Life Events Have Little to Do with Efforts and More on Fate

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Life Events Have Little to Do with Efforts and More on Fate
There is a thin between the fate and coincidence, and it is easy to get the two mixed up. Fate and complacency also have some element of association that can be quite confusing. In the case of, Simon Collings on Do You Speak English?, there is need to establish which took place and it is that this happened. The fish at the time tried to get back to the murky waters however, it is as if its fate had been sealed. Manuel on the other hand was struggling with his apartment problems (Chang, Pao). Given the fact that he was struggling, this could have set him on mood to avoid any confrontation as he trying to figure out his challenges at the time. This could be associated with being complacent. He could have helped but in complacency, he chose to avoid the situation. The couple on the hand wanted to go away and mind their own business, or at least the lady did (Collings, Simon). This means there are three parties that are brought together in the situation involving the dying fish. Whether this was fate in play or a case of complacency for the boy, Manuel and the male tourist is debatable.
Fate is one of the words that comes up in some very heated debates especially with reference to tragedy (Shoup, Richard, and Barry, Lenson). Whether it is possible that people have the ability the cause of events in their lives or what happens around them. In this case, Manuel came in search of a better place to bring up his child and more space for his family (Collings, Simon). He did not want to have his child staying on the weekdays. The young boy was in search of his daily bread and is assumed to have come from a poor background among the fishing community along the coast. They were struggling and the fish was part of his efforts to change his life that day. As for the tourists, they could have been lost or taking a stroll around the neighborhood; a dangerous neighborhood.
What is most striking is the fact that, the boy, Manuel and the male tourist, were reluctant about saving the fish, which makes them complacent. They simply did not want to assist and despite the pressure from the lady. The element of complacency is largely associated with having the ability to change the course of actions but avoiding to take responsibility all the same. In this case, it could be argued that the three characters other than the lady were complacent, an aspect of inaction that could have led to the death of the fish in the end. Had they intervened when they first encountered the situation, the fish would have survived.
Manuel was the first to see the boy watching the fish die, and the male tourist was ready to leave the fish to die (Collings, Simon). This is an aspect that would be considered to be complacency as the three had the power to put back the fish I the water and save it. On the other hand, the boy would have simply kicked the fish into the water, instead he chooses ...