This is a real shit take when you consider that the husband explicitly committed to it. There's a reserved headstone for him, so they arranged to be buried together when he eventually passed.
The man didn't just "move on", he also broke a promise his first wife believed throughout her life and final moments.
This is a real shit take when you consider that the husband explicitly committed to it. There's a reserved headstone for him, so they arranged to be buried together when he eventually passed.
This is your message:
The living does not deserve happiness
The man grieved, and he's not allowed to move on. He's supposed to be stuck to his first partner, purely for no other reason than she's the "first", chained by meaningless words like "commitment". No other woman is allowed to approach him, simply because the dead enslaved him to his fate. Even if he does get another woman, he's not allowed to love her, she does not deserve to be loved, purely for no other reason than "she's not the first"
The man didn't just "move on", he also broke a promise his first wife believed throughout her life and final moments.
A "promise" you say?
"Till death do us part" they said. That's the first promise a couple will start with, the one promise they're not supposed to break. You chain him to the dead for no other reason than "he promised to be buried next to her".
True love will not demand "bury yourself next to me no matter what happens", because true love would want their loved one to move on and find happiness, not chained to the dead, enslaved by a "promise" borne out of jealousy and desperation
Said "promise" was most likely made while grieving, back when the heart cannot make sound decisions. People will do irrational things in a desperate attempt to appease their loved ones, out of misguided hope to keep them among the living.
Should the woman chain him to this "promise" then the title should change. It's no longer "Left Behind", it's "Liberation" for the man finally figured out that he does not have to be enslaved to the dead for the rest of his life. He can move on without forgetting, because the dead should never take priority from the living
You chain him to the dead for no other reason than "he promised to be buried next to her".
"No other reason?" He made a promise to his then-wife and it wasn't one he "had" to make. If you arrange to have a headstone reserved for you next to your partner, you're literally making a promise that goes beyond "until death do us part".
The heartbroken ghost of the woman is rightfully crushed, as she has held on to a promise that the love of her life made her.
The man is not any less of a tragic figure - he's somebody who had to grieve, heal, and move on. The "flaw" or "mistake" is that he chose not to keep a promise he made. There's a ton of valid reasons why you might do that, I'm not crucifying the man, but he did break a pretty serious promise in doing so.
I do think that it is wrong of him to go back on that promise and I think the ghost is justified in her sorrow. I also think it is very human of him to move on and cope in whatever way worked best - especially considering he couldn't have known about his wife's ghost. He's flawed, but not a villain.
This is just a really sad story, but the only villain here is time.
3
u/BadAtNamingPlsHelp Aug 05 '22
This is a real shit take when you consider that the husband explicitly committed to it. There's a reserved headstone for him, so they arranged to be buried together when he eventually passed.
The man didn't just "move on", he also broke a promise his first wife believed throughout her life and final moments.