I must preface my remarks by giving credit where due; this insight is not my own. I heard this discussed first by David Henkin, a history professor at Berkeley (whose father, coincidentally enough, teaches law here at Columbia)
It is a peculiar but incontrovertible fact that the word "Interesting," as used in historical writing, and indeed most academic writing, when practically applied means the exact opposite of what it means in regular parlance. That is to say, we use the word "interesting" to denote something unusual or worthy of comment. In most cases, however, to the layman reading or listening in, we can substitute the word "boring" and attain far more accuracy and precision. I offer the following example, from a thesis I submitted in the Legal Studies department:
"This contrast between the commonly accepted role of constitutional courts and Holmes's formulation of the Living Constitution raises an interesting question."
Now, the more accurate re-statement:
"This contrast between the commonly accepted role of constitutional courts and Holmes's formulation of the Living Constitution raises a boring question."
I have found almost no cases, in reading academic papers, when making the above substitution did not, if I am being truthful with myself, make the statement far more accurate and honest than it was originally.
