Having read Spectacular Realities previously, I focused my analysis during this reading on the use of language and footnotes. I hope the ideas are not too disjointed, and spur some conversation!

Throughout the book—and in literature surrounding mass media more broadly—the length/size of media forms plays a key role in their popularity and modes of consumption. In the case studies of focus, there seems to be a tension between narrative and anecdote. In her introduction, Vanessa states that “reality was commodified” in how “experiences were configured into moments and events.” In her footnote to this statement, she explains that, in dialogue with Joel Fineman’s idea that “the narration of a singular event uniquely refers to the real,” that “the depiction of urban life as a series of singular news items” also reinforced the perceived reality of a historical narrative. (11) In describing tableaux in the Musée Grévin depicting current events, however, she states that “the pleasure of these spectacles was moored in narrative—an element that served a key role in the museum’s visual spectacle.” (139) Further, in her inclusion of the Maréorama, Vanessa explains that “the tableaux literally moved, as did the spectacle through its incorporation of narrative.” (171)

In these examples, narrative is associated with spectacle and anecdote is associated with truth. In “realities” that are “spectacular,” which is prioritized? How might we compare the affordances of the various cultural practices in the book?

Further, the distinction between a longer narrative versus smaller parts is reflective of the structure of the book; although it has a driving argument and focuses upon a specific time and place, the work is far from a monograph with its chapters of varying focus. How might this dichotomy—and its effect upon consumers—impact how we think about history-writing?

Quoting Chandra Mukerji and Michael Schudson from Rethinking Popular Culture (1991), Vanessa defines “popular culture” as “beliefs and practices, and objects through which they are organized, that are widely shared among a population.” (2) Is there a difference between “mass,” “popular,” and “visual” cultures? Has/ how has the scholarly demarcations of these fields changed since the publication of Spectacular Realities?

Vanessa describes the process of how people of Paris, through a collective experience of popular culture, “became ‘Parisians.’” (44) At what exact point, though, does someone become “Parisian”? Is a person’s “Parisian”-ness quantifiable?

In footnote 70 of Chapter One, Vanessa notes that “almost all kiosks on the boulevards were run by women, usually veterans’ widows.” (30) Why is this the case? My initial association with people who sold the news in the late nineteenth-century (definitely informed by Newsies in an American context) is that most mobile news-sellers were young boys. Is there any significance to the news largely being sold by women and the youth? How might we contrast this with Vanessa’s description of reporters?