ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author provides to the illiteracy factor in Pop Kulchur more in sorrow than in anger. Beyond the pleasurable fury in polemicizing against errors in grammar and orthography, against solecisms and other semantic corruptions, there must be an element of sympathy for so many gifted young men. The platitudes are pliable; the styles of pop stars are pigeonholed for a season or two and become yesterday’s sentimentalism. In the rare event that nostalgia is freshened up with comeback successes or new popularity in related careers, the biography or psycho-portrait reads like a recapitulation of contemporary crazes, fads, fashions and passing cultural caprice. There is a little something to be said for the widely criticized inclusion of “Pop Kulchur” courses and even seminars on the Western university level, especially in journalists' schools of journalism. Trying to help, the Pop correspondent of the Times thinks it important for them to know one neglected aspect of the Rolling Stones’ legacy.
