viz.

HH, I appreciate your really succinct, clear explanation of the complicated mechanisms in camp. Drafting this post prompted me to read more criticism about the functions and history of camp in order to give a paper at Sequels this year.  I ended up scrapping most of this discussion because of the role of the abject in camp discourse, which I think this exploration largely discounts.  

Part of my (mis?)reading here, I think, may be due to my adoption of Sontag's lens without considering further scholarship.  Jack Babuscio’s influential early essay “Camp and the gay sensibility” responds directly to Sontag’s claims in “Notes on Camp" and challenges the apolitical affect Sontag ascribes to camp, opening up exactly the sort of critical discourse on camp you describe above.

Babuscio’s arguments highlight and correct the weakest portions of Sontag’s arguments—her claims that camp is apolitical and her misunderstanding of the connection between gay identity and camp.  Sontag claims that "It goes without saying that the Camp sensibility is disengaged, depoliticized -- or at least apolitical” (emphasis mine). She posits that the contribution to camp of what we might call queer discourse (what she calls "homosexual aestheticism") is "detachment," which she views as "elite and aristocratic."  And, of course, hundreds of scholarly papers followed Babuscio's politicized view of camp, helping better describe camp as an aesthetic.

You hit the nail on the head above, I think, when you say abjection, not detachment, is central to camp.  And this is the miscalculation of this piece that I hope I have corrected in the current state of the work.  This exercise has helped me, then, experiment with Sontag's perspective and better understand its failings, and encouraged me to look further in understanding the complex relationship between camp and Tarantino's aesthetic.