You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Jungian Psychology’ category.
The good folks (or cryptids) at Spring-heeled Jack Coffee recently sent me two bags of Moth man coffee beans, which is the official coffee at work. Moth man and Spring-heeled Jack are both examples of cryptids, which are legendary monsters that lurk out there and routinely scare people who never have decent cameras at the time to get a decent photo of the monsters worse luck.
Since the caveman days (and probably longer) we’ve been collectively afraid of ‘what’s out there’ especially at night time. Back then there were legitimate dangers, animals looking for a night time snack. This primordial fear combines with the ‘us vs. them’ mentality to make a humdinger of an archetype ‘The Bogey Man”. All cultures have their own version of this and it often takes many forms. The archetype has the common characteristics a) it is ‘out there’ b) it’s in the dark c) it’s monstrous. They are often experienced by someone who swears what they saw was genuine and there is never any direct evidence of proof of existence.*
Every country gets the foreigners it deserves and every culture gets the cryptid it wants or needs. Bigfoot is arguably the most popular of the North American cryptids (at least in the USA) although no one has brought forth a body – not even in this day and age with drones and webcams and cellphones in the ever expanding population into the backwoods. New Mexico goes for Little Green Little Men while thems in New Jersey have some sort of local devil jumping about in the back woods.
I like Moth man most as he makes good coffee.
I am not one to throw stones at thems who believe in cryptids. After all Spo-reflections is up to its oxters with all sorts of archetypes and cryptid-creatures and my life and blog are richer for them. True, they hide my keys and regularly threaten to tear out my toenails if my essays don’t succeed (including this one)they make life colorful and bearable. It may be crazy to believe in they actually exist but it seems vital to believe in them figuratively.
It is a sadness to conclude there is no Bogey Man other than ourselves. There is no ‘them’; there is only ‘us’ and what we project out or onto others .
Somebody once asked Jane Goodell her belief in Bigfoot. She replied (I am paraphrasing) she doubts the exist but she wants them to. So do most of us. What else is there to talk about around the campfire at night?
Do you believe in Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, or whatever is in your area?
Do you have any interesting cryptids around your neck of the woods?
Have you seen one?
*Carl Jung wrote an essay in the 50s on flying saucers when invaders from outer space were in vogue. He didn’t care if UFOs were real or not. What was important was how the collective unconscious of the time was being personified as flying saucers and what did this show about the times. Thems who believe flying saucers were real weren’t happy with this interpretation.
Robert (the dear!) who is a poet, a blogger buddy, and well over four feet – recently posted a poem. In it was the line:
‘Femininity’s locked away without a key.’
This made me pause and not read the poem further for a while, as I was struck still by its impact. Something had hit a nerve I didn’t consciously know what. He gave me the “OK” to steal the line and chew on it for awhile.
One of the axioms of classical Jungian psychology is Psyche dislikes imbalance. If you or your thinking – nay, even society itself – are too ‘one way’, the Mind (or the collective Mind) finds a way for the suppressed opposite to happen. If allowing this is not done consciously than it does so unconsciously, and not in a pretty way.
In every man there is an aspect of his psyche Jung called The Anima. This holds his personal and collective feminine aspects. Women have The Animus that holds the archetype of masculinity. Every person should recognize the opposite within and allow it to happen – or the consequences are dire.
This is ‘classical Jung’ as in the first half of the 1900s he was going on traditional and stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity. He called women who were showing too much masculine energy (i.e. not being feminine) “Animus hounds” and not in a positive way.* I’ve not kept up with the evolution of Jungian theory to know if this quaint and arguably dated system has changed any. In his defense Jung pointed out archetypes evolve with time and society. I wonder if thems currently calling themselves Jungians still prescribe to the Anima/Animus dynamic.
Nowadays with gender fluidity and the redefining of masculinity/femininity people are challenged without the usual roles. There is a lot of hype online about men who are threatened or confused about masculinity hunkering down into stereotypical and often brutal definitions of what is masculinity – which includes nothing ‘feminine’ – thus Robert’s line of poetry. Jung is smirking in his grave, waiting for the shoe to drop on this. Men who do this will have a higher rate of mental illness, drug use, loneliness, murders and suicide – oh, wait a minute – this is already happening.
I realize I am writing for an audience who don’t fit or want to do typical masc/fem roles. On the whole women are becoming more comfortable with so-called masculine traits (like standing up for yourself) and gay gays are more at-ease with their opposite-gender aspects than their straight counterparts. In the rising anxiety about changes of roles in society, from a Jungian point of view, it makes psychological ‘sense’ The Right wants to ban drag queens and such. Suppression (or worse) of Anima energy keeps away uncomfortable feelings and aspects about themselves.
I interpret Robert’s line differently perhaps than he wrote it. The image at first glance seems a prison with someone from without locking something up inside. I see the prison as locked from within. There is a key inside with the man but denying it is there makes things less scary. To come out as it were is a path is not certain.
*This was a nicer than calling women bitches.
THWIT [n.] A pang of shame when an embarrassing memory from adolescence rushes back into your head from out of nowhere, which is somehow no less painful even if nobody else remembers it happened in the first place. Acronym of The Hell Was I Thinking?
Oh the pain. My psyche has a warped sense of humor or preoccupation that when I am reading a book or talking to a friend or in the shower – minding my own business – all of a sudden it remembers word for word and play by play some painful memory from my youth. These aren’t evil or cruel but awful events to remind me how often and bad a stupid idiot I was. I’ve grown up and learned the lessons from these awful interactions so there is no need to drag them back on stage, so why the return performance? No one remembers these monstrosities but I do.*
One of the nice things about the present is letting the past stay there. Alas, Babylon! Parts of my brain think it worthwhile to remind me of that awful time I was 13yo and tried to talk to an Englishwoman when I called her a limey (I thought this was a fond nickname) or when I blurted all the answers in grade school to show I knew more on the topic than the teacher did (the temerity!) or that time in medical school I quoted “The Lion in Winter” (for I thought it funny) only to upset everyone around me.
I’ve had a lifelong habit of talking before thinking and attempting being clever when I wasn’t. I’ve learned to pause before opening my mouth and think before I speaking – and in my defense I am better thank you very much – but this isn’t enough apparently to erase the memories of tedious tactless times. Why the brain holds onto these rather than something useful say like where I put the car keys is a mystery. Perhaps it likes to torment me, which it does well. The other day I was having a stroll, admiring the scenery, and feeling at ease – when I suddenly remembered the time when I was on the elliptical at the gym listening to “Material Girl” and signing aloud for all the gym to hear.
In Jungian psychology there is the archetype The Shadow, that dark side of The Psyche that holds hidden elements that are nasty if not recognized and come to terms with. Many folks interpret The Shadow as our ‘dark side” A.K.A. ‘What evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!’. The Shadow holds our blurts and blunders and bungles, those painful things we would rather forget but cannot. The Shadow is not evil but embarrassing, and these pesky sore reminders remind us we are human and not our Personas and don’t forget it lest you bungle again. It is a good job but I vote for Shadow never again reminding me of my internship year when almost everything I said and did was a mistake.
If you are willing please tell me an embarrassing memory that keeps poking you in the present.
*My first cousin once removed still remembers the time I slipped down the hiking path and let out the “F” word. This was twenty years ago and he brings it up whenever we talk. Stirge.
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. Terry Pratchett.
One of the best ideas out of Jungian psychology is the concept of The Shadow, the dark unconscious amoral force within is, in contrast to the conscious rational Self. The Shadow is like the creatures in “The Gremlins” movie it can be a source of vitality or destruction. The more they are suppressed, denied, or projected out onto others, the more powerful and destructive they become. It is one thing for an individual to mismanage The Shadow but it is exponentially scary to see a crowd’s Shadow in action. A crowd can easily become dominated by Shadow Energy where together they doo great evil that as individuals they are not as likely to do. Think of an angry crowd at a game or a group of protestors in a rally. Seeing old photos of Nazi rallies – or recent photos of certain political parties – and you can feel the palpable Shadow blossoming like an atom bomb. Oh the horror.
Coming together as a group automatically elicits the ape-genes in us to organize into groups of us vs. them types and the boss vs. underlings dynamics. One should not pretend it doesn’t happen or try to forget about it – that’s the Jungian equivalent of denying or suppressing the Shadow – and that ain’t good. So what’s to be done about it?
We do amazing things in a group and overall better than individuals do as in a group we share information and give constructive feedback. We are more likely to come with solutions especially when it comes to simple ones. How to make this sort of group experience work? Groups are only collectively intelligent when the mechanism to collect ideas is set up so private information isn’t influenced by others. We are heavily influenced to believe (or at least say) an opinion if we already know the opinions of the others. It’s a common occurrence people will say they believe “X” when in the group they are in says they believe “Y”. The jokes is if you want your meeting or decision-making committee to go quickly just ask the know-it-all confident one to talk first and others will concur and things go quickly. The downside: confident people if they are wrong will lead others readily astray. And this happens a lot. History is full up of such examples.
Eventually the collective Shadow mentality in charge implodes as it is not based on Truth. As people slowly begin to say their real beliefs out loud and to each other they discover others believe so as well and the house of cards collapses and the tyrant is ousted – or so one hopes. Meanwhile we try to be wary of ‘being on of the herd’ and where is our Shadow and call “X” as “X” when all are saying it is “Y”.
Raven (the dear!) sent this photograph the other day and I was instantly attracted to it. Not because of the men (although they are a handsome lot)* but something else, something my psyche resonated with before consciousness could conclude the wherefore. I started analyzing the attraction and soon connected the dots: the portrait conveys the archetype of The Five Friends. It goes by a few names, such as ‘The Five Man Band” or ‘The Team”. Each member of the group carries a certain characteristic. None would do well on their own, but together they compliment and balance each other to create a working entity. It illustrates Psyche with its Ego trying to make sense of the complexes to run a good show.
The Leader. In every group no matter how egalitarian it tries to be one rises to the rank of ‘head honcho’. Our ape genes demand it. He – or she – is Ego of the group; he is the coordinator and decision-maker. He often referees the ructions that arise among the group. Sometimes one of the others in the group tries to become The Leader or serves temporarily as The Leader, but in a good group The Leader stays and grows in abilities.
In the photo I imagine The Leader is the fellow second from the left, calm and slightly ahead of the others. He’s wearing some sort of mitts to imply his difference in rank, and that he does the dirty work.
The Lancer. This fellow serves as the antagonist or the foil to The Leader. He’s abrasive, argumentative, and often a pain in the drain to The Leader. He’s The Leader’s Shadow-side. The Lancer keeps The Leader on his/her toes, and makes sure the boss doesn’t do stupid things. They often fight and in several stories The Lancer often takes off in disgust or he/she tries to become The Leader. Usually by the end of the tale The Lancer returns, they reconcile, and both are the better for it.
In the photo I imagine The Lancer on The Leader’s left. The middle fellow looks a bit haughty and less formal looking in his stance. Right after the photo is taken he probably does some sort of outrage.
The Heart. Sometimes called The Soul, this is the one who carries the group’s values, the morals, and the ideals. If there is a point to the group, he/she points out justice and ascertains they do the right thing. Few fight with The Heart as they know he’s right.
In the photo I imagine The Heart is the fellow on the far right. He’s a bit off from the others, which gives him the perspective how the group is behaving.
The Big Guy. Every group needs muscle, some brute strength, to kick-butt in a fight. He’s not bright or thoughtful but he’s loyal and listens to the others knowing he’s not the brains of the bunch to lead or plan. The others poke fun at his lack of finesse but they need his Warrior energy. In adventure stories he’s often the one that gets hurts or killed which brings out the love the others have for the big lummox.
In the photo I imagine the capless chappie on the far left must be The Big Buy, based on his height and broad chest out.
The Smart One. He’s not strong nor big and he knows it. He’s not good in a fight. In Dungeons and Dragons he’s the mage in the back making magic while the others are in front fighting. He’s the brains of the group, the one who thinks and tells the others what’s going on. He devises the plan. While The Leader and The Foil tend to butt heads, The Smart One’s antagonist is The Big Guy, who often loathes The Smart One for his puniness. The Big One likes to play dirty tricks on the poor sod. However they make a staid couple knowing the other has what he lacks.
In the photo I imagine the shorter dude fourth from the left must be The Smart One. The Lancer and Leader keep him apart from The Big Guy lest there are ructions.
Next time you watch a movie and there are five people see if you can find these archetypes in the characters.
In STAR WARS The Smart One is played by the two droids.
Post-script: Does The Five Friends archetype resonate in The Board of Directors Here at Spo-reflections? Alas no. My blog’s psyche is rawhter lop-sided. First of all there are eight of them nor five. Second, they all jockey to be The Big Guy and/or The Foil and there is no Heart, worse luck. This makes me by default The Smart One although no one listens to me. Stirges.
*School teachers, perhaps.
Last night I watched ‘Hocus Pocus 2’ and I enjoyed it immensely. True I had to remind myself a few times this is a Disney movie for kids (the over the top acting) but there were some references for adults and queer folk too.* Then again I am biased. Urs Truly has quite the fondness for witches. They were and are integral to Hallowe’en and since it’s my favorite holiday, what’s not to love about them? Yes there lots of fairy tales in which they are monstrous but I smelled at rat from the get-go. I connected the dots early any woman with power or didn’t put up with the men-folk was labeled a witch. I’ve long enjoyed seeing Warrior Women kicking butt (mostly men’s) to get things done and not suffer fools. All the same, I enjoy stories of witches of all sorts, even the wicked ones. Halloween witches are cackling stereotypes with green skin with pointy noses with warts, but they know this is part of the fun.
Every generation gets the witches it wants. They have been there from the get go, including a reference in the Old Testament. Only up until lately they were lumped into the common category of evil and needed to be exterminated; nowadays they are seen less-depraved and more misinterpreted. Harry Potter-types witches (smart and clever) and Elpheba-types (slandered) come to mind. Of course thems who see anything pagan or powerful (or female) as in league of the devil. I was a big fan of “Bewitched’ which showed all the witches and warlocks far more clever and fun than the boring old Darrins and Tates of the world.**
Next weekend I will go to Home Depot and see if they have for sale something I failed to buy last Hallowe’en: an inflatable trio of witches at their cauldron, clacking clever things including lines from MacBeth. No doubt this will offend the pious in my the neighborhood but it’s in the job description of being a witch.
I wear my witch hat to give out the treats on All Hallow’s Eve. Some are taken aback seeing a man wearing a such, but care I not. The Magician is a powerful archetype, especially the female version of The Crone/The Sorceress/The Witch. The power of the archetype is nicely captured in the “Fractured fairy tales’ version of “Hansel and Gretel”. The witch, who turns children into aardvarks, admits she doesn’t know how to ride a broom. Gretel says she will teach her if the witch turns Hansel back into a boy. The witch asks how does she know how to ride a broom, she’s only a little girl. Gretel replies those famous words, almost out of Jungian psychology:
“Come now, there’s a little bit of the witch in all of us girls”
*The Sanderson Sisters stumble into a Sanderson Sisters costume contest. They lose to a trio of drag queens.
**All of Samantha’s relations are queer as folk can be. A lot of ink has been spilled on this topic.
Urs Truly was taught and trained in the axiom dreams mean something. Dr. Freud made mistakes – a few of the howlers – but he was spot-on the contents of dreams are able to tell us things of which we are not conscious. Some dreams, anyway. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes what’s parading around in your pumpkin in the wee hours of night is just scramble. [1] Dream interpretation done in the Freudian way is reductive viz. taking all the vague and disguised contents and distilling them down to an unconscious wish. [2] Spo-fans know I am a Jungian. Jung took a different approach to dreams. He used them like springboards to expand into conscious exploration. Dreams sometimes are personal (the Personal Unconscious) but often archetypal, something he called The Collective Unconscious.[3] Both fellows tried to make sense of something mankind has always been fascinated with: why do we dream and what do they mean? All cultures took dreams seriously. The Old Testament has Joseph providing dream analysis to Pharaoh to guide him in his life choices.
Of course all this was so, prior to learning how the brain works. We still don’t know exactly why we dream – or why we need sleep for that matter – but the most recent science supports the brain needs sleep to clean out the crap and form connections and memories: it’s down time to repair and coalesce. As neuroscience advances, the contents of dreams become less important compared to the form. [4] Other than some booklets for sale at the grocery store check out line with titles like ‘What your dreams mean’, no one seems interested anymore in dream analysis. Rather, they obsess with getting enough sleep and ‘REM’ time.
Mind! There is little if any good supportive evidence the content of dreams means anything; this is based on countless cases throughout time of folks/analysands making great insights to their worker of dreams. It isn’t science.
The notion dreams are just neuronal firing at night as the brain trying to repair and cleanse itself is both a comfort and a disappointment. I’m glad we are focusing on getting enough sleep. All the same there is a loss of individual humanity to throwing out looking at dream contents. No one dreams the same way and no one’s dream’s contents mean the same thing. They are as individual as fingerprints. I find it sad not using this unique and potentially knowledge-bringing tool delegated to the bottom of the medical tool box. Patients do not come to me anymore to do dream analysis; they come it get meds.
When I first entered Jungian psychoanalysis the psycholgist asked me a few preliminary questions and then said ‘tell me your dreams’. He was trying in his way to get to know me as an individual. It felt intimate.
Although I practice good sleep hygiene and am careful to get enough sleep, I seldom remember my dreams and when I do they are as mish-mashed as my hummingbird brain, no surprise. Once in awhile I get a ‘proper dream’ that makes me sit up and think and expand and learn about something.
So long as some folks are curious to learn about themselves, dream analysis remains in the tool box, not the most important one anymore but still a good one.
[1] Medicines serotonin-based like antidepressants are notorious for causing dreaming side effects. The two adjectives I often hear about are ‘vivid’ and ‘weird’. I tell thems dreaming on duloxetine to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
[2] Nearly always about sex or death. It’s pretty predictable.
[3] Overall more interesting and more fun than reducing everything down to child-parent conflicts.
[4] For thems who poo-poo the notion ‘dreams mean something’: a common symptom in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is recurring nightmares of the trauma or something similar to it. This is the wounded brain valiantly trying to work through the memory but unable to resolve the matter. Don’t tell folks with trauma-related dreams theirs don’t mean anything.
Note: this one came to mind as I watched the BBC news. This morning Paul B. (the dear!) sent an email suggesting I write on the same topic. The change of a monarch is on many minds today. Spo
I think it was Robertson Davies who said the best government (at least from a psychological point of view) is a socialist monarchy. This gives folks a conscious collective of fairness and a monarch who fills the archetypal need for King/Queen energy in our lives. Humans can’t help but create a King. Anthropologists say we are social simians we need hierarchy to get things done. Jungians (like myself) see the necessity of someone to represent and resonant with our inner King/Queen archetype.
Like everyone else, the late Queen was the only personification of King/Queen energy I have ever known. I cannot imagine what a change in Incarnation is like. Being English by history.* Mind! My ability to write with any expertise about Queen Elizabeth II’s passing and how this effects The Psyche of her subjects is going to be a weak endeavor. I have always resonated with Great Britain as personified by the monarchy but this hardly qualifies me to comment with expertise on the event. I am discussing the archetypal energies, not the actual monarchs.
From a Jungian point of view, the energies are shifting from ‘Queen’ back to ‘King’ again, and that is no small matter. What stays the same is the ‘age’ element. There isn’t the usual Old One dying and passing on the King Energy to The Young Prince. Curious too is Charles’ plan on keep his name and not become George VII. That too is significant; he isn’t going to emulate his grandfather. **
I will be curious to see how The Collective Psyche of the U.K. and the Commonwealth – and thems who are attune to King/Queen energy by proxy will react to this change of the archetypal figure head. I would advise the new guy now surmounted by the crown and task to emulate as much King Energy (watch the Shadow side!) as possible. Get out from under his late parent’s shadow (pun intended) to channel King energy his way as best he can. It is no small task especially after following such a long and beloved holder of the Energy. He needs to stop being Prince Charles and be King, utilizing Sage Energy as well as he can muster.
I am curious to hear from The Spo-fans who are subjects of Her – oops make that His – Majesty if I am even close to saying something or is it all rubbish.
P.S. My middle name is Charles. I am pleased as Punch from a personal reason he kept it.
*Spos ran around England from ~1066-1630 and the first five generations of Spos on North American soil they saw themselves as English-types, not Americans. This is deep archetypal energies indeed.
**For thems who don’t know English history, Charles I and II were rawther interesting fellows with rawther colorful histories. While we complain about royal shenanigans there is a part of us that loves seeing our monarchs acting out our fantasies. I hope Charles III does the name good.
Note: this one has Jungian Psychology. The Board of Directors Here at Spo-Reflections loathes this sort of entry. This is a puzzlement as they are archetypes themselves, so why the fuss? I suppose they are mad-jealous. The Greek gods are, on the whole, are more interesting than thems in Asgard, and they regularly wash. Spo.
I’ve been thinking lately on Hades, Lord of the underworld in the Greek Pantheon. I am not sure why he’s coming front on stage in my consciousness but thems trained in Jungian psychology go with whose around and see what they are trying to say here.
People put a lot of glory to Gaia, or The Earth Goddess, or The Great Mother – whatever name floats your boat – but underneath the fertile feminine, deep down at the base of things, is the masculine Lord of the Underworld. She rules the subconscious but he rules the unconscious, and carries Shadow energy more often than she does.
Hades gets a lot of bad press. Modern folks, who see gods as either all good or all bad, tend to dress Hades up as the Greek version of Satan, full of malice and diabolical machinations, which he is not. He did his job which is running the underworld – where all go, good or bad. He did this with dignity and he wasn’t one to run around doing shenanigans like his younger brothers, Zeus and Poseidon.* There is that myth of him abducting Persephone for a wife, but the actual tale shows a) this was arranged by Zeus (the real villain of the piece) and b) he was a faithful spouse who loved his wife with whom he ran the underworld in partnership. Not bad that – and for a Greek god !
I find Mr. Hades’ attributes attractive. He takes his lot and makes what he can from it. He holds his role with dignity and he does it without fuss and drama. He allows others like Gaia/Demeter to take the glory and adoration while he takes satisfaction with a job well done. He doesn’t need direct worship, but keeps people on their toes that regardless what you do in life, he is yours in the end, so do the right thing and make your life and each day count.
Finally he has a cool pet, the three-headed dog Cerberus, the name can be interpreted as ‘spotted animal” so his dog is literally named “Spot”. The guy has a wry sense of humor to boot.
*As the oldest child of Chronos and Rhea, by birthright he should have been in charge, but he and his two brothers drew lots for the ruler of the sky, the sea, and the earth – and he came in third. Rather than throwing a hissy fit he took his fate fair and square.
I was recently asked ‘Are you a story teller?” I had to pause, to first clarify what the inquisitor meant. By her definition, no, I am not a Storyteller. I tell a lot of stories, but I don’t do this for a living nor is it one of my main Archetypes of my psyche. However, it is a vital part of my psyche. Worse luck it isn’t more active.
The archetype of The Storyteller is an ancient one. Since the dawn of time mankind has used stories to entertain and explain things. Hearing the words ‘once upon a time” conjures up nostalgia of childhood memories of our elders telling us tales that were not true but contained Truth. Most of us never grow out of our need for stories. Savvy leaders know telling a story gets others’ attention far better than merely telling the facts.
I love stories. I recently wrote about ‘Star Wars’. For all its special effects it is merely another version of The Hero’s Journey. This is no accident. Mr. Lucas carefully planned it out this way, down to the now iconic opening:
“A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”.
It sounds like a bedtime story.
I have plenty of memorized stories from my youth, and I have a handful of my own, and a few I think are mine but it turns out they are not.* Alas, Babylon! I don’t have an audience. I am like an eager actor with no stage. Long gone are the days when I was in Boy Scouts when I was called upon to tell tales by campfire (I wasn’t good at knots but I told a keen ghost story). The niblings are no longer interested in Uncle Spo’s tales. I want to wear a button “Ask me to tell you a story”.
People nowadays don’t seem as interested in stories, let alone adore The Story Teller. Mostly they want to talk about themselves or they have the attention span of a goldfish: they want you to get to the point. I may be one of The Last of The Mohicans (there’s a good story!) who relish sitting back and hearing someone tell a story. I wish my job gave me more time for such, for folks have many tales to tell.
It is no wonder I listen to a lot of podcasts like “Myths and Legends” and my book shelves are full up with fiction and folk tales and such. There’s nothing like a Saturday night at Heorot Johnson II for hearing The Board of Directors Here at Spo-reflections lay out a saga or an edda. **
One of the niceties of having a headful of stories is even when no ones wants to hear them, at any moment I can recall them for myself. Indeed, at life’s end, when I have few resources upon which to entertain myself, I only have to conjure up Bilbo Baggins or Jerome the Frog or Pippi Longstalking or even Odysseus (in a pinch) and I am comforted.
*Sometimes I catch myself telling a vignette that I think is personal, only to realize it was something that was told to me. Just hate when that happens.
**Slater-Wotan tells a fine yarn – provided he is not too deep in his cups. Herbert, on the other hand, bores us to tears with his ‘adventure stories’ in accounting.
Spo-Reflections 