You know, I don’t really see the harm. How is this not just a scaled up version of keeping pictures?
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.
There’s a difference between some photos and keeping an entire grungy room as a shrine.
Don’t be stubborn. I think you can intellectually understand there’s a big difference between the two.
It’s not, but if a sudden change in acceptability happens do to a continuous change in scale, I feel very comfortable asking why.
It’s an awkward situation for sure. I’m trying to imagine what could be done with the room if they cleaned it out. All I can think is that they could never convert it into a room that they would want to spend time in, and the only alternative seems to be storage which almost seems disrespectful to the memory.
