LJ Idol 5.22: On specialization...
Feb. 25th, 2009 08:54 pmI had come in to work early that Tuesday in March 1985. I was in a pretty good mood generally, and it didn't hurt that the source code tests I had run the previous night had turned out successfully. I was reviewing the test results when my boss arrived at work at his usual tardy hour and popped his head into my office on the way to his own.
"How're things going?" he asked.
"Everything is just peachy," I replied, "especially since there is hope yet for the cultural salvation of the republic." (Yes, I used to talk like that.) A beat passed.
"What do you mean?" asked my boss.
"Well, if a film about Mozart can win a bunch of Oscars," I said, with a twinkle in my eye, "then anything is possible." The previous evening, Milos Forman's film Amadeus had walked away with the Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Screenplay. I expected my boss to pick up the conversational ball and run with it - at least to the coffee urn - but instead, he perplexed me by asking:
"Who?"
"Mozart," I said, adding "Wolfgang. Amadeus. Mozart." From his look, I could tell the full name had been of no help.
"And who's that?" came the next question. The conversational ball had not only been left on the floor, but I started to suspect it had by now rolled out of the office, down the hall, and out of the building. I decided to disengage quietly.
"Oh, he… wrote music, a long time ago," I said. "Classical stuff." My boss grunted. A beat passed.
"Has anyone been nosing around?" he asked, rephrasing his original question and moving our conversation toward more familiar channels. I breathed an inward sigh of relief as routine reestablished itself. Life went on.
There are times, during fairly short conversations, when a tsunami of thoughts and impressions passes through my mind, and it had begun to happen during this brief exchange, in a big way. But when I fully realized that neither the name Mozart nor the film title Amadeus meant a blessed thing to my boss, I was… overcome. Disoriented. Folks around me might as well have started speaking Chinese.
In my view of the world, being out of touch with what is popular at the box office has long been forgivable, but for any educated person to be so narrowly focused in one's life as to not have picked up the name Mozart from somewhere, anywhere (if only by a kind of social osmosis), and placed it in the general context of "classical music" (even if one never listened to the stuff), was for me a positively twilight zone kind of event.
Then again, engineers have a reputation for being rather single-minded about their profession, as illustrated by the ancient joke about a doctor, a lawyer, and an engineer discussing the relative merits and demerits of having a lover as opposed to a spouse. At the end of the tale, after the doctor and lawyer have weighed in on opposite sides of the issue, the engineer comes down in the middle, saying that it is best to have both, "because while your spouse thinks you're with your lover, and your lover thinks you're with your spouse, you can be at the lab, doing research!" There is more than a germ of truth residing in that chestnut.
Having a narrow focus of interests is not a malady unique to techies, but many techies suffer from it (indeed, some even boast of it). In the end, it can serve as a weakness; an Achilles' heel, if you will, because you don't realize how vulnerable you are until you are put on the spot.
In my undergraduate days as an engineering major, I was better off than most. My mother had taught languages, my stepdad strove constantly to widen his technical and cultural horizons, and our house was filled with books on many subjects. I certainly knew who Mozart was (among others), had been a prodigious reader all though high school, and had a passing acquaintance with the arts and sciences.
By my university junior year, whatever putative "rounding" I had arrived with as a freshman had been chipped and chiseled into a strictly rectilinear set of interests in engineering and science. As was the case with many of my peers, the only thing of importance to me was to satisfy the "other" (nontechnical) graduation requirements in the most efficient manner imaginable, and then get out.
That's when I ran into Ed Czerwinski.
Ed Czerwinski was the chairman of the Slavic and Germanic Languages Department and had a reputation for giving just about everyone who enrolled for his classes an A grade. It was rumored that students who never showed up and never handed in any work got Bs. So, the six-credit Intensive Elementary Russian course he was teaching during the second half of my junior year seemed just the thing for this engineering major, who needed 6 credits of humanities to graduate.
The rumors about Ed's grading turned out to be overly optimistic. By week 3 of his course, I had pretty much reverted to form and had stopped coming to his class so as to concentrate on the important things in my academic life, like electrical science and fluid dynamics.
That week, he somehow managed to buttonhole me in the library. He told me that, in his opinion, having me in his class was an inspiration to the other students, and that my absence was having a deleterious effect on the group. Further, while he normally didn't care about who attended or did not attend his class and wasn't a big fan of the grading system, he so much as threatened me with a C if I didn't straighten up.
Others might have laughed at his threat. I straightened up.
A year later, at the start of the second semester of my senior year, Ed bumped into me again and offered me a deal I could not refuse: sign up as a Russian major, take the literature courses, and he'd wave his hands and poof, the grammar and composition requirements for the major would disappear, and I would graduate as a double major. Although this meant sticking around for another two semesters, schools around the country were still spewing too many engineers and teachers into the world (the result of Vietnam-era draft deferments), and my job-seeking efforts were coming up dry, so I agreed.
When I first arrived at the large room outside of the Slavic and Germanic Department's faculty offices - which I came to call "the bullpen" for the next three semesters - there was a lively dialogue going on among my new colleagues about Thomas Eagleton and his electroshock therapy, which had led to Eagleton's stepping down as George McGovern's vice presidential running mate at the beginning of August.
In the course of the debate, someone called the treatments Eagleton's "Achilles' heel," which led to even louder discussion of what, exactly, constituted an "Achilles' heel," at which point Ed came out of his office and ask us to pipe down.
"And while you're at it," he added, straight-faced, "consider what the cultural and linguistic consequences might have been had Achilles' mother decided to hold him by his private parts instead of his heel when she dipped him in the Styx!"
There was a moment of silence as we seriously considered the question, then we all had a laugh and the group started to break up. Ed motioned for me to join him in his office.
"I'm really glad you've decided to join our program," he said, once we were seated. "I think you'll find, over the years, that the excellent technical background you've acquired at the college of engineering will mesh very well with the kind of knowledge and the approach to finding it that you'll acquire here."
I was skeptical (for I still had the mindset of an undergraduate engineer). I frankly expected to spend my time in the department engaged in frilly scholarly finger-painting. Instead, I found the curriculum as interesting as engineering, fell in love with the works of Nabokov and Gogol, and when I did graduate, I was conscious of having grown intellectually in the interim. Along the way, I found that having an understanding of the technical end of life gave me an advantage over those whose focus had been confined to nontechnical subjects. The knife cuts in both directions.
Ed turned out to be right, though it would take far more space than a post like this to explain exactly why. (Heck, if it were so easy to explain at all, it would be common knowledge, and everyone would be doing it!) Still, perhaps an example might be illustrative…
A few years ago, I was interpreting at a dinner to mark the midpoint of a two-week technical meeting when the Russian delegation lead got up and, in the course of proposing a toast, started to quote Shakespeare. The import of the toast was quite impressive and weighty, as befitted the occasion.
My old boss, in my place, might have interrupted the speaker to ask, "Who, exactly, is this Shakespeare fellow?" Other technical interpreters of my acquaintance might have given a good, yet rough rendering of the quote, and gotten the message across but when I heard the Russian, I didn't hem or haw or ask for a clarification. Instead, I related the speaker's observation of "time being out of joint," quoting from Hamlet:
Afterward, the US delegation lead took me aside to express his appreciation for my work ("You make it look easy") and, by the way, for taking his counterpart down a peg, as the latter had a reputation for pompous puffery, which I had quietly deflated. This, it was hinted, would have ramifications in the following week's discussions. I had done well.
Specialization, it has been said, is for insects.
Cheers…
"How're things going?" he asked.
"Everything is just peachy," I replied, "especially since there is hope yet for the cultural salvation of the republic." (Yes, I used to talk like that.) A beat passed.
"What do you mean?" asked my boss.
"Well, if a film about Mozart can win a bunch of Oscars," I said, with a twinkle in my eye, "then anything is possible." The previous evening, Milos Forman's film Amadeus had walked away with the Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Screenplay. I expected my boss to pick up the conversational ball and run with it - at least to the coffee urn - but instead, he perplexed me by asking:
"Who?"
"Mozart," I said, adding "Wolfgang. Amadeus. Mozart." From his look, I could tell the full name had been of no help.
"And who's that?" came the next question. The conversational ball had not only been left on the floor, but I started to suspect it had by now rolled out of the office, down the hall, and out of the building. I decided to disengage quietly.
"Oh, he… wrote music, a long time ago," I said. "Classical stuff." My boss grunted. A beat passed.
"Has anyone been nosing around?" he asked, rephrasing his original question and moving our conversation toward more familiar channels. I breathed an inward sigh of relief as routine reestablished itself. Life went on.
There are times, during fairly short conversations, when a tsunami of thoughts and impressions passes through my mind, and it had begun to happen during this brief exchange, in a big way. But when I fully realized that neither the name Mozart nor the film title Amadeus meant a blessed thing to my boss, I was… overcome. Disoriented. Folks around me might as well have started speaking Chinese.
In my view of the world, being out of touch with what is popular at the box office has long been forgivable, but for any educated person to be so narrowly focused in one's life as to not have picked up the name Mozart from somewhere, anywhere (if only by a kind of social osmosis), and placed it in the general context of "classical music" (even if one never listened to the stuff), was for me a positively twilight zone kind of event.
Then again, engineers have a reputation for being rather single-minded about their profession, as illustrated by the ancient joke about a doctor, a lawyer, and an engineer discussing the relative merits and demerits of having a lover as opposed to a spouse. At the end of the tale, after the doctor and lawyer have weighed in on opposite sides of the issue, the engineer comes down in the middle, saying that it is best to have both, "because while your spouse thinks you're with your lover, and your lover thinks you're with your spouse, you can be at the lab, doing research!" There is more than a germ of truth residing in that chestnut.
Having a narrow focus of interests is not a malady unique to techies, but many techies suffer from it (indeed, some even boast of it). In the end, it can serve as a weakness; an Achilles' heel, if you will, because you don't realize how vulnerable you are until you are put on the spot.
In my undergraduate days as an engineering major, I was better off than most. My mother had taught languages, my stepdad strove constantly to widen his technical and cultural horizons, and our house was filled with books on many subjects. I certainly knew who Mozart was (among others), had been a prodigious reader all though high school, and had a passing acquaintance with the arts and sciences.
By my university junior year, whatever putative "rounding" I had arrived with as a freshman had been chipped and chiseled into a strictly rectilinear set of interests in engineering and science. As was the case with many of my peers, the only thing of importance to me was to satisfy the "other" (nontechnical) graduation requirements in the most efficient manner imaginable, and then get out.
That's when I ran into Ed Czerwinski.
Ed Czerwinski was the chairman of the Slavic and Germanic Languages Department and had a reputation for giving just about everyone who enrolled for his classes an A grade. It was rumored that students who never showed up and never handed in any work got Bs. So, the six-credit Intensive Elementary Russian course he was teaching during the second half of my junior year seemed just the thing for this engineering major, who needed 6 credits of humanities to graduate.
The rumors about Ed's grading turned out to be overly optimistic. By week 3 of his course, I had pretty much reverted to form and had stopped coming to his class so as to concentrate on the important things in my academic life, like electrical science and fluid dynamics.
That week, he somehow managed to buttonhole me in the library. He told me that, in his opinion, having me in his class was an inspiration to the other students, and that my absence was having a deleterious effect on the group. Further, while he normally didn't care about who attended or did not attend his class and wasn't a big fan of the grading system, he so much as threatened me with a C if I didn't straighten up.
Others might have laughed at his threat. I straightened up.
A year later, at the start of the second semester of my senior year, Ed bumped into me again and offered me a deal I could not refuse: sign up as a Russian major, take the literature courses, and he'd wave his hands and poof, the grammar and composition requirements for the major would disappear, and I would graduate as a double major. Although this meant sticking around for another two semesters, schools around the country were still spewing too many engineers and teachers into the world (the result of Vietnam-era draft deferments), and my job-seeking efforts were coming up dry, so I agreed.
When I first arrived at the large room outside of the Slavic and Germanic Department's faculty offices - which I came to call "the bullpen" for the next three semesters - there was a lively dialogue going on among my new colleagues about Thomas Eagleton and his electroshock therapy, which had led to Eagleton's stepping down as George McGovern's vice presidential running mate at the beginning of August.
In the course of the debate, someone called the treatments Eagleton's "Achilles' heel," which led to even louder discussion of what, exactly, constituted an "Achilles' heel," at which point Ed came out of his office and ask us to pipe down.
"And while you're at it," he added, straight-faced, "consider what the cultural and linguistic consequences might have been had Achilles' mother decided to hold him by his private parts instead of his heel when she dipped him in the Styx!"
There was a moment of silence as we seriously considered the question, then we all had a laugh and the group started to break up. Ed motioned for me to join him in his office.
"I'm really glad you've decided to join our program," he said, once we were seated. "I think you'll find, over the years, that the excellent technical background you've acquired at the college of engineering will mesh very well with the kind of knowledge and the approach to finding it that you'll acquire here."
I was skeptical (for I still had the mindset of an undergraduate engineer). I frankly expected to spend my time in the department engaged in frilly scholarly finger-painting. Instead, I found the curriculum as interesting as engineering, fell in love with the works of Nabokov and Gogol, and when I did graduate, I was conscious of having grown intellectually in the interim. Along the way, I found that having an understanding of the technical end of life gave me an advantage over those whose focus had been confined to nontechnical subjects. The knife cuts in both directions.
Ed turned out to be right, though it would take far more space than a post like this to explain exactly why. (Heck, if it were so easy to explain at all, it would be common knowledge, and everyone would be doing it!) Still, perhaps an example might be illustrative…
A few years ago, I was interpreting at a dinner to mark the midpoint of a two-week technical meeting when the Russian delegation lead got up and, in the course of proposing a toast, started to quote Shakespeare. The import of the toast was quite impressive and weighty, as befitted the occasion.
My old boss, in my place, might have interrupted the speaker to ask, "Who, exactly, is this Shakespeare fellow?" Other technical interpreters of my acquaintance might have given a good, yet rough rendering of the quote, and gotten the message across but when I heard the Russian, I didn't hem or haw or ask for a clarification. Instead, I related the speaker's observation of "time being out of joint," quoting from Hamlet:
The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,along with the rest of the toast, which was enjoyably received by the English-speakers in the room.
That ever I was born to set it right!
Afterward, the US delegation lead took me aside to express his appreciation for my work ("You make it look easy") and, by the way, for taking his counterpart down a peg, as the latter had a reputation for pompous puffery, which I had quietly deflated. This, it was hinted, would have ramifications in the following week's discussions. I had done well.
Specialization, it has been said, is for insects.
Cheers…
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 04:46 am (UTC)Though all these careers were successful, sometimes I feel there are too many areas of knowledge for me and it could be better to specialize :)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 05:01 am (UTC)Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 05:10 am (UTC)Cannot plan an invasion and conn a ship.
Nice list.
I know the name of Heinlein, but have never read anything by him. Thank you for a quote.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 02:43 pm (UTC)Если вам понравилось мое сочинение, прошу проголосовать "за" меня вот здесь (http://www.livejournal.com/poll/?id=1356258).
(Стараюсь выжить до следуючего тура конкурса. Каждый голос важный!)
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 05:43 am (UTC)You will sure be in the next tour.
Good luck!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 04:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 05:06 am (UTC)Work can't really be the factor at play here, as I've been working all along.
(Don't mind me. Again, thanks!)
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 07:03 am (UTC)Great post. Also interesting for me because I am the opposite - I have always pursued more creative interests, and my writing major is requiring that I also study technical writing. Frankly, I'm not a precise person, and I prefer to bullshit my way through things. I am trying to bring my creative background to it, and to develop some structure and precision. Not going too well so far, but you're giving me hope!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 03:33 pm (UTC)We are not so much "opposite" as standing on opposite sides of the same elephant. Hang in there!
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 03:37 pm (UTC)You're right. Nabokov's skill in so many fields (including butterflies and chess) is really amazing.
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 05:00 pm (UTC)I read a review that complained that Robot Chicken relied on obscure references, and wondered how old the reviewer was that he found GI Joe, Dukes of Hazzard, and He Man obscure. Turbo Teen, I'll give you, but Voltron?
Sometimes I can remind myself that different people have different life experiences. But, on the other hand, I find it hard to shake the feeling of pity that someone doesn't recognize a reference to Disneyland, or the Beatles.
Theno
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 07:20 pm (UTC)Will people remember the Beatles 100 years from now? I think certainly.
Disneyland? Less certain. I think - if the place still exists - it will have the same name recognition as, say, Luray Caverns in Virginia does today.
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 01:09 am (UTC)Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 09:39 pm (UTC)I don't know what rock your boss was hiding under to have not heard of Mozart!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 01:12 am (UTC)Not having heard of Mozart was, perhaps, the least of my old boss's sins. He taught me a lot, but I only wish it hadn't been of the "don't ever do it this way" kind of knowledge.
No matter. It's water long gone under the bridge.
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 10:43 pm (UTC)You might have enjoyed meeting my late grandfather. He was a brilliant nuclear physicist (pure theory, of course), rebuilt and serviced his own cars, enjoyed wood and stone working (leaving behind some beautiful pieces, decorations, furniture and turned wood), had a library with over 3000+ books of literature and poetry, travelled all over Soviet Union, had a full photographic lab set up in the bathroom, wrote his memoirs, played chess like a demon and had what Russians call "golden hands" around the house. He also managed to have 3 wives and had a stroke and 2 heart attacks in his 40s - didn't stop him until he death 30 years later. I truly think he was trying for the Enlightened Man persona.
And then people tell me that they work full time and don't have time for anything else...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 01:16 am (UTC)I've found, over the years, that not having time is a choice that involves overcoming the seeming constraints of time, because - quoting my old drill instructor - everybody is issued with the same 24 hours to spend every day. Personally, I have always been partial to Franklin's observation that there will be "plenty of time to sleep in the grave."
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 01:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 01:19 am (UTC)Thanks for stopping by.
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 01:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 01:22 am (UTC)I'm curious: why would something like grammar matter to a screen reader?
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 10:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 01:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 02:52 am (UTC)Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 04:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 01:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 02:52 am (UTC)Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 02:54 am (UTC)Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 02:48 am (UTC)Very enjoyable post. I'd like to add you to friends list if you don't mind.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 02:56 am (UTC)Cheers...
Breadth Requirements
Date: 2009-02-27 05:56 am (UTC)Allegedly, it had been a really easy class. However the quarter I took it we had a new professor. And he wouldn't grade on a curve because "when you start dropping bombs there's no curve, and definitely no partial credit!" So for the first time since high school I had to get out a calculator and remember algebra ... so I could calculate gamma radiation levels 5hm away from a 20 kiloton bomb detonated at 300 meters!
Somehow I utterly amazed myself by passing the class.
Also your entry is far and away the best I've read this week.
Re: Breadth Requirements
Date: 2009-02-27 02:48 pm (UTC)Thanks for the praise. I hope the voting (I'm currently in the middle of a very closely bunched pack) confirms your estimation of my work.
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 02:55 pm (UTC)This was back in the early 90s, and we were walking through the parking lot when I saw my very first Darwin Fish on a car. I just started laughing because I thought it was the funniest thing I had seen in ages. I pointed it out to my boss, who said "what's a Darwin?"
How does one respond?
The second was when I was dating a guy who had named his fat Mozart. A perfectly reasonable name for a cat. When telling someone the cat's name, we were told that it was a terrible name because the cat was a girl, and Mozart was a man.
"Mozart was his *last* name," I responded. "His Mother was a Mozart, too."
Great entry. I really enjoyed every moment of it.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 05:23 pm (UTC)I shall have to remember the "named after the mother" line (in fact, I have a couple of 'victims' already lined up, in the back of my mind).
Thanks for stopping by.
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 02:44 am (UTC)Maybe I'll just go translate my praise into voting!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 03:13 am (UTC)Thank you for the high praise (and for your vote!), and I hope you feel better soon.
Cheers...