Maintenant, allons-y.Elite literature types.
Elite literature types are easy to identify - though you must be warned that none even acquiesce to something so meretricious and prosaic as a label - if one tries hard enough. You will, however, not find them in a library; it is of greater significance to own one's own set of books, and not succumb to the laity of the friendly neighbourhood library. Also, when elite literature types resort to that circumstance of book-borrowing confusion, most are disinclined to actually return the books on time, if at all.
The most distinguishable trait of abovementioned snob is the tendency to vociferously decry pseudo-intellectuals. These are the people who claim literature is their life and soul, and count books they reluctantly read (perhaps not even to the last page) as their favourite books on Friendster and MySpace. Ask them about the book, though, and you'll realise they don't know anything about it. The best they can come up with are elementary discussions on light versus darkness and individual versus society. Everything else is lost on them. Often, they barely remember the authors' names. They think Margaret Atwood is chicklit and
Alice in Wonderland is a fairytale ("Lewis Carroll
who, honey?"). They put William Shakespeare next to Sophie Kinsella and secretly idolise the Babysitters' Club.
A pseudo-intellectual thinks Donne is one of the great Romantics and think The Flea really was about a flea. Either that or they lament the plethora of 'literary cliches' they find in books, thereby denouncing art. They count almost everything as 'ironic', without really knowing what irony is. They cannot tell the difference between a simile and an allegory, between poet and persona, between trash and art. On Sundays, however, they go to poetry readings and emerge an enlightened army. They adore Shakespeare's plays (sometimes thinking they are true stories!) but don't know how many lines a sonnet has. Shakespearean what? Petrarchan what? They think T. S. Eliot wrote the
Lord of the Rings. Secretly, they fear literature is just a heap of crap.
Elite literature types and pseudo-intellectuals
do not get along. When cruel mistakes of the universe help a pseudo-intellectual get further ahead, elite literature types repeatedly consider suicide. (Please note that the planned suicides are often poetic; you will see and hear nothing about careless jumping off from the 9th storey, unless 9 is particularly symbolic.) There is resentment on both sides. A deep hatred for the other is not uncommon.
You don't have to be a pseudo-intellectual to be despised so don't feel so left out! All you have to do is be one of
those folks who do some hobby scribbling here and there and call yourself a writer, or adore literature but don't read, or read but don't take a literature class because you want to roam the streets of PR and perepare the credit roll for News 5 Tonight. There's room for almost everyone here!
Elite literature types are themselves stereotypes. The crazy feminist, the either oversized or undersized geek who is a huge
Godfather fan, the mama's boy who wants to be the next Haresh Sharma, the angry lesbian, the smokaholic, the wild party animal who never shows for class, the quiet brainiac, the snob who only appreciates works of dead people, the insouciant quasi-bimbo, and yes, The Cheena who booked herself into the class.
By accident. (And now no doubt feels ostracised).
It's really not that hard to spot us (yes, here is me admitting and I will try not to recant), and though we may loathe and detest you inwardly, we are likely to appear friendly and jovial. We're classic, timeless, and, if truth be told, quite useless at anything else. But so what?
allaroundbackgroundsound: Leaf House - Animal CollectiveLabels: judgement, study