For many years, scholars have regarded My Mortal Enemy as somewhat of an enigma. Written in only a few months during the early spring of 1925 and published in 1926, Willa Cather's shortest novel was sandwiched in between The Professor's House (1925) and Death Comes for the Archbishop (1927). While the subject matter of these latter two works can be traced to Cather's experience in the desert Southwest, My Mortal Enemy seemingly has nothing to do with these subjects or her Nebraska roots; it appears to have come out of nowhere, puzzling those who have tried to fit this rather irregular work into a logical progression of Cather's artistic development. The question of what caused Cather to write such a novel at this point in her career, for example, has still not been answered definitively. One commonly held hypothesis (假说) was first voiced by Marcus Klein, who in his 1961 introduction to the novel wrote that for Cather, “The story of Myra Henshawe must have been a personal crisis”. Klein, though, acknowledged that he could not prove his theory, “because there is available no record other than the novel”. Emmy Stark Zitter has recently argued that in My Mortal Enemy and Sapphira and the Slave Girl(1940) Cather exercises the autobiographical impulse (冲击) by putting details of her own life into her fiction, but, like Klein, she is unable to name which “details” of her life Cather drew on in writing My Mortal Enemy.

    As hinted (暗示) in the above statements by Klein and Zitter, much of the general uncertainty about the meaning of My Mortal Enemy can be traced to the absence of a persuasive theory as to who the real-life models for the novel's characters were and what Cather's relationship to them was. Cather herself wrote in a 1940 letter that, in James Woodress's paraphrase, “she had known Myra's real-life model very well, and the portrait drawn in the story was much as she remembered her”; Cather also added that the woman had died fifteen years before My Mortal Enemy was published, and that many relatives of this model later wrote to her to say that they recognized the “real” Myra from her description in the novel. Given such hints and Cather's liking for drawing on her experiences in Nebraska for characters, settings, and plots, it is quite understandable that scholars have thus looked to Red Cloud and Lincoln for possible sources of the people and events depicted in My Mortal Enemy.

    In light of the evidence presented in this article, though, I believe that Cather intended her comments about the model for Myra Henshawe to serve as red herrings (转移注意力的言语) that would protect her relationship with the couple who were the prototypes (原型) for the Henshawes, both of whom were still alive in 1925. Mark Madigan has recently confirmed how Cather in 1905 had to hold off publishing “The Profile (传略)” because of fears that the main character might recognize herself and commit suicide, and twenty years later Cather would have been well aware of how her description of the Henshawes might have affected both the real-life wife (who died in 1929) and husband (who died in 1949) if they had recognized themselves. It is my argument that the Henshawes were modeled after people Cather knew not in Nebraska but rather in New York: S. S. and Hattie McClure. Myra's uncle, John Driscoll, was modeled after Hattie's father, Professor Albert Hurd.

    Possibly most important, identifying the Henshawes as the McClures allows us to more conclusively identify Cather herself with Nellie Birdseye. Nellie and Cather, both Midwestern onlookers and recorders, experienced four distinct stages in their relationships with the Henshawes and the McClures (especially with S. S.) My Mortal Enemy, I believe, was an extended attempt by Cather to deal with certain aspects of her own past and to move on in a world stripped of romantic illusion.

    Grey clouds move as low as smoke over the treetops at Lolo Pass. The ground is white. The day is June 10.It has been snowing for the past four days in the Bitterroot Mountains.Wayne Fairchild is getting worried about our trek over the Lolo Trail-95 miles from Lolo Montana to Weippe in Idaho, across the roughest country in the West. Lewis and Clark were nearly defeated 200 years ago by snowstorms on the Lolo. Today Fairchild is nervously checking the weather reports. He has agreed to take me across the toughest, middle section of the trail.

    When Lewis climbed on top of Lemhi Pass,140 miles south of Missoula, on Aug.12,1805,he was astonished by what was in front of him; "high mountain chains still to the West of us with their tops partially covered with snow.＂Nobody in what was then the US knew the Rocky Mountains existed, with peaks twice as high as anything in the Appalachians back East.

    Today their pathway through those mountains holds more attraction than any other ground over which they traveled, for its raw wilderness is an evidence to the character of two cultures:the explorers who braved its hardships and the Native Americans who prize and conserve the path as a sacred (神圣的)gift. It remains today the same condition as when Lewis and Clark walked it.

    The Lolo is passable only from July to mid-September. Our luck is holding with the weather, although the snow keeps getting deeper. As we climb to Indian Post Office, the highest point on the trail at 7,033 ft, we have covered 13 miles in soft snow, and we hardly have enough energy to make dinner. After a meal of chicken, I sit on a rock on top of the ridge .There is no light visible in any direction, not even another campfire. For four days we do not see another human being. We are occupied with the things that mix fear with joy. In our imagination we have finally caught up with Lewis and Clark.

    Forest Schools originated in Sweden in the 1950s and spread to other countries, particularly Denmark where they have become an important part of the Danish early years program.

    In a typical Danish Forest School, young children from 3 years are taken into the forest for 4 hours each day of the week. They take no toys with them, but instead use only what the forest provides (and their imaginations) to develop their games. There is a primitive hut in the forest, which is used in extreme weather. Activities are child-led and fun, such as finding small animals or stomping in puddles. Because of high adult to child ratios, children can safely try out activities which are often considered too dangerous, such as climbing trees or lighting fires, and by dressing the children in good protective clothing, they are able to play freely. By setting children small manageable tasks at which they are unlikely to fail, and giving genuine praise, children's independence and confidence grow.

    A Swedish scientific study found that children in the Forest School are more balanced and socially capable, have fewer sick days, are more able to concentrate and have better co-ordination than the city nursery children. The primary reason appeared to be the greater opportunities to play in nature, so that children play for longer at a time, tending not to disturb each other as much as children in the city nursery. The study observed that where children were interrupted, they became irritable, their stress level rose, and their ability to concentrate fell.

    The study also showed that the Forest School children had 25 % fewer sick days than the city children. One reason for this is that the air is nearly always better outside than indoors. Outside a child is not so exposed to virus and bacteria and not so likely to be infected by other children. Another reason may be that, since stress has been shown to have a negative effect on the immune system, high stress levels may be weakening the city children. The Forest School children, on the other hand, are in a pleasant, natural, fun and less stressful environment.

    Three-quarters of the world's coffee farms destroy forest habitat to grow coffee in the sun and typically use harmful pesticides (杀虫剂) and chemicals that poison the environment. When forests disappear, migratory (迁徙的) songbirds disappear, too. In order to deal with severe population and habitat loss, Smithsonian scientists created the Bird Friendly certification.

    Bird Friendly coffees are shade-grown, meaning the coffee is planted under trees, rather than on the land that has been cleared of all other plants. Coffee experts say shade-grown coffees taste better, because the beans ripen slower than coffee grown in the full sun, resulting in a richer, more complex flavor. Bird Friendly certified coffees grow under bio-diverse shade that provides habitat for migratory songbirds and other wildlife, stores carbon and fights climate change. Bird Friendly coffees are also certified organic, meaning they are grown without pesticides, which is better for people and for the planet.

    Bird Friendly producers can also earn more for their crops. The wood and fruit trees on shade coffee farms provide farmers with additional income. Every cup of Bird Friendly coffee purchased rewards these farmers with a little more money for being good stewards of the environment and encourages them to continue conserving Bird Friendly habitat.

    Buying Bird Friendly supports the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center's conservation research aimed at understanding and protecting your feathered friends. You can purchase Bird Friendly certified coffees around the world and protect wildlife and habitat with every cup. Find a store or cafe near you, or better yet, have it shipped to your door when you order online.

    A few years back I worked in a university building that also housed a department full of psychologists, all of whom seemed to see us as perfect guinea pigs(豚鼠) for their latest theories. If an eager graduate student showed up in my office bearing desserts and asked me to pick one, I'd cast a careful glance and ask "Why?" before grabbing the apple pie.

    So one day, when someone from the Psychology Department posted instructions in the bathroom persuading all of us to "Think about five things for which you're grateful every day for a week!" my response was frankly doubtful. I did the math. Five things a day for seven days is a lot of brainpower to expend without so much as the promise of an apple pie.

    I wandered into the office of Heidi Zetzer, the director of our school's Psychological Services Clinic. "What's with the gratitude thing?" I asked. You don't ask an academic question－even a simple one unless you're prepared for a long answer. Heidi came alive, and I sat down. That's when I first heard the term "positive psychology". The gratitude thing, as I had called it, was but one small and simple element of the practice. "Kind of like training the brain to focus on joy," my friend Heidi explained. "It's only a week," she urged. "Try it." I did. And guess what? It worked.

    Every day for a week, I found five distinct things for which I was thankful. They had to be different every day. I couldn't get away with just being grateful for my wonderful husband. But I could, suggested Collie Conoley, another positive psychologist, express my gratitude for specific aspects of a certain person each day. He's a great cook. He always puts our family first.

    Life will never be perfect. I still see new stories that annoy me. The traffic in my city is maddening. I wish I could speed up my recovery. But with just one simple exercise, I'm rediscovering the peace of that old saying: accepting the things I can't change, working without complaint to change what I can, and being wise enough to know the difference.

    And all it took was a little gratitude.