Of the Prince Charming Epidemic

James Marsden in Enchanted

Click image to view source

Lyric’s come into being because someone felt, remembered, or dreamt something. As I’ve gotten older it these songs start to bare weight. I’m not saying that they make me nostalgic or that they remind me of better days. None of that sappiness. What’s irritating me is that I have one, count it one, person to link all the love songs to. Well, I dated a little in high school. But those relationships were far from meaningful. I don’t count those.

So … yeah … one.

By no means does this thought make me want him back and by no means do these memories make me sad. What it does is make me want a new, um … “special someone”… so to speak.

I’m officially over the single thing. Problem is – I’m a bad dater. I don’t notice when men flirt with me (unless they set off my creeper radar). My friends (and mom) tell me, “he was totally hitting on you” and I reply, “I had no idea.” I’m terrible at letting my feeling be known, even to myself. I lie to my brain thinking “Nooooo not him, I don’t like him.” Of course once it’s past the point of opportunity that’s when I realize “Huh, yep definitely liked him. Damn.” Then there’s my extreme independence. I do like being on my own. I’ve never been boy crazy – still not boy crazy (I don’t understand hyperventilating because a semi-attractive human being with a penis walked in the room). And regardless of horniness, I respect myself to much to sleep with a stranger or someone I am not interested in dating. That behavior just doesn’t mesh with my personality. If I were to suddenly be boy crazy and started sleeping around. My friends would worry. Though if that’s you’re personality power to ya, as long as your safe (condoms and such).

Thus I don’t actively pursue romance. Rather I wait and hope it comes floating by, glittering in the sky. And I’ll see the something shiny (all girls love shiny things) and grab it.

When I was younger my list of things required for a potential mate was crazy long. The shallowness of a Christian youth. Now that I’m older and “he has to love Jesus” isn’t on my list I really only care about four things: handsome, taller than me, funny, and willing to go Blues and Swing Dancing with me. End of list. I don’t think it’s impossible. I’ve met versions of him. Of course, he’s always taken but it does provide hope for us ladies. Settling is never an option.

Purpose of this rant: I’d like to have more than one human being to link songs to. I’d also like to stop day dreaming about the impossible.

Face it ladies. Prince Charming doesn’t exist. Fuck you Disney!

Things don’t turn out like romantic comedies.

And I have no idea why so many of you love Pride and Prejudice, personally I can’t finish the book (I’ve tried three times, never got past page 50). But I did watch the four-hour movie with Colin Firth and frankly Mr. Darcy doesn’t exist either. Why would you want him to? I’m sick of this “he’s so romantic and such a gentlemen” bullshit. Okay let us review: he thought he was better than the Bennet’s, he was cold and rude, convinced his friend to dump Elizabeth’s sister, made a rash proposal insulting Elizabeth in the process, but girls love him … I guess because he paid their families way out of ruin? I don’t know. P&P fans out there feel free to defend your precious Jane Austen. Just know that I will never agree with you. One of my dearest friend’s has a Jane Austen action figure complete with desk and quill – even she has never convinced me that Jane Austen is amazing.

Yep, definitely ready for a new romantic phase in my life. Not Prince Charming. Not necessarily Mr. Right.

Just Mr. Right Now.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Of the Prince Charming Epidemic

  1. I never said I loved Darcy, it actually really weirds me out when people say they’re obsessed with him. Remember the AP English teacher? He was all like don’t you want a man like that? Gross. The person I like is Lizzie because she has a real personality by telling an extremely rich man (despite the fact that, yes she could’ve married him at the beginning to help her family but refuses) ‘you’re gross for being so arrogant and rich.’ She wants equality, not money or the perfect man… just a nice guy.

    What I like about Austen is that she writes about a society/time period that genuinely interests me which is probably why, unlike other people, I’ve read all her other books besides P&P. You shouldn’t define her by just P&P, in one of her other books she actually writes about a woman who gets played by a rich man. Men aren’t glorified in Austen books, in fact, she doesn’t have many Prince Charmings.

    As for the time period, I really like reading about how women cope with not haven’t the ability express emotion and how families deal with wealth, lack of wealth, etc.

    • I’m not basing my dislike for Jane Austen just on P&P. Although she did predate the Victorian writing style, that form is largely how she told her stories. The Victorian style of writing (excessive and unnecessary wordiness, incredibly formal English) I just can’t get into despite the themes and characters. The writing style makes the stories fall flat in my opinion.

      • That’s sad, but I could understand why people can’t get into that, we all have different favorites after all. I take offense to calling it flat though since you haven’t really read Austen’s books or many books in that time period, you just have to understand the nuisances and social implications of the characters in the books. It helps if you actually talk about what themes and imagery are appearing, unless you know what’s going on there’s really nothing to debate about.

        Austen isn’t really wordy, I think you’re thinking of the Brontes, Hardy, Fowles. They can be wordy but, shit, it’s so fucking poetic and tortured.

        • I’ve attempted to read several of Jane Austen’s books, tried to watch the movies, she simply doesn’t appeal to me. I don’t see anything sad about that. So please don’t assume that I don’t understand the social implications. A story or book shouldn’t have to be discussed to be interesting, it should be able to stand on it’s own. In cases like this it should be so interesting it has to be discussed. Just about every English class I’ve had has assigned classic literature (usually white dead men, let’s be honest). So while I may not have read as many books from that era as you, I am well read or at the very least, well educated on the Victorian movement and the movements surrounding it (the avant garde I find the most interesting), after all I’m an English major. I’ve discussed the trends, writing styles, overall themes, what was considered shocking, and so forth of numerous time periods. By no means am I saying that Austen is a terrible writer. I can appreciate and understand that something is technically good even if I don’t personally enjoy it. That’s just it, I don’t enjoy it. I’d rather read Alexie, Sedaris, Green, Alcott, even Kinsella. I admire authors who have excellent control of language and don’t need to ramble for paragraphs to describe one fifteen second moment in time. But that doesn’t mean I hate all writers who write in a poetic fashion and slow down time.

      • You don’t need to have to be an English major to understand literature, that’s silly. I think the ‘movement’ you speak of in Victoria literature is existentialism, it’s a theme you find in avant garde as well. You need to be more specific if you’re trying to make a case out of this.

        If Kinsella is the best you could come up with that’s… sad. But, I think you mentioned before that you don’t like the whole genre of Fiction which is just ridiculous. Maybe you should read more enlightening things like One Hundred Years of Solitude or Everything Is Illuminated (outside of things you’d read in your English class).

      • Also, can’t stress enough that Austen isn’t wordy at all. What constitutes an excellent control of language? I don’t agree that control of language equals ‘Yay! It’s awesome because it’s short!’ These things could be said of Victorian novels, it’s all a matter of arbitrary judgement.

        • I didn’t say that Kinsella was the best I could come up with, I said even Kinsella. As in hell, I’d rather read her. Her stories are light-hearted and frivolous yes, but they also have those themes of women stepping outside of men and learning to stand on their own before they find a man. In terms of chick lit, she’s pretty much at the top. I find her work more enjoyable that Austen. And this blog post wasn’t even about Austen, that’s just what you latched onto. It was about Prince Charming and she related to the topic because is one particular book she fell into the trap.

          Anyways, I don’t understand why you’re getting so defensive about why I have my opinions. In turn I feel I have to defend myself against the accusations that I don’t know what I’m talking about, or that I’m not well read. In terms of enlightening reading, I’d say I read a fairly equal balance between the worlds of joy and not so jolly (not just in class). And I never said I don’t like fiction. I love fiction. It’s my favorite to read, my favorite to write, I’m loving my workshop class write now and am proud of the material I’ve been writing. I think fiction actually portrays who I am more than non-fiction. Subconscious drives fiction. Important events drive non-fiction. By control of language I don’t mean short. Sometimes short sure, but not always and not most of the time. Of the authors that I listed only Sedaris writes strictly short stories, Alexie writes both. By control I mean that they have the ability to say something without flowery language. That if they were to add or remove words from the sentence then they would do themselves an injustice. Which in your opinion is also true of the books you love from the Victorian era, that’s completely fine. I don’t expect you to suddenly not like what you like, that would be silly.

          Early avante garde, futurism for example, wasn’t just about being existentialists. It was about absolutely destroying everything before them in order to birth a new ideal. “We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice” (Futurist Manifesto). As avante garde movements changed and progressed, all lot of them lost that love for violence after WWI. But they still maintained a similar we have to be completely new mentality, but they would never associate themselves with movements of the past. Even though there were some similarities. Because well, in every movement, especially in rule ridden one’s like Futurism, Vorticism, Surrealism, there was a sea of contradictions and hypocrites (especially from the women involved: Mina Loy = crazy and fascinating). That’s part of what makes it interesting to study. Whereas in Victorian novels, I’ve never got that hateful, angry, violent vibe where they completely lost respect for all that was before them. In those stories it’s more of a stepping out, or working within the system, breaking social barriers, claiming independence. That can be seen more in the avante gardes movements of the 40’s – 60’s. And traditional avante gardes often don’t agree that Modernism or Pop Art truly qualify as avante garde.

          I’m going to stop writing now because I feel like I’m starting to write an essay.

Express your feelings below :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s