Retlling the bad story.

I am feeling confused about the wisdom of retelling bad experiences. Sometimes they make a great story. I think a great story is always a good idea. For one thing, I am Irish. Enough said. Well, half Irish. Stories are in my blood line. But being half Irish doesn't require the story to be a bad one.

Then there is the business of the therapeutic benefits of bringing the bad shit up to the surface. We know that is always a good idea. Hidden or repressed experiences are not good for anything after the initial shock has passed. That appears to be self-evident.

My father's generation, the ones I knew, never talked about WW11. Never. I don't know whether that was a good thing or a problem. When people I knew talked about Vietnam, they seemed to be reliving their nightmares. We who never went wanted to know what went on there, but many of the guys seemed to be stuck there. Their memories became their present experience. That didn't seem to serve them well.

I know that after the shock of my divorce, I talked about the betrayal and the shock over and over to whomever would listen. One day, I got bored with the story and stopped. Then one day I had the perception that I was free and it felt good. At that moment the old story was no longer relevant and I started to remember the good times. They made better stories. So, I am going to conclude that in my case, the rehashing served a purpose until it didn't.

In AA meetings, people tell their drunk stories over and over. I think there are several purposes to this. One is so they don't forget. Lama Marut says it is wise to forgive, but dumb to forget. Another significant purpose of retelling the nightmares in AA is to help other people. This is huge in my opinion. There is nothing that beats the feeling of helping others. Nothing.

I am currently watching a friend, who has been through a difficult experience at her job, tell the story to all her friends. She is in the shock and trauma part. She also needs some validation for her ego which has been battered. I understand that. But I worry that she will inadvertently plant doubt in the minds of others about what in the story was coming from her side. Was it her fault? I watched the unfolding of the drama. She held up her side with class and amazing restraint. My guess is that in her case, she still has to be politic about telling her story. At the same time she needs the catharsis of unloading. I suspect she will soon move on. But in her case I think she should write it so that others can benefit from her experience.That is never a bad idea.

What strikes me is that when we are no longer caught in the emotions that ripped through us when we had a horrible experience, then any story can be healthy and serve us or others. At that moment we are free to tell or not to tell. Any ideas abut what mechanism liberates some and binds others? Perhaps that is the moment when our story changes from the personal to the universal. After all every divorce story is different, yet, in many ways exactly the same. Every drunk story is different, yet the same. There aren't that many plots out there if you think about it.