Earlier this week, Chris Kelly ("Dartmouth's 'Pulp' Obsession," Jan. 16) treated readers of The Dartmouth's editorial page to a lengthy commentary on the campus' response to the hit film "Pulp Fiction," which I and several friends found condescending and offensive to certain people on this campus.
Kelly's comments about the movie were not what we found objectionable; all of his praise was well-deserved. In fact, virtually everyone I know agrees that Pulp Fiction was one of the best movies in years, and that it deserves to win many Oscars. Like Kelly says, it may be "the only thing people at Dartmouth agree about these days."
However, in the act of praising this cinematic masterpiece, Kelly unfortunately inserted snide little remarks about his fellow Dartmouth students and took an extremely condescending tone throughout the column.
Apparently, the vast majority of Dartmouth students simply don't match up to Kelly's exacting intellectual standards. Though the movie is "exhilarating" and "entertaining" to him, he seems completely surprised that mere mortals are also able to appreciate it.
His reaction upon discovering that his neighbors and peers enjoy it is one of shock or fear -- fear that he, the great lone intellectual may have sunk down to the low level of the frat-inhabiting, J. Crew-wearing masses. Only a special supernatural force, he implies, could possibly rescue the basement-dwelling hordes from their Pearl Jam and get them to see the light by listening to the same soundtrack.
But even ignoring these cheap shots, the condescending attitude Kelly takes towards his classmates is completely unjustified. Dartmouth is one of the world's finest and most selective institutions of higher learning; because of that, his conclusion -- that such widespread campus acceptance of a movie must be a bad thing -- is completely baffling.
If the mainstream here loves a movie, all it means, of course, is that some of the most intelligent and capable people of our generation think it is a great movie. Kelly implies that a movie can be truly appreciated by an intelligent audience only if it is unpopular and seen by less than 200 people. Furthermore, he doubts Dartmouth students are smart enough to really appreciate the movie's finer qualities.
The fact that Kelly could hold such a low opinion of his classmates is both disappointing and puzzling. After all, finding a group of people our age substantially more intelligent, cultured, or tasteful than Dartmouth's student body would be a difficult task. Mainstream acceptance on this campus should be disappointing to very few people, other than the most egotistical or the most brilliant intellectual gods.
Kelly not only insults everybody by wondering aloud whether, after years of ignorance, Dartmouth students have suddenly "managed to find some culture and taste," but he also goes on to reassure himself, based on a tasteless (to him) party theme, that that would be impossible. To add even more condescension, he concludes that the movie is just one of those that's good for "everyone" -- implying that the movie is appropriate for both the intellectuals like him and the dull-witted peons like everybody else in Hanover.
These insults are not just annoying; they are disappointing as well, for stereotypes and labels such as these occur much too often at Dartmouth. Like most Dartmouth students, my friends and I consider ourselves relatively intelligent people. Like many others, many of us also hang out in frats, listen to Pearl Jam on occasion, dress "preppily," and have seen and enjoyed Pulp Fiction . We enjoy these things -- all of the things Kelly seems to hate.
But when Kelly and others caricature the "mainstream" Dartmouth person like this, they are simply taking a few of the common superficial characteristics and ignoring the many other unique qualities that differentiate each individual.
Yes, a lot of us at Dartmouth fit the above descriptions. But under the hats, plaid shirts and barn jackets we are also real people, with real interests, real abilities and real personalities, not just the one-dimensional people as we are often characterized.
Those who categorize the "mainstream" by their superficial appearances are the ones who are really being fooled.
