A Quick Shout-Out
I'm alive and well, just drowning in grading. I am teaching more than I would have thought possible, four nights a week on top of my day job. So, not much time for blogging.
In spite of being exhausted all the time, I am enjoying the extra teaching. I have moments, perhaps while reading Shakespeare aloud with my intro to literature class, where I think, "What could I possibly be doing at home that could be more fun?"
Then there was the other night, when, as I was leaving the more advanced, junior-level class, I ran into my friend Professor Knows-His-Stuff at the elevator. I said to him, ruefully, "These kids know more about meter than I do!"
(Later I thought, Did I actually say that? Did I think I was in some kind of 1950s movie? Of course they're not kids, not even the ones that are traditional college-age, and many of them are older than that.)
I guess I had said it partly to be funny. But then, while we were standing by the elevator, I made my friend wait while I rummaged through my backpack so I could show him the poem we had been discussing in class. I kept pulling out one piece of paper and then another, making him hold them while I continued to search. I said apologetically, knowing he was on the way home, "I know this is very important." I meant it ironically, but he thought for a moment, and then said, rather impishly, "Well, I think meter is important."
Eventually I found the poem and showed it to him. I told him how I had been explaining meter to the class, and we had talked a lot about iambic pentameter (of course), and how when we were going over this poem, I had just quickly scanned it in my head 30 seconds before we talked about it and satisfied myself that it was iambic tetrameter. But when I asked what the meter was, one student said, "It's the opposite of iambic pentameter." I was thinking about the tetrameter aspect and thought, what does she mean, how could four beats be the opposite of five beats? Then I realized she was talking about where the stresses fell--I said, "Oh, yes, there are some reversals, poets do that sometimes, they insert what's called a trochee instead of an iamb, especially at the beginning of a line." Then another very very smart student pointed out a line that seemed, well, totally trochaic. I was flustered. Could it be that the whole poem was trochaic? I had just finished explaining that that was an uncommon meter.
Somehow I gracefully ended the discussion (I moved us on quickly to feminine endings) but when I saw Professor Knows-His-Stuff, an expert on all things metric and almost everything else, I had to tell him the story and show him the poem. After I found it, he read it, while we were standing by the elevator, and gave me his diagnosis: "Yup, it's trochaic."
I thought, "Well, I'll be."
And, later, I thought about how remarkable it is that I have this life, where I detain a colleague on his way home, after we've both had a long day, to grill him about iambs and trochees, and we both think it's worth it to stand there talking about such matters.
In spite of being exhausted all the time, I am enjoying the extra teaching. I have moments, perhaps while reading Shakespeare aloud with my intro to literature class, where I think, "What could I possibly be doing at home that could be more fun?"
Then there was the other night, when, as I was leaving the more advanced, junior-level class, I ran into my friend Professor Knows-His-Stuff at the elevator. I said to him, ruefully, "These kids know more about meter than I do!"
(Later I thought, Did I actually say that? Did I think I was in some kind of 1950s movie? Of course they're not kids, not even the ones that are traditional college-age, and many of them are older than that.)
I guess I had said it partly to be funny. But then, while we were standing by the elevator, I made my friend wait while I rummaged through my backpack so I could show him the poem we had been discussing in class. I kept pulling out one piece of paper and then another, making him hold them while I continued to search. I said apologetically, knowing he was on the way home, "I know this is very important." I meant it ironically, but he thought for a moment, and then said, rather impishly, "Well, I think meter is important."
Eventually I found the poem and showed it to him. I told him how I had been explaining meter to the class, and we had talked a lot about iambic pentameter (of course), and how when we were going over this poem, I had just quickly scanned it in my head 30 seconds before we talked about it and satisfied myself that it was iambic tetrameter. But when I asked what the meter was, one student said, "It's the opposite of iambic pentameter." I was thinking about the tetrameter aspect and thought, what does she mean, how could four beats be the opposite of five beats? Then I realized she was talking about where the stresses fell--I said, "Oh, yes, there are some reversals, poets do that sometimes, they insert what's called a trochee instead of an iamb, especially at the beginning of a line." Then another very very smart student pointed out a line that seemed, well, totally trochaic. I was flustered. Could it be that the whole poem was trochaic? I had just finished explaining that that was an uncommon meter.
Somehow I gracefully ended the discussion (I moved us on quickly to feminine endings) but when I saw Professor Knows-His-Stuff, an expert on all things metric and almost everything else, I had to tell him the story and show him the poem. After I found it, he read it, while we were standing by the elevator, and gave me his diagnosis: "Yup, it's trochaic."
I thought, "Well, I'll be."
And, later, I thought about how remarkable it is that I have this life, where I detain a colleague on his way home, after we've both had a long day, to grill him about iambs and trochees, and we both think it's worth it to stand there talking about such matters.









