Literary analogy fail: caucus race edition

So Hilary Calvert said a stupid thing.  A really, really stupid thing in a series of stupid things.

I just want to throw my postgrad-English thought into the ring, on the subject of making literary references.

Because on the one hand sure, we literature nerds can get a bit bloody pedantic about our sources and quotes and canon.

But on the other … why use a literary reference at all?  Because sometimes they can be really powerful.  They can make your point really quickly, or with real impact – for those who get the reference.  They can also basically work as dogwhistles to your chosen audience – I’m yet to be outed as the true geek I am on either my pseudonym or blog title, but I know someone’s going to come along one day and praise my evident broad-church geekery.

Here’s the downside, Calvert.  You fuck up a reference to Through the Looking Glass and oh my how the literary pedants rolled their eyes.  But maybe you hope that the people who don’t get the reference won’t care.  Problem?  Your reference has no impact on them because they don’t get it.

[I’ll admit that there’s probably votes in anti-intellectuals who rebel against the pedants and their disgusting knowing of facts … but I’d assume they’re already voting Act.]

But then Calvert has stepped in to replace David Garrett, the identity-thieving sexually-harassing MP who thought it would be a sick burn to correct Kennedy Graham’s Latin pronunciation.

Please, Gods, let Epsom go true blue in November.