One of my good friends once complained to me that "English majors don't say that something is 'good' or 'bad.' They don't say that they 'like' anything. They say that things are 'interesting.'" I recall laughing off his comment at the time and letting my mind quietly scroll through the millions of times I had said "interesting." I cannot say for sure if that there is any truth to my friend's assertion, as I doubt that there are statistics collected on adjective choice by major. I can say that I am guilty of the charge he leveled against my cohort, and I can say that many of my colleagues are guilty of the same charge.It is an interesting (there is that word again) phenomenon, and I wonder if there is something to the discipline that would leave the English major predisposed to make a such an assertion that is more tentative, less judgmental than a more typical opinion statement. Thinking about it, I would argue that the word choice makes sense. Students today at most universities in the country are educated by a professoriate that has been so influenced by post-structuralist and postmodernist theorists. Because the theoretical grounding of most departments is based on a rejection of absolute value and meaning and often rejects good/bad or positive/negative value systems, it makes sense that students would adopt the communication and conceptual strategies of the discipline. What is perhaps more interesting (I seriously can't stop myself) is that this sort of positioning and/or aesthetic response would bother people like my friend.
Perhaps it is unfair for me, someone who is drinking the kool-aid, to try to defend the phrase. I don't have a problem with its sweet, ill-defined sensibility. Still, I feel to need to try to rationalize it for myself (and for others). The only way that I can at the moment is that I like how the term functions and opens up discussion in my own work, in my classroom, and in the work of my students. Behind the assertion that something is interesting, there is a reason that it is interesting, and that subtext is what opens up discussion and intellectual debate. Explaining that something is "interesting" is more open and can allow for more complex and nuanced discussions of a given textual phenomenon. It is different than defending a thesis structured on a binarily defined value system, and I like this. I like to see my students looking at how something is functioning and at all of that various components that make it up. They will surely make value judgments along the way, but starting from a position where something is "interesting" is much more open than starting from the position that something is "good."
This new blog will seek to explore things that I find interesting, and I look forward to writing it and hope that you enjoy reading it.
That is a good phenomenon, and one that I like. That phenomenon is true.
ReplyDeleteI am so going to blogroll you ;-)
ReplyDeleteI look forward to all your interesting musings from here on out! :) And of course I super look forward to more Laffrado-isms.
ReplyDeleteI find your blog....interesting. However, the only way to keep my interest is to update frequently. You know how I stalk the blogs :)
ReplyDeleteWTF. Why do all of these people know about this blog before I do? I hate my life.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was once told (I forget who, but it was someone in either a writing or English context) that when you refer to something as 'interesting,' it really means you find it boring or that you don't like it. I guess the reasoning here is that you can't find anything better to say about the subject (if all it draws out is a non-committal response).
In the comp context I think this works two ways: first, a rejection of any a-priori judgement. Second, an investigation of what 'interesting' really means. I agree that I'd often refer to something as 'interesting,' but when it comes to actually making a judgement, or writing about this thing, I'd have to define what the interesting actually is.
I don't think it is true, like the person told me, that the word interesting means boring. I think it means that there is a kernel that needs to be discovered in this object of interest. Perhaps the object is only boring if I call it interesting and walk away from it.
I'm not sure if this reflects a greater tendency in the humanities, but I've come to realize that I enjoy - or find 'interesting' - any film I watch. I think this is what led me towards Film Studies for my PhD. I think you're right though, that this is a part of my conditioning as an English student. When I watch a film, even a very slow film, I very rarely jump to the conclusion that it is a boring or bad film. I am more apt to find value in the film regardless. Although, I do have to say that I am far more critical of Hollywood films... meaning that the value I find is probably based in historical/cultural/philosophical/theoretical connections.