How to read a poem

 

I was asked by a former student (we’ll call him Circus Maximus) for advice on the reading and understanding of poetry. As an English teacher, it is assumed that I understand things like poems, if not poems, themselves. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. English teachers know how to have opinions without understanding, and how to sell those opinions as convincing interpretations imbued with supposed authority.

But I digress.

First we have to assume that a poem CAN BE UNDERSTOOD. This is not so obvious. Sometimes, poems are an expression of the unexpressable, the internal vocabulary failing to find form in the limited real. You might be able to get close to understanding but emotion is elusive, a message may get muddled. Good God but I love alliteration.

So once we get past the concern that a poem may be a private exercise and a reader might never get down to what it really was intended to convey, we still have to worry that the reader's own biases will do more than their fair share of creating meaning. When we read the websites claiming to have "the" meaning of a poem, we are reading the opinion of some professor or grad student and why do we think that having read other things confers on any other person the authority to divine all meaning of all text?

Sure, some are experts because they have experience with other similar work, or with other works by the same author, but that doesn't automatically make them "right." So let's take their opinions with the commensurate salt. And maybe paprika.

And yes, I recommend reading what other people have said. Any other people. Teachers, students, woodland creatures. All of it, or at least a goodly amount. You will ultimately decide that you agree with one, another, all, none or some combination of the voices out there as you add your own. It's all good, Jerry.

OK, now we have to confront the poem, itself. I will lay out the steps I give to my student. I present these in no particular order besides the right one:

1. The meaning of the words

2. The use of the words (considering many contexts)

3. The words as parts of phrases

4. The phrases as figures of speech

5. Identify the poetic forms and devices

6. Try to piece together the specific meaning of the poem, accounting for 1-5 (plus outside factors and variables)

7. Try to get a sense of the themes and possible deeper references and meanings of the poem beyond the surface (what is the poem about vs. what does the poem say)

Repeat. And remember, talking it out -- arguing with others going through the same process is essential. Understanding is both personal and communal. You can't be right unless you have told someone else he is wrong! Amirite? Damn right I am.

When you are done with all of these steps, pause, grow as a person, as a reader and thinker. Many years later (or the next day, read it again. Prepare to be wrong. I'm not saying it has ever happened to me, but I hear it is a thing. Supplement your reading with an understanding of the author, the time, the words as they were and as they sound and then be ready to throw all of this out if the moment demands it. A poem can be simple and straightforward, or labyrinthine and obscure. Or both. And that's OK!

You can leave a poem being confused, or convinced that everyone else is wrong. You can leave not getting how or why the supposed experts got to the readings they did, unable to work backwards and see what they saw. It is a poem, not IKEA directions. Parts and directions are often missing in a poem. Start with poems that make sense. Build your strength and get better at the "easy" ones and then start chipping away at the others. Some will never make sense to you (and probably don't to most people, but we are all too proud to admit it). Try writing some poetry. It will be bad, but it will help you understand the the thoughts and motivations, the methods and practices of the writer.

In time, you will figure something out. It might be that you don't see why poetry is necessary, good or not criminal. That's also OK. Enough for now.

A Passover thought. Yes. In August.

 I was looking at the Chabad website this evening and saw a brief thought about the relationship between teacher and student, and it closed with the following statement:

"A real teacher is one who goes to the student, awakens the student, and demands, “Why don’t you bother me, my student? Ask me! Speak to me!”"

It makes an important point -- a teacher's job should be to inspire questions. When we have to guess at what students need to know we miss stuff, so the most important skill we can teach is critical thinking empowered by critical questioning.

It called to mind the idea of the 4 sons related at the Passover Seder. There are these 4 sons -- the wise one, the evil one, the simple one and the one "she'eino yode'a lish'ol." This is often translated as "the one who does not know how to ask" or even "one who does not know to ask."

These are nice translations but I think that they miss a more important point. I think that this son is the one who does not know that he is allowed to ask. He assumes that religion has to be taken as unquestioned dogma. He sits back, expecting to be told what to do, never understanding that challenging, raising objections and then listening to explanations and answers is a vital part of the teaching and learning process. The mother is instructed, in response: "At p'tach lo" you (female) open up for him. But open what? Open the floor for questions. Teach him to open his mouth and ask! The entire seder is driven by the concept of "so that the children should ask." The goal isn't to sit there and watch the world go by, but become an active participant.

Free Hate

Welcome to the month of Av, please reduce your happiness.

The month of Av on the Jewish calendar holds a day of deep despair -- the ninth of Av, on which we commemorate the destructions of the two temples in Jerusalem. It is a day marked by fasting, mourning practices and prayer which highlights loss and suffering. The lesson we try to impart is often rooted in a talmudic teaching (in Tractate Yoma, 9b) that the second temple was destroyed because of Sin'at Chinam. This is commonly translated as "baseless hatred."

This leaves a gaping logical hole or two:

1. Do I really have baseless hatred for anyone? Am I apologizing for a mode of human behavior that really is never present?

2. Am I saying that hatred that has a basis in reality is acceptable?

In my searches I have found that many rabbinic and lay voices have wrestled with this idea of baseless hatred. Some have called it "causeless" while others have explained it as disproportionate. I would like to advance a slightly different take on the phrase and the concept. The Hebrew word is "chinam". It doesn't mean "baseless" at least not generally; it means "free." There are uses of it pointing to "for no reason" or even "without a connection to truth" such as in Proverbs 24, but it also means "no strings attached" as one would free a slave (Ex. 21:2), and I like to think of it the way it is used in the Oral Law, as a reference to a guard who is not paid for his service. He gets nothing from or for what he does.

Chinam, it seems, points to not gaining an advantage. I am unpaid. I receive no benefits beyond that moment's label. When I hate, what do I really gain other than a fleeting second of righteous indignation and smug superiority? The kind of hate that got people in trouble was the kind that, ultimately, served no purpose. 

You took my parking space so I hate you. 

Does that hate get me a parking space? 

No. 

Does it help me in my day-to-day life in any way? 

No. 

But is it baseless? 

No -- I wanted and even needed a parking space. 

Is it "free"? Yes. I get nothing from the feeling. Neither I nor my situation is bettered. I am not paid in any sense by this feeling. No gain, no gain.

Are there other kinds of hatred? Sure -- ones that can produce a positive result for me. We emulate Hashem and he hates certain behaviors (Deut 12 and 16). By hating them, exercising justice against them and avoiding performing those behaviors, we can gain a benefit of spiritual improvement. This is not baseless or free hate. Even in the Ethics of the Fathers (1:10), we are advised to "hate" the idleness that rulership brings -- we are supposed to hate gaining advantage through the work of others or at the expense of others as this is not a true advantage. So we hate sin, or we hate the idea of gaining nothing through our actions (in a circular sense, we hate the kind of hate that is for free).

If we want to bring about the third temple -- if we want truly to improve ourselves, then we should be focusing on removing all the hatreds we feel even if we think we have just cause for them, as hatred of people and hatred of situations and things gets us nothing other than more hatred. We can identify specific actions and hate them so that we can do better, but if there is no real benefit, and our hatred is truly "free" then it can't be part of how we see the world.

Dan, Zero, Law, One

And this is why we should be in favor of more spontaneous and unintentional reading.

I found myself with nothing to read today and a few minutes in which not to read it so I started looking at the back of a bottle of household cleanser. The product in question was and is Lysol Bleach Multi-Purpose Cleaner. It has foaming action which is really exciting. It also kills 99.9 percent of viruses and bacteria. It seems to me that if you go that far in your formulation, spend the money and kill the other .1 percent.

Anyway, I saw the following statement on the back of the bottle:

"It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."

That got my attention.

First off, what kind of contentious debate on the senate floor precipitated the passage of the Federal law regarding Lysol? Were there amendments and riders? A filibuster or some back room deals? Where is the scathing expose which blows the lid off of this process? Inquiring minds and all that.

Then I got nervous. I read through the rest of the instructions and it all seemed to make sense, but, heck, what if I use it in a way that is "inconsistent" with the labeling? What does that even mean? The instructions say to turn the nozzle counter clockwise, but what if I turn it clockwise? Will the door be immediately kicked in and dozens of sun-glasses wearing G-men will come busting in, securing the premises and marching me out in front of reporters. 

"An anonymous tip," they'll say. "A true American, doing his civic duty and letting us know that someone used this product in a way inconsistent with its labeling. God bless the tipster who is helping us get this filth off the streets and away from our children. We are one clockwise turn from absolute anarchy. Chalk one up for the good guys."

And then, I can never vote :(

I let my imagination go even further. I pictured the defendant rising as the charges are read.

"Your honor, the defendant brutally killed everyone after embezzling funds and running a Ponzi scheme! So we are looking at multiple charges of murder-one, theft, racketeering and fraud. He is horrible -- he even tortured an animal!"

"Tortured you say?"

"Yes, your honor. He sprayed Lysol on the cat!"

"Well then, that's inconsistent with the labeling! Please amend the indictment to include a federal charge of Using Lysol the Wrong Way."

The label, by the way, also brags of the "Whitening Power" which has, I believe, recently been ruled unconstitutional by the High Court.

Fair warning, people. Don't be drawn in by the foaming action. And stop reading the labels.

School Like That

I hate to harp on issues related to education but it is the only instrument I know how to play so, harp, I shall. In the midst of the pandemic (heretofore to be referred to as “the pandemic”) school administrators around the country, and probably in its middle, are wrestling with the model for schooling come late August – in person, with or without masks, plexiglass shields, swords of omens or albatrosses, or distance (Zoom or a competitor or generic equivalent, depending on the prescribing doctor) learning with students in a galaxy, far, far away. Or some sort of centaur like hybrid, exploiting the absolute worst of each delivery context so as to completely baffle social scientists in the year 3000.

As of my last check, many colleges and at least two large public school districts have opted for fully distance learning, at least at the outset. I sense that something along these lines will trickle and ripple across the country and, in light of a recurve-in-nation, require that we work from home in the next school year. As such, we spring plan F into action. By the way, “Plan F” is “FREAK OUT.”

If I learned anything from my experience using distance learning for the final 3 and a half months of the school year then I’m the only one. And though we have received praise from stakeholders regarding how we weathered that storm, the impetus is now to do better than just plain great. We must enter an era of miracles, just to survive. As per my earlier posts (tell your friends!) things like assessment, informal conversations, sidebars, bodily engagement and other pedagogical bits and pieces are done for. It is time for a reinvention, and this has me worried. It isn’t that I can’t reinvent myself -- I have been 3 different people already this morning; it is that the direction of reinvention is troubling. 

The Zoom model is forcing a major change in the approach to teaching. That might be OK on its own, but it doesn’t stop there. The method now becomes the driving force behind the choice of content instead of being a medium through which desired content is delivered. We have to tailor what we teach, not just how we teach it, to accommodate this new mode. That de-emphasizes current curriculum.

I get a weekly summary of education articles written up by Kim Marshall (The Marshall Memo – if you are in education, get it). This week there was this quote (and I include the Memo’s citation): 

                “I have taken good online classes and bad online classes. What determines their quality has little to do with the format itself and everything to do with the teacher’s pedagogy, their grasp of the technology, and their ability to design a course around that.” -- Shalon van Tine (University of Maryland) in “The Bias Against Online Teaching” in The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 10, 2020 (Vol. 66, #33, p. 14)

To my eyes what this is saying is that the “good course” according to the writer is tied into how a class is designed to accommodate the delivery method. Now, on one hand, sure, this makes sense. If I know I’m lecturing, I have to select content that will survive and be vital via lecture. But I also know that I have the option NOT to lecture. I can design a course, on a macro level, to work through many delivery models, supplementing that lecture with other delivery channels to ensure that the whole of the important information gets through. If the technology becomes the one and only, then the course design has to start (and, on some level, end) with that awareness. This then becomes really troubling as many teachers would agree to the proposition that designing a course around anything other than curricular goals in terms of content acquisition and skills performance is to subsume content to delivery. Reinvention, it seems, requires tearing down old curricula and rebuilding the entirety of the educational system, all driven by the new technology of delivery. It is now less important “what I have to teach” or “what the student has to be able to do” because neither of those (in the traditional sense) might be compatible with or demonstrable through the technology, and that technology is one thing I cannot change. And if I want to switch things up, I have to do so within the confines of that technology – third party apps etc. all have to work within the strictures of the distance model. I can’t mix and match to leverage the strengths of each. 

This is, as we say in the teacher world, scary. I mean, maybe other people say that, too, but so what? Teachers say it. 

As a complementary note, please recognize the position established about the potential for success in the Distance Classroom in another quote from the same issue of the Memo:

               “There’s a limit to how good a lesson can be when you’re trying to interact with your students through a keyhole in the door.” -- Doug Lemov, quoted in “The Worst Is Yet to Come” by Robert Pondiscio in Education Week, June 10, 2020.

This expert seems to be saying that no matter how “good” the class, the inherent limitations of the electronic forum will adversely affect the ultimate quality of the lesson. One would assume that the author of the former quote would advise the author of this latter one to design a different lesson recognizing that the technology affords a keyhole and he has to learn to deal with that. 

So let’s all go out there and reinvent who we are, how we deal with students, how we assess performance and how we decide on what we teach, keeping in mind a new set of limitations regarding the potential for success in how we will be able to teach which will drive an absolute upheaval and revolution in the entire educational system in this country. August is a few scant weeks away and we have no option of getting this wrong. 

Should make for an interesting summer.

The speech I would give if I were president

My fellow Americans,

We are currently in a battle with an unseen foe, an enemy who is small yet formidable and who has already caused serious damage to our way of life, our livlihood and our lives. This enemy is a virus -- the COVID 19 virus. We have been beaten and bloodied but we are not out of it yet. We can fight back and recover. But this wil include accepting some hard truths. You can choose to believe them or not -- no one can convince you if you want to see that this whole pandemic is the conspiracy of some shadowy group. To people who feel that way, there is nothing I can say other than that I wish you health, on all levels.

Things will never be back to normal. Even if we develop a vaccine, there will always be a cloud of fear. Vaccines are not all 100% effective and sometimes bring in their own concerns, breeding their own potentials for harm. But they are our best hope for resuming some semblance of normalcy in our daily practices. Many eminent researchers continue to work towards that goal of a shot, pill or spray which will help our bodies fight off the coronavirus. This will not eliminate the disease. Mutations and variant strains will make this a constant battle, like the one our scientists wage against the flu, year in, year out. We cannot win, but we will not lose. If we battle to a draw in every encounter, lives will be saved. We can hope for treatments, not just for each symptom but for the effects of the virus as it ravages the bodies of our citizens. I'm no doctor but I try to surround myself with experts who can give me an unvarnished view of the impact COVID is having on us and the impact we can have on it in return. ANd, yes, the reports are mixed. We learn more daily and are, no doubt, making errors along the way -- errors that we won't realize until we learn something new down the line. Meanwhile, we have to trust in our experts and do the best we can.

We cannot shut down society and lock everyone in his or her house for a month, waiting for all traces of the disease to run their course and, lacking any new victims, to die out. This is impractical and would destroy our and every other country. People need to go out -- essential workers in many fields need to go to places of work, to help others, to continue to make the products that are what keep this country going. Shutting down in-place is a lovely fantasy but an absolute impossibility. So we rely on common sense and we make sacrifices, daily, because we see a greater good.

That this virus exists and has a substantial negative impact on the human body is known. That some can fight it off, and in some, it appears as little more than a bad cold is also true, but, and I speak with all candor here, I don't know in what category I fall. Do I carry antibodies, and will I continue to do so? And do they stop infection or reinfection? Am I one who can power through two days of coughing and some chills, or am I one who will end up on a ventilator? Am I one who will show no symptoms, or am I incredibly sensitive to infection? I also don't know in what category my children fall, or my aunts and uncles. Or my friends of all ages. And the possibility is that I pose more harm to others than to myself. So common sense dictates that I should adopt tha attitude William Shakespeare put in the mouth of Laertes in his play, Hamlet: "Best safety lies in fear."

Fear does not mean that we cower in the corner. Fear does not mean that we live our lives in solitary. Fear is what heekps us from running onto the highway with our eyes closed. Fear is why reminds us to buckle up tightly before the roller coaster starts. Fear can't make us stay inside, but it can help us control our behaviors outside. And yes, we should fear -- a healthy, life protecting fear. But we don't have to carry epipens or pepper spray because we fear COVID. We don't have to wear sunscreen and floppy hats or reflecting strips. Our fear won't push us to boil our water or wear a disguise. All our fear should do is respect that a simple piece of cloth over the nose and mouth (like a scarf that we wear in the face of the blustery cold) and a little bit of space can make a huge impact on reducing cases of coronavirus. Is it fool proof? Of course not. But it is one of the few things that is actually under our direct control. If you choose to wear a mask you WILL make a positive difference. And if you choose not to social distance, you are making a statement about putting your sensibility above that of everyone around you. You are deciding their fate for them and speaking not as the president, but as a regular citizen, that's selfish and unfair of you. For shame.

There is much more to be studied and, no doubt, we will discover more about this disease and future ones which will no doubt, continue to emerge, but for right now, discretion is the better part of valor. Some people have no choice but to continue going to work so they must follow guidelines, but for the rest of us, the choice to stay in a bit more, uncomfortable and boring as it sounds, or to eat at home, or buy only necessities, stifling as that will be, is a choice to stop the virus. The choice to wear a mask, to stay a few feet away, to wash your hands is a choice to be part of a battle that we must win. And make no mistake -- if you insist on doing otherwise, you are also making a choice, one which could have dire consequences on people you don't even know but who have every right to live their lives in health, not in the wake of your selfish infection. Please, make the right choice, for you, your family and everyone around you.

God bless you and may God bless the United States of America

Hearts of Stone

4AM thoughts.

I was watching the Zoom of my mom's funeral. That's not so much a thought as a fact but just hear me out. I was watching and also looking at the surrounding graves. I noticed on a stone a heart made of rocks.

"Weird," I thought. "I know my kids (and nieces and nephews) had made a heart of stones on the tombstone after my dad passed -- is that his stone? Wouldn't they have moved the stone to put mom in?" Befuddled I was. That comes after a-fuddled and then there is c-fuddled. But I'm the middle child, so b-fuddled it is.

Then I saw that the name on the stone was not my dad's. "Even weirder," thought I. "I'm pretty sure I remember my dad's name, and upon last visit, there were no other hearts made from stones on other graves." My fuddlement jumped exponentially (which, literally means "like Montreal"). Next, the camera panned back and I saw my dad's stone which had, indeed been removed. It was standing up, slouching really, on the side, leaning against a wall, waiting to be acknowledged, like me at a party.

Initially, I was annoyed.

The fact that "I" is my brother's initial makes that sentence funny. To me. At 4AM. After watching a funeral.

Anyhoo, I was miffed you might say. The heart thing was a Rosen bit! I have the pictures to prove it. How dare someone else co-opt our show of stone-play based affection!

But then I played it out.

Maybe someone came by and saw the heart on my dad's tomb stone. Maybe that person was inspired to demonstrate love and care in similar fashion. Maybe, the love that that person felt hadn't known how to be expressed and maybe, just maybe, it was the act of people in my family, driven by and inspired by my parents and their love, which gave someone else the idea to show how he or she felt. Maybe, my parents are still helping increase love in the world and helping people show that they care. And that's not something to be annoyed, miffed, or even befuddled by.

That's something to be proud of.