Jo, you are so pretty. The exercise and chill look like they put a nice glow on your cheeks. That looks like so much fun and I'd love to try it. There is a small lake near my home and we used to skate there. Unfortunately the new owners no longer allow skating. I can't blame them since they are exposiong themselves to tremendous risk in this litlgious age. Also, it doesn't get as cold as it used to so the lake isn't often solid enough to skate anyway. I skated a lot as a kid at a local rink. Figure skating. I even earned my preliminary level ribbon. I skated with my kids when they were little but haven't been on skates in many years. It's on my bucket list to do again before I croak. Thanks for posting that picture.

Well, I just checked 3 things off my list: see Stonehenge and visit St. Andrews, Scotland - the Old Course - the birthplace of golf. And a month ago we paid off our mortgage. So I gotta come up with some more stuff!!! Let's see: how about RETIRE. Stay at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. Have a hole-in-one. Visit Vancouver, Washington.

Audrey, I am amazed that you still have the list from when you were 16. Actually, at that age I never thought in terms of a "bucket list." We travel a lot, but as I get older, it gets harder. I have relatives from Wisconsin who have been to all 50 states and to over 100 countries. We are a long way from those stats. I would like to learn how to work with metal. Would also like to take DH to see the Northern Lights. I saw them by chance when I was about 14; he has never seen them. PS I rode a horse when I was 12; did not know how to tell it to stop. Was scared silly.

Hmmmmmmm What Martin Z says about novels is pretty much what I would say about "modern art": if someone has to explain a painting to me, then something's fishy about it! As for literature, I'm more open-minded, because of hard experience -- there are books I thought were great when I read them at some point in life, and years later they fell flat for me. Or the opposite has happened: a book I "didn't get" when I was younger (and didn't have any interpretive essays, etc. on), was a "Discovery" at a future time. Whether or not having explanations laid out for me would've helped my appreciation during the first reading, I don't know. Of course, Life is a great teacher about human character so we understand more deeply as we go on, and that carries over into our understanding of literature, too. Some stories need interpretation, at least to some extent. For instance: Shakespeare has so many Olde English words and phrases, that even now, I'd be lost; so I NEED footnotes to really understand some of what he's saying. As for "Ulysses" -- both the ancient one and the newer one (by Joyce) would need some interpretation, for me, anyway. I don't think that automatically means either one is too clever, but then I haven't read "Ulysses" (old or new), so -- as we say in New York City -- what do I know!? P.S. I had to read "Lord of the Flies" in college. It was a wonderful experience for me -- so much thinking and analyzing; but, it was fun, and not very hard. We had to write a think-piece on it, and discuss it in class. I really enjoyed that (got an "A" on it!). BTW: I highly recommend the old (1960s?) British movie version of it!