Where Nursing Homes Started

If you look at the history of the asylums blog I posted before this, you see that this type of home replaced the asylums when it came to the elderly. How did this start? Let's take a closer look. 

Photo by Flashbak - a 1970s nursing home (if you didn't guess by the colors in the room)

The nursing home may have had some similarities to asylums. I'd say it isn't the same, mostly because the focus is different. The focus isn't to cure, but instead to keep the elders of the community comfortable and somewhat happy. This is where you send grandma and grandpa when you can no longer take care of their needs by yourself. The asylums in comparison were similar, yet the goal of the asylum was recovery. 

You think of medical care when you think of nursing homes. Older asylums look like nursing homes in some cases. I know that nowadays nursing homes are not all homey. It didn't start that way. The homes were literally homes set up for those who needed support in their older age. Hospitals also took on some of the chronic, age-related care. The social security act of 1935 resulted in institutionalized rest homes because it provided funding from the government. Almshouses closed their doors around this time. Government funding was followed by government regulations, which were created to combat any abuses within the system. 1965 revealed medical facility-like nursing homes. 

The Beginning

We still haven't addressed where it all started. Early on the elders of the family were cared for by the family. Urban environments and work schedules, as well as lack of living space, created a demand for sending the older family members elsewhere. One of these places could be an almshouse (poor house or workhouse). The almshouse was one of three places you could send your relatives. Frankly, I find that appalling. Do you know who else ended up in almshouses? The insane, orphans, the poor, prisoners, and the displaced in society. Those with chronic and long-term illnesses could sometimes not be admitted into hospitals, and therefore, ended up here. Conditions were awful in these poor houses. 

Blackwell Island Almshouse -
 photo by Dailymail

Where else can you send your elders? Let's see, how about the board and care homes. This is nothing more than a rented room with basic care and meals. This is closer to the system we have today. Churches could be running these places. Sometimes you required a bit of money and proof of good character to get in, leaving the people of the streets out of the boarding houses. The earliest homes were not licensed, unlike later ones. They began providing more care as residents needed more help. The board and care homes transitioned into skilled nursing homes.

Assisted living was created as people disliked and complained about the medical atmosphere that overtook nursing homes. I can tell you that assisted living is not the same as a nursing home, mostly because the people are far more independent and might just need rehabilitation Even the rooms are fancier. At times, people are transferred to the nursing home section after they have declined. By now people were getting the picture when it came to making money; this is evidenced by the prices of assisted facilities today. There were so many places built and much like asylums this meant a lack of quality and ability to control quality. Some days I wonder if the nursing homes will end up in a similar situation to asylums (though I greatly hope that won't be the case). Lack of staffing is a warning sign that is hard to ignore and it worries me. 

Currently, Covid 19 and nursing homes have been having a hard time. We are more regulated there than in any other public place. While most businesses have said "don't worry about the mask if you're vaccinated", nursing homes and care facilities (heck, anything medical) have not. I do agree with the protection of our older humans. I also understand that abuses can easily happen and the regulations put in place are for the safety of the residents. The system is changing in odd ways due to the pandemic and I can't predict what it will look like two years from now. All I know is that the system itself is shifting.

Conclusions

After researching this and asylums in the same week, I can understand why they would keep an eye on the nursing and rest homes that are here. If unregulated, abuses can easily go unchecked and the whole system could crash into the same obstacles that asylums have. If over-regulated, we all go insane trying to meet impossible standards. It is a tight rope in the truest sense. We've come a long way from almshouses, thankfully, but the system is forever changing. May it change for the better as life evolves and we assess how we treat our elders. 

What truly makes me sad is that rest homes run by churches didn't reach out to the poor as much as they should have. They were too busy asking about character to help, which makes me sad inside. If you have read the previous blog on asylums, you will note that some unfortunate elders were sent to asylums to cut state costs. That is one place you could end up, which was just as bad as the almshouse if you were committed to an over-populated one. Food for thought. Take care of your family elders and make sure they are loved and provided for, especially when they are in a care facility of any kind. Give them the love you'd want in your old age. Check on them to make sure the home is treating them well. Hold the system accountable. That could make all the difference in the world to your family member and future residents.

Sources:

 https://www.nextavenue.org/history-of-nursing-homes/

https://www.americannursinghistory.org/history-nursing-homes-in-america

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-evolution-of-the-nursing-home

Brief History of Asylums

We see asylums as creepy places, and some of them are legitimately haunted. When and why did they start? Let's begin there. 

The Kirkbride Plan  - PBS Learning Media

During the times of at-home treatment for those with mental illness, some could not be around others or be contained. This is where being sent to "a home" started. Private hospitals depended on the money of wealthy families to care for their patients. Most hospitals had a ward for those who needed it. Asylums became something big when the idea of open space and kind treatment began to be considered the way to cure the mentally ill. 

This required secluded places. The Quakers were the first to run with this and had laypeople running it, rather than medical physicians. Most other facilities had physicians as the head of the establishment. Thomas Kirkbride developed a plan and outline for how they should be set up. Almost every place used this system for at least 40 years. Kirkbride's plan called for only 250 patients in a building with a central core and long wings arranged so sunshine and fresh air can get in. Privacy was also provided. 

As the local government got involved, the elderly were put into these places because the government tried to cut costs and could define "senility" as a psychiatric problem. This could save money at almshouses and hospitals. When the state wouldn't provide enough funding and the places soon overcrowded, they faced problems. Many patients didn't respond in this environment, particularly with dementia. 

Nurses' training schools began to be included in these places around the 1860s. This had helped hospitals and staff hoped it would help asylums. For the first time, men were welcomed into the nursing profession, which the asylums welcomed. It is unknown whether this made a difference in medical care. In the 1930s the economy was bad and the war was going on. Funding was cut even more. Staff was hard to find as the war took them into service. 

This was where doctors decided to try new things. Some created separate programs and outpatient programs. New therapies were created, like electroshock therapy, insulin, and psychosurgery. New medications were tried. Around 1950 the age of asylums was slipping away because of nursing homes providing for elderly. New systems and medications were returning the mentally ill to their own homes. Only a few still exist. There are some individuals who wonder whether some humans could use a constant, private environment. 

Were They All Bad Places?

We have the perception that these places shoved people out of the way, abused them, and treated them badly. Did they all do this? No, the nuns and monks cared for people well over the years. Sadly, the asylums that did abuse their power gave horrible impressions of these care facilities. I will, however, note the failures of this system along with the successes. 

Victorian era restraint - Science 
Museum

Restraints had a reason, which was to stop someone from harming themselves, others, or keep them from tearing of clothes or lewd behavior. Critics claimed that the violence required to restrain some patients escalated the violence in the asylum. After a man was found strangled after being strapped to his bed in a straitjacket with no supervision overnight that ended restraints.

Asylums in some places encouraged treating those in them as ordinary people and expecting them to eat dinner, have tea, and behave normally. Using a system of rewards and punishments, they shepherded clients into normalcy. They tailored their treatments to specific conditions. This was the system the Tuke brothers created.

Many others were created with the idea of work and religion being a way to help individuals. The people in these asylums were given chores to do. At Hanwell 320 of the 560 patients were employed. Hanwell was self relient. They earned their keep and kept busy, which meant they didn't just sit around. No restraints were used here, which provided a challenge. Their last resort was isolation and creating less external stimulation so that they could calm down their flustered patients. 

The humane treatment of people led to recovery and the lack of need for asylum. It was the lack of care that led to the opposite since neglect and abuses led to further insanity (literally). Unfortunately, the crowded nature of the buildings led asylum directors to maintain control with less staffing using restraint, padded cells, and drugging patients. They kept building onto places despite the common sense that said to stop, which made life horrible for those living there.

Before you had to have a license to oversee a "madhouse", those within these places were treated like inmates and were ways to make money. The madhouse act (1774) required a license and inspections during the year. For a while, the insane poor were not cared for, but that changed when the lunacy act of 1845 required them to care for the insane in their area.

Sexes generally didn't mix in asylums. It wasn't until the early 20th century that they mixed company, though there were still gendered wards to sleep in. Freedom was not the greatest, depending on where you were. There are people who never left the asylum after being committed. Other people also got to visit towns and work outside the asylum, so it depended greatly on what asylum you were committed to. Many places encouraged recreation within and outside of the building. Those that worked were paid.

Did Gender Matter?

Women, it seems, only came for short periods of time. They came for rest and were sent on their way upon being ready to go back. These women could also be admitted for problematic marriages or giving birth to illegitimate children (rape or not). Post-natal depression was a common reason, too. Unfortunately, they had few opportunities to go outside or play games (which you can blame on victorian ideals). This changed as time passed. The bonding between women and staff was strong. Work was encouraged in the needle room, laundry, and general housekeeping.

Reasons to be committed
- Dangerous Minds

The routine was to rise at 7 am, eat breakfast, work, eat lunch, and have tea. Airing courts were open between meals if you didn't work. Due to staffing issues in the female wings, nurses were known for dosing patients with paraldehyde to make their workload lighter (a jerk move, if you ask me).

The men in asylums before the first world war (for the most part) had none to look after them and were dirt poor. Shell-shocked men were sent here. The male wards weren't large. Escapes were more common in male wards. The schedule was the same, only they worked in kitchens and bakehouses. Men had more discipline in their ward. They had the freedom for sports and being in the musical program. Outdoor work could be allowed and often was. 

Treatments

In the beginning, they just tried to keep them calm and occupied. If needed, they restrained someone. Insulin was used to treat schizophrenia because they thought it was an imbalance issue. This consisted of putting insulin in someone until they went into shock, then reviving them with a sugary dose of tea. It caused amnesia and killed diabetics. Causing seizures via metrazol was also a fad, which ended in broken vertebrae and amnesia. It was ended around the time of ECT.

 What followed was ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) and lobotomies. ECT was causing an epileptic fit with electricity. Surprisingly, depressed patients actually felt better after this and the treatment is used on rare occasions. It did cause amnesia and suicidal tendencies, though.

 Lobotomies are when you cut the brain tissue in the frontal lobe of the brain and this ended in the 1950s. It affected personality and brain function. Also, bleeding was used and mercury was used in manic people. Gyrators (tables that turned them upside down) and tranquilizer chairs were also used. 

Removing organs was a "treatment" apparently and had a high mortality rate. At one time, they would induce fever and inject malaria in schizophrenia patients. Many died from this.

The biggest breakthrough was drugs. People still use them to manage their disorders today. The next largest help was talking through issues and occupational therapy (which is where they should have started in the first place!). 

Restraints were used for manic, violent, and suicidal patients. Drugs were not a thing at this point. Straight jackets and fingerless gloves were the most common forms of this. Padded cells were used for violent or self-harming individuals. Less commonly, hydrotherapy (a continuous bath) was used. On the tub was placed a canvas sheet which left only your head sticking out. 1890 was when restraints were limited. Each use was to be recorded and approved by a medical professional.

Hydrotherapy - onedio

Hydrotherapy is the idea that a bath will calm the person. It could be hours, days, or overnight and at any temperature. Warm water was used for insomniacs, cold for manic-depressive psychosis. Water was kept at a constant temperature through fresh water in and old water draining constantly. They wanted a patient to relax or even fall asleep. The person was in a hammock in the tub. This could also be a shower.

Why They Ended

The system was too large to function, in short. On top of that, funding was cut time and again. They also had a lack of staff, due to lack of money. Abuse ensued as a result. Psychiatric advances led to hospitals being able to take care of a lot of the people who need mental help. That eliminated the system itself. Drugs are the main reason for this and can allow mentally ill people to no longer need constant care. The mental health act of 1983 also allowed those that had been sent there to appeal their way out because they now had full rights back. 

Research has proven that those involved in their treatment and in safe environments recover. Some medical staff actually think that the move to have hospitals take on the psych wards was a bad one. There are a few privately run facilities still around, but they are few. Given the abuse that ruined the few good practices in the system, I'd say that nobody will go for the idea again. When adequately staffed and run correctly, people recovered - it was the lack of staff that killed it and the bad methods that they chose to use that put it deep in its grave. They should have called the monks in and had them run everything. The monks wouldn't have done the damage that can never be undone.

Sources:

 https://www.nursing.upenn.edu/nhhc/nurses-institutions-caring/history-of-psychiatric-hospitals/

https://www.lib.uwo.ca/archives/virtualexhibits/londonasylum/hydrotherapy.html

https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/medicine/victorian-mental-asylum

https://www.thetimechamber.co.uk/beta/sites/asylums/asylum-history/the-history-of-the-asylum

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/diseases/early.html

https://www.seeker.com/an-illustrated-history-of-the-mental-asylum-1766218599.html

https://www.talkspace.com/blog/history-inhumane-mental-health-treatments/

Real Loki In Mythology

We know of Loki through Marvel movies and streaming services, but what is the actual mythology behind Loki? Is he more than the god of mischief? Let's find out. 

Photo by The Atlantic

Starting with bare-bones basics, Loki is the god of mischief and possibly fire. He is considered neutral (not good or bad). It explains why he'd be an antihero. Odin may not be his father, but he's still considered part of the deities known as Aesir. He is commonly a companion of Thor and Odin. He can change shape and sex at will. His father is indeed a giant. He's also caused the death of several gods in Norse mythology. Loki produced Hel (goddess of death), unlike what the movies seem to tell you. He also (with a female giant) produced Jormungand and Fenrir. He gave birth to Odin's 8-legged horse, too (yes - gave birth). With his wife Sigyn, he has a son (Narfi or Nari) whose name could mean corpse. In all aspects, he defies all society and makes a mess of everything. He often has to fix what he has done himself. His name could possibly mean knot or tangle.

Does he pay for his crimes? Yes, actually. For all his trouble there is a chain of his son's entrails (yes, you heard me) and they tie him down to three rocks in a cave, where poison is dripped onto him by a snake. His wife catches the poison in a bowl by his side, only leaving to dump it on occasion (where he then gets hit briefly by the agonizing poison). This is the explanation for an earthquake. He isn't free until he breaks free at Ragnorak. What is interesting to note is that he wasn't worshiped like the rest of the Norse gods, yet is considered a Norse god. There is no evidence of him being cult followed. I suspect the messes he created in the written tales are why. Who wants to live for the shapeshifter that ultimately acts only for himself and his advantage? Literally no one, apparently. I can understand that. 

Genderfluid? Or not?  

One of the oddest things about Loki is his ability to change sex. Shapeshifting is not a new idea, but genderfluid gets a bit weird. Technically he can just switch sexes because Norse people didn't have that concept (given switching shape doesn't change his identity). He has both given sperm to produce a child and given birth to a child/animal, according to the mythology tales. Has Marvel talked about this? Surprisingly, yes. Tales say that he lived as a woman on earth for 8 years (sex, chores, children, and all) and as a horse, gave birth to a foal. The comics picked up on this quality a decade or so ago and keep using it. It isn't a new thing for Loki. If you are of the opinion that Marvel is just conforming and putting diversity in just to have it, you are incorrect - it was in the mythology! 

Photo By Cosplay Central

The Loki show on Disney + shows fluid on his file, by the way, so look for it. He does have a "Lady Loki" comic version, where he lives as a woman in a body meant for someone else. Given his shapeshifting abilities, it doesn't shock me that he is like this. After all, he does go against all natural or societal boundaries most of the time. Genderfluid is a modern invention, though, so it may not apply because mythology is extremely weird. Read my sources. You'll see what I mean. 

Is he as charming as the Marvel movies say? 

No. He is straight-up awful. According to ballads, he tricked a blind god into killing another god with an arrow. He killed another god publicly at a party just because he wasn't getting attention. He is not the antihero you like. Tom Hiddleston makes him look charming and tame compared to the mythology that says otherwise. To be fair though, mythology is toned down for movies most times due to its weird nature, so that isn't uncommon. Be that as it may, if we showed Loki in all his glory not one fan would like him. 

At the base of his awfulness are his jealousy, constant need for attention, and his notion that he is the center of the universe. He does what benefits him and him only. He sometimes complies to fixing things just to save his own skin. Marvel did get the attitude right, but they gave him charm. He was obnoxious in the poetry ballads and no other gods liked him. He made a party into an insult match after he murdered someone, refused to leave, and then hurled insults at everyone. Does that sound charming to you? 

Has he helped the tribe of gods (aesir) he has chosen allegiance to? Sometimes. He is confusing and switches sides often. He's not reliable. He is sometimes called upon to help with battles and other problems (whether he is fixing his own mistake or not). He tied his manhood to a goat and played tug of war to entertain someone at their request and was barely acknowledged for it. He goes from ally to an enemy at points. By Ragnorak he is fully an enemy. 

Good or bad? 

He is both. Some historians consider the possibility that the tribe of Aesir treated him badly, so he rebelled and picked the side of the enemy. The truth is that he was not consistent in the general sense. He does help the Aesir. He also creates utter chaos that results in death and destruction. His children kill Thor and Odin. He also gets nasty when he wants attention. Again, you could say that the Aesir starved him of recognition, but given he only does stuff for his benefit, that's a tricky situation. He is both. Much like Deadpool (who is also awful in nature), he goes under the antihero label. Read the poetry for yourself and you make the choice. Was he treated badly and shunned for not keeping order or was he evil? It depends on your opinion of the Aesir.

Sources:

https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/06/13/yes-loki-is-genderfluid-in-norse-mythology/#:~:text=The%20comic%20establishes%20that%20Loki,male%2C%20he%20uses%20masculine%20pronouns.

 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Loki

https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/the-aesir-gods-and-goddesses/loki/

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/loki-norse-mythology/

Introvert zones and what you need to know

 Introverts are like phones; we need to be left alone for a bit to recharge. Our time by ourselves is for your safety. How well we function depends entirely on how charged up we have been. In other words, we have introvert zones and should be allowed to sit in them, much like how you set a phone on the counter and do something else. 

Photo by Elle Australia

An introvert zone is a place or general area where an introvert goes to recharge alone. Sometimes other people are let into it and other times they invade without permission. Quite a few people are oblivious to the introvert zone. Perceptive people step into it and step back out if you seem annoyed. Today I'm going to give you the basic rundown of why this is important. 

Why We Need It

Introverted people need a break from socializing and the noise of the outside world a bit more often than extroverts. Extroverts need it too, yes, but not nearly as much. We only have so many safe places that are sacred, such as our office, our apartment, our car, and inside a good book. If we can't function at normal levels due to constant interruption it is not good for us or extrovert-kind. I'd like to love the people around me with all of Jesus' love. When I am socially exhausted I can barely be nice. For the sake of introverts everywhere, I will kindly explain the concept to those who are not overly aware of it. 

When You Are Allowed In

This is an honor. You see, it means we love you or like you enough to keep you around while we recharge. Our closest friends can sit with us while we are plugged into our zones. This is provided that you don't cost us energy. We have to be close for this to happen or be fellow introverts. The exceptions to the rule have to do with friendship and dating. I can sit beside my husband and recharge, but maybe not all my coworkers and friends. Our friends give us energy at different levels, so some friends may not be let into my recharge zones and some friends might be. You are still my friend, regardless of if you can plug in with me.

When You Are Invading

Some people are oblivious to their invasion of our introvert zones. It is highly annoying when they are, whether we love them or not. It is jarring to have your peaceful, quiet place taken from you in one instant, then be unable to lose the person who did it. It is either that or they do it for short times and extremely often. Introverts reading this can probably name names at this point in the paragraph. Most of the time the culprits are blind to our zones. 

Do you think you've invaded our zones at one point or another? Let me give you some signs that you have. Some of us can mask our annoyance, while others can be straight-up rude, but look for these signs anyway. People who lack social cues may not see these signs so easily. 

Photo by funny Brazil

Annoyance is the first sign that they want you to leave. It can be anything from a quickly-masked flash of emotion to body language that says "I was busy". We might act busy. If introverts are not happy to see you, but otherwise you have no quarrel at all, you might have stepped into their alone time and cost them energy. Much like a phone, it can't charge if you use it. This can be subtle and be conveyed via tone, body language that isn't open or toward you, and choice of words. 

Depending on the person, they may be less conversational and shut down any attempts. One word and curt answers may be normal in some people. I will note that specific humans are not generally high on word count. I am talking about those that converse with others often while socializing. Should you step into their personal space and try to talk to them, they might shut it down or let it die quickly. They may even tell you they are busy. I tend to be polite, so it usually looks like me nodding and giving one-word answers (making it a one-sided conversation). My eyes have been known to glaze over at points. This doesn't phase some individuals, for whatever reason, so I let them exhaust their words (if there is no escape).

Work environments allow you to send someone on an errand occasionally. Trying to get the person to leave via sending them on a task is one way we try to gain our peaceful zone back. If another human you are trying to interact with is diverting you to somewhere else (work or home) they may need a moment. Workspaces are sometimes our zones. I know that I like prepping and cleaning the kitchen at my evening job alone. I have let others do errands for me to get them out of my zone (I'll note that they offered to help every time). 

Photo by Meme Generator

Leaving the room is an option we sometimes use because we don't need to kill anyone that day. You can see from Loki's expression here that he wants to because they interrupted his zone. I'm joking about the killing, but I'm somewhat not joking. "Killing" is defined here in this paragraph as "crushing someone's soul with words or actions". Being so overwhelmed that you need a moment to yourself to keep it together is one reason we recharge. People who drop in on us at the wrong time may receive a death glare or sharp words, none of which are what Jesus wants us to do. If we can leave we do. It is for the sake of your feelings that we spare you our true thoughts. Introversion is not a reason to be mean to other humans. 

There are, however, people who will be rude about your invasion. They might crush your soul a bit. I'm so sorry. Not everyone is polite, nor is everyone rude, but sometimes we all let words loose. Being at the end of your sanity rope, being socially exhausted, and being stressed can lead right into an outburst when one invades our zones. There will be humans that don't hold back their fire, as well as those who tried and failed. Nobody is perfect. 

Photo by Log Into Facebook

Reading is an activity usually done solo unless you are teaching or have kids. Please do not waltz over to someone deeply absorbed in a book and ask "What you readin'?". Nothing annoys me more. A book is a zone. I am happy to converse with you about books - just not while I have one open in my hands! Closed book? Sure, say hello. Open book? Stop and walk away. I promise, I love you all, but unless you have something important to say to me leave me in peace. I am within the world of the book I am reading. Important words should be said, but make it quick. Leave out the interruptive small talk. 

Reasons You Are Considered Invasive

You cost energy and don't give enough of it back if we don't want you in our sacred spaces. Those we let in are not costing us our social energy. They are either neutral (equal cost and energy giving) or give us more energy. This doesn't mean we dislike you. We'll go give you quality time after we've been plugged in long enough. You get a better version of us when you let us retreat and come back. 

Photo by 99memes

Why do you cost social energy? I sometimes don't know. It may depend on the day. Introverts get overstimulated by life, thus we need quieter zones for the sake of sanity. Chaos is our worst enemy. You may be too loud at times. Heck, you may just mean too much small talk in one conversation. One reason the people who invade my space rub me the wrong way is that they fill the comfortable silence and/or interrupt my workflow (as I work best alone). I don't hate them; I'd like to make that clear. They just irk me when they step in unaware that I don't want conversation or don't need anything. Also, demanding our attention all the time will weary us into avoiding you until we have the energy to deal with your needs- or we just dodge talking to you at all, should you prove to be constantly exhausting or toxic.

Conclusion

In summary, there are many reasons we may step away from you and come back later. Toxic and constantly-demanding individuals will find we avoid them. We need our zones to process life and plug ourselves in. Our peaceful, sacred places need to be there for us. Whether we disappear into our books, offices, or bedrooms is not important; what is important is that others understand why we do this and allow us the personal space to do so. We'd like to give you positive vibes, so remember this when you think you stumbled into someone's zone. Smile and let them be. They'll be appreciative of you. They may even let you into their zone in the future. 

 

Photo by Any Introvert

Comfort Media

 We watch the same movies and play the same games all the time, but why? We know the ending of our favorite media and consume it over and over despite the lack of surprise. Let's figure out why. 

Photo by Filmic

The definition of comfort media is media that you love to watch over and over. TV show, movie, video game, music.....it all goes into this category if you listen to it time and again - especially if you are upset and find it soothing (aka, using it as an escape). Nostalgia has prompted me to re-experience all my Nancy Drew games (a blog in progress that will come later, after I finish Midnight In Salem). Those games are comfort media to me, along with movies that include Scott Pilgrim vs The World and the Minions movie. I have a few more, of course, but it is a long list. You have to love it and find it amazing. 

Too Many Choices

Pull up Netflix, Youtube, or any streaming service and you will be overwhelmed by options of new content. They do gear it toward your preferences, yes, but decisions on what to chill to will generally sway to what you know is good. Stressed students will rewatch Friends or an anime because they don't want to think. I watched quite a lot of Friends and Parks and Rec between studying. When you have so much to decide from that it takes five minutes to scroll through, I'd say we might have too much of a choice. This means we find what we like and stick with it. It is just easier. 

Photo by Quickmeme

I will say this; media has gotten better at filtering into preferences. Youtube will feed you videos you should like, as well as any streaming site you subscribe to. Given that, we are less overwhelmed by choices nowadays but likely will only take two seconds to choose a show. The same concept still applies. If we want to fill the silence in our dorm room, office, or home we take two minutes at most to pick something. Unless we want something new, it is not likely we take much time to look all the way down the page. 

Tradition

Christmas tradition says that my family and I rewatch It's A Wonderful Life and A Christmas Story every year. This is one major reason that people love to consume the same media. Your traditions on Halloween, Christmas, Easter, or any holiday feed into your comfort media. Hot cocoa, a blanket, and some Christmas cookies make Jimmy Stewart and Bedford Falls real nostalgic. I'm sure you have your own traditional films for different occasions. This fits into comfort media. TV stations rerun the holiday classics all the time. 

A Sense of Order and Familiarity

When you know what is going to happen there is lower stress. You also feel a sense of control. Familiar anything helps us unwind. At the time in our lives when nothing makes sense, our favorite games and media allow us to escape into a world that does make sense. You know what is coming, when it comes, and what you have to do to finish the game. Your beloved characters don't change. It is a comforting thing to temporarily be in a universe where you know what is going on. It gives you an illusion of control. We like control and do what we can to keep it, such as watching comfort media.

Photo by Pinterest

On top of this, stressed students and working adults don't want to think after a long day of class/work. Familiar movies, music, and games take less effort to process. It is not stressful if you have seen it ten million times and use it for background noise (game playthroughs work like this for me). I have noticed that a silent workspace or apartment becomes unnerving after a bit. Many people will have some media playing just to fill the silence. Due to the concept I described before and the need for something to end the quiet oddness, they pick an old favorite and let it play. 

Memories are strong. Nostalgia and how you felt about something way back when influences what you choose to take in. I'm still not really into playing Curse of Blackmoor Manor after seeing the nightmare scene when I was ten. White Wolf of Icicle Creek, on the other hand, is my favorite game ever, as well as Waverly and Treasure in the Royal Tower. Long story short, nostalgia plays a major role in what is familiar to you, which feeds right into traditions. That also feeds into what you like in media. 

Disruptive Environment

Why this? Because people or kids who interrupt your TV show every so many minutes don't truly allow you to enjoy a new TV show or movie for the first time. In specific places, you may just put in something you know backward and forwards. When they interrupt (inevitably) you still know what is going on. This goes double if everyone is talking over your media. In fact, you may want to save your new videos to watch later and go somewhere else if this is that bad. 

Photo by esmeme

If you focus in on your media this is even worse. Grab headphones. Go find the most uninhabited corner of the house. In complete seriousness, you can even drive to a coffee shop (where no one bothers anyone). Should this be the reason you only watch the same things over again, I am so sorry. I hope you have your driver's license and a car, or at least a friend who can lend you their space. I feel for you. There is no shame in visiting your local coffee shops and libraries. Coffee and tea with a movie is good. Librarians love you and will help you find a new movie, should you desire one. 

Parents, you are truly trapped. I am not a parent, though I plan to be one years in the future. I know I will have less choice in what is on the TV or playing in the house. I don't have a solution for you at this time. I am so sorry. Other than staying up late and sending the kids to a relative for an evening, I'm pretty dang sure you can't just run to the library or coffee shop, not unless Grandma and Grandpa are over. If a solution comes to me I will devote a blog to it. 

Sources:

https://malu-rocha.medium.com/why-do-we-watch-the-same-films-and-tv-shows-over-and-over-again-fbecfc67f3f0

https://symptomsofliving.com/blog/why-do-we-rewatch-tv-shows/

Lesser-known Books

 

Fellow readers, I'd like to suggest several books that are not mainstream, are great, or both. These authors need more love and attention. Consider this a reading list of lesser-known or awesome books.

Photo by Literary Hub

Many authors in the world are not advertised like JK Rowling and James Patterson. The bigger the name, the more advertising you have, and the more money you make. Small authors need some love. I can suggest a few that I know are good. Are you ready to go buy more books? Need some ideas for the upcoming Christmas season? Let me help. 

Maggie Sullivan Mysteries

Photo By Amazon

You don't see much Marlowe-Esque hardboiled fiction anymore, especially if you want a female detective. Today you are in luck. Maggie Sullivan Mysteries are written by Ruth Myers, who won an award for these books. There are Nine of these mysteries and two short stories starring the tough woman Maggie Sullivan. She takes cases during the depression era and lives in Dayton, Ohio, where she has chosen a career most women have not. I highly suggest picking up the first one and seeing if you like it. I read the first one and got hooked, then impulsively bought every book of it on my Kobo app. 

You don't know the order of the books? Well, let me fix that. 

1. No Game For A Dame

2. Tough Cookie

3. Don't Dare A Dame

4. Shamus In A Skirt

5. Maximum Moxie

6. Dames Fight Harder

7. Uncivil Defense

8. Ration Of Lies

9. Victory Garter

Short Stories

1. The Barefoot Stiff

2. A Concrete Garter Belt

Inspector Lefebvre Series

Photo by Simon and Schuster

Gary Inbinder is a man who only wrote five books. He is a retired lawyer. Two are stand-alone novels. The last three are a series that focuses on the main character Inspector Lefebvre, a man who has a wife and daughter, lives in his mother-in-law's house, and solves three mysteries around the time after the White Chapel murders (Jack the Ripper). Inbinder pulls two characters from his first stand-alone novel The Flower to the Painter to start the series off. He also focuses on the art world quite a bit. You'll see what I mean if you open the first mystery or the stand-alone featuring the two re-used characters.

The order:

1. The Devil in Montmartre  2.The Hanged Man  3. The Man Upon the Stair

I loved his first mystery so much I impulse-bought (yes, I have a problem with buying books) all five of his books with my Christmas/Birthday money. He's worth it. 

Misc. Books that I'm told are good

I did some research and found some good series I've never heard of. The websites I have below include fantasy series that I've never seen in any physical bookstore I've encountered. It appears you'd be reading forever if I wrote detailed descriptions, so the link below is where you will find many beautiful books to read. Garrett PI  looks particularly intriguing to me. 

Good Fantasy Books

The young adult fiction genre can't be missed. This link I am including would, again, be too long to write out a description for all the books. I'll let you explore these yourselves. I will, however, highlight a few that I know are fantastic. 

YA Fiction

The two young adult fiction series that will never die for me are Maximum Ride (by James Patterson) and A Series of Unfortunate Events (by Lemony Snicket). I know that Patterson is a big name here, but I include it only because it is in the link above. Lemony Snicket, an odd duck if you've read anything he's written, is especially for those who are odd ducks themselves. I love his stuff. He even wrote a Christmas book about a piece of coal. Look into that man and see if you're into his stuff. There are 27 more series in the link above. 

Conclusion 

Photo by Tygertale - an illustration from The 
Lump of Coal by  Lemony Snicket

Some of these books are somewhat mainstream and some are complete unknowns. Every genre has an audience. Yes, I did include two books you know to be in most bookstores. I only did that because they were in the link I found and were proven good. If you want to pursue any new series please let me know what you think by commenting. If you found one to be so fantastic it blew your mind, definitely comment and I will look into reading it myself. Either way, give the authors here some love. Make this piece of coal you see smile. 

Famous Actors with PTSD

 If you were to rewatch any Jimmy Stewart movie you would find the "Hitchcock" look in a lot of them. You would also see what looks like a PTSD episode in several scenes of It's A Wonderful Life. Let's talk about that.

Photo by Talk Film Society

Audi Murphy and Jimmy Stewart both had PTSD. I'd like to honor those veterans by talking about their war experiences. In It's A Wonderful Life the film crew recognized that when Stewart's character broke down it wasn't acting. Look for the scene where George Bailey comes home and screams at the children, then clears a table in one swoop. He then snaps out of it and apologizes after looking at what he'd done. It looks convincingly like real fear in the actors' eyes. Watch the clip below from the time 6:42 to almost the end if you want to see the scene I am referring to. One Facebook post once claimed that was a PTSD episode, but I don't have positive (written) proof of it (and not for lack of searching). All I can say for sure is that it sure looks like one. Another scene to look for is when he is praying at Martini's and breaks down into sobbing. (Those were real tears.)

Audie Murphy never showed this type of emotion on film, as far as I know, but was a terror on the film set. He slept with a loaded gun beside him and David Niven (another actor who worked with him) says that he would wake up and let out a whole round into the air. He is highly decorated and survived battles that he technically shouldn't have. He came back looking a lot better than Jimmy Stewart in the face department, yet he paid a high cost for surviving his missions. 

Jimmy Stewart

I'm starting with Stewart. He was a pilot during World War II and was a commander. His fear was that he would make a mistake and cause someone else to die, which caused confirmed PTSD (flak happy, according to the time period). That is proven. He did, in fact, suffer from PTSD. Whether that was what motivated his performance in It's A Wonderful Life isn't totally proven, but makes complete and total sense. That was the first movie he filmed upon returning from WWII.  He looked like he had aged 10 to 20 years. It was said that he couldn't articulate how the war had changed him, but he could release the emotion of it during an acting performance. Given that, I understand why Hitchcock used him so often.

Photo by Montgomery Advertiser

His final mission was in February 1945. He was grounded for PTSD issues, then returned at the end of August. The only other movie offer he got was a movie about him, including his war service in the main storyline. He refused. He almost refused It's A Wonderful Life. He took it because it was the only offer he had at the time. During the filming he was still having nightmares, getting shaky, and sweating. He had just gotten to the point of holding food down again. Hearing loss had also developed since the war. Part of the reason for the edgy performance was that they were concerned the movie would bomb (it came out even, in the end), and part of Stewart's performance was rage because he battled whether he had an important role in Hollywood anymore. Again, PTSD was still present in him and it came out in those scenes where George Bailey was breaking. Still, I will not tell you that I have positive proof of this. He did in fact get mood swings, which would explain the real fear during the scene clip I included above. He did lash out in rage like that and then pause as if he lost himself for a minute, which leads me to believe that was a real PTSD mood swing captured on film. 

Stewart wrestled with guilt and rage in silence. It came out in the acting roles he chose to take. There was one instance where they bombed the wrong city by mistake and Stewart felt guilt for killing civilians. He once lost 13 planes and 130 men (his friends) died. Shenandoah and Winchester 73 were darker film roles that he wouldn't have been able to do before the war. He now had a dark side to him. Early in the war they used him for PR stunts until he demanded he see real action. He piloted a B-24 (the 445th) and was commander of the 703rd Squadron. The body count rose fast and he had gotten to know his men, so it got to him quick. Every dead man was one job he could have done better. He never talked about any of it until the end of his life. In 1976 her returned to military service in Tibenham, England where he was a squadron commander for four months. He was also a bomber pilot during the Vietnam war. He had nightmares for the rest of his life, if I understand my research correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

'The nightmares come every night. There was on oxygen at 20,000 feet with 190s zipping past, spraying lead and firing rockets, flak bursting about the cockpit. B-24s hit, burning, spinning out of formation.

Bail out! Bail out! Do you see any chutes? How many chutes? Whose ship was it? Oh God, not him?

Not them! Bodies, pieces of bodies smacking off the windshield. And the most frequent dream, an explosion under him and the plane lifted by it and the feeling that this was the end.' 

At the end of his service he was awarded the Air Medal with oak leaf clusters, the Distinguished Flying Crosses, and the Croix de Guerre. He also was sent to a treatment center at some point (the flak farm), according to his men. After the war he sought out roles that let him release his emotion, which again explains choosing films like Vertigo and various other Hitchcock films. 

Audie Murphy

This guy was dangerous to be on set with. While his PTSD didn't show up on film screens, it did scare his coworkers. In comparison to Stewart he looked fabulous and attractive. His PTSD led him to have a loaded gun with him, so I'd imagine his mind wasn't as good-looking as his face. He never truly left the war behind, not mentally. He was one of the first to talk openly about his PTSD. He was considered a hero for his war service. He didn't like being publicized for having medals when he felt that the men who never made it home should have gotten them. He didn't want the attention he got and resisted being called a hero.

Murphy lied about his age to join the Marines but was too small to join. He ended up in the infantry. He was a highly skilled soldier and marksman. By WWII's end, he was the most decorated soldier and had earned 28 medals. Murphy says it made him grow up too fast. He dealt with depression, insomnia, and nightmares. He could only sleep with a loaded gun under his pillow. He became addicted to pills and realized it, so he locked himself into a motel room and went through the withdrawal for a week. He died at age 45 in a plane crash. He wanted a simple burial with no military involved and got a military honored burial, despite what his will said. His stone is plain and inconspicuous, like an ordinary soldier's grave. His birth year is incorrect because of falsified information when he enlisted.

He held off a German attack by himself and led a counterattack while wounded. He'd had his men hide while he did so and then led them out. Read these quotes from History Channel and you can see how bad it was. He'd held off Germans for an hour at the point of going back to his men in the woods.

After emptying his M-1 carbine at the enemy, Murphy grabbed his field telephone and took cover atop the burning tank destroyer. Over the radio, he could hear the artillery commander asking how close the Germans were to his position. “Just hold the phone and I’ll let you talk to one of the bastards!” he yelled back.

Dazed and bloodied, he jumped from the still-burning tank destroyer and limped to his men. He later wrote that as he walked away, one thought in particular kept racing through his mind: “How come I’m not dead?”

Photo by Jeremy Roberts

The truth was that he survived so many battles and injuries that he was forever scarred by his PTSD and the war itself. He had a massively successful Hollywood career. Despite that, he could never relax or feel the peace that the war was over. It never really ended in his brain. He spoke out saying the military should provide better medical care to veterans. During the war he survived at least three wounds, malaria, gangrene, and many dead friends.

Conclusion

These two men came home and couldn't shake the war. As a result, we have movies that have a dark edge to them and many westerns branded with Murphy's face. Murphy nor Stewart wanted to be glorified for their service. Stewart didn't get as much attention for his service as Murphy did due to how Stewart aged during the war. After looking into both these men I respect them even more. 

Well done, First Lieutenant Major Audie Murphy and Major General Jimmy Stewart!

Sources:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-jimmy-stewart-book-mov-1202-20161201-column.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3825552/Jimmy-Stewart-suffered-extreme-PTSD-lost-130-men-fighter-pilot-WW-II-acted-anguish-filming-s-Wonderful-Life.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/entertainment/its-a-wonderful-jimmy-stewart-world-war-ii-service/index.html

https://www.tpr.org/show/texas-matters/2017-08-23/texas-matters-audie-murphy-war-hero-movie-star-ptsd-sufferer

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/audie-murphy-troubled-american-moh.html

https://jeremylr.medium.com/uncovering-resilient-american-soldier-audie-murphy-dd763ca0e5

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/22570/amazing-life-audie-murphy

https://www.history.com/news/audie-murphys-world-war-ii-heroics-70-years-ago?li_source=LI&li_medium=m2m-rcw-biography