Sadness

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 135 of 212 · 20 per page

• From The Decameron (1353)

  Then said Buffalmacco, 'If it be so indeed, we must cast about for a means of having it again, an we may contrive it.' 'But what means,' asked Calandrino, 'can we find?' Quoth Buffalmacco, 'We may be sure that there hath come none from the Indies to rob thee of thy pig; the thief must have been some one of thy neighbors. An thou canst make shift to assemble them, I know how to work the ordeal by bread and cheese and we will presently see for certain who hath had it.' 'Ay,' put in Bruno, 'thou wouldst make a fine thing of bread and cheese with such gentry as we have about here, for one of them I am certain hath had the pig, and he would smoke the trap and would not come.' 'How, then, shall we do?' asked Buffalmacco, and Bruno said, 'We must e'en do it with ginger boluses and good vernage[383] and invite them to drink. They will suspect nothing and come, and the ginger boluses can be blessed even as the bread and cheese.' Quoth Buffalmacco, 'Indeed, thou sayst sooth. What sayst thou, Calandrino? Shall's do 't?' 'Nay,' replied the gull, 'I pray you thereof for the love of God; for, did I but know who hath had it, I should hold myself half consoled.' 'Marry, then,' said Bruno, 'I am ready to go to Florence, to oblige thee, for the things aforesaid, so thou wilt give me the money.' Now Calandrino had maybe forty shillings, which he gave him, and Bruno accordingly repaired to Florence to a friend of his, a druggist, of whom he bought a pound of fine ginger boluses and caused compound a couple of dogballs with fresh confect of hepatic aloes; after which he let cover these latter with sugar, like the others, and set thereon a privy mark by which he might very well know them, so he should not mistake them nor change them. Then, buying a flask of good vernage, he returned to Calandrino in the country and said to him, 'Do thou to-morrow morning invite those whom thou suspectest to drink with thee; it is a holiday and all will willingly come. Meanwhile, Buffalmacco and I will to-night make the conjuration over the pills and bring them to thee to-morrow morning at home; and for the love of thee I will administer them myself and do and say that which is to be said and done.' [Footnote 383: _i.e._ white wine, see p. 372, note.]

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  [Dan 12:6 ; Rom 11:25 ; 1 Cor 15:55 ; 2 Thess 2:7 ] 8 Then the voice which I heard from heaven, I heard again speaking to me, and saying, “Go, take the book (scroll) which is open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land.” 9 So I went up to the angel and told him to give me the little book. And he said to me, “Take it and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.” [Ezek 2:8 , 9 ; 3:1–3 ] 10 So I took the little book from the angel’s hand and ate it, and in my mouth it was as sweet as honey; but once I had swallowed it, my stomach was c bitter. [Ps 119:103 ; Jer 15 ; 16 ] 11 Then they said to me, “You must prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and languages and kings.” [Jer 1:10 ] Revelation 11 The Two Witnesses 1 T HEN THERE was given to me a a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, “b Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar [of incense], and [count] those who worship in it. [Ezek 40–42 ] 2 “But leave out the court [of the Gentiles] which is outside the temple and do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles (the nations); and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months (three and one-half years). [Dan 8:9–14 ; Zech 12:3 ; Luke 21:24 ] 3 “And I will grant authority to My two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days (forty-two months; three and one-half years), dressed in c sackcloth.” [Deut 18:18 ; Mal 4:5 ; Mark 9:4 ] 4 These [witnesses] are the two olive trees and the two lampstands which stand before the Lord of the earth. [Zech 4:3 , 11–14 ] 5 And if anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouth and devours their enemies; so if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way. [2 Kin 1:10–12 ; Jer 5:14 ] 6 These [two witnesses] have the power [from God] to shut up the sky, so that no rain will fall during the days of their prophesying [regarding judgment and salvation]; and they have power over the waters (seas, rivers) to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every [kind of] plague, as often as they wish. [Ex 7:14–19 ; 1 Kin 17:1 ] 7 When they have finished their testimony and given their evidence, the beast that comes up out of the abyss (bottomless pit) will wage war with them, and overcome them and kill them.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The penitents were distributed into four classes:— (1) The weepers,273 who prostrated themselves at the church doors in mourning garments and implored restoration from the clergy and the people. (2) The hearers,274 who, like the catechumens called by the same name, were allowed to hear the Scripture lessons and the sermon. (3) The kneelers,275 who attended the public prayers, but only in the kneeling posture. (4) The standers,276 who could take part in the whole worship standing, but were still excluded from the communion. Those classes answer to the four stages of penance.277 The course of penance was usually three or four years long, but, like the catechetical preparation, could be shortened according to circumstances, or extended to the day of death. In the East there were special penitential presbyters,278 intrusted with the oversight of the penitential discipline. Restoration. After the fulfilment of this probation came the act of reconciliation.279 The penitent made a public confession of sin, received absolution by the laying on of hands of the minister, and precatory or optative benediction,280 was again greeted by the congregation with the brotherly kiss, and admitted to the celebration of the communion. For the ministry alone was he for ever disqualified. Cyprian and Firmilian, however, guard against the view, that the priestly absolution of hypocritical penitents is unconditional and infallible, and can forestall the judgment of God.281 Two Parties. In reference to the propriety of any restoration in certain cases, there was an important difference of sentiment, which gave rise to several schisms. All agreed that the church punishment could not forestall the judgment of God at the last day, but was merely temporal, and looked to the repentance and conversion of the subject. But it was a question whether the church should restore even the grossest offender on his confession of sorrow, or should, under certain circumstances leave him to the judgment of God. The strict, puritanic party, to which the Montanists, the Novatians, and the Donatists belonged, and, for a time, the whole African and Spanish Church, took ground against the restoration of those who had forfeited the grace of baptism by a mortal sin, especially by denial of Christ; since, otherwise, the church would lose her characteristic holiness, and encourage loose morality. The moderate party, which prevailed in the East, in Egypt, and especially in Rome, and was so far the catholic party, held the principle that the church should refuse absolution and communion, at least on the death-bed, to no penitent sinner. Paul himself restored the Corinthian offender.282

• From Paul and Palestinian Judaism (40th Anniversary Edition) (2017)

  Thus the pious of the Psalms of Solomon stand within the covenant of salvation given by God's grace. They maintain their place in the covenant of the saved by remaining faithful to the commandments. Their fidelity is 'rewarded' by God by their being preserved from temporal destruction, although they do not speak of God's rewarding them, but rather of God's mercy to the pious, which is contrasted with his payment of their just deserts to the wicked (and which is not contrasted with the free grace shown in the election of Israel). Repentance and atonement The only means of atonement mentioned in the Psalms of Solomon are con- nected with God's chastening and man's repentance. We have already cited 9.12-15 (6(), which indicates that God forgives repentant sinners. The righteous man atones for his unwitting sins by 'fasting and affiicting his soul', and consequently God counts him guiltless (3.8-10 [7f.]); when the righteous repent, God does not reprove them for their sins ( 9. 15 [7 ]). That is, repentance atones so that punishment is not necessary. God may use his chastening, however, to lead the righteous man who has sinned to repent: 'If I sin, Thou chastenest me that I may return (unto Thee)' (16.II). God's chastisement makes the ways of the righteous straight (10.3); that is, it causes him to correct his behaviour, and he is restrained 'from the way of evil with strokes' (10.1). Again, the psalmist writes that God's chas- tisement is for the purpose of turning back 'the obedient soul' from trans- gressions of ignorance (18.5 [4]). On the other hand, God's chastening punishment may count as sufficient penalty for the unwitting sins of the righteous. For the Lord spareth His pious ones, And blotteth out their errors by His chastening. (13.9 (10]) God's forgiveness is described as his cleansing the repentant transgressor (9.12 [6]), and similarly God's chastisements are said to cleanse one from sin (10.1f.). The psalmist looks forward to the time when Israel will be cleansed {18.6 [5]; cf. 17.36 [32]). Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha [III The only sins which are specified as being atoned for when one repents or is chastened are the unwitting sins of the pious (3.8f. [7f.]; 13.5 [7]; 13.9 [10]). The general promise that God forgives those who repent in Psalm 9 does not specify what sin has been committed, but it is possible that the unwitting sins of the righteous are in mind. The only definite indication that those who have sinned more grievously can also return to God is Psalm 16, to which we have already referred. It is a first person singular prayer by one who was 'far from God', whose soul 'had been well- nigh poured out into death', who had been 'nigh unto the gates of Sheol with the sinner', and whose soul had 'departed from the Lord God of Israel'.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  A Genuine Desire to End the Relationship It’s quite possible that cutting off contact reflects a genuine desire to end the relationship. This could be motivated by a whole host of feelings, including the sadness, hurt, embarrassment, or discomfort with conflict mentioned here. Regardless, they might simply be done with the friendship and want to move on. This might not be the most mature way to handle things, but it happens often.* Attempting to Reconnect So what do you do in a situation like this? How can you deal effectively with a person who is (likely) angry with you and has cut off all contact? Make Sure You Know the Reason Why They Cut Off Contact It’s important to understand these different explanations because they likely require different solutions. A person who has cut off contact because they are embarrassed by something they did or said might require a different response from you than a person who is quite angry with you but is avoiding conflict. Both might require gentleness from you, but the later might also need to be given some permission and coaxing to say what they want to say. Frankly, knowing the source might actually lead you to not want to do anything at all about it. If you realize, for instance, that the person is being manipulative or passive-aggressive, you may decide that this is not a relationship you want to invest energy in. Even the person who is avoiding conflict might not be someone you want to do anything about. You may decide, as was said to me by many people on social media, that it isn’t your responsibility to manage the emotions of others. Depending on the nature of the relationship and what this person means to you, that might be a reasonable option. Consider What You’re Willing to Do for This Relationship By definition, repairing a relationship where someone is refusing to communicate with you requires effort on your part. At a minimum, it will require that you break the silence by reaching out, but it might require even more

• From Another Country (1962)

  Vivaldo whistled, his eyes very big. “I knew you shouldn’t have answered that phone. What a mess. Is Richard on his way down here with a shotgun? and how did he find out?” Eric looked strangely guilty, then he said, “Oh, Cass wasn’t at her most coherent, I don’t really know. Anyway, how he found out hardly matters now, since he has.” He sat up. “Apparently, he has been suspicious—but he was suspicious of you——” “Of me? He must be crazy!” “Well, Cass kept coming to see you all the time, that’s what she told him, anyway—” “And what did he think Ida was doing while Cass and I were screwing? Reading us bedtime stories?” Again, Eric looked uncomfortable, but he laughed. “I don’t know what he thought. Anyway, Cass says that he’s very bitter against you because”—he faltered for a moment and looked down—“because you knew about the affair and you’re supposed to be his friend and you didn’t tell him.” He watched Vivaldo. “Do you think you should have told him?” Vivaldo put out his cigarette. “What a wild idea. I’m nobody’s goddam Boy Scout. Besides, you and Cass are my friends, not Richard.” “Well, he didn’t know that; you’ve known him much longer than you’ve known me, and—Richard doesn’t really like me very much—so he’d naturally expect you to be loyal to him.” Vivaldo sighed. “There’s a hell of a lot that Richard doesn’t know and that’s too bad but it’s not my fault. And he’s being dishonest. He knows that we haven’t really been friends for a long time. And I won’t be made to feel guilty.” Then he grinned. “I’ve got enough to feel guilty about.” “Do you feel guilty?” They stared at each other for a moment. Vivaldo laughed. “That wasn’t what I had in mind. But, no, I don’t feel guilty and I hope to God that I never feel guilty again. It’s a monstrous waste of time.” Eric looked down. “Yes, Cass says that Richard may try to see you today.” “Sounds just like him. Well, I’m not at home.” Suddenly, he laughed. “Wouldn’t it be funny if Richard came here?” “And found you here, you mean?” They laughed, rolling in the bed like children. “I wonder what he’d think.” “Poor man. He wouldn’t know what to think.” They looked at each other and began to laugh again. “We certainly aren’t giving him an awful lot of sympathy,” Eric said. “That’s true.” Vivaldo sat up and lit two cigarettes, giving one to Eric. “The poor bastard must really be suffering; after all, he doesn’t know what hit him.” They were silent. “And I’m sure Cass isn’t laughing.” “No. Not at Richard, not at anything. She sounded half out of her mind.” “Where was she calling from?” “Home. Richard had just gone out.” “I wonder if he really did go to my house. Maybe I should call and see if Ida’s there.” But he did not move toward the phone.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  On the other hand, however, we should suppose that every Christian virtue must find some basis in the noblest moral instincts and aspirations of nature; since Christianity is not against nature, but simply above it and intended for it. Thus we may regard the liberality, benevolence, humanity and magnanimity which we meet with in heathen antiquity, as an approximation to, and preparation for, the Christian virtue of charity. The better schools of moralists rose more or less above the popular approval of hatred of the enemy, wrath and revenge. Aristotle and the Peripatetics, without condemning this passion as wrong in itself, enjoined at least moderation in its exercise. The Stoics went further, and required complete apathy or suppression of all strong and passionate affections. Cicero even declares placability and clemency one of the noblest traits in the character of a great man,664 and praises Caesar for forgetting nothing except injuries. Seneca, Epictetus, Plutarch, and Marcus Aurelius, who were already indirectly and unconsciously under the influence of the atmosphere of Christian morality, decidedly condemn anger and vindictiveness, and recommend kindness to slaves, and a generous treatment even of enemies. But this sort of love for an enemy, it should be remembered, in the first place, does not flow naturally from the spirit of heathenism, but is, as it were, an accident and exception; secondly, it is not enjoined as a general duty, but expected only from the great and the wise; thirdly, it does not rise above the conception of magnanimity, which, more closely considered, is itself connected with a refined form of egotism, and with a noble pride that regards it below the dignity of a gentleman to notice the malice of inferior men;665 fourthly, it is commended only in its negative aspect as refraining from the right of retaliation, not as active benevolence and charity to the enemy, which returns good for evil; and finally it is nowhere derived from a religious principle, the love of God to man, and therefore has no proper root, and lacks the animating soul. No wonder, then, that in spite of the finest maxims of a few philosophers, the imperial age was controlled by the coldest selfishness, so that, according to the testimony of Plutarch, friendship had died out even in families, and the love of brothers and sisters was supposed to be possible only in a heroic age long passed by. The old Roman world was a world without charity. Julian the Apostate, who was educated a Christian, tried to engraft charity upon heathenism, but in vain. The idea of the infinite value of each human soul, even the poorest and humblest, was wanting, and with it the basis for true charity.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The eucharistic controversies of the sixteenth century present a sad and disheartening spectacle of human passion and violence, and inflicted great injury to the progress of the Reformation by preventing united action, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy; but they were overruled for the clearer development and statement of truth, like the equally violent Trinitarian, Christological, and other controversies in the ancient church. It is a humiliating fact, that the feast of union and communion of believers with Christ and with each other, wherein they engage in the highest act of worship, and make the nearest approach to heaven, should have become the innocent occasion of bitter contests among brethren professing the same faith and the same devotion to Christ and his gospel. The person of Christ and the supper of Christ have stirred up the deepest passions of love and hatred. Fortunately, the practical benefit of the sacrament depends upon God’s promise, and simple and childlike faith in Christ, and not upon any scholastic theory, any more than the benefit of the Sacred Scriptures depends upon a critical knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. The eucharist was twice the subject of controversy in the Middle Ages,—first in the ninth, and then in the eleventh, century. The question in both cases turned on a grossly realistic and a spiritual conception of the sacramental presence and fruition of Christ’s body and blood; and the result was the triumph of the Roman dogma of transubstantiation, as advocated by Paschasius Radbertus against Ratramnus, and by Lanfranc against Berengar, and as finally sanctioned by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and the Council of Trent in 1551.824 The Greek and Latin churches are substantially agreed on the doctrine of the communion and the mass, but divide on the ritual question of the use of leavened or unleavened bread. The withdrawal of the cup from the laity caused the bloody Hussite wars. The eucharistic controversies of the Protestants assumed a different form. Transubstantiation was discarded by both parties. The question was not, whether the elements as to their substance are miraculously transformed into the body and blood of Christ, but whether Christ was corporally or only spiritually (though no less really) present with the natural elements; and whether he was partaken of by all communicants through the mouth, or only by the worthy communicants through faith.

• From Another Country (1962)

  They began walking again, down a long corridor, toward the ladies. “He said these terrible things to me, he said that he would sue me for divorce and take Paul and Michael away from me. And I listened to him, it didn’t seem real. I didn’t see how he could say those things, if he’d ever loved me. And I watched him. I could see that he was just saying these things to hurt me, to hurt me because he’d been hurt—like a child. And I saw that I’d loved him like that, like a child, and now the bill for all that dreaming had come in. How can one have dreamed so long? And I thought it was real. Now I don’t know what’s real. And I felt betrayed, I felt that I’d betrayed myself, and you, and everything—of value, everything, anyway, that one aspires to become, one doesn’t want to be simply another grey, shapeless monster.” They passed the cheerful ladies and Cass looked at them with wonder and with hatred. “Oh, God. It’s a miserable world.” He said nothing, for he did not know what to say, and they continued their frightening promenade through the icy and angular jungle. The colors on the walls blared at them—like frozen music; he had the feeling that these rooms would never cease folding in on each other, that this labyrinth was eternal. And a sorrow entered him for Cass stronger than any love he had ever felt for her. She stood as erect as a soldier, moving straight ahead, and no bigger, as they said in the South, than a minute. He wished that he could rescue her, that it was within his power to rescue her and make her life less hard. But it was only love which could accomplish the miracle of making a life bearable—only love, and love itself mostly failed; and he had never loved her. He had used her to find out something about himself. And even this was not true. He had used her in the hope of avoiding a confrontation with himself which he had, neverthelesss, and with a vengeance, been forced to endure. He felt as far removed from Cass now, in her terrible hour, as he was physically removed from Yves. Space howled between them like a flood. And whereas, with every moment now, Yves was coming closer, defeating all that water, and, as he approached, becoming more unreal, Cass was being driven farther away, was already in the unconquerable distance where she would be wrapped about by reality, unalterable forever, as a corpse is wrapped in a shroud. Therefore, his sorrow, now that he was helpless, luxuriously stretched and reached. “You’ll never be a monster,” he said, “never. What’s happening is unspeakable, I know, but it can’t defeat you. You can’t go under, you’ve come too far.” “I think I know what I won’t be. But what I’m going to become—that I don’t see at all. And I’m afraid.”

• From Henry Miller on Writing (1964)

  And as to the element of “evil” itself, how can I be more explicit than to say that the narrative is armed with double truth. The seeing eye will perceive in this long narration not only the historical facts of one man’s life but a reality going far beyond thought, word and deed. Long before I began this work I was conscious of the justice of the Tibetan view which insists that a man be more severely punished for misdemeanors committed in his dream life than for those committed in waking life. In exposing myself as fully and completely as possible I have pronounced sentence upon myself, and in advance, beyond any that could be meted out by a worldly court. I am living not “this side of Paradise” but in a world of my own making—where punishment and reward seem alike futile. I have still a road to travel, but I see clearly what the goal is. And seeing it clearly, I can only say that I value more than ever truth and freedom. I would like to go one step farther, in closing. It is to say this: if all that I have set forth herein is not clear from the reading of my books then I have failed utterly. In which case I beg to be condemned not only as an “immoral” writer but as a stupid and impotent one. I had thought to join with this testimony a selection of letters, unsolicited letters, culled from the thousands I have received from my readers all over the world. I no longer believe it worth while to make this effort. I realize that it is too easy to object that all these (largely) unknown individuals are simply “fellow travelers,” or, to put it more harshly, emotional cripples. If I knew I were addressing myself to men who believe in the power of truth I would say: “Put my work to the test! Let it be read openly, freely, everywhere, by all classes of men and women. Let them be my judges!” And this is not my last thought on the subject. Let us look at it in the worst light. Supposing that tomorrow, as a result of reading Henry Miller, everyone began talking freely, talking gutter language, if you will, and acting according to his own beliefs and convictions. What then? My answer is that no matter what took place, it would be as if nothing had occurred, nothing , I want to emphasize, in comparison with the effect of a single exploded atom bomb. This, I must confess, is the saddest admission that I, a creative individual, can make. It is my belief that we are now passing through a period of what might be called “cosmic insensitivity,” a period when God seems more than ever absent from the world and man doomed to come face to face with the fate which he has created for himself.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Those tears and wails are essentially a complaint about something negative going on in their life and a mechanism to get their needs met. Along with that, there’s a startle response which is a very basic expression of fear, but really not much else in the way of emotional experiences and expressions. Even intentional smiling, an early emotional expression, emerges a month or so after the baby is born.* These basic emotional experiences and expressions turn into more advanced emotional experiences and expressions over time. As we mature physically and cognitively, we become capable of feeling new things and expressing them in new ways. Our physical development means we might encounter new provocations. Our improved vision means we can better see our caregivers’ faces to exchange smiles with them. It also means, though, that we can see them leave the room, giving us something new to be sad about. Our ability to walk might give us a sense of excitement, but it also exposes us to new dangers to be frightened of, such as a flight of stairs or a hot stove. We use our newfound physical maturation to express our emotions differently too. Smiling, punching, running away, and voicing our emotions are all things we have to learn to do. Our intellectual development is also responsible for these changes. When we are born, we have no idea that other people might be evaluating or judging us. As we mature, we start to realize that other human beings are independent and have different motivations than us. This recognition gives rise to new emotions like shame, embarrassment, and pride. In terms of anger, though, it gives rise to more subtle understandings of how and why provocations might happen. As an infant, you might get frustrated simply because you wanted something and didn’t get it. As you mature, though, you develop an understanding of why you didn’t get the thing you wanted. Maybe that helps alleviate the anger (they won’t give it to me because it’s dangerous) or maybe that makes the anger worse (they won’t give it to me because they’re mean). ANGER FACT People sometimes inadvertently reinforce another’s anger before the anger is even fully expressed. They are so worried about someone’s tantrum, that they walk on eggshells to prevent the outburst. Our individual differences in how we experience and express our anger develop in part through this emotional learning history. As we develop emotionally, we figure out how to feel about things through our exposure to our caregivers and how they feel about things. There are three basic psychological concepts here that explain most of this emotional development: reinforcement, punishment, and modeling. Reinforcement, Punishment, and Modeling Reinforcement and punishment are some of the most basic, yet misunderstood concepts in psychology.

• From Becoming Myself: A Psychiatrist's Memoir (2017)

  He would walk past the Academy, founded by Plato and now led by his nephew, Speusippus; past the Lyceum, the school of Aristotle; past the schools of the Stoics and the Cynics; and finally would reach his destination, the Garden of Epicurus, where, at sunrise, he would be permitted to enter. Another chapter might be set in the time of St. Augustine, another during the Reformation, another in the late eighteenth century at the time of Schopenhauer, another in the days of Freud, perhaps another at the time of Sartre or Camus, and perhaps others in a Muslim and a Buddhist country. But one thing at a time. I decided to write the entire episode in Epicurus’s Greece in 300 BC, and then turn to each of the later time periods. For months I researched the details of daily life in Greece in that era, the clothing, the type of breakfast, the customs of daily life. I studied ancient and current historical and philosophical texts, read novels set in ancient Greece (by Mary Renault and others), and eventually arrived at the sad realization that the research required to write this and the chapters in the other time periods would consume the rest of my life. With great regrets I abandoned the project. It’s the only book I’ve ever started and did not finish. I nstead, I decided to discuss the work of Epicurus in a nonfiction book on death anxiety, and that book gradually morphed into Staring at the Sun , published in 2008. Staring at the Sun traces my thoughts about death that emerged from my clinical practice with healthy as well as terminally ill patients. The book’s title comes from a seventeenth-century maxim by François de La Rochefoucauld: “ One cannot stare straight into the face of the sun or death .” Though I use the maxim for my title, I challenge its truth in the text by emphasizing that much good may come from staring directly at death. I illustrate that idea not only with clinical but also with literary vignettes. For example, Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens’s Christmas Carol begins the story as a miserly, isolated creature, but by the end he is a kind, generous, and beloved man. Whence the transformation? Dickens gave Scrooge a strong dose of existential shock therapy when the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come allows Scrooge to view his own gravesite and read his name on the headstone. Throughout Staring at the Sun , the confrontation with death serves as an awakening experience , one that teaches us how to live more fully. Therapists sensitized to this process see it often. As I mentioned earlier, in my clinical practice I often suggest that patients draw a line on a sheet of paper and imagine that one end of the line represents their birth and the other end their death. I ask them to indicate where they are now situated on the line, and meditate on that for a few moments.

• From Another Country (1962)

  “So long.” He closed the door on her and the cab moved away, down the long, blank, shining street. Darkness was beginning to fall. The lights of the city would soon begin to blaze; it would not be long, now, before these lights would carry his name. An errant wind, a cold wind, ruffled the water in the gutter at Eric’s feet. Then everything was still, with a bleakness that was almost comforting. Ida heard Vivaldo’s step and rushed to open the door for him, just as he began fumbling for his key. She threw back her head and laughed. “You look like you narrowly escaped a lynching, dad. And where did you get that coat?” She looked him up and down, and laughed again. “Come on in, you poor, drowned rat, before the posse gets here.” She closed the door behind him and he took off Eric’s coat and hung it in the bathroom and dried his dripping hair. “Do we have anything to eat in this house?” “Yes. Are you hungry?” “Starving.” He came out of the bathroom. “What did Richard have to say?” She was in the kitchen with her back to him, digging in the cupboard beneath the sink where the pots and pans were kept. She came up with a frying pan; looked at him briefly; and this look made him feel that Richard had managed, somehow, to frighten her. “Nothing very pleasant. But it’s not important now.” She put the pan on the stove and opened the icebox door. “I think you and Cass were his whole world. And now both of you have treated him so badly that he doesn’t know where he is.” She took tomatoes and lettuce and a package of pork chops out of the icebox and put them on the table. “He tried to make me angry—but I just felt terribly sad. He’d been so hurt.” She paused. “Men are so helpless when they’re hurt.” He came up behind her and kissed her. “Are they?” She returned his kiss, and said gravely, “Yes. You don’t believe it’s happening. You think that there must have been some mistake.” “How wise you are!” he said. “I’m not wise. I’m just a poor, ignorant, black girl, trying to get along.” He laughed. “If you’re just a poor, ignorant, black girl, trying to get along, I’d sure hate like hell to tangle with one who’d made it.” “But you wouldn’t know. You think women tell the truth. They don’t. They can’t.” She stepped away from him, busy with another saucepan and water and flame. And she gave him a mocking look. “Men wouldn’t love them if they did.” “You just don’t like men.” She said, “I can’t say that I’ve met very many. Not what I call men.” “I hope I’m one of them.” “Oh, there’s hope for you,” she said, humorously, “you might make it yet.” “That’s probably,” he said, “the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me.”

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  The anger is upsetting to them so they work to minimize it in the moment. Exercising or Catharsis As discussed in the previous chapter, what is easily the most frequent misconception out there about anger is that expressing it through aggression in a “safe way” is a good way to release it. Despite 50 years’ worth of research debunking this idea, people routinely tell me this is their go-to approach for dealing with unwanted anger. When they are feeling angry, they make a point of getting to a “safe place” where they can punch a pillow or a punching bag as a way of dealing with that rage. A variation of this is intense exercise as a way of dealing with anger. Though a little more complicated, like catharsis, exercising while angry often ends up having unintended consequences. It elevates heart rate and heavy breathing at a time when your body needs the opposite of that. Their heart is already pounding due to the anger, so exercising in that moment simply keeps the angry physiology going. In fact, exercise can even trigger angry feelings through that process of “excitation transfer” discussed before whereby the exercise-induced cardiovascular activation can increase the likelihood of responding with anger when provoked. Crying A very common and somewhat misunderstood response to anger is crying. I say misunderstood because many people will suggest that people cry when angry because their anger is secondary to their feelings of sadness. The person isn’t really angry. They are sad, and the tears reflect that sadness. That might be true some of the time, but more often than not, those tears are just a natural, normal, and even healthy response to feeling angry. In fact, people cry for quite a few reasons that aren’t directly related to sadness. They cry when they experience physical pain, when they are scared, when they are happy, or even when they are empathizing with another person’s emotions. Ultimately, tears are a communication tool. They signal to the people around you that you are in distress or feeling some intense emotions. You can think of crying as a primal help-seeking behavior that exists because it offered an evolutionary advantage to our ancestors. Those who signaled distress this way were more likely to get help and therefore more likely to survive. Tears still work this way too. Evidence of that can be found in a 2013 study by Martijn Balsters and colleagues.57 They showed their participants pictures of faces that were either making a sad face or a neutral face, but the researchers had added tears to half of them. The images were shown very quickly – just 50 milliseconds. The researchers then asked participants to identify (1) what emotion they expressed and (2) how much support the person needed.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Crying is actually a really common, though not often discussed, way that people express their anger. There are a lot of explanations for it, including anger’s link to sadness, the feeling of powerlessness that is often at the core of both sadness and frustration, and others. But more than anything, it speaks to something really important about anger and it’s that it can be expressed in a number of different ways and some of those ways are not easily recognized as anger. ANGER FACT More than 90 per cent of survey respondents said they experienced another negative emotion, such as sadness or fear, as a result of their anger in the past month.54 Out, In, and Control When I first started studying anger, I used a test called the Anger Expression Inventory55 that measured four types of anger expression: Anger Expression-Out, Anger Expression-In, Anger Control-Out, and Anger Control-In. Anger Expression-Out are those behaviors people typically think of as related to anger. Things like yelling, swearing, slamming doors, and punching things. Anger Expression-In is what we often call anger suppression. It includes holding things in, pouting, and sulking. While there are two types of Anger Control, Out and In, I have always combined them because they don’t feel demonstrably different from one another. Technically, Anger Control-Out includes intention efforts to control your behavior by not acting on the anger, and Anger Control-In includes strategies like deep breathing or finding other ways to relax. At the time, I liked how simple this was, but I quickly discovered that it was too simple. People express their anger in a lot of different ways and these three or four categories just don’t cover it meaningfully enough. Some people play or listen to music when they get angry. Others write poetry. Some people find a good friend they can vent to or ask advice of, and others take to the internet to tell the world how angry they are. And beyond all this, there are all sorts of ways of thinking about angering events that differ in these moments, and these different ways of thinking lead to different ways of acting. A person who gets angry and begins catastrophizing (“This is going to ruin my day”) will express and manage their anger differently than someone who starts to refocus on the positive things in their life (“It could be worse”). These different thought types lead to different behaviors and this means that the angry people in our lives will look very different to us in the moment. Common Expressions of Anger Let’s break down some of the most common ways of behaving when you are angry. Physical or Verbal Aggression Physical and verbal aggression is what anger seems most known for.

• From Who Wrote the Bible? Searching for Its Origins and Authors (2025)

  85 14. The Voices of Lamentations By contrast, in Lamentations 1 and 2, a third-person narrator is commenting on the sad state of the city: “Alas, lonely sits the city once great with people!” ( L a m. 1:1). Here, readers see the figuring of Jerusalem as a woman: “She that was great among the nations is become like a widow ... bitterly she weeps in the night, her cheek wet with tears” (La m. 1:1–2). Moreover, in these first two chapters, readers hear the voice of Jerusalem herself: “See, O Lord, and behold how abject I have become” ( L a m. 1:11). The city even calls out to those who are passing by to witness her pain, saying, “All who pass along the road—look about and see: is there any agony like mine, which was dealt out to me when the Lord aff licted me on his day of wrath?” (La m. 1:12). After Lamentations 2, Jerusalem will not speak for herself again. Instead, in chapter 4, a collective voice arises, perhaps of those who have survived the catastrophe. They say, “Even now our eyes pine away in vain for deliverance. ... our doom is near; our days are done” ( L a m. 4:17–18). Chapter 5 is entirely voiced this way. For the first 10 verses of this final chapter, every single verse uses the first-person plural pronoun we or us. The book ends similarly: “For truly, you have rejected us, bitterly raged against us” (Lam. 5:22). This variety of voices speaks against singular authorship. Additionally, it suggests that Lamentations are poetic ref lections on the fall of Jerusalem that come from different potential social locations. Some seem to come from within the city itself, during or just after the conquest. Several appear to be focused on the female condition, others on the male. Some are looking back on Jerusalem from a distance, perhaps even from exile in Babylon. This evidence suggests that Lamentations is a collection. These varied poems about the fall of Jerusalem either achieved some sort of status or just were known to whoever put them together. While it’s certainly possible that parts of Lamentations were written fairly close to the events that inspired them, it’s also possible that they were later compositions, effectively employing the poetic voice to bring the reader back into the heart of the trauma. Acrostics An important feature of Lamentations that most English readers don’t notice is that most of the poems are acrostics—that is, each verse of the poem begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. For Lamentations 1, 2, and 4,

• From American Swing (2008)

  43 00:02:11,840 --> 00:02:15,802 FRIENDS OF MINE SAID THAT THEY WENT THERE BY LOOKING AT IT ON CABLE TELEVISION. 44 00:02:15,802 --> 00:02:18,263 I WAS NEVER IN PLATO'S RETREAT. 45 00:02:18,263 --> 00:02:21,975 I HAVE NO IDEA IF THEY IN FACT TOOK OFF-- 46 00:02:21,975 --> 00:02:24,769 OTHER THAN CLOTHING. 47 00:02:26,479 --> 00:02:29,566 10 YEARS EARLIER EVERYONE WAS ROLLING AROUND NAKED 48 00:02:29,566 --> 00:02:32,277 IN WOODSTOCK, YOU KNOW, 49 00:02:32,277 --> 00:02:36,489 AND SMOKING POT AND SCREWING THEIR BRAINS OUT, YOU KNOW, 50 00:02:36,489 --> 00:02:38,158 IN THE MEADOWS. 51 00:02:38,158 --> 00:02:41,452 SO THIS WAS JUST AN INDOOR VERSION THAT WAS ACCESSIBLE TO NEW YORKERS. 52 00:02:43,288 --> 00:02:46,666 I AM LARRY'S SISTER. WE WERE FIVE YEARS APART. 53 00:02:46,666 --> 00:02:48,751 WE WERE VERY VERY CLOSE 54 00:02:48,751 --> 00:02:51,963 AND WE GREW UP AS BEST FRIENDS. 55 00:02:51,963 --> 00:02:55,133 MY PARENTS HAD A VERY CONVENTIONAL LIFESTYLE AND MARRIAGE. 56 00:02:55,133 --> 00:02:57,135 MY FATHER WAS A HARD-WORKING MAN. 57 00:02:57,135 --> 00:02:59,345 HE WAS IN THE KOSHER MEAT BUSINESS. 58 00:02:59,345 --> 00:03:02,557 OLDEST MEMORIES OF LARRY ARE AS A... 59 00:03:02,557 --> 00:03:04,601 SMILING YOUNG MAN, 60 00:03:04,601 --> 00:03:08,146 DIDN'T REALLY LOVE THE ACADEMIC PURSUITS. 61 00:03:08,146 --> 00:03:11,149 WHEN I FIRST MET LARRY, HE HAD JUST GOTTEN OUT OF THE SERVICE. 62 00:03:11,149 --> 00:03:14,652 HE HAD TOLD ME THAT HIS FATHER HAD A BUTCHER SHOP 63 00:03:14,652 --> 00:03:17,530 AND HE WAS A WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTER OF BRISKETS. 64 00:03:17,530 --> 00:03:19,365 AND HE WOULD WORK NIGHTS. 65 00:03:19,365 --> 00:03:22,035 AND I REALLY FEEL THAT SOME OF THE TIMES THAT HE SAID 66 00:03:22,035 --> 00:03:24,162 HE WAS WORKING, HE WASN'T WORKING. 67 00:03:24,162 --> 00:03:28,791 WHEN HE FIRST MARRIED GLORIA, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US THOUGHT THAT IT WOULDN'T LAST 68 00:03:28,791 --> 00:03:31,961 BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYBODY WHO HAD SEPARATED OR DIVORCED. 69 00:03:31,961 --> 00:03:34,380 I THOUGHT HE WAS CHEATING ON ME. 70 00:03:34,380 --> 00:03:38,051 Danny Levenson: MY DAD AND MY MOM GOT DIVORCED WHEN I WAS SIX. 71 00:03:38,051 --> 00:03:40,511 SO MY DAD REALLY WASN'T AROUND A LOT. 72 00:03:40,511 --> 00:03:43,139 MY PARENTS SEPARATED WHEN I WAS VERY YOUNG. 73 00:03:43,139 --> 00:03:46,434 SO MY FIRST RECOLLECTION ACTUALLY IS WHEN MY DAD USED TO WORK AT McDONALD'S 74 00:03:46,434 --> 00:03:49,354 AND HE BROUGHT ME THE HAMBURGLAR-- IT WAS A LITTLE STUFFED HAMBURGLAR. 75 00:03:49,354 --> 00:03:52,398 SO THAT'S WHAT I USED TO SLEEP WITH-- I USED TO SLEEP WITH A LITTLE HAMBURGLAR. 76 00:03:52,398 --> 00:03:54,859 ALL I CAN REMEMBER IS THROUGH THOSE YEARS, 77 00:03:54,859 --> 00:03:57,570 MY MOTHER YELLING AT MY FATHER ON THE PHONE, "THEY'RE WAITING FOR YOU. 78 00:03:57,570 --> 00:03:59,614 YOU DIDN'T SHOW UP. YOU SAID YOU WERE COMING." 79 00:03:59,614 --> 00:04:03,243 AND OF COURSE EVERY BUSINESS THAT LARRY WAS IN WAS ON THE WEEKENDS. 80 00:04:03,243 --> 00:04:06,287 SO THE TIMES WHEN FATHERS WOULD BE WITH THEIR CHILDREN,

• From Real Life (2020)

  Elle a pris une bière légère dans un gobelet en plastique. Ils ont posé leurs pieds sur une troisième chaise, et ils se prennent le bras. « Comment s’est passé ton week-end ? demande-t-elle. — Ça va. Bien. Rien de spécial », dit-il, se rappelant qu’ils se sont vus hier et que, déjà, il n’a pas été entièrement honnête avec elle. « Normal. » Elle le regarde du coin de l’œil mais ne réplique rien. Elle roule un pop-corn entre ses doigts. Le lac devient de plus en sombre à mesure que le soleil descend. L’atmosphère se rafraîchit, stagnante. Les lumières du rivage s’allument une à une. Wallace porte son gobelet à ses lèvres, mordille le plastique. « Mon père est mort », annonce-t-il, et il sent Brigit pousser un petit cri silencieux en se tournant vers lui dans un sursaut : « Avant que tu te mettes dans tous tes états, je précise que c’est arrivé il y a plusieurs semaines. Je vais bien, ne t’en fais pas. — Oh mon Dieu, Wally. — Je suis désolé de n’avoir rien dit. Pardonne-moi. — Tu n’as pas à t’excuser, voyons. Tu tiens le coup ? Oh mon dieu ! » Il s’apprête à dire qu’il va bien, pas de problème, mais il s’abstient. Brigit le fixe, attendant une réponse, et il sait qu’il pourrait lui en donner une, une qui faciliterait les choses, qui leur rendrait facile de dépasser ce moment. Mais il ne veut pas faire ça. Il ne veut pas lui donner cette réponse. Il veut dire quelque chose sur son père et l’Alabama, et Miller, et Dana, et Simone. Il veut dire qu’il tient à grand-peine, qu’intérieurement il est à vif, triste, et qu’il se sent sombrer de plus en plus. Mais comment commencer à dire une chose pareille, à la manifester dans ce monde qui résiste à toute la dureté de l’existence ? C’est trop vrai, ce qu’il veut dire. Il n’y a pas de paramètres. Quand quelqu’un est choqué de cette manière, on n’en rajoute pas une couche. On l’aide à se sentir mieux. « Ouep. Ouep. — Mais enfin Wallace, ça veut dire quoi, “Ouep” ? Ça veut dire quoi ?` — C’est juste… c’est dur. J’en ai bavé », dit-il, même s’il ne sait pas trop si cette dureté concerne son père, l’étrangeté de ce que lui fait ce deuil, ou tout le reste qui a mal tourné – de quoi en a-t-il bavé ? Spécificité. Particularité. Déterminer. Négocier. Que dire ? Comment parler ? « Mais je suis vivant. » Il y a une douleur mouillée dans sa voix. « Je suis vivant. » Brigit le serre fort dans ses bras. Elle presse son visage contre ses cheveux mouillés et le tient sans rien dire.

• From Real Life (2020)

  J’ai qu’à encaisser sans rien dire. » Emma se pose les mains sur les joues. Son corps entier frissonne. Wallace a mal au ventre. « Au fait, il est où, Thom ? — Fais pas ça. — Il est où ? Qu’est-ce qui se passe ? Autant déballer ton linge sale aussi, pendant qu’on y est. — Thom est pas venu. Thom a pas voulu. Ça rime ? Thom n’a pas voulu venir, parce que Thom préfère rester à la maison et lire, vu que Thom déteste mes amis . » Elle raconte ça un peu comme une ritournelle. Elle écarte sa chaise de la table, se lève. Wallace la suit. De la cuisine, ils regardent les autres, qui se sont allongés sur des couvertures en flanelle dans le jardin. Yngve a allumé les guirlandes blanches pendues à l’arbre – qui diffusent une lueur très douce et très blanche sous le ciel de plus en plus bas et sombre. Ils boivent de la bière en bouteilles et en canettes. Encore de la folk, encore de la guitare, un truc de Dylan, lui semble-t-il. Yngve est couché sur le dos, et Lukas a posé la tête sur son ventre. Ils ont l’air niais des amoureux, une chose qu’Yngve n’admettrait jamais, qu’il ne trouverait jamais le courage d’admettre. Enid et Nathan sont assis côte à côte, pleins d’une tristesse qu’ils ne peuvent formuler sans pulvériser leurs couples respectifs, car Yngve choisira toujours Lukas et Lukas choisira toujours Yngve ; ils n’ont pas besoin de le dire pour le savoir. C’est une confiance qui n’existe que dans le silence, Wallace s’en rend compte. Ils ne peuvent l’exprimer car ça reviendrait à la dissoudre. « J’aimerais bien qu’ils se mettent ensemble, ces deux-là, à la fin, commente Emma. Ils me fichent mal au crâne. — Tu m’étonnes. Mais je trouve ça mignon. — De se faire balader comme ça ? — Personne ne balade personne. Ils sont au même endroit. — Si tu le dis », soupire Emma contre le dos de Wallace, ayant passé ses bras autour de lui. Il ne sait pas si c’est un geste censé le réconforter ou la réconforter, s’il est censé prendre de la force à son contact, ou si elle s’accroche pour ne pas perdre pied. « Thom ne nous déteste pas, dit-il. C’est pas possible. — Pourtant si. Je crois que si. À chaque fois qu’on vient à une de ces soirées, il fait la gueule pendant des semaines. Il ne me parle pas. Je sais que quand je vais rentrer, il va me battre froid. — Pourquoi ? — Parce qu’il croit que je cherche tout le temps une échappatoire. — Et c’est vrai ? — Peut-être. Mais c’est pas ce qu’on fait tous ? Tout le temps ? — Peut-être », admet-il, et ils partagent un rire. « Je crois que c’est pour ça que tout le monde est à cran avec toi.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  situations. Understanding why a person was sad helped address a loss in a way that was good for the group. Frankly, recognizing fear in someone else was adaptive simply because whatever that other person was scared of might be something you should be scared of too. In a more modern context, understanding the what and why of emotions is a really important aspect of success in just about any interpersonal activity. A leader who understands and uses emotions effectively is better able to motivate their team. A parent who understands what their child is feeling and why they are feeling it can better attend to those emotional needs. Frankly, when I hear people complain about their co-workers, most of those complaints are not about the other person failing to do the skills of the job properly. They are complaints about the person having emotional deficits. When people describe their co- workers as odd, insensitive, disrespectful, they are describing them as lacking emotional skills. All of this is to say that being able to understand why a person is angry from their perspective is a critical skill when it comes to dealing with angry people. It’s not good enough to know that they are angry or even to have a superficial understanding of why they are angry. Dealing with angry people is about understanding the anger from their perspective, and for that reason I encourage people to diagram the angering incident from their perspective. Diagramming an Angry Incident I spent much of my last book, Why We Get Mad, describing how to diagram an angry incident. Based on a model outlined by Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher 59 , diagramming an angry incident includes identifying three interacting phenomena that lead to anger: a precipitant, the person’s pre-anger state, and the appraisal process. The precipitant is the provocation. It’s the thing you typically identify as having caused the anger. I’m mad because they didn’t take the trash out like I asked. I’m angry because he took credit for my work. This precipitant can be thought of as the spark, and in that sense it does cause the anger. Imagine throwing a match onto a pile of gas-covered rags. Yes, the match started the fire,