Way back in earlier this year, The Perpetual Post took a closer look at the Kardashian Wedding. As we all struggle with life in a post Kardashian/Humphries world, let’s take a look back at exactly what we were feeling at a very different time in American history (it was warmer).
MOLLY SCHOEMANN: As Tolstoy liked to say, “All happy families are alike, but unhappy families are much better for ratings.” Following this principle, I can’t imagine the Kardashian Klan ever reaching a point of tranquility, since they appear to favor publicity more than anything else. There’s constant drama and heartbreak and confusion—all very conveniently made public. If questionable levels of quasi-fame is what this family is after (and it apparently is), they’re handling things the right way! After all– a loving, stable household is extremely boring to everyone outside it. Not only that, but the public doesn’t want to hear about how happy celebrities are and how well their marriages and lives are going. For one thing, it gives the rest of us one more way in which we don’t measure up to them. Also, we like gossip! And finally, why should celebrities get to have everything? They already have money, fame and endless adulation from every corner. The least they can do is show us how miserable and divisive their personal lives are! It’s the price they pay for fame, right?
This is why I have a bad feeling about the inexplicably sudden marriage of Kim Kardashian to whats-his-head. (Even though I don’t really want to waste feelings on it). The whole situation smacks of a really kind of disgusting, self-aggrandizing, and shallow publicity stunt. And really, I’m a little confused as to why the marriage of woman of mediocre talents who is famous for being famous should mean anything to anyone. After all, now Kim Kardashian is married. Does this change anything for anyone? Have the tectonic plates shifted? Do we now know what love is?
No, no, and no—and that’s going to be a problem. Kim’s played her ace with this over the top wedding stunt. The only way the Kardashians are going to stay in the spotlight is if they continue to manufacture drama, and Kim Kardashian the dull, happily married woman is not going to hold our interest for very long. There’s a reason Shakespeare’s plays tended to end with the big joyous weddings—nobody much cared what happened after that. The wedding is over—now for the irreconcilable differences.
HOWARD MEGDAL: I’ll take a Kardashian wedding over a royal wedding any day of the week. And if you disagree, maybe you don’t deserve America.
Really, what did the royals ever do? They were born into royalty. That’s it. They aren’t spectacularly talented, or good-looking. They are just an accident of birth.
Well, I’m tired of hearing people say the same thing about the Kardashians. Look, I can’t really discern exactly what their talent is. But that’s on me, not them. Kim Kardashian is everywhere. She’s obviously figured it out. There are plenty of attractive daughters of rich people. But are they getting the kind of media attention that Kim Kardashian is? Of course not.
So, let’s get this straight: we’re supposed to dislike someone who manipulated American media and exploited capitalism, but adore the royal family? Didn’t we fight a war of independence to avoid just this kind of mistake?
As for ignoring her now that she’s married, well, I don’t think the interest in her had much to do with her being single. Marilyn Monroe didn’t lose her public when she got married- and she got married a lot. Kardashian will have a public as long as she possesses whatever got her to this point- from what I understand, best understood by seeing her from behind.
And if you want to ignore her in favor of Prince William, or Kate, or some lady named Pippa, well, I hope you and Benedict Arnold enjoy each other’s company in whatever hell American traitors reside.
AKIE BERMISS: Give me liberty and give me neither! At the end of the day, who really gives a damn about these people? I certainly don’t.
I agree with Molly AND Howard — and also disagree with them both. So some wealthy royalty got married in England. So the wedding was a big deal. So it had a sort of rags to riches component and a bunch of little weird historical significances and minutae by which to be distracted. Do we really care? And so Kim Kardashian got married. So she married some dude whose name — though I read it not two minutes ago — I’ve already forgotten. So it was a big crazy deal with beautiful outfits and arrangements and apparently the E! Channel recorded the whole thing. Do we really care? As Molly intimated, these are famous people who are famous for being famous. They have no discernible talents, they’re not extra smart or extra compassionate. They just sit in front of cameras a lot. When you really examine their existential components they are fabulously vestigial members of society.
And yet, I rate the Kardashian Wedding MORE important than the Royal Wedding for two discrete reasons. Firstly, there IS a historical component to the Royal family and if you a history nerd, that’s got to be interesting! Royals are absurdly famous and these days they only exist as spectacle for our diversion. But there is a benefit to being part of a legacy of tradition and breeding: You serve as an example for the rest of us. You get married, and have babies, and attend church and we all say, “Oh! That’s what being British is all about.” And, like it or not, Britons, you’ve chosen to let them represent you. Fortunately, due to the aforementioned vestigiality of their beings, they tend to at least try to represent you with something that could be called respect, reverence, or duty. In that sense, a wedding between the Prince and some-lady (again ‘ve forgotten the names) is kind of a big deal. These are your new representatives to the world. The Kardashians have no analogous position in American society. Kim had sex with a really bad R&B singer and it was taped and everyone saw it and now her whole family is famous.
I mean pornography is pretty captivating, but its not centuries of history. It can’t hold a candle to something like Queen Elizabeth’s reign or The Glorious Revolution. It just really captivating… porn.
Secondly, I feel that whatever the issues Englanders may have with their Royals — those are their issues to iron out. As an American, I don’t really care. Its interesting, but has very little to do with me. Meanwhile, I view the rise of the Kardashians as a scourge that MUST BE FOUGHT by any patriot American worth his or her salt. The way I see it, a culture’s celebrities are a reflection of that culture’s self-identity and, as such, in celebrating those celebrities a culture must face itself. We have the celebrated intellects, leaders, artists and so forth — and one hopes that, when confronting other cultures, that one’s own culture has a champion that can at least make hypothetical arguments of who-is-greater end in a draw of sorts. And, along those lines, we have our celebrities who are famous for no reason at all. Like I said, they have no talent, they are not notably more intelligent or funny or driven than the rest of us. And yet we celebrate them anyway. For England, maybe that is the royals. For us: the Kardashians? I should think not.
America can do better. The mere mention of the Kardashian Wedding as the American equivalent to the Royal Wedding is such a sad, sad state of affairs. Surely there are more inspiring and interesting and famous couples somewhere that we actually think of as American royalty. The Kardashians can’t be the apex of American-personified, can they? You wouldn’t think it possible, but my esteem of Kim and her Kohorts falls more and more every day [see our last Kim Kardashian inspired article].
If I absolutely had to compare them to the British Royals I’d say that least the Royals try to seem like affable, decent people. The Kardashians can’t even do that. In the beginning were born of ignominy, since then they have wrought only more ignominy, and into ignominy shall they fade — in nomine patris et filiae et omnia vanitas.