Westfahl seems to disdain this cult aspect, not to mention the critical abilities of cult audiences. Personally I think he does a great disservice with the above quote. A cult audience I subscribe to myself is that of the silent film in general; it's a mode of filmmaking I've always had a feeling for ever since I got interested in films to begin with. It's a minority interest and I'm happy to be in the minority. At the same time, my "catholic fondness" for silent film doesn't mean I can't tell shit from strawberry jam, and I think Westfahl's dismissal of the critical faculties of cult audiences is frankly unfair. The more you become acquainted with a period or genre or style of filmmaking, the more equipped you become to make judgements as to the relative merits of different examples of same. This is something Westfahl seems to not have much understanding of, which is a shame.

In the end, Westfahl's Encyclopedia is a good idea, I think, though while it remains incomplete and haphazardly arranged its usefulness is evidently going to be limited. That said, however, I suspect that even when it's finished it'll be a manifestly unbalanced work if he continues in his present way. I suspect the best way of working this book out would be a multi-author approach. Suppose I was asked to contribute to a book on opera. I might be able to do a bit on Berg's Wozzeck since I like that one. On the other hand, I can't stand Mozart, so why would I write an entry on his operas if I couldn't give a worthwhile judgement on them? Get someone more capable of providing an informed and worthwhile judgement to write it instead. Similarly, let Westfahl write about the figures he really wants to write about and let someone able to approach Spielberg in a more balanced fashion write about him. That way you'd probably end up with a book I'd be rather happier to make room for on my shelves than the one currently underway.