Obvious references

[Scott Badger]

David H:
> 
> <SNIP> VLVL is unlike previous TRP
> books in that the references and history are ones that we are already familiar
> with.  So the point is not to make lists of connections but to make the
> connections.  The difficulty with this book is that it so closely references
> to touchstones of popular culture, unlike previous works which might cause you
> to go look up Max Weber or go find a Baedeker, neither of which I had ever
> heard of before reading TRP.
> To my mind the "mass culture" references vs the "high culture" references
> we've come to expect from TRP are one of the significant statements of the
> book.  And one that threw me the first time I read it.  Is this the mighty
> mind that produced GR?  Has he been reduced to watching TV and movies?  Are
> these the only things that connect us any more? Does anyone really read
> anymore?
> In hindsight we should not have been worried about ol' Tom, but at the time
> VLVL was published this was a common reaction.
> In addition the fact that we are familiar with this recent history means that
> we already have opinions about it, especially if you lived thru this time.
> This is a painful book to read in some ways and purposefully so from TRP's
> perspective.

I've wondered whether the lack of "superficial depth" in VL might be, in
part,  an artifact of our greater familiarity with the time period. 
Does the obscurity and additional work of researching the pop references
in GR, V, and MD lend intellectual weight to the books, on a superficial
level?  If GR were read during the late 40's or 50's, would the reader
have a similar response to the contemporary songs, products, events etc.
as we do with VL?

Scott Badger