Fairy-Tale Myths and Princess Diana

With all due respect to Al Martinez (Sept. 2), would all media please stop referring to the antiquated theory of the fairy-tale princess. Little girls, as little boys, should be brought up to realize individuals are responsible for themselves; that to look outward for one’s happiness is equivalent to death. The fact that Diana’s “storybook” marriage foundered should be our lesson; not that she finally “found her prince” and they were to “live happily ever after.” Stop this madness!

The more these mythical knights in shining armor are alluded to, the more unsatisfied lives become. It is time to give up the notion that someone else is coming to the rescue--look inside and save yourself.

MARY BYRD

South Pasadena

*

President Clinton has decided not to attend Princess Diana’s funeral because “it is not a state funeral.” Since when does a simple display of respect, admiration and decency for someone who is unquestionably deserving of such honor require that the deceased be the recipient of an empty formality?

The president was not reluctant to appear with the princess in public for photos so that he could bask in her reflected glory.

RICHARD W. HECHT

Santa Monica

*

Everyone seems to be glossing over a very important point in the tragic crash of the car carrying Princess Diana: Only the bodyguard was wearing a seat belt. Since he was sitting in front of Diana and the worst damage was to the front of the car, it seems that she certainly would have survived if she had been wearing her seat belt. More attention should be focused on this as a public service--people need to understand how important it is to wear that seat belt.

JANE M. ALSTOTT

Camarillo

*

The pro-paparazzi piece by James Lull (Commentary, Sept. 2) could only have been written by someone who has never been relentlessly pursued, as Diana was, by these types. Walk a mile in her shoes, James, and then let us know how you feel.

JANET S. GOSSE

Laguna Hills

*

With typical media logic, Lull believes that the aggressive stalking of Princess Diana is somehow keeping democracy alive in the West. How the romantic life of a woman with no influence beyond her own charisma can affect the ability of the voting public to remove or maintain governments is a mystery to me.

And to claim that there is a balance of power between celebrities and the press is absurd: Diana, a creation of the media, could never damage the lives of individual reporters the way they can and did damage hers. The public outcry is justified.

SUSAN SELF

Los Angeles

*

I applaud your Sept. 1 editorial decrying the feeding frenzy that surrounds celebrities. Too bad others on The Times’ staff aren’t similarly sensitive about intrusive photos. Why does your front page feature a photograph of Prince Charles and his sons on route to church on the day of Diana’s death? Do you suppose this was a time when they delighted in having cameras jammed against their car window? I guess, after all, it’s whatever sells papers.

MARION KAHN

San Diego