Skip to main content

Little Enough to Spare

A few weeks ago, I came across an essay by the late Marina Keegan, a beautiful piece of writing marking the end of her time at Yale. "The Opposite of Loneliness" is an exploration of the uncertainty of the transition from college into life afterwards, and so much more than that, yet I was struck particularly by a line within. In disparaging the idea that once you leave college it is too late to change anything, she remarks that "We're so young. We're so young. We're twenty-two years old. We have so much time." Yet sadly, Keegan had very little time; she died in a car crash not long after her graduation.

I admire the essay, and know that the line I cite is in service to the larger point of it. But I disagree. You don't have all the time in the world, even at twenty-two, even if you live to be ninety. The worst thing, the absolute worst, that you can do to yourself is to in any way justify your life by saying there is still plenty of time. 

I've been writing in some form or other for as long as I can remember, writing story after story throughout high school and pushing them onto teachers who quite kindly read and commented on them. But once I got into college, I stopped writing, even though I loved it and knew then as I still know that writing is what I want to do with my life. I told myself that I needed to focus on college, that I could take up writing again sometime down the road, maybe at the end of my first career when I decided that I needed a change. There would be time, but not just then. After a few years of inactivity, years of not-writing, I realized that there were people in their late teens and early twenties who were already doing what they wanted, already achieving great things. They were not waiting for a distant future moment to follow their passions. If they could do it, what was I waiting for? Why did I find it acceptable to think that I could stop doing what I loved, and perhaps pick it up again in my thirties?

You do not have all the time in the world. We're limited by all manner of constraints, not just by the biological limits to our lives but hemmed in by work and school and obligations to family, each one eating away at the time we have. The remainder is easy to use up, as there is so little of it. Putting off doing what you want to do, what you need to do, is so easy when you tell yourself there is plenty of time. 

The hours blend into days, days become months and before you realize it years have churned on, and you wonder how it's been two years since you finished your degree, and how can it seem both like yesterday and yet so impossibly long ago now? Can it be true that I was a library director for over a year? I know that it is, but it seems like it cannot have been that long. Has it really been four years since I graduated, and was looking eagerly ahead to the end of working in retail and starting my master's program? Yes, you may be young, but you do not have all the time in the world, at least, not as much as you think. I may be twenty-six, but time seems to pass with ever-increasing swiftness with each successive year. 

You do not have all the time in the world. So why are you content to keep doing what you've always done, always thinking that you can start on your dreams, on realizing the life you want, tomorrow, next week, some day? Time is finite, and there is little enough to spare. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...