When they first come into your bed,Your fear is suspended,By the way they look at you.Like the flaws you seeAre invisible to them. They want to touch you;Feed off you;Hold you and sway youTo the… More
Marianne Dashwood
Sense and Sensibility is often interpreted as a battle between reason and emotion, with Elinor positioned as the moral victor. Generations of readers have been taught to admire restraint, composure, and emotional discipline while quietly mocking Marianne’s intensity. Even in the celebrated film adaptation starring Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet, audiences frequently emerge calling Marianne dramatic, irrational, or immature.
But what if Marianne is not the cautionary tale?
What if she is the soul of the novel?
The tragedy of Marianne Dashwood is not that she feels too much. The tragedy is that the world around her lacks the courage to feel with the same honesty.
When Marianne quotes Shakespeare’s “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments,” she is not being naïve. She is articulating an ideal of love that refuses compromise, calculation, and emotional bargaining. William Shakespeare understood something Austen herself perhaps struggled against: love is rarely logical. It is disruptive by nature. Even Elinor, the embodiment of “sense,” cannot reason herself out of loving Edward Ferrars. Logic never prevented attachment. It only controlled its expression.
And that distinction matters enormously.
Elinor suffers silently and is rewarded largely through circumstance. Had Edward married Lucy Steele as intended, Elinor’s restraint would not have magically transformed her pain into happiness. Her silence would simply have become permanent heartbreak. Austen’s ending depends not upon the superiority of sense, but upon fortune intervening at the right moment.
Marianne, meanwhile, is punished not because she loves wrongly, but because she loves visibly.
That is what society condemns in her.
People are often comfortable with emotion as long as it remains private, tidy, and non-disruptive. Elinor’s feelings are socially acceptable because they are hidden. Marianne’s feelings become embarrassing because they demand acknowledgement. She speaks. She weeps. She longs openly. She refuses to reduce love to etiquette.
And that openness is frequently mistaken for weakness.
But emotional transparency is not weakness. In many ways, it is the highest form of courage.
To love openly is to relinquish control.
To communicate honestly is to risk humiliation.
To say “this hurt me” or “I need you” requires far more vulnerability than silence ever does.
Modern psychology and therapy culture understand this far better than Austen’s society could. Today we recognise that repression is not inherently virtuous. Communication sustains relationships. Speaking fears aloud prevents emotional rot. Processing feelings openly is healthier than burying them beneath civility until they calcify into loneliness.
Marianne’s emotional fluency, viewed through a contemporary lens, becomes not childishness but radical honesty.
The irony is that many people who idolise Elinor in fiction would find her exhausting in real life. Relationships cannot survive indefinitely on restraint and implication. One person constantly communicating while the other withholds creates emotional asymmetry. Love cannot thrive where vulnerability flows only one way.
And this is perhaps why Marianne resonates so profoundly with people who feel deeply. She represents those who refuse emotional minimalism. Those who would rather risk heartbreak than become numb. Those who understand that life without intensity may be safer, but it is also dimmer.
Without people like Marianne, the world becomes emotionally efficient but spiritually barren.
Art would not exist without Marianne souls.
Poetry would not exist.
Music would not exist.
Great love stories would not exist.
Compassion itself depends upon sensibility — upon the ability to feel another person’s suffering intensely enough to respond to it.
Pure logic builds systems.
Sensibility preserves humanity within them.
Even Colonel Brandon’s love for Marianne is rooted in sensibility, not sense. He loves her because she reminds him of emotional truth — of passion, sincerity, vitality. Marianne awakens feeling in everyone around her. She changes the emotional temperature of the novel merely by existing within it.
And perhaps Austen knew this too, even if she ultimately retreated toward social conservatism in the ending.
Because despite the novel’s title, readers remember Marianne most vividly.
Not because she is perfect.
But because she is alive.
Her tears, her impulsiveness, her idealism, her inability to perform emotional moderation — all of it makes her unforgettable in a way composure rarely is. Elinor may represent survival within society, but Marianne represents the part of the human spirit that refuses to become smaller merely to be safer.
And perhaps that is why so many sensitive people see themselves in her.
Not because they are weak.
But because they have chosen feeling over emotional self-erasure.
Why I Do Not Travel
There are people whose souls awaken at airports.
People who feel restless unless they are planning a trip, booking tickets, standing in immigration queues with headphones on and a passport in hand, convinced that somewhere else — another city, another country, another landscape — life will briefly become more meaningful than the one they currently inhabit.
I have never been one of them.
And for a long time, I wondered if there was something wrong with me because of it.
People around me speak of travel with almost religious intensity. The guys, my mother, my cousin, well, my family, I would say, has that unmistakable “keeda” of travel in them — that hunger to move, to see, to constantly experience new places. I admire it in them. Sometimes I even envy it. I wish I possessed that same excitement at the thought of boarding a plane and disappearing into another country for ten days.
But I don’t.
And I think I finally understand why.
The truth is, I travelled extensively long before I ever considered physically travelling anywhere.
I was a child who read compulsively. History, geography, mythology, politics, anthropology, climate, architecture, literature — I consumed the world through books before social media turned travel into curated montages and aesthetic performances.
I did not merely learn where places existed.
I absorbed their emotional texture.
I read about ancient civilisations, wars, migrations, cathedrals, droughts, changing coastlines, empires collapsing under their own arrogance, cities reshaped by climate and greed. I read about the loneliness of industrial Europe, the silence of old libraries, the smell of rain on African soil, glaciers disappearing, forests burning, rivers shifting course.
I learnt about places not merely as tourist destinations, but as living things shaped by history, violence, weather, memory and human failure.
And perhaps because of that, I never developed the overwhelming urge to “tick off” landmarks from a bucket list.
The Statue of Liberty does not call out to me.
Neither does the Louvre.
Nor the Sistine Chapel.
Of course, there is something profound about standing where Michelangelo once stood. About touching marble another human being shaped centuries ago and whispering quietly to yourself:
“I was here too.”
But he is gone.
The moment is gone.
And strangely, that has always mattered more to me than the monument itself.
I also think my relationship with people complicates travel.
I do not hate humanity. Human beings have also given me poetry, music, cinema, friendship, love and tenderness. I write because of people. I paint because of people. I speak because of people. I care because of people.
And yet people exhaust me.
Their arrogance.
Their prejudices.
Their casual cruelty.
Their certainty about things they barely understand.
Even I irritate myself sometimes.
I can spend hours quietly creating something meaningful — writing, painting, photographing, dancing, caring for animals — and still one unnecessarily rude interaction can poison an entire experience for me.
The other day at the gym, a man was rude for absolutely no reason. I became angry and upset. I could have caused a scene. Perhaps he deserved one. But then the entire space would have become emotionally contaminated for me. It would stop feeling peaceful.
That is what people often do to places.
Online trolls ruin platforms.
Bigotry ruins cities.
Racism ruins entire countries.
One ugly interaction stains what could otherwise have been a beautiful memory.
And travel demands people.
You must coordinate with them, negotiate with them, tolerate them, trust them, explain yourself to them. Airports, hotels, immigration counters, tourists screaming into phones while standing before thousand-year-old monuments, strangers carrying their entitlement into every corner of the earth.
Perhaps I am too sensitive for modern travel.
Or perhaps I simply no longer romanticise movement the way the world expects us to.
The irony is that I did once have a great travel dream.
Africa.
Since childhood, I have dreamt of witnessing the wildebeest migration across the Serengeti and Maasai Mara. That ancient dark river of bodies moving across the earth as they have for thousands of years before human borders existed.
Animals have always moved me more deeply than monuments ever could.
But even that dream now rests quietly in the background of my life instead of burning brightly inside me.
And then there are my children.
The impossible ache of leaving them behind.
People say, “They’ll be fine.”
But they do not understand what love begins to look like after years of routine, grief, healing and attachment.
Zoe and Xena would wait by the door. Like Zoe, Zuri stops eating when her routine changes. Her stomach reacts if I am absent during her walks or feeding times. Their emotional lives are intertwined with mine, and mine with theirs.
I cannot casually hand them over to someone else and fly across the world pretending my heart has remained peaceful.
People speak of freedom as movement.
But love roots you.
And perhaps that is what happened to me.
I built a life where meaning did not exist somewhere else.
It exists here.
In my dogs sleeping beside me.
In old films.
In books.
In late-night conversations.
In rain against the window.
In creativity.
In survival.
In memory.
In familiar streets I know how to emotionally navigate.
And maybe that is the real reason I was never bitten by the travel bug.
I do not feel the desperate need to escape my life.
Vacations, for many people, are temporary relief from lives that feel emotionally lacking, repetitive or disconnected. But my life — with all its flaws, griefs, anxieties and imperfections — has never felt empty to me.
It has felt full.
Deep rather than wide.
And I know that is enough.
When understanding scares me
I watched a disturbing video yesterday involving an animal activist who had allegedly just learned that a rescued dog she cared about had died after being brutally assaulted. The injuries described were horrific — a broken spine, shattered legs, a helpless animal beaten so severely that it did not survive. Standing near what appeared to be a police station, she confronted the man accused of the act and physically lashed out.
And what frightened me was not the activist’s anger.
What frightened me was understanding it.
Because there was a time when people believed institutions would intervene before human beings reached emotional breaking points. There was a time when the law felt like an authority citizens could turn towards rather than a maze they had to emotionally and socially exhaust themselves navigating.
But what happens when people lose faith in that protection?
What happens when acts of cruelty towards animals are repeatedly trivialised? When FIRs become uphill battles? When enforcement feels inconsistent, delayed, indifferent, or absent altogether? When ordinary citizens begin to feel that vulnerable beings have no meaningful protection unless someone physically stands between them and violence?
That is the point at which societies become dangerous.
Not because activists are angry, but because institutional trust has eroded so deeply that anger begins replacing faith in due process.
And perhaps the most demoralising part is this: I already know what will happen next.
The activist will be dissected more thoroughly than the cruelty itself.
People will analyse her rage frame by frame. They will call her unstable, hysterical, uncivilised, aggressive, emotional. Endless debates will emerge about whether she “went too far,” while far less energy will be spent confronting the suffering that triggered the reaction in the first place.
That is the pattern now.
The person who breaks emotionally under the weight of repeated brutality becomes easier to scrutinise than the brutality itself.
Because outrage against cruelty demands moral participation. Outrage against the activist is safer. Cleaner. More socially comfortable.
Anyone involved in rescue work in India already knows this emotional fatigue intimately. Feeders and rescuers are constantly told to “follow the law,” yet often find themselves struggling simply to have cruelty acknowledged with seriousness. Meanwhile, street animals continue suffering through beatings, illegal relocation, starvation, dehydration, and neglect while much of society either looks away or actively resents the people trying to help them.
And perhaps that resentment reveals something deeply broken in us.
Because no one carrying food and water through burning summer nights for thirsty animals is doing it for power or profit. They are responding to visible suffering. They are filling a moral vacuum left behind by public apathy and institutional weakness.
Yet increasingly, compassion itself is treated as provocation.
People complain about feeders while ignoring the conditions that create suffering in the first place. Cities expand without ecological thought. Heat intensifies. Concrete replaces shade. Human beings create brutal urban environments and then grow irritated at the sight of animals trying to survive within them.
What disturbs me most is not isolated cruelty, but the emotional climate surrounding it. The normalisation. The numbness. The speed with which empathy is dismissed as impractical sentimentality.
I used to believe very deeply in patience, dialogue, and peaceful civic engagement. And I still believe societies cannot survive if citizens abandon law altogether. But I now understand how dangerous it becomes when people feel the law has already abandoned the vulnerable.
Because once citizens stop believing institutions care, they stop emotionally investing in institutions at all.
That is the real warning sign.
Not one activist losing control in grief and rage, but an entire culture steadily losing confidence that justice, compassion, and accountability still function in any meaningful way.
And if that trust collapses completely, we will not merely have failed animals.
We will have failed the very idea of civilisation itself.






You must be logged in to post a comment.