I seem to be on the same wavelength as Nicole and Maggie lately. I was thinking a few days ago about revisiting a series of posts I wrote in the first year of this blog, to see if I still stand by those ideas. And then N&M posted on choosing where you live.
Well, here we are:
Even allowing for the job, I have choices about where to live. I could live where the job is, or I could live partway in between, perhaps nearer some of Sir John’s family. Where I am now, I can walk to both Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. We have contemplated houses, still local, that would not really be walking distance to WF, but certainly bikable. I think the partway-there solution would be the worst of all possible worlds, but Sir John would probably prefer it to living where my job is.
Now that the cat situation is less fraught, it might be easier to spend time in my home state during academic-calendar breaks. I’d like to see if that would make me more contented with the midwest (I loved N&M’s remark about the vampire-like partner who needs to sleep in home soil), or if it would increase my hankering after the flora of home.
I suspect I am a person who gets restless wherever she is. I can love a place and have roots there, and still want to be somewhere else for awhile. And I truly crave cities. I love their energy. I would have taken a job anywhere, but I’m not sure I would have stayed in some of the places I interviewed. It might have been worth it to leave the profession. But who knows? The only path is the one you’re on.