This thread may be getting hard to follow, so I'll try to shorten my posts and just refute the best arguments that are put forth against my position--the others I leave to the onlookers' reasoning capacities.
Since I last posted, DriftRoot has made two posts--I will deal primarily with the first, which was his response to me (while the second was to BasharOfTheAges).
My position: I take the Rec thread seriously, and I think "a narrative category should be implemented because it is really worthwhile."
I'm here to defend that position, and since the last exchange between DriftRoot and BasharOfTheAges doesn't focus on that too much, I'll stay uninvolved for now.
That said, on to the first of your two most recent posts, DriftRoot:
This is what I think the main point of your post was, and the best argument against my position:
The Narrative category should not be included in the Rec thread because it isn't clear-cut enough. People will disagree over whether or not a video is a Narrative video.
This would be a sound argument if we were talking about the average Narrative video. But we are not. We are talking about videos that would make it into the Rec forum. We are talking about the very best Narrative videos. If a video is so good at what it does--which is tell a story--that it can be considered the best in the Narrative field, then people won't be wondering if there's a story there or not.
They might not agree about whether or not it is a great story, but how good the story is doesn't matter. What matters is only how well the story is executed. I happen to dislike the story, "Romeo and Juliet" (because I oppose what the themes say about life), but I do not deny that it is particularly well-written.