The F*ck, Chuck or Marry meme
Mar. 28th, 2009 06:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
smokingbootOh I like this, I like this a lot! Point of this meme is, if you leave a comment below, I will nominate 3 well known individuals from history/literature/popular culture/whatever, and you choose one of the three options above to apply to each candidate, explaining your reasons in your lj.
The exemplary![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
blackcurrants has given me a fine trio of poisonous possibilities, Willoughby from Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, Viktor Frankenstein from Mary Shelley's eponymous novel, and Edward Fairfax Rochester from Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre.
Ooooh. Where to begin?
The chuck is easy. In Sense and Sensibility, Willoughby is a dashing young man who captures the heart of one of our heroines. He's so beguiling, so artful and sensitive, such a philanderer. He's also a baseline ho. The love of money may be the root of all evil, but it's just not sexy. He reforms, you know, so he doesn't even keep the interesting aspects of being a rogue...it takes a certain level of bland rubbishness to be outclassed by Wickham of P&P. Bye Bye Wills.
The other two are much harder.blackcurrants has posed me a right teaser here, as both remaining suitors come with baggage, and connubial bliss is likely to be interrupted by death via monster/mad wife. Tricky.
So let's talk about the sex. All right, I admit it, Edward Rochester, sardonic, brooding, ever so intelligent and frankly gagging for it would have me quivering like a buzz-saw with his flirty little games. I reckon he'd be great in the sack, though I'm really unsure about his stumpy legs. I'll take all the gifts and pretties and spoiling he wants to give me, but no cross-dressing gypsy grandma stuff, that's just embarrassing, and no, I'm not staying over - not until he's checked out the heating at his place. I'll bow out as soon as Jane turns up to redeem him, cos when he's bad, he's very very good, but once he's good, he's boring.
I guess that leaves Viktor Frankenstein, and to all intents and purposes he makes good hubby material; faithful, loving, creative, well off, very hardworking and not in my way too much. The monster is a problem I concede, but I could be a good friend to Viktor; if he told me about the situation I would try to help him accept his child. Maybe they could forgive each other. Maybe I could help, even if it was by yelling 'For the love of god, he wants the arctic, take him to the f*cking arctic, OK?' Then, while they're putting the issue on ice, I can pop across to Thornfield for a bite of tea...
The exemplary
blackcurrants has given me a fine trio of poisonous possibilities, Willoughby from Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, Viktor Frankenstein from Mary Shelley's eponymous novel, and Edward Fairfax Rochester from Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre.Ooooh. Where to begin?
The chuck is easy. In Sense and Sensibility, Willoughby is a dashing young man who captures the heart of one of our heroines. He's so beguiling, so artful and sensitive, such a philanderer. He's also a baseline ho. The love of money may be the root of all evil, but it's just not sexy. He reforms, you know, so he doesn't even keep the interesting aspects of being a rogue...it takes a certain level of bland rubbishness to be outclassed by Wickham of P&P. Bye Bye Wills.
The other two are much harder.
blackcurrants has posed me a right teaser here, as both remaining suitors come with baggage, and connubial bliss is likely to be interrupted by death via monster/mad wife. Tricky.So let's talk about the sex. All right, I admit it, Edward Rochester, sardonic, brooding, ever so intelligent and frankly gagging for it would have me quivering like a buzz-saw with his flirty little games. I reckon he'd be great in the sack, though I'm really unsure about his stumpy legs. I'll take all the gifts and pretties and spoiling he wants to give me, but no cross-dressing gypsy grandma stuff, that's just embarrassing, and no, I'm not staying over - not until he's checked out the heating at his place. I'll bow out as soon as Jane turns up to redeem him, cos when he's bad, he's very very good, but once he's good, he's boring.
I guess that leaves Viktor Frankenstein, and to all intents and purposes he makes good hubby material; faithful, loving, creative, well off, very hardworking and not in my way too much. The monster is a problem I concede, but I could be a good friend to Viktor; if he told me about the situation I would try to help him accept his child. Maybe they could forgive each other. Maybe I could help, even if it was by yelling 'For the love of god, he wants the arctic, take him to the f*cking arctic, OK?' Then, while they're putting the issue on ice, I can pop across to Thornfield for a bite of tea...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 08:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 08:30 pm (UTC)Marry all three?
Date: 2009-03-28 08:42 pm (UTC)nah, chuck one, fuck another, marry the other!
Re: Marry all three?
Date: 2009-03-28 08:45 pm (UTC)I think the velvet-coated Disraeli would be great for a roll in the hay or four, but given the Jewish background and his propensity for insincere flattery I don't think I'd want to go there for life.
Which means marrying Lloyd George. I don't think that would be too bad as he's pretty forgettable, so I could just carry on as before.
Re: Marry all three?
Date: 2009-03-28 08:50 pm (UTC)Must admit, the young Disraeli looks like a bit of a fox. Background wouldn't worry me - all inlaws are trouble wherever they come from!
Re: Marry all three?
Date: 2009-03-28 08:52 pm (UTC)I hadn't heard that about Lloyd George, but I have to confess that I haven't studied that period so much - most of my European history studies stop at about 1880.
Re: Marry all three?
Date: 2009-03-28 08:59 pm (UTC)Re: Marry all three?
Date: 2009-03-28 09:02 pm (UTC)Re: Marry all three?
Date: 2009-03-28 09:05 pm (UTC)Re: Marry all three?
Date: 2009-03-28 09:09 pm (UTC)