Narrative is SPECTACULAR!!

The position of narrativity in relation to “Cinema of Attractions” put forth by Charles Musser in “Rethinking Early Cinema: Cinema of Attractions and Narrativity” was very useful. For a while, I've been thinking about the deliminators between narrative vs. spectacle: particularly, how they shape the development of whatever medium is considered “newest”. The debate encountered here enacts a type of barometer that measures how principles of time and story from the early days of cinema have been reiterated in contemporary entertainment. Apart from the main constructs of the argument, some ways of categorizing narrative vs. spectacle also interested me. In relation to duration, the spectacle is positioned as single collapsible moment; whereas, narrativity is a chain of moments. In relation to taste, spectacle is portrayed as populist, whereas narrative is positioned as more “refined” and “middle-class”. 
In the end, the “Cinema of Attractions” seems like it could be used as a descriptor; however, aspects of the debate appear decidedly subjective. Musser references this with the examples of Eberhard Schneider and Lyman Howe on pg. 402. It depends, somewhat, if the formal features of “presenting views to an audience” has a structure perceived by your culture as narrative (In this case Aristotelian). (Though I would tend to agree with many of his statements) even Musser's points seem occasionally over-reaching or based on conjecture. One of the eureka moments of this article was when Musser admitted that “narrative sequencing became an 'attraction'” when narrative was a novelty (401). What is narrative and what is spectacle is obviously not always clear cut. This like so many things comes down to the tricky filter of novelty. Though this attraction may not fit cleanly as a feature of “Cinema of Attractions”, it still reveals the ultimate trump of novelty. Such debates are particular difficult to revisit because of how novelty taints the definition of what is and is not a spectacle in these historical contexts. It is hard for us to retroactively experience the “attraction” because, by the time we review it, it is no longer novel. Additionally, I would take issue with Gunning's point about “emphasizing shock or surprise at the expense of unfolding a story or creating a diegetic universe” (390). This “Cinema of Attractions” is not necessarily non-narrative. The staging of executions could be a type of prohibitory tale told to society. This is a type of powerful fiction and no less useful than scenes of the torture of martyrs played before the church in medieval times. On a separate note, why were fiction films cheaper to make than non-fiction films?

On a note from Rethinking Media Change : people who go around raving about “the death of the book” confuse me. It's like they think it's going to get sucked up to Oz in a Tornado or something. It's not likely to go anywhere anytime soon and has been in the making (and is still in the making) for a long, long time. It remains throughout all its incarnations and iterations. I'm guessing they're referring to the mythologized, tactile pleasures of the codex and the old “bathtub” argument. Or, perhaps it is a reactionary stance against a feeling of increasing intrusion by tech that can be difficult to understand. It is really the fear of the medium specific platform of “the book” dying that drives them. Having been raised with an English Teacher mother and present around English Depts. my whole life, I'm often faced with these arguments. The book won't die, It's really not so bleak for the state of the codex either, I think:) People like to immediately generalize Robert Coover's famous infamous essay, but I don't think he really believes that the paper artifact is going anywhere anytime soon either. He just takes delight in stirring the waters and getting people to reconsider forms.