regimen without the regime
One of my favorite malapropisms is when people use the word "regime" when they mean "regimen." OK, it's not really a malapropism, because the two words are very closely related. But regimen is the one that's supposed to mean "mode of living" or relate to diet and exercise or other sorts of daily habits. Regime more often refers to systems of rule or government. But it's true that certain regimens can feel like the most oppressive regimes, which is why I giggle when someone uses the word regime for regimen--I'm sure I've done it too. Both do imply a kind of structure or rule (thanks to the shared root which means to rule or direct).
In the summer, structure is necessary for me, but I can't deal with oppression. So this is why, without the structure of teaching, I tend to follow a regimen that doesn't feel like a regime.
It is of course a regimen that will get interrupted every four or five weeks for little trips we've planned--but still, having it in place makes for ease of resumption. This summer the regimen goes like this: up at 6 or 7, immediately get to work on the textbook.
Work on textbook revisions until 11:30 or noon (or if I'm particularly productive, take a blogging break like right now), and then make lunch.
Lunch marks a transition to Other Work. (OW for short) OW, right now, consists of dissertation number three, and when I finish that, the first review essay for my stint as QJS book review editor (hooray for writers who deliver!), and then after that a book manuscript that I've agreed to read for a press. Those ought to keep me busy til late June, at which point we will be done with the textbook (fingers crossed), and my book will take the place of the textbook even as more OW moves in (for example, work by graduate students who are--ahem!--toiling under their own regimens). OW, it should be said, is sometimes not as painful as it sounds and can be downright enjoyable.
OW lasts one to three hours, and is preceded or followed--depending on the day--by a workout of some sort. Yesterday was yoga, and today JM and I are hitting the track.
Late afternoon is devoted to miscellany--grocery store, library (today), a meeting here or there, blogging, yakking on the phone, playing with the dogs, what have you. Then it's time to start thinking about dinner.
And here's my favorite part of the new regimen. After dinner, JM and I settle in for two episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Somehow I never EVER watched this show--not a single episode--but Midmodern Scholar dropped off an entire dvd set on her way to their summer place, and we are lov-ing it. We are only in season one, which aired in 1997. I am told it gets even better. By my calculations, we should be able to watch Buffy--are you ready?--all. summer. long. In this case, the word regime seems perfectly appropriate.
Oh, you are in for such a Buffy treat. My husband and I cap many nights by watching an episode of Buffy and then one of Angel (the spin-off). See, Angel left Buffy after season three, so we watched all of season three, then started working Angel into the rotation (Buffy first, then Angel, as Buffy was on Tuesdays).
Yep, that's just the sort of dorks we are.
Posted by: Abby Knoblauch | 23 May 2007 at 02:37 PM
oooh, we're just finishing season 3 now, so i'm glad i read this headsup to queue up angel on the old netflix. . .and d, this should take you into fall.
Posted by: e! | 23 May 2007 at 03:12 PM
I agree with E!. A great tip, Abby. Thanks.
Posted by: dhawhee | 23 May 2007 at 03:57 PM
Me, I call that a spoiler. But whatever. As midmodern scholar knows, I'm anti-spoiler.
Angel, to me, is only so-so. I personally would not advise breaking up the Buffy momentum with eps of Angel. The storylines do intersect occasionally, but really more from the Angel perspective than from the Buffy perspective, as I recall.
Have you seen Deadwood, season 3 yet?
Posted by: Z | 23 May 2007 at 10:16 PM
We haven't seen Season 3. Is it out? If so, it might have to wait until fall.
Posted by: dhawhee | 24 May 2007 at 07:03 AM
It's just possible that I obtained a bootleg copy from eBay. I can't confirm that. But it's possible. To be honest, senator, I don't really remember who was involved in the decision to obtain an illegal copy of season 3.
Posted by: Z | 24 May 2007 at 09:55 AM
Midmodern scholar got dsl in no-man's land, as we like to call it up here, and weighs in on Angel:
Angel should just go ahead and join the Smiths and let us watch Buffy free from the scourge of his sensitivity.
Stop mooning around after your lost humanity, Angel, and please, I'm begging you, stop adjusting your broken heart in public. It's huge. We get it. It makes a giant bump in your dark, dark clothes. Now put it away.
And Angel? When you cry in the night for all that you have lost, please cover your face with your pillow. You're dead, so it shouldn't cause much lasting damage to you, and it will sure help the rest of us out.
Angel, Spike is right: your hair is stupid.
Posted by: midmodern scholar | 29 May 2007 at 10:20 AM
oh I so TOTALLY disagree with the Angel bashing. Z, you're right, that was a bit of a spoiler and for that I apologize. Hadn't occured to me. The why and how are still up in the air, but the whatiness of his leaving, that I ruined. Sincerest apologies.
That said, Angel works off a darker sense of humor than Buffy, which I appreciate. I think the cross-over potential is worth the watch (in an attempt to avoid further spoilage, I'll not list why here, but I stand by my assertion). Angel (and again won't spoil it here by listing names) includes what I consider one of the best character archs on television.
Yep, I love Angel. And I stand by it.
(I'm Abby, and I approved this comment)
Posted by: Abby Knoblauch | 30 May 2007 at 08:11 AM