define "narrative" and define "spectacle" and pretty soon what he sees will have to fit the definition. The definition--need for it, structure of it--isn't coming from the filmic world which, for Rich, *contained* the narratives and the spectacles. I know this is going to sound churlish--forgive me--but don't we all know what a narrative is, and also what a spectacle is? If not, then please also tell me what "define" is so I'd know how to "define" a "narrative." Why do so many contemporary academics insist on writing and speaking as though they don't have English? Or some other language? What on earth is the problem with writing plainly about what one sees, without having first to define "plainly" and "sees" and "what" and "about"? Amicably, in truth-- Murray Pomerance Toronto ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]