Introduction

Plutarch’s Life of Marcellus occupies a distinctive place within the Parallel Lives for its sustained attention to cultural conflict. Unlike other Roman commanders portrayed by Plutarch, Marcus Claudius Marcellus is depicted as a general who conquers not only cities but civilizations, most notably Greek Syracuse. At the center of this tension stands Archimedes, whose intellect transforms abstract geometry into instruments of war and whose death becomes a moral indictment of Roman violence (Plutarch, Marcellus, 19).

Plutarch tells us that Marcellus deeply regretted Archimedes’ death and honored him posthumously. Yet the biographer narrates this moment at some emotional distance. This essay, my 528th post for this blog, seeks to reimagine that episode by making Marcellus not merely a recipient of bad news, but a witness, one who saw Roman ships shattered by invisible forces, who recognized genius even as it thwarted him, and who experienced conquest as loss. In doing so, the essay remains faithful to Plutarch’s ethical framework while expanding its psychological depth.

Marcellus as Witness to Archimedes’ War

Plutarch famously describes how Archimedes’ devices rendered Roman military superiority almost absurd. Due to Archimedes’ iron hand, ships were lifted, overturned, crushed, or set aflame; these machines, in the eyes of the Roman military, seemed to defy nature itself (Marcellus, 15–17). Reimagined from Marcellus’s perspective, these scenes would not have inspired rage alone, but humiliation and awe.

From the Roman general’s vantage point, the harbor of Syracuse became a theater where Roman discipline met Greek intellect and lost. Marcellus, trained in the traditions of Roman virtus, would have seen siege engines rendered useless by forces he could not command or even fully understand. Plutarch tells us that Marcellus eventually resorted to mocking his own engineers, calling their machines toys compared to those of Archimedes (Marcellus, 17). This moment, often read humorously, reveals something deeper: an acknowledgment of intellectual superiority and defeat.

Witnessing Roman ships destroyed not by enemy soldiers but by levers, pulleys, and mirrors forced Marcellus to confront a paradox of empire. Rome could conquer land, but it could not conquer genius. As Duff (1999) notes, Plutarch often uses such moments to destabilize simple narratives of Roman superiority, replacing them with ethical ambiguity.

The Desire to Capture, Not Destroy

Plutarch is explicit that Marcellus ordered Archimedes to be captured alive (Marcellus, 19). In a reconstructed account, this command would emerge not merely as strategic prudence, but as reverence. Marcellus had come to see Archimedes as a prize greater than Syracuse itself, a living testament to Greek paideia.

From this perspective, Archimedes’ devices were not acts of defiance but demonstrations of mind over matter. Marcellus, standing on a command ship or overlooking the walls, might have experienced a growing conviction that such a man belonged not among the dead, but among the preserved, perhaps even within Rome, as a symbol of what Rome sought to appropriate from Greece.

This aligns with Plutarch’s broader theme of Roman generals as reluctant destroyers of Greek culture. As Stadter (2015) argues, Marcellus embodies a transitional Roman identity: a conqueror who admires what he conquers and is therefore morally vulnerable.

The Moment of Loss: Archimedes’ Death

Plutarch relates that Archimedes was killed while absorbed in a mathematical problem, ignoring a Roman soldier who ordered him to come along (Marcellus, 19). When Marcellus learns of this, he is said to feel distress and anger, punishing the soldier and honoring Archimedes’ relatives.

Reimagined more personally, this moment becomes the ethical climax of Marcellus’s campaign. The death of Archimedes would not simply represent disobedience, but failure: failure of command, of restraint, and of Rome’s claim to civilizing authority. Marcellus had conquered Syracuse, but he had not saved what mattered most, Archimedes’ intellect and way of analyzing the world.

Seen this way, Archimedes’ death mirrors the destruction of the city itself. Both are irreversible acts committed in the name of order, yet neither fully justified by it. Plutarch’s moral lesson, that conquest without wisdom is hollow, is intensified when Marcellus is imagined not as distant, but emotionally implicated.

Ethical Biography and Plutarch’s Method

This reconstructed account remains consistent with Plutarch’s biographical aims. Plutarch is less concerned with factual precision than with moral truth (Pelling, 2002). By emphasizing Marcellus’s admiration for Archimedes and his regret at the philosopher’s death, Plutarch invites readers to judge character rather than outcome.

Making Marcellus a witness amplifies this ethical function. It transforms the episode from anecdote into moral reckoning. The general who overcame Hannibal’s allies, stormed Syracuse, and earned Rome’s gratitude is ultimately remembered for failing to protect a single unarmed thinker, “ho megas Archimedes” (The great Archimedes).

Conclusion

Reimagining the death of Archimedes through Marcellus’s witnessing perspective allows us to see Plutarch’s narrative not merely as history, but as tragedy. Marcellus stands at the crossroads of power and admiration, conquest and loss. He sees genius in action, recognizes its value, and yet cannot save it from the machinery of war he commands.

In this sense, Plutarch’s account becomes timeless. The episode asks whether empires can truly honor what they conquer, and whether admiration without protection is a moral failure. By humanizing Marcellus and foregrounding his disappointment, we remain faithful to Plutarch’s deepest concern: not what men achieve, but what they understand too late.

San José, Costa Rica

Friday, February 13, 2026

📚 References

Duff, T. (1999). Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring virtue and vice. Oxford University Press. https://www.academia.edu/458221/Plutarchs_Lives_exploring_virtue_and_vice

Pelling, C. (2002). Plutarch and history: Eighteen studies. Classical Press of Wales. https://books.google.co.cr/books/about/Plutarch_and_History.html?id=cZ5fAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

Plutarch. (1917). Lives (Vol. V: Marcellus and Pelopidas; B. Perrin, Trans.). Harvard University Press / Loeb. (Original work written ca. 1st–2nd century CE)

Stadter, P. A. (2015). Plutarch and his Roman readers. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.co.cr/books/about/Plutarch_and_His_Roman_Readers.html?id=ExCaBQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Introduction

Group dynamics play a crucial role in shaping how learning unfolds in English language teaching (ELT) contexts. According to the British Council’s TeachingEnglish platform, “Group dynamics refer to the relationships between learners in a group and the impact that this has on the way they work” (British Council, n.d.). These dynamics influence student participation, learners’ interaction, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and ultimately course and program learning outcomes. While traditional discussions of group dynamics often assume face-to-face (F2F) classrooms, the increasing prevalence of online learning environments requires teachers to rethink how grouping strategies operate when physical space is replaced by virtual platforms.

Drawing on Module 3, Unit 2 of the TeachingEnglish: Managing learners and resources course, this essay explores how classroom layout, interaction patterns, and task planning influence group dynamics, with particular attention to online teaching contexts (British Council, n.d.). As a teaching practitioner, I also reflect on my own teaching practice as an online English instructor, addressing both challenges and opportunities in managing learner groupings. By combining theory, course insights, and reflective practice, this paper argues that intentional planning of interaction patterns is central to fostering positive group dynamics in both physical and virtual classrooms.

Group Dynamics and Classroom Structure

An essential dimension of group dynamics concerns the physical, or virtual, arrangement of learners. As the TeachingEnglish materials highlight, seating arrangements affect not only how learners interact with one another but also how the teacher relates to the group (British Council, n.d.). This idea resonates strongly with architect Frank Lloyd Wright’s famous assertion that “structure governs behavior,” a phrase originally applied to buildings but highly relevant to educational spaces.

In traditional classrooms, fixed rows of desks facing the front often reinforce teacher-centered instruction and limit peer interaction. Harmer (2015) notes that such arrangements can discourage communication by preventing learners from making eye contact or engaging naturally with one another. In contrast, flexible layouts such as circles, U-shapes, or group tables promote collaboration and learner-centered practices.

However, in online environments, physical furniture is replaced by digital interfaces. As I have often shared with teachers in ELT webinars, “As opposed to what happens in a regular F2F class, my students are in various places around their homes… Mobility is something I don’t count on; the only one thing I can do is to grant their permission to join a group whose topic they are interested in discussing.” In this context, visibility, seeing one another’s faces on screen, becomes the primary structural feature shaping interaction. Zoom’s main room resembles a boardroom layout, while breakout rooms can approximate café-style groupings, though other traditional configurations (e.g., U-shape or herringbone) are simply not possible.

Despite these limitations, structure still governs behavior online. The way breakout rooms are formed, the size of groups, and the clarity of tasks all shape how learners interact. As Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) argue, group dynamics are not accidental; they are constructed through deliberate pedagogical choices.

Interaction Patterns and Their Pedagogical Value

The British Council’s course outlines a range of interaction patterns that teachers can use to vary classroom dynamics and maintain learner on-task engagement. These patterns include teacher-to-learners, whole-group discussion, individual work, pair work (open and closed), changing pairs, group work, mingling, and learner-to-learner instruction. Each pattern serves distinct pedagogical purposes and contributes differently to group cohesion, content practice, and learning.

Reflecting on my recent online teaching practice, I noted that “During my last four classes… I have used teacher to learners, whole-group discussions, individual work, closed pair work, group work, and learners to learners” (Acuña Solano, 2026). This variety aligns with Harmer’s (2015) recommendation that teachers alternate interaction patterns to keep lessons dynamic and to address different learning needs and styles.

Each interaction pattern offers specific benefits. Teacher-to-learner interaction allows for efficient but concrete delivery of explanations and instructions, ensuring that all learners receive the same input. Whole-group discussions promote shared meaning-making and enable learners to connect textual or audio content to their personal and professional experiences. Individual work supports cognitive processing and allows learners to work at their own pace, which is particularly important for accuracy-focused tasks.

Closed pair work and group work, on the other hand, foster collaboration and communicative practice. As I usually explain to peers and pre-service student teachers, “This is used to have learners perform a sketchpad and a roleplay to practice grammatical and lexical content” (Acuña Solano, 2026). Such activities resonate with Long’s (1996) interaction hypothesis, which emphasizes the role of negotiation of meaning in language development. Learner-to-learner instruction further enhances autonomy and confidence, allowing students with stronger mastery to scaffold their peers’ learning, a process closely aligned with Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development.

Planning Tasks to Shape Group Dynamics

A key insight from the course is that group dynamics and interaction patterns influence each other bidirectionally. Not only do existing group dynamics shape how learners interact, but the interaction patterns embedded in task design can actively create or disrupt positive dynamics. As the course materials suggest, “The types of interactions you plan for your tasks can determine the group dynamics” (British Council, n.d.).

Careful planning is therefore essential. Assigning pair work to tasks that require independent reflection may generate frustration, while overly complex group tasks can overwhelm learners without sufficient scaffolding. In my own practice, this has required a heightened level of intentionality, particularly in a flipped learning model. I candidly note, “Sometimes I forget to [teach process language], assuming that learners did their preparation for the class” (Acuña Solano, 2026). This reflection highlights the risk of overestimating learner readiness and underscores the importance of explicitly teaching the language needed for interaction.

Process language, such as “Can you repeat that?” or “Do you want to start?”, enables learners to manage interaction smoothly. Pre-teaching this language, leaving it visible during tasks, and encouraging learners to record it aligns with best practices in communicative language teaching (Harmer, 2015).

Supporting Interaction in Online Group Work

Beyond task design, promoting successful interaction requires ongoing support. Pre-teaching task language, providing ideas, monitoring breakout rooms, and giving preparation time are all strategies emphasized in the course and reflected in my teaching philosophy. I explain, “Monitoring what learners do in breakout rooms is a way to scaffold learners even with extra ideas they may have not considered yet” (Acuña Solano, 2026). This form of contingent support mirrors Vygotskyan scaffolding, where assistance is adjusted to learners’ immediate needs.

Preparation time is particularly critical in oral and summative assessments. As I have noted through my reflective journaling notes, “Especially in summative assessment tasks, preparation time is crucial for a better success of oral assessments in pairs” (Acuña Solano, 2026). Without adequate planning time, learners may struggle to articulate ideas, leading to breakdowns in interaction that are not reflective of their actual competence.

Conclusion

Understanding and managing group dynamics is a central component of effective ELT practice, whether in physical or virtual classrooms. The British Council’s TeachingEnglish course provides a valuable framework for analyzing how classroom structure, interaction patterns, and task planning intersect to shape learner experiences. As this essay has shown, these principles remain highly relevant in online contexts, though they require adaptation and heightened intentionality.

From my own perspective as an online English instructor, I have learned that while I cannot move desks or rearrange chairs, I can still design interaction, foster collaboration, and shape group dynamics through thoughtful use of breakout rooms, varied interaction patterns, and explicit support for learner interaction. Ultimately, positive group dynamics do not emerge by chance; they are the result of reflective practice, careful planning, and a deep understanding of how learners learn together.

San José, Costa Rica

Thursday, February 12, 2026

📚 References

Acuña Solano, J. (February 2026). Understanding groupings. [Unpublished course notes and reflective journaling].

British Council. (n.d.). Managing learners and resources: Understanding groupings. TeachingEnglish. https://open.teachingenglish.org.uk/Team/UserProgrammeDetails/676892

Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Harmer, J. (2015). How to teach English (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Introduction

Wilbert Salgado’s short story Fare is a compact but powerful exploration of dignity, kindness, and the moral tension embedded in the routines we encounter in modern life. Through a straightforward narrative of a man who unexpectedly lacks money to pay his bus fare, Salgado dramatizes the vulnerability that often accompanies working-class existence and the redemptive potential of small acts of compassion. Although minimalist in length, Fare offers fertile ground for ethical analysis, particularly when read through the lens of micro-ethics, narrative empathy, nonviolent communication, and contemporary scholarship on interpersonal moral behavior. This essay (blog post #526) argues that Salgado’s story reveals how ordinary situations create moral crossroads and how compassion can function as an ethical intervention that reshapes the self-understanding of individuals.

The Opening

The story opens with an inventory of digital financial transactions: the narrator pays his credit card, transfers his children’s allowance, covers tuition fees, and sends grocery money to his ex-partner. This catalogue of economic responsibilities situates the protagonist within the lived reality of precarity, a condition that scholars have described as a “perpetual balancing of obligations under unstable economic pressures” (Standing, 2014, p. 23). By foregrounding these responsibilities, Salgado invites readers to understand that the protagonist’s failure to have coins is not a product of carelessness but rather an outcome of a life tightly bound to financial management and emotional labor. The bus stop thus becomes the stage upon which everyday pressures materialize into a moment of public shame and vulnerability.

Embarrassment

The narrator’s embarrassment when he realizes he cannot pay the fare speaks to a common emotional experience in urban life: the fear of appearing irresponsible or dependent. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum (2001) argues that shame arises when the individual’s perceived failure threatens the integrity of the self in the eyes of others. Salgado illustrates this dynamic clearly: passengers shout impatiently, the driver expresses irritation, and the protagonist feels heat rise to his face. The bus becomes a microcosm of what Goffman (1959) calls “face-work,” the effort individuals make to preserve dignity while navigating social expectations. Salgado’s protagonist, who takes his obligations seriously, is momentarily undone by a minor but emotionally charged lapse.

Micro-Ethic Event

The turning point of the story, a woman quietly paying the fare for the narrator, functions as what ethicists refer to as a “micro-ethic event,” a moment where small gestures carry disproportionate moral weight (Fowers & Davidov, 2006). The woman’s action is portrayed without sentimentality: she merely extends her hand, deposits the coins, and returns to her spot without seeking recognition. This understated gesture reflects what Held (2006) describes as “care ethics,” in which moral value emerges not from grand ethical principles but from relational attentiveness and practical responsiveness to another’s need. Her anonymity reinforces the universality of the act; she symbolizes the possibility of goodness in what the narrator experiences as an indifferent crowd.

The Embroidered Blazon

A crucial symbolic layer emerges when the narrator notices the embroidered blazon on the woman’s shirt: the initials S.S.F., standing for Sympathy, Support, and Fairness. The story’s title, Fare, already hints at wordplay, and this symbolic motto amplifies it. “Fare” denotes the cost of transportation, yet the narrative transforms it into a meditation on “fairness.” The woman’s gesture clarifies that fairness is not merely transactional or procedural; instead, it is a form of justice rooted in human solidarity. As philosopher Michael Sandel (2009) argues, justice must account for compassion, not only rules and rights. Salgado’s story aligns with this view, illustrating how fairness can exceed institutional codes and manifest as interpersonal care. Fare in the bus become “fair” in practical terms.

Liquid Modernity

The narrative critiques the erosion of empathy in fast-paced environments. The passengers’ impatience exemplifies what Bauman (2007) describes as “liquid modernity,” a condition where speed and efficiency override interpersonal consideration. The bus driver’s frustration, shaped by schedule constraints, represents a system that privileges productivity over humanity. In contrast, the woman with the blazon reintroduces a mode of ethical presence that disrupts this impersonal rhythm. Her action becomes a form of moral resistance to the culture of haste, to the culture that is indifferent to people’s predicaments in life without knowing their backstories.

Salgado’s Dirty Realism

Salgado also employs a minimalist narrative technique to support his thematic aims. The prose is direct and unembellished, reflecting what Raymond Carver (1981) identifies as the power of “dirty realism,” where the mundane becomes meaningful through precise attention to detail. The emotional climax occurs not through reflection but through silence: “I went mute. All I could do was nod my thanks.” The narrator’s inability to speak underscores the transformative quality of the kindness he receives. As literary theorist Suzanne Keen (2007) observes, narrative empathy often arises from “moments where language reaches its limit,” allowing readers to feel an emotional shift rather than merely understand it intellectually.

An Ethical Insight

Ultimately, the story culminates in an introspective realization: the narrator notes that the blazon’s initials “didn’t feel like a school motto. It felt like a message meant for me.” This personal appropriation of institutional values illustrates how ethical insight often originates in lived experience rather than formal instruction. The woman’s act becomes an ethical pedagogy, teaching the narrator through example. As Paulo Freire (1998) emphasizes, moral education is dialogical and rooted in human encounters; individuals learn ethical frameworks not only from doctrine but from witnessing justice enacted in concrete situations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Wilbert Salgado’s Fare is a narrative meditation on everyday morality. It dramatizes the fragility of dignity, the callousness of impatient crowds, and the restorative power of compassion. Through minimalist storytelling, symbolism, and psychological realism, Salgado offers readers a vivid ethical encounter. The story teaches that fairness, like kindness, is often enacted in humble moments, through gestures that may seem small but resonate deeply. In an increasingly impersonal world, Fare reminds us that humanity survives through micro-ethics: in the coins we choose to give, the shouts we choose not to utter, and the dignity we choose to extend toward those who falter.

San José, Costa Rica

Monday, February 9, 2026

📚 References

Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times: Living in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press.

Carver, R. (1981). What we talk about when we talk about love. Knopf.

Fowers, B., & Davidov, B. (2006). The virtue of multiculturalism: Personal transformation, character, and openness to the other. American Psychologist, 61(6), 581–594.

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman & Littlefield.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press.

Keen, S. (2007). Empathy and the novel. Oxford University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge University Press.

Sandel, M. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Standing, G. (2014). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury.

Fare, Wilbert Salgado's short story

Fare [Short Story] by Jonathan Acuña

Comparative Chart of Themes in Wilbert Salgado's Fare

Comparative Chart of Themes in Wilbert Salgado by Jonathan Acuña

Reader’s Handout for Wilbert Salgado’s “Fare”

Reader’s Handout for Wilbert Salgado’s “Fare” by Jonathan Acuña

Everyday Ethics and the Pedagogy of Kindness in Wilbert Salgado's Fare by Jonathan Acuña