I really can’t get past writing about love…
Never fall in love with something that won’t love you back.Mary Kay Andrews The Homewreckers
Last week, and at least one other week, we talked about how the word LOVE has become overused. We sort of fixated on whether we should be able to love important people in our lives, and love baked goods. all with the same intensity.
So without getting into the whole “in love” vs “loving” debate, should we love something that won’t love you back?
Ever been in love with someone from afar; an unrequited situation? Does being in love with someone who doesn’t love you back, or doesn’t know you exist, help you out in the long run? Does it make you feel better? Does it get you to a better place? Even think about crushes: did my love of David Cassidy when I was in third grade make it harder to appreciate real people in front of me?
I know. Some of you are going to say that you can’t help who you love. But is that true? Or in that case, can you love someone who doesn’t really know you exist? One of my wise friends says that love is reciprocal: love only exists if the two things are in love with one another. In the context of the above quote, this statement seems pretty accurate…
Which leads us to:
In the case of the book, the quote refers to a house that a contractor “loves”. Her astute former father in law reasons that loving this house, this inanimate object will end up torturing her. She’ll pour too much money into it, she’ll spend too much time with it, she will fixate on the details, and in the end, it really won’t give her anything back. It will empty her with no ability to replenish.
Does loving something that doesn’t love you back leave you empty?
Do shoes or a movie or a chair really deserve your love, as it can’t reciprocate?