What I do know is that not all of my readers are interested in the same things. Poor JT admitted to barely recognizing the names of movies (he has a small child and thereby no time). Others seem primarily interested in (or at least only comment on) the film reviews. This has always been a weakness of mine. I presume that everyone is interested in everything. I seldom stop to explain in conversation (no links) and I had a friend once tell me that she just smiled and nodded a lot of the time--she was interested in hearing my interest, but had no idea what I was talking about. Musing and I discussed why Cogitate seemed to start strong and fizzle a bit and agreed that it was because there were too many disparate interests--coming from the different sides of her life, all interesting, just not all interesting to each other. I won an essay contest in high school with an essay based on Pablo Neruda's We Are Many (woo-hoo, a link!) where I wrote of the many different people I am to the many different kinds of friends I have. It makes it difficult to have a party work (like Cogitate), but it makes life better. (As a side note it won me that scholarship at Scripps that I turned down and I used it for some college apps--I'll have to see if I can find it and see if it's still any good, or if it was only good because I was 16).
As a PS to yesterday's post about my husband and my taste and sort of tied to this, who knows what things I would be interested in had I met someone else, that is I might have lost some things but gained others (and vice-versa for him). I might be more interested in music of the 90's. I might know more about motorcycles. I doubt very much that anyone would have interested me in sports, but I could be wrong. Red Queen has had to face my worst fear--the lost of one's best friend/husband by death--so I know why yesterday's post resonated with her in a way that writing on The Children of Men would not.