Leave the worst or best for last?

It does not matter wether we are talking about an adult or teen, everybody procrastinates at some point in their life.  It is something that has been present for many years, and one of the most common activities (or inactivities) through out the human race. The true questions is why do we do it, or rather do not do it?

There can be various reasons as to why one prolongs certain types of activities, but the most common reason is because we do not enjoy what we have to do. I can speak from a student's perspective and affirm that "procrastinations is the student's curse." We simple delay our ask because we don't like what we have to do. Or rather because there are other things that we could be doing. The same happens to Hamlet, who delays his revenge as much as he can. Very few people could say that it is fun to kill some one. Rather, very few could say that the enjoy killing the uncle. Hamlet loved his father and he felt justice had to be made, but since killing was not some thing he enjoyed doing, he looked for excuses to delay it as much as possible. The same happens for our day to day lives. As a student, I can say that I enjoy some classes more than others, and most of the time I work first on the ones that I enjoy. I almost always leave the worst for last. But this is a trend in society. When one has to do something that one doesn't enjoy, it can de dreadful to complete the task. No one likes to do something that they don't enjoy, some can even suffer by doing so, so, our human feelings and guts tells us to leave it for last. And as humans, I am sure that if it weren't for deadlines creeping in, we would only do the things that we enjoy; it's in our nature. We don't like to suffer, we like to have fun, and since things we dislike exist, we procrastinate, and leave the worst for last. 

Some times leaving the worst for last, is actually far worse than better. I am a strong believer of the opposite: "leave the best for last," because I like to get over the things I don't like fast, but sometimes it's also good to take it down a notch and procrastinate. It can even lead to good things, like being able to think things through and take the correct decisions. In conclusion, it is good to procrastinate some times. Being a chronic procrastinator is another story, but sometimes delaying things, is for the better. 

What to Take IN

One of the greatest advantages of Shakespeare’s plays is that they lend themselves to many different interpretations. Not only can the plays be acted in different ways, but also people can understand and view them differently.  In the beginning of the podcast, this is shown when glimpses of different interpretations of Hamlet are played. All of the actors’ voices and interpretations are different. Even though the play has a literal meaning people interpreter that meaning in different ways. Also people take in different messages and read and understand the play differently, base on their current situation and what they want to learn from it. 

For many, the prisoners from the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center were not only acting out one of the most important plays in history; they were engaged in an act of self discovery.  At first they were reading lines, and had difficulties because many did not graduate from high school, but towards the end, they transformed into the characters they were playing. They took something that materially had no meaning to them and were able to complete the meaning of the characters through the memories of their respective crimes. Since the first time that Dan Waller read the ghost’s opening scene he knew he wanted to play it. He felt that the man he killed was “talking to [him]” through the ghost, reminding him“what [he] put him through.” Also, James Word saw so much of himself in Laertes that he ended up feeling “I am Laertes. I am. I am.”  A 400-year-old play, that many would think had nothing to do with them, changed them.   This is also true for those forced to reflect on crimes they have committed. The prisoners acted out a play, and through the play, they relived their crimes.  More importantly, they rediscover their humanity in the face of a society that has deemed them monstrous. As they discovered themselves in the characters, the felt human again. In their perspective, they went from being monster to actors, which gave them the feeling that they were important.

The prisoners were just acting out Hamlet. But when they starting reading the lines, they understood the poem because they were able to compare themselves to it. Life comes with things that may seem to have no relevance to your life, but every situation has something to offer, you just have to want to learn and grow. 

Forced to Act

“No! I am not Prince Hamlet, now was meant to be,” is a famous line from T.S Elliot’s poem, The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock. He is referring to William Shakespeare’s famous character, Prince Hamlet, and even though he is not Prince Hamlet, they have very similar characteristics in their personality.

Both of the characters described in the poem and the play, are very doubtful and have trouble making up their mind, but in the end, Prince Hamlet is the only one that takes action.  In his poem, TS Elliot is describing a man that has an obsession for a woman but can never decided for the right time to act. He starts by wanting to ask the women to go with him: but then starts making up excuses to delay that question by arguing that there will be "time yet for a hundred indecisions…”  At the ends he never makes up his mind and ends up growing old alone. On the other hand, Prince Hamlet has trouble deciding when to act, because what he plans on doing takes a lot of courage. Taking revenge and killing one's uncle is not an easy task to do.  All through the play he questions himself and always finds obstacles to avenge his father’s death, just like J Alfred Prufrock, cannot decide to ask the women.  Both of them have trouble making up their minds and acting because they lack the necessary self-confidence; they feel insecure and are afraid that things don’t go out as planned. Most of the time, this is what makes people doubt. The fear of failing is what keeps us from taking importance decisions. But life is about making mistakes and learning from them. Just like J Alfred, and Hamlet, many people delay their actions, and have trouble making up their mind, but the only road to success is actually trying. Even though J Alfred was all alone and Hamlet died, the later was the one that succeeded because he actually acted. 

Both approached different situations in similar ways. They delayed their actions because of self doubt, never the less, Prufrock failed more than Hamlet because he never tried. Even though, Hamlet was forced to act, he ended up doing it and accomplish his goal. And this is what has to be done in life. People have to take away their fears and act, because as the old [modified] saying goes it is better to have tried and failed, than never have tried at all. 

Ted Talk Response

The central issue of this ted talk is a worldwide factor that has happened to everyone more than once. Her example on the “one-sided story” is one affecting a whole culture, a whole country; in fact, even a whole continent. What really worries me about the issue presented by Chimamanda Adichie is that it is a common issue that everybody is guilty of making at least once.

The most prominent example is Chimamanda Adichie herself. Even though she has been a victim of a one-side story, she has also been a guilty of at least believing a one-side story. She could not believe that the family of the poor boy could make anything, she “only saw them as being poor.” But a one-side story is not only something that affects masses in general, it can be very specific, like listening to a gossip and already judging the person with out really knowing them. It does not matter how many people are affected by the story, and the magnitude of the effects. What really matters is that it can be degrading, and have negative effects on people.   

In the Name of Kurtz

Towards the end of the novel, Marlow personally encounters Kurtz, but before that he had a very interesting conversation with the Russian guy. Like many others in the novel, the Russian did not view Kurtz as a normal man, but rather a remarkable one. In his opinion Kurtz was an example, a warrior, a great man, and he believed every one thought of him that way. All this glorifying resembled Kurtz as a god-like figure, but really, Kurtz was the complete opposite.

On man´s opinion does not make a man´s reputation, but many others shared the Russian´s thoughts about Mr. Kurtz. He described Kurtz´ arrival as coming with “thunder and lighting,” two things associated with the greatest God of the Olympians: Zeus, who was known for being the God of lighting, and ruling the skies. Kurtz was described with such honors.

Also, through out the book, the people who thought highly of Kurtz always said that it was difficult not to love him. As a catholic, I can say that we love God. This is what we are taught since little and this is exactly what the father talked about in yesterday´s mass. He stated repetitively that nothing could exist without love. That we humans cannot live without God´s love; it is a necessity for us but not for him. This is exactly why Kurtz is not a God, even though many thought of him as more than a normal man. He is the opposite of God. God loves of but does not demand love in return. Kurtz, on the other hand wanted all the attention and wealth to himself and did not think about others. The Russian told Marlow “he [Kurtz] declared he would shoot me unless I gave him the ivory,” (pg. 104) even though the Russian had been a good friend, who had kept him company and had even cured him twice.

The author described the Russian as “Kurtz last disciple” (pg. 109) and by no means was he equivocal. He was the last man standing in the heart of darkness who still worshipped Kurtz. He talked about him like there was no other important man in the universe, but him being the perfect disciple did not make Kurtz a God.

Every body has a different perception of God, but there are similarities between everybody´s opinion. One of the most common could be that God always put everybody before himself, and Kurtz did not do this. He was so consumed about getting wealthy with ivory that he forgot about every thing else. Also, God never acts to prove others right or wrong and it seemed that “Kurtz wanted and audience:” (pg. 102) an audience to watch him conquest an impossible task. Something, that at the end he could not accomplish. He died trying to accomplish his own task. He died alone, with nothing but a stranger by his side.

"Restraint!"

“Was it superstition, disgust, patience, fear –or some kind of primitive honour? No fear can stand up to hunger, no patience can wear it out, and disgust simply does not exist where hunger is…” (Pg 76) Marlow recalls that they (the cannibals) have been starving, but he doesn’t understand why the didn´t eat the non-cannibals on board. “Restraint,” is one of the possibilities, but why restrain to their way of life? Further more, it is very difficult to act rationally when hunger is present. 

By hungry, I don´t mean being hungry between meals. No. It is to go by days with out eating, because there is no way to get a hold of food. Unfortunately, this is a problem in Colombia and a factor seen world wide, especially in third-world countries, where the poor people are miserable. They can´t carry a decent life, because in this competing world, they have lost. Many don´t even have the opportunities to succeed, and end up working underpaid jobs, or not working at all. And then we see the consequences of not having a decent pay. Most people that are considered “poor” don´t even have enough money to buy food, water, a living space, which are they necessities of life.

Most of the time, this leads people to the wrong places. Driven by hunger and desperation, people go to extremes to be able to cease the pain. Some could steal, but others could even kill to make the pain go away. When hunger strikes, people loose all of their essence, and focus only on their existence. It is during this state that we see the human nature of surviving: the “survival of the fittest.” 

So why didn´t the cannibals eat the people on board? If we compare them to poor people, we can say that the poor know better. They live within a society that educates them on how to act. Cannibals are isolated from society because they are different form everybody else. People would think that it is more probable that cannibals strike before the poor, but in the book it does not happen. Maybe there is something about cannibals that we are not aware, some sort of humanity obscured by the fact that they eat their own races. We may be blinded and not see that cannibals are still humans. 

Darkness Gone Loose

The place where Marlow voyaged to was the place of his dreams. He says so himself. When he was little, from the first moment he saw that place on the map, he was fascinated. But as an adult, he travelled there and expected the disappointed. Even though the place charmed him, he knew “it had become a place of darkness.” (Pg 10.)

The light illusion is key when deciphering exactly why this place is a place of darkness. No one associates darkness with happiness. It is the complete opposite. Often, depressed people say, “I am in a dark place,” so this darkness has to be bad, very bad. The transformation that occurred to that place was negative. Something occurred to this, light full place that marveled Marlow that all the light was sucked out. The British came and destroyed a culture, exploited the natives, and took all the richness and happiness.

During his travels, he can´t believe that these people that their ribs were visible and “the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope” (25) could be considered criminals and even enemies. The start of his voyage is like the entrance of Dante´s Inferno, and Marlow just “stepped into the gloomy circle of some Inferno.” This place of darkness is hell. In Inferno, the only source of light is fire, which is very gloomy and negative. The same happens with this place. Also, in each circle, there are specific people, but they live half dead, scattered around. When Marlow goes up the mountain, the population is close to nil, except the occasional slaves, that look exactly like hell´s prisoners: you can see the unhappiness in the bodies and eyes.

This place of darkness is a real place. A territory used inhabited by it´s natives, until the British took over. From then on, hell broke loose. The same happened all over the world. When Europe colonized Africa and America, they saw the natives as an inferior race. Thy thought they had the liberty to come and exploit the natives and steal their richness. Some even had religious and other motives and thought they were doing them a favor by making them more civilized them.  The natives and Europeans were very different, but no favor was done. They turned many parts of the world, into places of darkness, very similar to hell.