If a thing is clever, doesn't that define it as essentially superficial and insubstantial? And isn't cleverness that serves only to elevate the author, pretentious? Given the meandering focus of the piece and the author's penchant for dropping names rather than making clear points and reinforcing them via reason or contrast, 'pretentious' seems apropos.
IHMO, cleverness always lacks substance; it's superficial, droll, better-than-banal — but never synonymous with brilliant or everlasting. Pretension is cleverness that serves only the author. Both apply here, I fear.
> If a thing is clever, doesn't that define it as essentially superficial and insubstantial? And isn't cleverness that serves only to elevate the author, pretentious?
That's probably one definition of clever, but not the only one. Describing those different meanings is the first thing the article does, and it sounds like you actually agree with where he ended up.
I think what you're describing as pretentious is really just the tone of the article, which is a function of the publication it's writing, for and what that audience expects. To me, it would be pretentious if he'd used examples that he wasn't actually familiar with, in order to seem more knowledgeable than he was. But the ones he chose seem fine to me: I would expect his audience to be familiar enough with them, and they helped make his point. People sometimes use pretentious to mean "high brow", but I don't think they mean the same thing.
IHMO, cleverness always lacks substance; it's superficial, droll, better-than-banal — but never synonymous with brilliant or everlasting. Pretension is cleverness that serves only the author. Both apply here, I fear.