I am in the middle of writing a stage play currently called "The wall". It is being written in collaboration with another writer and we are currently researching the main issue of the play that being "denial". Currently we are exploring concepts that can be described using the metaphor "burning bridges". How people believe that they can leave a situation "burning the bridges" behind them as a way of dealing with the issues they have left behind. It appears this method of coping fails to promote personal growth and places a person in a sort of perpetual state of emotional stasis... The reality is as far as we can tell "bridges can never be burned" and if they are rendered impassable then they have to be reconciled to facilitate growth other wise personal stasis is the outcome and so to are the appropriate stress-ors and compensatory behaviors associated. It could be argued quite successfully, I tend to think, that an act of violence, lashing out is an act of "bridge burning" thus destroying the ease or chance of reconciliation...or so the notion goes... any one care to discuss?
Not completely accurate in all cases. For example, after having divorced my first wife, I left her and her family with no contact in nearly 30 years. I consider that "bridge" burnt and totally obliterated. In fact, I'm 66 now and honestly don't know if she's still alive. Don't care, either. I can't see it restricted my "growth" or "status" (the correct spelling of that word) in any way, form, shape or fashion. I've grown and have enjoyed my life VERY much without even thinking for a second about looking back.
fair comment. [no the word is stasis not status btw] yet of course here we are talking about her....hmmmmm. Do you feel happy about what happened or saddened?
Quite happy - best choice I ever made. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And yes, I apologize - I read the phrase to quickly and stasis IS the correct word.
Sounds like a success story!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! the question that comes to mind is : You mention that you took nearly 30 years to restore contact [ re-built a bridge]. Can I ask why you restored contact and how you felt at the time? edit: I have mistakenly interpreted read-only's post ....
In the mean time I shall recount a true story about a friends situation: The man in involved has a huge anger management issue and when he divorced his wife of 30 years he left on the basis of "bridges burned". I met him a few years later at a shopping centre where he had stationed himself in the hope of a "chance" encounter with his children from the marriage. He waited for nearly 12 months. Every day [ approximately 6 hours per day] waiting for the chance to talk to his adult children [2] as they passed by ignoring him. Eventually he managed to spend a moment with each and managed a form of reconciliation over coffee and lunch and is now somewhere in Europe attempting to get on with his life...
You misunderstood me completely! I told you quite clearly that the "bridge" was obliterated and that I didn't even know if she is still alive. How can you possibly take that to mean I've re-established contact???? I have NOT and will never, ever will attempt to do so. I've no interest there at all.
ahh!! I see oops sorry...a case of rose tinted glasess for me for sure... I misread your " as implying that you have made contact after 30 years... my bad...again sorry for that...
It's a very interesting idea. I suspect that some bridges are really good to burn (as Read pointed out) and others may not be. For a really gripping stage play, maybe exploring the edge cases is a way to go. For example, someone who desperately wants to burn a bridge but can't... or someone whom is under immense presure to burn a bridge and is resisting it. It could be taken a step further by allowing the wrong choice to be made and then showing the results. The finale of course could be a choice correction... or even more interesting a synthesis of a whole new choice that wasn't otherwise initially available. Have fun! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for your vote CC! As usual I appreciate your insights. The actual play is essentially about the act of denial and how this interferes with the natural flow of things, but I shall keep the details a little secret to maintain surprise. The book version also under way is called "Lovers by Coincidence" which is actually a romantic comedy similar in vain to "You've got mail", "Sleepless" and similar products. Choice correction and choice synthesis sounds great...good ideas CC! Burning bridges is I believe a huge part of the act of denial, and is a way that people cope with severe heart ache and painful experiences. Putting off the need to reconcile until better able to or the need arises in their lives when they must do so. [even if they do so only in their own hearts and not out there in reality] For example the ability to love in full after a tragic love affair usually requires the need to reconcile the reasons and feelings associated. Burning bridges is a way of destroying the immediate ability thus putting it off until later or never. IMO It is always tempting to burn bridges when faced with painful outcomes but the act is actually one of deliberate self delusion in most cases. Which is where the play "The wall" comes in as it is essentially about the deliberate decision to build walls of denial and explores the serious outcomes of such acts. In a sense it is an act of violence against one self. However this is mere armchair psychology and I was wondering on other peoples opinions and expertise.
