dilettante (dil-i-tahnt)
- A person who enjoys the arts.
- An amateur, someone who dabbles in a field out of casual interest rather than as a profession or serious interest.
- A person with a broad but superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge. (Sometimes derogatory.)
(via Wiktionary)
And also, 4. Jandy.
Yes, this is what I have decided I am. About everything. I want to know a little about everything, but I’m content with a little. We’re reading Sir Thomas Browne right now for Metaphysical Poetry and Prose, and I cannot decide whether I think it’s interesting or if I hate it enough to scream. The reason for my antagonistic reactions is this: We’re reading it as literature, but the section I’m reading (and have to present on, which is another part of the problem) is Hydriotaphia, or Urn-Buriall, which is about some burial urns they dug up in Norfolk in 1656, and is mostly concerned with the archaeological, anthropological, historical, and metaphysical thoughts that Browne had based on his examination of the remains (he was a doctor). From the point of view of historical forensic anthropology, it’s rather intriguing. And his breadth of knowledge on classical burial methods, etc., is astounding. But as literature? Meh. I honestly can’t figure out what I’m going to say about it, because it’s mostly a list of facts and conjectures about these urns. I know it’s supposed to be more than that, because people persist in studying it as literature. (In fact, though, I think the fifth section is the one that really gets into his contemplation on mortality and stuff like that, and I’m only doing sections I-III, and given the lack of time moving towards the end of the semester, I haven’t read the rest.)
My point is, I actually liked reading this for the archaeological stuff. Forensics interests me. But not much beyond what’s on CSI or Bones. And the fact that friends who have actually studied anthropology tell me that CSI and Bones get it wrong far oftener than they get it right makes no difference. It’s the idea of it that I like, not the actual details. And that’s true for me in so much else, as well.
Why is it that my interests seem to range so far (anthropology, history of all times, cultures of all places, computers, even math given the right problem), yet when it comes to taking classes in my own chosen subject area of literature, I can’t find any that I want to take for a whole semester? I nearly threw a hissy-fit when I thought I was going to have to take a whole class on Wordsworth and Coleridge. Do I honestly hate them that much? No. I just would prefer to spend, say, a week on each one, rather than two months. I’m content with reading a few of their poems, getting the gist of what they’re like, then I want to move on to something new. Casual interest. Dilettantism.
Now, people who know my tendency toward obsession will say “wait a minute!” And yes, I do sometimes tend toward obsessions that hold me hostage for months or even years at a time. Figure Skating. Horses. Buffy. American Idol. I don’t know quite how to reconcile the obsessive side of me with the dilettante side of me yet. But the worrisome trend is that the things that obsess me are rarely things that would be considered important in any sense of the word important, at least not in the WAY they obsess me. Could I transfer my love of Buffy into a career in television studies? Possibly, but I don’t think I’d like it. I enjoy memorizing facts and quotes and watching the show, but any attempt I’ve made to turn that enjoyment into anything much deeper has ended with me liking the show LESS. Same thing happened a few weeks ago in class–we were looking at a sonnet by Edmund Spenser which I’d really enjoyed reading myself, but by the time we finished dissecting the meter and all the poetic devices in class, I didn’t like it anymore. Through too much study, it had lost whatever it was about it that I liked in the first place.
I don’t know where I’m going with this. I’m particularly down at the moment…I’m not only procrastinating, I don’t even care that I’m procrastinating like I usually do. I just don’t care at all. Hopefully Christmas break will revive me. I thought I’d be in high heaven only having to take literature classes. But I miss the variety and stimulation of electives. I want to throw in some philosophy, some programming, even some math…something to keep my whole brain on its toes. (How about that for a mixed metaphor?) I want to dabble. I want to be an amateur in everything. I want broad knowledge, not deep knowledge. Attempts at deep knowledge only make me squirm for variety. I am a dilettante.
edit:
Oh, and also. I’m content with just knowing these things. I do enjoy talking about them with other people, or showing off my knowledge (because I am a show-off, I admit it, as much as I try to curb the impulse–except around my family, they get the brunt of it), but as far as wanting to come up with something new, or add something to the pool of scholarship or whatever? Yeah, don’t care. It’s not that I want to hoard all the knowledge and not give back to the community, or whatever, but unless I have the opportunity to interact directly with someone about it (i.e., in conversation, or commenting on a blog post–I define my thoughts based on opposition, on reaction against something I read and disagree with somewhere else), I don’t feel the need to come up with some new insight on things I’m studying. As if there’s really that many new insights that are actually worthwhile anymore, anyway. The only thing that really interests me in terms of my own writing is taking the things that have already been said and synthesizing them into more concise, cogent, and accessible terms–terms that could be moved from the realm of academia into the realm of non-academia. But I don’t know that there’s a market for that in either academia or non-academia. The academics want to keep it, and the non-academics don’t want it anyway.