Pip, Thanks for you most interesting post, and getting the discussion of the new LC genre guide off to such a lively and interesting start. I appreciate your pointing out some errors and the shortcomings with the manner in which the Experimental category is handled at present. In fact, the intention is to develop the area with a number of subgenres, in the manner already done in the guide with Advertising and Animation. I've been working on adapting a previous guide developed for Experimental work a few years back in conjunction with AFI's National Moving Image Database. This project was authored by Linda Tadic, now with the University of Georgia's Peabody Awards archive. As I mentioned in the introductory post, this genre project is ongoing, and will be frequently updated and corrected. Adding the terminology developed by Tadic for cataloging types of Experimental work did not prove possible in the draft you saw, but will be included in the next draft. You need have no fear on the following account. "An institution of the US government such as the Library of Congress should do all it can to demarginalize experimental film ...." Marginalizing Experimental work could not be farther from our intention. Indeed, I would like to include as many examples of Experimental work as possible in our exemplifications of other genres, and suggestions are welcomed. Those you have already given are most valuable. The inclusion of types of Experimental work will address many of the concerns you expressed and allow inclusion of some of the subgenres you mentioned, such as Diary and Portrait. The only problem I would see with some of the types you mention is that (from my experience with our Animation advisor on those particular subdivisions), there is almost an infinite potential number of subdivisions, and only the primary ones can be given in a list of this sort. The most exacting and narrow kind of categorization will always, of necessity, be that in a scholarly book by an expert in the subject, not through an archive's cataloging. I think I would disagree with you however, on the following point: This is just one example of a general problem that I think stems from putting Fiction, Documentary and Experimental all into the Genre list instead of the Form list. If these were categorized as forms, then any subject, genre or theme such as biography or war could be treated in any form (animation, experimental, fiction, documentary, etc..), and you would not have to specify this form as part of the genre definition. If I understand you correctly, I do not think putting such large categories as Fiction and Documentary on the Form list would be helpful. This would fundamentally change the meaning of Form away from "the basic categories indicating a moving image work's original exhibition and release parameters, and which are separate from its actual content, not necessarily implying a particular narrative construction. Form terms include Feature, Shorts, Serials, Animation, and Television." Following your suggestion, I'm not sure how Form could then be distinguished from Genre, and Forms would seem to become broader terms for Genre, rather than a separate area which complements genre but serves its own particular purpose. Part of our mandate from the Library as well is to develop distinctive vocabularies for both Genre and Form terminology. Your comments on technique were also most interesting, and will be remembered. For the moment, we have set aside trying to deal with matters of technique, as well as style and movements, except insofar as they relate to specific genres. However, the hope is to eventually also approach these issues in a productive way. Thank you again for all your insightful observations. Brian Taves Motion Picture/Broadcasting/Recorded Sound Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20540 202-707-9930 202-707-2371 (fax) Internet: [log in to unmask] ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]