The Necklace

Image
  “SHE WAS one of those pretty, charming young ladies, born, as if through an error of destiny, into a family of clerks. She had no dowry, no hopes, no means of becoming known, appreciated, loved, and married by a man either rich or distinguished; and she allowed herself to marry a petty clerk in the office of the Board of Education. . . .  She had neither frocks nor jewels, nothing. And she loved only those things. She felt that she was made for them. She had such a desire to please, to be sought after, to be clever, and courted.” —THE NECKLACE Guy de Maupassant    France, 1884 (pic by Grok) Read this short story here:  https://americanliterature.com/author/guy-de-maupassant/short-story/the-necklace

Love and Respect

 

Can this be right? Does Tolstoy really mean this? The quote actually comes from a conversation in the novel, Anna Karenina. Was she right? Is respect a substitute for love? 


Since love is displayed in so many forms, every manifestation of love must be absent in order for respect to appear, if this were true. Respect would be a curios invention indeed, especially since respect has value. Wouldn’t it be correct to say that respect is actually a form of love? It’s been argued that love is private and respect is public. In the novel, the speaker depending on this, has lost in both arenas and is desperately grasping. So, not so great a sentiment, is it?


It would be correct to say that disrespect fills the empty place where love should be. Both are found in the context of relationships. Every display of disrespect spreads chaos, is without honor, careless, selfish, loveless. Love invents. Disrespect destroys. 


Tolstoy wasn’t wrong. Anna was.

Popular posts from this blog

Rock Me, Epictetus!

The Smooth-flowing Life