Disinteresting
I’ve been thinking about the links/representations of a conference called Interesting 2007 every since Boynton linked to one of its speakers. My first reaction was abject horror: “Everything is NOT interesting.” I thought of writing some polemic, but it wasn’t until AKMA linked to the Simpson’s avatar generator (just as Boynton had the week before) that I was jolted into writing this. I make a conscious effort to not be too curmudgeonly; I can remember having a debate with arch-curmudgeon Dr. Earl Ramsey at UALR on the same subject around six years ago. At that time, I argued the position of the librarian at I Like—now, I find myself more sympathetic with Ramsey. Intellectual habits change.
I was arguing with Ramsey regarding the approaches of Susan Sontag and Michel Foucault, which involve taking a HUGE bite out of culture and then writing about it—I’ve always felt that polymaths have all the fun. Why not be interested in everything? Ramsey’s argument was simple: life is short, and to attempt to read/study everything simply results in frustration and being half-assed (I paraphrase loosely). It was his position that Foucault was simply a shoddy scholar. Sontag, on the other hand, was at least interesting because she did not favor grandiose claims—though the majority of us could not hope to sustain her reading regimen. I wasn’t ready to surrender my desire to read everything just yet. Now, I may have finally come around to that.
