I've been thinking about the issue I chose to focus on in Practically Shameless, as a way of explaining shadow and Shadow Work, and why I chose that issue and not others.

The issue I chose was the issue of being critical of girlfriends and women friends and of feeling I didn't belong in groups of women friends because I was so critical.

There were quite a few criteria, and actually the issue I chose was the only one that met all of them.

First, it had to be a real, authentic issue that I was aware of for years and that genuinely troubled me, one I thought about again and again and that really stood in my way. I can remember saying to myself for years and years, "I want women friends, why don't I have women friends?" I can remember coming up with plans and checklists for how to make more friends (!!!). I can remember so many times joining a group and retreating in horror after making some critical remark.

Second, it had to be an issue that I tackled using Shadow Work (as opposed to other means) and that I remembered working through with enough detail. While I've done dozens of Shadow Work processes on many different issues, I don't remember most of them and kept notes on only some of them.

On this issue, I could actually remember 3 of the 4 processes I did quite vividly. One of them was the first Shadow Work process I ever did, and I'm sure that's partly why I remember it so clearly. Two others were major turning points in my life for which I still have vivid images from the room. Only one of the four was a dim memory, referred to only very briefly in my journal.

Third, it had to be an issue that no longer troubles me significantly, and this is remarkably true. I used to dread groups of women, and I now seek them out and enjoy them so much.

Fourth, it had to be an issue that I could trace back to Dad and do so with compassion for him. In Shadow Work, most issues trace back to something that happened in the family, and most often to something that happened in our relationship with one or both parents. Dad died in 1990, and when I first began writing the book Mom was alive and quite likely to read the book. I was concerned that if I used an issue of hers, she would feel ashamed about it, and the last thing I wanted to do in this book was add to anyone's shame -- quite the contrary! 

Dad was an extremely critical person, it was one of the most notable characteristics as far as his kids are concerned. Although I would say that Mom can also be a critical person, it's not true that she ever avoided groups of women, in fact she's always been a very social person who loves being in groups of women. But Dad used to avoid groups, especially family groups where there was likely to be a feeling of connection. My feeling that I didn't belong was much more traceable to Dad than to Mom.

I also found a way to trace some of Dad's critical nature to his experience in World War II so that I could evoke the reader's compassion for him. Dad's war experience was truly horrific, lots of close-quarters combat, several blast concussions and various injuries. I didn't want the book to come off as sounding critical or blaming of Dad, because I believe he was a product of his background and experiences just as we all are.

I also used the War more as a background than Dad's family life because I have limited information available about that family life. My grandfather was a very critical person as well -- I vividly remember his scathing remarks about various ethnic groups, for example -- but I know almost nothing about his response to groups of friends. I know he played poker, but I know nothing about his work life. He also had a horrific war experience, in World War I as an ambulance driver, but I don't think he ever said much about it. And I guess I have to say that I didn't believe I could completely rely on accounts of him and his family life and his response to groups from my aunts, after my experience at a family reunion some years ago, where I judged that there was some denial about Grandpa's use of alcohol.

Fifth, it had to be an issue for which I could remember a specific moment of wounding, and a wounding which would not be so traumatic that it would weigh down the story too much. I could have used, for example, my hospitalization at the age of two, but that would have been a much more traumatic story to work with and might have left the reader feeling overwhelmed. It would have required tracing the many times that trauma got triggered, and I can't imagine how I could have handled it without some of the triggering coming through.

I didn't remember the specific moment with very much detail, and wasn't sure of the words Dad used or exactly how he acted, but I had more of a body sense of it that guided me as I wrote about it.

Sixth, I wanted to use an issue that many people would resonate with, and I believed that many people struggle with their inner critics. This is especially true, I believe, of the world's readers, many of whom are writers. I believe having a vicious inner critic is part and parcel of being a writer and so common to many book readers.

Seventh, I wanted to use the darkest issue I could use, the darkest kind of shadow, because I believed that if I was going to write a book about shadow, it wasn't fair or ethical to use some pretty or lightweight shadow while pointing a finger at the darkness of others. I used an issue that traces back to a predator wound, the darkest shadow of them all, and actually the one most recognized as a shadow by the average person, I think, even a person not very familiar with the idea of shadow.