For Pete's Sake, there is no right or wrong answer to where one lives. (For H. Bruce's Sake?) It's all pretty subjective.
I've been watching Househunters for a number of years, and not once when they go back to revisit the house do the owners say, "Damn. I should've bought House #1." Nope, they're always delighted with the choice.
--- The choice --- they --- already --- made ---.
So we rationalize, at least those of us who have a choice.
I think H. Bruce's mistake is that he decided to leave Bend, but then -- for whatever reason -- stayed in Bend, and once the rationalization was stripped away all he could do was find fault.
I think where one travels and how long is also a choice where there is neither right or wrong. There are people who will tell you have to travel, just like there are people who will tell you how to eat, how to dress, how to drink wine.
But -- not-- traveling is also an option. Non-adventurous travel is an option.
I was thinking the other day about how I've sort of eased into the normal. I've always loved routine. I'm a pretty steady guy. (Witness the blog I've written everyday for 5.5 years; the wife I've had for 29 years, the business I've owned for 28 years, the hometown I came back to.)
Why is that acceptable to me? To "ease into the normal?" Because if you've ever spent a significant amount of your life feeling like the "other" the "outcast" it's a nice place to be. I feel like I could go off-center pretty quickly, go off the rails. I'm protective of myself.
But I think this gives me a platform to be adventurous in the creative parts of my life. To take business risks (this is the part of me that has always been more thrill-seeking) , to garden, and after a number of years trying to create my stable platform, to continually write.
Meanwhile, I have a stack of Bulletin newspapers 8 inches high to catch up to...
16 hours ago