I've been following the discussion of westerns, genres, and definitions with a great deal of interest. While I find the concept very useful in teaching, I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the kinds of narrow, formalist definitions of genre that we've traditionally used (a western has horses, guns, Stetson hats, spurs, etc.) since they apply to fewer and fewer of the films that are made today and since, even in terms of classical cinema, formalist definitions really only seem to fit westerns and gangster films. Thematic approaches--the loner standing up against evil for the sake of the community, etc.--on the other hand seem too broad, as some of you have also noticed. For that reason, I'm experimenting with an experiential approach to genre in which genres might be defined by the sorts of responses that they are designed to elicit. So, a western would give the spectators the feeling that they had been transported back to the Old West. This way of looking at the western would explain why a film like WESTWORLD, which has guns, horses, Stetsons, etc., is not perceived as a western. People who are interested in a carefully worked-out explanation for the origins of genres, and one which avoids the classic hermeneutic circle, might want to look at Rick Altman's new book FILM/GENRE. Sandy Camargo Department of English University of Missouri ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite