I agree with you, Edward, in the sense that if one wants to judge the speaker by the words, one should make sure they are correctly attributed and also understand them in context -- which is likely to mean, here, shrugging off a strand of pearls. But I hope it is not too unreasonable, here, to just take the words at face value, as a kind of fragment. What is elegant about refusal? Nothing harsh, I would say, more in the manner of a glass wall.
Don't we ask that people in elegant stores speak in restrained voices, wear clothing that would not be ideal for athleticism and free movement? Isn't at least some desire sublimated? Where does this come from? It's very different from beauty, which can be disarmingly open, and enter into one's personal space. Or grace, which smooths over cares. But elegance dips its pen into the well and draws a line. Against what, and why?
I sort of(?!) disagree! Elegance does not have to do with restrictions/refusals or decorum - that was definitely Victorian (decorum), and we all know their problems - or prescribed etiquette. If you think of Chanel, specifically, who made pants acceptable for women, who donned fishermen sweaters, etc., and basically re-wrote rules. Superfluous is definitely inelegant. I don't remember where (it was a long time ago) I read of someone apologizing for writing a long letter, that if he'd had more time it would have been shorter.
There has been a sort of global insecurity where a distinct majority seems to feel that one (as a number, not as a being) is not enough. A lot of advertising seems to tell you this, think of furniture stores telling you need rooms that can sit twenty people while you live by yourself and meet your friends at a bar. Ditto for a lot of other merchandise, huge houses, etc., etc. Whoops, got off the track there, but I'll leave it in.
