Hastily Quotes

Authors: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Categories: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Very well, but - who are you?' again asked Gil Gil, in whom curiosity was beginning to get the better of every other feeling. 'I told you that when I first spoke to you - I am your friend. And bear in mind that you are the only being on the face of the earth to whom I accord the title of friend. I am bound to you by remorse! I am the cause of all your misfortunes.' 'I do not know you, ' replied the shoemaker. 'And yet I have entered your house many times! Through me you were left motherless at your birth; I was the cause of the apoplectic stroke that killed Juan Gil; it was I who turned you out of the palace of Rionuevo; I assassinated your old house-mate, and, finally, it was I who placed in your pocket the vial of sulfuric acid.' Gil Gil trembled like a leaf; he felt his hair stand on end, and it seemed to him as if his contracted muscles must burst asunder. 'You are the devil!' he exclaimed, with indescribable terror. 'Child!' responded the black-robed figure in accents of amiable censure, 'what has put that idea into your head? I am something greater and better than the wretched being you have named.' 'Who are you, then?' 'Let us go into the inn and you shall learn.' Gil hastily entered, drew the Unknown before the modest lantern that lighted the apartment, and looked at him with intense curiosity. He was a person about thirty-three years old; tall, handsome, pale, dressed in a long black tunic and a black mantle, and his long locks were covered by a Phrygian cap, also black. He had not the slightest sign of a beard, yet he did not look like a woman. Neither did he look like a man... ("The Friend of Death")

Pedro Antonio de Alarcon
We heard of this woman who was out of control. We heard that she was led by her feelings. That her emotions were violent. That she was impetuous. That she violated tradition and overrode convention. That certainly her life should not be an example to us. (The life of the plankton, she read in this book on the life of the earth, depends on the turbulence of the sea) We were told that she moved too hastily. Placed her life in the stream of ideas just born. For instance, had a child out of wedlock, we were told. For instance, refused to be married. For instance, walked the streets alone, where ladies never did, and we should have little regard for her, even despite the brilliance of her words. (She read that the plankton are slightly denser than water) For she had no respect for boundaries, we were told. And when her father threatened her mother, she placed her body between them. (That because of this greater heaviness, the plankton sink into deeper waters) And she went where she should not have gone, even into her sister's marriage. And because she imagined her sister to be suffering what her mother had suffered, she removed her sister from that marriage. (And that these deeper waters provide new sources of nourishment) That she moved from passion. From unconscious feeling, allowing deep and troubled emotions to control her soul. (But if the plankton sinks deeper, as it would in calm waters, she read) But we say that to her passion, she brought lucidity (it sinks out of the light, and it is only the turbulence of the sea, she read) and to her vision, she gave the substance of her life (which throws the plankton back to the light). For the way her words illuminated her life we say we have great regard. We say we have listened to her voice asking, "of what materials can that heart be composed which can melt when insulted and instead of revolting at injustice, kiss the rod?" (And she understood that without light, the plankton cannot live and from the pages of this book she also read that the animal life of the oceans, and hence our life, depends on the plankton and thus the turbulence of the sea for survival.) By her words we are brought to our own lives, and are overwhelmed by our feelings which we had held beneath the surface for so long. And from what is dark and deep within us, we say, tyranny revolts us; we will not kiss the rod.

Susan Griffin
I found that while transition into practicing law was difficult, it was eased by following a few simple guidelines. Among them were these: First, I tried to emphasize quality over quantity. My firm, as with any firm, wanted to be sure that the legal advice it provided to clients was of the highest quality. As a result, firms seek associates who can analyze issues correctly and independently, and fully explore all relevant avenues. However, the temptation as a new associate is to rush through the first few assignments, in an attempts to seem efficient. I remember a summer associate who kept racing through assignments, hoping to impress the lawyers he was working for. His first two assignments were intended to last a week or more, yet he completed each of them in a single day! His third project was even larger, and should have taken 3 weeks to complete - yet he submitted his analysis after 3 days. At that point, one of my colleagues had to explain to him that the quality of his work mattered much more than how much he completed. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised when he wasn't invited back for a permanent position. Second, I always tried to avoid asking questions when I could figure out the answers with a little research or independent footwork. Like other junior associates, I had to walk a fine line between clarifying assignments and relevant facts on the one hand, and seeming lazy or obtuse on the other. Once, shortly after I joined the firm, a senior partner asked me to research an issue for a meeting later that afternoon. Minutes after leaving his office, I realized that I didn't have a firm grasp of the issue he wanted researched. As I hastily began walking back to the partner's office, I mentioned to a mid-level associate working on the same case that I was going to ask the partner to clarify my assignment. The mid-level associate looked at me and said, 'Are you sure you want to do that?' I knew immediately the answer was no; the partner was extremely busy with his own work and would only lose confidence in me if he had to explain the issue twice. I decided to review the materials I had again and, as I did many times thereafter, eventually figured out the issue on my own. Third, I always tried to be as thorough as possible. It's just crucial to look at an assignment from every angle - to make sure that every research resource and case is current, to analyze alternative theories or approaches, and to provide a full answer to the legal issue being examined. Trust me - being thorough is a good preventative for sleepless nights. This point was brought home to me while researching some new accounting standards for a senior partner at the firm. After finding certain accounting guidelines that seemed to apply to the facts at hand, I brought them into the partner's office and told him that I thought they were the right ones. He looked at them quickly and said that there were other standards that were more directly on point. He sent me back to the library with instructions to bring him a specific book containing the standards he had in mind. I went to the library, found the book, and returned to his office, where he was waiting to review it. He flipped through the table of contents, then the index, and then through a few pages. Finally, he found the page he was seeking, and said, 'Ah, here it is. You know, there's a reason why we pay you young guys $90, 000 a year. It's because we expect you to dig a little deeper.' As it turned out, the provision he found was identical to the one I'd dug up; it just didn't seem that way to him because it was published in a very different format. But the experience revealed not only the firm's high expectations of my ability to research issues thoroughly, but also its belief that it was entitled to such thoroughness because it was paying top dollar for associates.

WIlliam R. Keates
?Earn cash when you save a quote by clicking
EARNED Load...
LEVEL : Load...