Oh Molly!

[Paul Nightingale]

Terrence goes back to something I wrote, I think, a couple of weeks ago.
Without going back to the actual sequence of posts I think I was then
responding to a request as to where my 'thinking' (if such it might be
called) or 'approach' came from. I offered a brief summary, not to be
evasive, but because I didn't want to get bogged down in that kind of
theoretical explication. At the time I didn't think it necessary,
although as I write that I realise that thinking back, revisiting what I
think I thought then, might indeed be revisionist. To be honest, I've
forgotten what I thought at the time.

Terrence also says I've not understood what I've read. Certainly that
might be the case; it isn't really my call. However, and again I've no
wish to be evasive, I think it fair to say that the reading of P's
Foreword I have offered today stands or falls because it does or doesn't
make sense, independently of the theory that might have informed the
approach I've adopted.

He writes: "For example, the high/low culture idea is interesting. But
what you construct atop this idea (and opposition of pop
cultures--Baedecker, Detective Fiction, Song, Adorno ... etc & Co. ....)
is a house of cards."

I'm not quite sure where to start. So if you go back to my reading of
the passage in question and tell me what you think's 'wrong' with it,
I'll start there.