Yet I fear, the Doubts may with justice fall more upon your side, for I have never taught anyone, upon any Subject, nor may I prove much skill'd at it.
* * * * * * * * * *
Line 88 Vulgarized:
Yes, you flatter my abilities and believe I should, due to experience, doubt your abilities. But it is you who should doubt my abilities as a teacher, having never taught a single subject to a single student. I may well be quite terrible at it.
Subtext:
I was hoping I would identify more with Dixon than with Mason due to my notes on the title page of my copy of Mason & Dixon which I read in 1997. "MASON: depressed/dark, Paranoid? Dress: dull grays. Wine drinker. DIXON: Jovial, country, more outstanding of two, Dress: bright reds, Enjoys Beer." But this exchange of letters highlighting some of their personality traits suggests I'm more a Mason type. I would be much less likely to write a flattering letter full of lies in the hopes of gaining a job I was interested in. But I could see myself answering a letter flattering me by laying out all the reasons why the flattery is misapplied, trying to wriggle out from under the responsibility implied by such glowing compliments.
"You, sir, are terrific at that thing!"
"Oh, no! I am merely mediocre at it, or perhaps completely terrible. Do not put this kind of pressure upon me by implying I have more ability than I might be able to muster!"
The Non-Certified Spouse once described me as "a gregarious misanthrope" to my old high school friend Soy Rakelson. It's a fairly accurate two-word summation of me and those two big words coming out of the mouth of somebody who wasn't currently nose deep in a dictionary blew Soy's mind (not that his mind was hard to blow). So I'd say I'm probably half Mason and half Dixon, like some kind of line of demarcation between the two personalities. I wish I could think of a better metaphor!
No comments:
Post a Comment