> but then replaces them with just another construct I don’t see this as a problem. I think his work would be far more cumbersome if he exhaustively detailed a

> but then replaces them with just another construct I don’t see this as a problem. I think his work would be far more cumbersome if he exhaustively detailed all the different possibilities ... I like the idea of constructing a powerful alternative narrative that I can compare and contrast with the conventional one. I think for me at least the “danger” of Adam Curtis is somewhat mitigated because I know how to take it. I always presumed most other people that enjoy Curtis think similarly but I guess that could be a dangerous assumption...