References That Are No Longer Clever list

Today the New York Times presents a whole slew of related letters in which distinguished readers want to point out they know their Orwell better than columnist William Kristol, who used an essay by Orwell about Rudyard Kipling to explain why Democrats don't know how to get anything done. It actually is that unnecessarily complicated; read it yourself.

Gag. Having read "1984" is not really worthy of snobbish pride. It should just be embarrassing if you haven't read it. Shame on the NYT for perpetuating the self-perceived cleverness of these people.

I started my References That Are No Longer Clever list a while ago with this one. I try to keep from one-upping them in pretentiousness by keeping the rest of my list fairly short:

• any reference to Bob Dylan singing "the times they are a-changin'"
  
• quoting Murrow's fear comment ("We will not walk in
  fear ... ")
  
• referencing Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, especially when commenting on internet memes or phenomenons
  

To make it clear, I think these are all fine references and certainly relevant in discussions of today's world. But relevant is not the same as clever, and they've been trotted out a few too many times to be used in a self-congratulatory way.

Personally I think Kristol's argument is a weak one - I'm not so far removed from high school that I can't recognize desperate stretches for literary synthesis - but I do respect his attempt to invoke Orwell for something beyond the most obvious.