1. In spite of Kammen's efforts, I am not sure I completely get all the distinctions between popular
culture, mass culture, proto-mass culture, folk culture, vernacular culture and common culture.
Is it just a quantitative distinction? Is it just a class distinction? Is it just really about TV? It does not help his efforts that all these types of culture exist at the same time. People still bowl and play golf and go to amusement parks. There are still regional cultural differences. There are still
massive state fairs. Shows at Disney World always include a lame audience participation component. On the other hand, before the 1890s people went to square dances and to saloons. I also find unconvincing his argument that acting rowdily at a Wild West Show or radio-listening and movie-going--the quintessential entertainment activities of the 1930s and 1940s--are truly participatory. The concern that arises with all this overlapping is that a critic can find almost
anything he wants to critique in any time period.

2. In Kammen's view mass culture did not really last that long. It began in the 1950s and using own criteria it is clear that by the time he wrote the book it was disappearing. (Johnson) Electronic mailing lists, contrary to Kammen, spell the end of mass culture. They enable catalogs to be sent out to the tiniest niche markets. Surfing the Web, because of the proliferation of sites, is not a mass activity and it is not without its participatory aspects. Was it really worth all the attention and vitriol directed against it?

3. Kammen's typical and justified complaint is "Not so fast." You think consumer culture has arisen by the 1900s. "Not so fast." You think mass culture had arisen by the 1920s. "Not so fast." The historical record shows a much more complex development. Ideology, whether democratic, nationalist or Marxist, obscured this more variegated situation. Another factor is that when
"literary types" look at history they look for the unified symbolic structures of a finely wrought literary work instead of seeing the messiness of history.

4. Is commodification so bad? It would have been more participatory and "authentic" if I had
played my own blues music, but since I have no musical talent it was much better for me to
buy Muddy Water's LPs and listen to them. Admittedly Muddy was underpaid for his efforts and he should not have been, but there is no intrinsic link between this and commodification. Elvis was not underpaid or at least not nearly to the same extent. Before commodification most humans lived most of their lives literally covered in shit. To compare dark Satanic malls to dark Satanic mills is quite a stretch.

5. Even at the end of the semester I am still a "level up" elitist of sorts. I think we should start
with the great works of literature and and add in those works of popular culture that meet perhaps somewhat relaxed standards. Some will make the cut. Most will not. "Casablanca" will. "Porky's Revenge" will not.