Gil, a screenwriter and aspiring novelist vacationing in Paris with his fiancée, Inez, runs into one of her old friends Carol and her husband Paul, a history professor. The four decide to go to Versailles together and take a tour of the grounds. The tour begins, and the guide points out various intriguing facts about each piece that the group comes across. However, after the first few pieces, Paul begins to spout out his own impressive spread of facts about the pieces, often interrupting or completely disregarding the tour guide. He argued over anything from a piece’s exact completion date to who made it or what technique they used. After a few more minutes, Paul has advanced to arguing with and discrediting the tour guide on each stop that the group makes. As tension rises within the group, Gil’s face is obviously distraught with annoyance and a little sympathy for the tour guide, who also seems very uncomfortable with the situation she has found herself in. All the while, Carol and Inez are fascinated and memorized by Paul’s impressive scholarly temperament.
Many of us have most likely found ourselves in a discussion where we felt like we knew enough about a topic that we felt superior to or more knowledgeable than others. In these discussions, some of us probably sounded knowledgeable, yet winsome and thoughtful in the way we rebutted. However, others of us probably sounded like an arrogant intellectual, or worse and arrogant pseudo-intellectual. Whether we know everything there is to know about something, or know very little about it, it is important to guard the way we sound to others as we voice our own opinions. No matter how much we know about a topic, it can easily be discredited or ignored because of a presumptuous or vain tone. There are three ways that we often come across in these situations: The Erudite, the Pontificator and the Pedantic. If it isn’t already evident which one is desirable in conversation, it will be soon.
The Erudite is very knowledgeable, learned and scholarly. Although an erudite is sometimes thought of as someone who is snobby and stuck up or arrogant, they do not have to be. For example, in the book Divergent, by Veronica Roth the class called the Erudite, who keep order within the city and create all the new technology, often were condescending and arrogant towards the other classes. However, Caleb, an Erudite and brother to the protagonist Beatrice, was kind and selfless. Even though he struggled to see through the corruption of the Erudite class, he never conformed to their condescending ways. The Erudite has gained his/her vast knowledge and deep understanding of the topic from years or research and study. This person doesn’t just know the first google search page about that topic, but much of the information hidden within textbooks or journal articles; something that required deliberate and thoughtful research. An example of an Erudite in Gil’s situation would perhaps be a Parisian Art History professor at Oxford or a Parisian History professor from Cambridge. Both hypothetical people would be considered an Erudite because to be a professor at one of those Universities one must be well versed and accomplished in a very specific field. Moreover, they teach subjects that are very directly related to the topic at hand: artwork at Versailles. This does not necessarily rule out the option that Paul is an Erudite, but we do not have enough information about him to know for sure.
The Pontificator very openly expresses their opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way, regardless of the veracity of their claims. This personality trait we can pin on Paul, because he very openly expressed his beliefs about certain pieces. We have no way of knowing whether he is correct or not, but in this case that does not matter. Because of Gil and the tour guide’s expressions, it is obvious that Paul was dogmatic in his approach to the pieces of art. Two common synonyms for the verb pontificate are declaim and lecture. In conversation, we often feel a need to declaim or attack the other party’s points. However, it is perfectly acceptable-and much more pleasant-to respectfully disagree when necessary. In addition, it is common that one might begin to lecture the other party, spitting out fact after fact, trying to show them all the information that we know to shut them down before they even begin. This method is not only ineffective, because by shutting the other person down we not only shut their mouth but also their ears, but also because it is extremely annoying and arrogant.
Finally, the Pedantic is excessively concerned with minor details or with displaying academic learning. In certain cases, minor details are very important; but many times, someone who does not really know what they are talking about will focus in on these details to mask their lack of knowledge. There are plenty of circumstances where a Pedantic does know what he/she is talking about but finds themselves unnecessarily lost in the details. It is unclear whether Paul is excessively concerned with details, because we do not know exactly what he said. He showed signs of it in certain art pieces arguing over the exact date of its completion or the exact type of brush stroke used on a certain piece; but he mostly focused on showing off his knowledge of everything. However, because he was so focused on showing off his academic prowess, he does fall into the pedantic category. As some would say, he loved the sound of his own voice, and so did Carol and Inez.
These three characters are very similar in that they evolve around information in conversation, however it is the differences that are key to effectively converse with others. The Erudite is inadvertently a good person to have in a conversation. They provide plentiful knowledge and experience, which maintains the validity of the argument. However, if the Erudite finds themself being a pontificator or a pedant, they can ruin a discussion. It is crucial to know where the line between these three words is so that one can be careful not to cross into ignorance.
J. Fletcher Brown 