Part of the reason may be that I am I suppose finally 'moving on'. (The sad truth is that there is still some moving on to do.) And part of the reason may be that I recently started a new blog. It is not divorce specific. It was started as part of a project (as yet not that fruitful) to decide what I can - or want? - to do to support myself post divorce. I do not write it for an audience, and I do not publicise it. I find - as I do when blogging here - that writing things that people may read helps me to work out what I think. If I don't write in a public sphere, my thoughts can remain wishy washy or slippery.
It is a bit disappointing, therefore, when skimming some of that blog just now, to notice how often my ex features in it. It's been a long, long time since I hoped we might get back together, and I really have very little curiosity about his current life. Yet he comes up a lot when I think about me. After all we were together over 20 years, and I sort of lost myself in my marriage - I don't lay this at his door, but at mine. Yet I think often about how it happened.
Anyway, as I said, I was looking at the blog this evening and it seemed to me that one post in particular may be of interest to readers here. It was written in a hurry when I had a huge shock reading a 100yr old work of fiction and saw my ex described there.
Maybe some of you may find it useful, too, so I include part of that post here. The rest of the post reveals how the book describes my ex to a tee, and is what stopped me in my tracks, but I'm not sure it would be applicable to many wikis (even though Arnold Bennet seems to think his character typical of a particular sort of fool). The thing I think may have relevance here is this question of thinking your 'other half' must be right, and you must be wrong. It's one of the things I have enjoyed about the Helen Titchener story (for any Archers fans out there) and I think it may not be that unusual.