Unfounded Foundation

Drama Fiction Sad

Written in response to: "Include the line “I remember…” or “I forget…” in your story." as part of A Matter of Time with K. M. Fajardo.

UNFOUNDED FOUNDATION

I remember the night with my in-laws at the restaurant. If there is one thing I despise, it’s mockery disguised as laughter. How easily people can reduce someone to a joke — and laugh as if cruelty is entertainment.

I sat among them like a guest actress in a play I had never auditioned for. The atmosphere was staged, the conversations shallow. My husband was utterly at ease, as if my presence were optional. Their laughter was too loud, their gestures too deliberate — as if they wanted me to see that I didn’t belong.

Then something strange happened after the bill was paid. His mother stood up and walked around the table, literally, pointing her finger at each family member, counterclockwise. She announced aloud whether each person was or was not “a real Haverley.” Nine people: son, daughters, grandchildren — and me.

Everyone received the label “a true Haverley.”

Except me.

Deliberately: “Not a Haverley.”

It startled me. As we walked out of the restaurant, I wrapped an arm around my mother-in-law’s shoulders. Quasi-affectionate — I was above it, but I wanted it addressed.

“What did you have to do to become a real Haverley? You married into the family too, didn’t you?”

The elderly woman looked caught. She didn’t know what posture to assume. She laughed — because silence would have revealed too much.

At home, the image of that pointing finger kept circling the table in my mind. My mother-in-law’s laugh, my husband’s expressionless face. No one said anything, no one defended me. And he — my husband — looked on as if this ritual humiliation were perfectly normal. A quiet pact that excluded me.

In the silence that followed the outing, I thought about us. About what remained of love.

For me, honesty had always been the foundation of our relationship. For him, ignoring was easier than answering. His promises were weightless, like breath.

“You’re lying. You’re lying. I’m not admitting to something I didn’t do.

There’s something wrong with your head. You’re disgusting.”

I sighed. For fifteen years this had been his only response whenever I tried to revive our marriage with a constructive conversation.

“I hear you, but I’m not listening,” he’d say. Then my words would extinguish before they reached him. I tried — increasingly desperately — to break through.

“I can’t continue in a loveless marriage,” I usually replied.

The rest of the evening I would be the one talking — fiery, full of hope, pleading to be heard. He let my begging slide off him like rain off wax. Sometimes he nodded, sometimes he made a light promise, only to stop my torrent of words.

He never kept a single promise.

A marriage without intimacy becomes nothing but a business. A roof, an income, a child — that was what we shared.

He contributed to none of the three pillars. He refused to stand on his own feet. He believed he had the right to do as he pleased. Contributing to our financial stability was not part of his worldview. Our child got whatever he wanted; it bought my husband peace of mind and freed him from giving real attention.

And I — his wife? Necessary. Without me there was no income, no home. His interest went no further.

I withered. I grew lonelier by the year.

The opposite of love wasn’t hate. It was indifference — and neglect.

After years of fruitless conversations, I switched to email. At least he could read my words when he felt “ready.” He never replied. Not once.

For a long time I believed silence was agreement.

Until he told me he had never read a single message. Emotional absence was his specialty; my truth ricocheted off his armor.

Nothing changed. He had his pleasures elsewhere.

I told him openly that I would start an affair — not to betray him, but to survive.

I was honest.

He lied.

And yet, every time I confronted him with facts, his response was unchanged:

“You’re lying. You’re lying. I’m not admitting to something I didn’t do.

There’s something wrong with your head. You’re disgusting.”

And I grew quiet again. After all these years still together. I became smaller, then smaller still, until only the shadow of who I had been was left.

Our relationship stood on an unfounded foundation.

He prevailed.

I sank beneath the weight.

Silence became habit. Weeks blurred; our conversations turned logistical. Touch became taboo.

One evening at dinner, he broke the stillness with a sentence I will never forget.

“Honesty is overrated, especially in a family.”

The words fell between soup and breath. Thankfully the children weren’t home. The air turned grim, heavy — too thick to inhale. For a moment nothing moved. Then the clink of cutlery, a clock working overtime.

I freeze. My back straight, hands resting loosely on the table, spine taut.

“Haughty,” he would call it.

“Composed,” I call it.

He continued talking about the children, about keeping the peace. His voice was controlled, almost calculated — as if honesty were something you could ration, a matter of intellect, not conscience.

I listened, quietly, and then said, “My honesty is the only reason we’re still together. It was either an open marriage, or separation. I didn’t want that burden for our son.”

He stirred his soup. The spoon clicked against the porcelain — a small betrayal of nervousness. The clock ticked too, as if time itself had to fill the silence.

I looked at him, not angry — just tired. Fifteen years of monogamy without touch, without breath, without skin.

He nodded, with that polite silence that hurt more than any insult.

“You know what I need. What I miss. What is breaking me,” I said.

“You ignore me, like always.”

I placed the words on the table like a knife — not to cut, but to show that the blade was real.

He said nothing. His face stayed unchanged, but his fingers trembled. The lie he carried — that he still felt anything — was finally too heavy.

I saw it.

He knew I saw it.

And still no one said a word.

I poured the wine and smiled as if something could still be saved.

Later in bed we lay back to back. The truth between us, cold and unspoken.

He thought about peace. I thought about freedom.

No one slept.

Our foundation trembles, but does not collapse — not yet.

Posted Nov 13, 2025
Share:

You must sign up or log in to submit a comment.

10 likes 15 comments

Graham Kinross
06:23 May 16, 2026

This story feels familiar from things I’ve heard a lot in Japan where families drift apart because the man is working so many hours the couple no longer know each other and resent each other for the lives they lead. Relationships take a lot of work and if only one person is willing to do the work it falls apart. It sounds as if the husband in this was never emotionally mature enough for a relationship and both of them should have called it off long before.

Reply

Rebecca Lewis
18:47 May 13, 2026

What strikes me most in this piece is that the anger never turns theatrical. The narrator isn’t exploding — she’s documenting erosion. That restraint gives the story its weight. The pain sits underneath the language instead of overwhelming it, which makes the emotional impact stronger. The restaurant scene is the strongest part because it is so concrete and visual. The mother-in-law circling the table, pointing at each person like some bizarre ritual, declaring who is and is not “a true Haverley” — it captures humiliation in a way that feels both absurd and cruel. The fact that nobody reacts is what makes it linger. The recurring line — “You’re lying. You’re lying…” works well because repetition itself becomes exhausting. It mirrors the emotional dead end of trying to communicate with someone who refuses accountability. The repetition creates suffocation, which fits the marriage being described. I also think the dinner-table scene about honesty is one of the most effective passages. The details carry the tension. The spoon against porcelain, the ticking clock, the controlled tone of his voice. Those small physical observations say more than long explanations ever could. What strengthens the piece is when it trusts scenes and gestures instead of explaining emotions outright. The writing is at its best when the reader is allowed to feel the silence, the indifference, the humiliation without being told what it means. The strongest lines are often the simplest. “The opposite of love wasn’t hate. It was indifference — and neglect.” and “He thought about peace. I thought about freedom.” That final contrast feels earned because it avoids melodrama. Nobody screams. Nobody leaves. The collapse is quiet, gradual, almost procedural. That honesty is what makes the piece unsettling. I also think the husband works best in the moments where his emotional armor cracks — like the trembling fingers during dinner. Tiny details like that give him dimension beyond being absent. The piece succeeds because it captures something many people experience but articulate well. The slow death of intimacy through indifference, avoidance, and silence. Its greatest strength is not the conflict itself, but the restraint with which it is told.

Reply

Marjolein Greebe
15:41 May 15, 2026

This is an incredibly perceptive read. You noticed details and patterns that many people pass over completely.

I especially appreciated your observation about repetition becoming suffocating rather than dramatic. That emotional dead-end was very intentional.

And you’re right: the story only really works if the quieter moments are allowed to carry the weight on their own. The restaurant scene still unsettles me for the same reason it unsettled you — not because of what was said, but because nobody considered stopping it.

Reply

Eric Manske
16:19 Feb 03, 2026

This is one of those relationships I sometimes encounter when I wonder how they ever decided to marry and why they ever stay together. Of course, I approach those questions with my current-day bias. Sadly, but beautifully written.
Also, I did notice a change in verb tense during the story. It doesn't seem like it was intentional, but perhaps.

Reply

Marjolein Greebe
09:12 Feb 05, 2026

This means a lot — thank you for reading it with such attention. I appreciate both parts of your comment: the recognition of that quietly incomprehensible kind of marriage and your sharp eye for the tense shift. It wasn’t intentional in a technical sense, but it was emotional rather than chronological — the moments where time fractures are where the narrator slips, and I’m glad you noticed it rather than reading past it.

Reply

Gaby Nøhr
14:55 Dec 12, 2025

I’m also neurodivergent 🥰🥰🥰

Reply

Marjolein Greebe
15:09 Dec 12, 2025

I read your profile yesterday and was pleasantly surprised — your writing style resonates with me more than any other I’ve read on Reedsy so far. 🔥

Reply

Gaby Nøhr
15:28 Dec 12, 2025

Neurodivergent understanding could be , that’s amazing I would to talk about my dystopian psychological novel with you , is a society who wants to aligned neurodivergent people so they can fix their mental state with the system normative

Reply

Marjolein Greebe
15:38 Dec 12, 2025

That sounds like an exceptionally strong concept. I can nearly "feel" the directions you will explore and turn it into a baffling novel. I am always happy to get in touch with like-minded people and delighted to share insights or opinions regarding your manuscript.

Reply

Gaby Nøhr
15:52 Dec 12, 2025

Have you other social media?

Reply

Marjolein Greebe
17:42 Dec 12, 2025

No. WhatsApp.

Reply

Luna Hart
06:58 Nov 20, 2025

I loved the use of metaphor and simile. They added so much to the atmosphere and story. This was a great read!

Reply

Marjolein Greebe
19:59 Nov 20, 2025

Thank you so much for reading and for your kind words.
I’m really glad the metaphorical layer resonated with you — it’s an important part of how I write.
Your comment truly made my day.

Reply

RBE | Illustrated Short Stories | 2024-06

Bring your short stories to life

Fuse character, story, and conflict with tools in Reedsy Studio. All for free.