Furthermore, those interviewed were chosen very carefully and are not challenged by other colleagues from that time. Thus, at least for the cases I am personally familiar with, the book seems to be more of a glorification of certain individuals than a critical analysis of the role students played at the time. Then she adds that none of her peers who were younger than her, presumably ones who were one year old, can remember a thing from the Soviet-led invasion. This made her very special and gave her life very special meaning. It almost sounds like a biblical story.
Elitism seems to be another feature that some of the protagonists share.
This very much corresponds to the actual situation that existed at the Humanities Faculty, which was seen as a very prestigious place that only privileged students could enter. Common people were seen as marginal and there was no doubt that they did not have the skills to run the country. This very anti-democratic attitude was very typical, although of course, it cannot be generalised. Nevertheless, it was quite common and for some of the former student activists, judging by these interviews, still is. Another problem with the book is that those interviewed were allowed to say whatever they wanted.