Living Folklore

Is the author of this reading Martha Sims? Martine Stephens? Whatever....the author, on page 3, talks about the interdisciplinary-ness of folklore, how it draws methods from sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, and other fields of study. I like the idea that folklore differs from all of these fields in the way it looks at the culture of the masses, as opposed to that of the elite. Folklore is about how people express themselves everyday, not about the "formally acknowledged canon that we learn about in institutions." I like this idea a lot, however, it's not without its flaws. 

The author is attempting to draw lines between what we call high culture, pop culture, and folklore, which is, admittedly difficult. But even when the author tries to defend the drawing of lines, it seems like they're just splitting hairs. The passage about Pokemon is a little ridiculous. Pokemon characters are not necessarily part of folklore, but when kids play with the cards every recess, that interaction becomes part of folklore? What's the point in even making this distinction? 

The definition of folklore on page 8 is particularly absurd. Folklore includes folk costume, folk dance, folk music, folk toasters, folk tables, folk sneakers, folk this, folk that, folk sandwiches, folk breakfast, folk folks, and so on. What a circular definition! Folklore is the cultural expression of the folk. Don't get me wrong, I love all the things this article talks about: traditions of the real people, family customs, old memorabilia. I've always been interested in old things, especially my family's history and stories. It's just weird to think that a scholarly field exists to study EVERYTHING.