QUENTIN Curtis misses the essential difference between Quentin Tarantino and Oliver Stone ("Tarantino v Stone", Review, 23 July). Tarantino understands the condition of postmodernity whereas Stone does not. Stone sees film as a didactic medium for clumsy messages rooted in a now rather tired liberal 1960s agenda; Tarantino makes clear - through the parodic form of his work and frequent deployment of popular culture references - the futility of seeking over-arching meaning in the world when representation is all that we have. When combined with the fact that his films are hilarious while Stone's are po-faced and overblown, this understanding of the bankruptcy of meaning accounts for Tarantino's superiority as a film-maker.

Patrick Finney

Lampeter, Dyfed