Creepy in the sense that keeping the room intact was a monument to pain, and handling that pain in an incredibly unhealthy way. It’s just too sad.
If they just moved on and cleaned the room out, it would be fine. I’m not talking about ghosts or any crap like that.
You know, I don’t really see the harm. How is this not just a scaled up version of keeping pictures?
There’s a difference between some photos and keeping an entire grungy room as a shrine.
It’s not, but if a sudden change in acceptability happens do to a continuous change in scale, I feel very comfortable asking why.
To me personally, it’s a difference in the function of a room versus photos. Photos were always intended to capture memories, whereas a room was meant to be used and lived in. The idea of keeping the room as it was, permanently, feels like stagnation to me. I worry once it stopped being a comforting space, I still couldn’t bring myself to do anything with it because it would reopen the wound, so I’d just ignore it and live around it, and the feeling of stagnation would grow heavier.
But also everyone grieves differently, and I’ve never lost a child, so I can only guess how I’d grieve based on how I’ve grieved other relationships. It’s possible no one in that family feels the way I described. That’s just my best answer for why it sounds creepy to a bunch of us.
