Hi, my name is Avery Aiken and I am a recovering Manic Pixie Dream Girl.

Coined by Nathan Rabin (of The Onion) in 2005, a “Manic Pixie Dream Girl,” or MPDG, has been defined by the Oxford Dictionaries as “a type of female character depicted as vivaciously and appealingly quirky whose main purpose within the narrative is to inspire a greater appreciation of life in a male protagonist.”

The idea of this character trope, after spreading like wildfire through the tumblr-esque realms of the online world, has not only sparked an abundance of somewhat ridiculous debate regarding sexism, but also inspired books like John Green’s “Paper Towns.”

However, its reach did not end there. I began taking a good hard look at the television shows, movies, plays and books and found that this trope continuously cushions our fairytale inclined hearts from the real world.

In an article from The Atlantic published last March, writer Sophie Gilbert points out that we have essentially grown up in a world filled with these MPDGs, from Maria Von Trapp in “The Sound of Music” and Holly Golightly from “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” to the brilliant and resilient Belle from “Beauty and the Beast.”

These characters have slowly taught girls how to, as Gilbert writes, be an “agent of quirky change” and to “conquer cruelty with kindness, and embody (a) spirt of gung-ho certitude and optimism.”

With that said, I don’t really see how being deemed a MPDG could be a bad thing (except for the actual title — Manic Pixie Dream Girl — which seems a little absurd). Especially if, from this archetype, we are learning to sing about our favorite things, read books like there’s no tomorrow (or just read the same book over and over again — looking at you, Belle) and kiss the dreamy boy next door in the pouring rain.

Besides a potential case of pneumonia, there does not seem to be too big of an issue here.

However, the other side of this character, as noted in The Atlantic’s article, includes the role of being a “bearer of quirky fun and madcap outings and ultimate lifelong happiness once emotional walls have been dismantled brick by brick.”

To me, that seems like quite a large request to place upon a bright, slightly distracted young girl. The MPDG is taught that she must bring all of these things to a relationship and all she is given in return is the responsibility of her counterpart’s happiness. She is ultimately expected to maintain a consistently positive outlook on life through nearly every trial and tribulation because if her spirit falls, then so does her partner’s.

We all know, however, that it is impossible for someone to remain in a state of life-embracing bliss forever, so the almost inescapable end to a real life MPDG relationship would only be disaster, especially if the person who she invests her life in has grown dangerously used to her carrying the relationship along.

In another article by The Atlantic (they seem to enjoy editorializing this topic) titled, “The Real-World Consequences of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl,” Hugo Schwyzer shares a piercingly personal account of his experience of being in love with a MPDG.

His captivating story of the “dark-haired and impulsive” Bettina and their skinny dipping, mildly anarchist adventures in Austria, told with the 1980s flair that only a true follower of the Sex Pistols could achieve, is probably most powerful because of its ending.

Schwyzer closes his story by leaving us with the chilling news that the only reason he lost touch with Bettina was that she no longer existed for him to be in touch with. At the devastatingly young age of 20, Bettina had taken her own life and escaped this world and all of her MPDG responsibilities.

Now, after having years to reflect, Schwyzer explains that “as much as [his] adolescent self thought it adored her, he thought less about her and more about the way she made [him] feel.” Before he even dives into his story, Schwyzer claims he was “utterly infatuated” by her.

The point must be made that the two are very different. To be in love with someone is not the same as being consumed with fascination by him or her. The second one stops being fascinating, the desire to shower that person with attention vanishes.

But poor Schwyzer could not help it. A MPDG was what Bettina strived to achieve, just like many other girls today. She wanted to give him an adventure and not a love story. This was made clear in Schwyzer’s story, such as when he asks if he is her boyfriend and she responds with “a short but impassioned speech about how monogamy [is] the enemy of true love.” If that is the case, then I guess marriage is useless.

Regardless, Schwyzer goes on to add that “as unstable as she may be, the MPDG not only senses a young man’s potential in a way he can’t, she intuitively knows how to lead him to his destiny.” That alone is a pretty remarkable gift, but if only it stopped there.

“She [also] knows him better than he knows himself, or so he believes. That convenient assumption allows the young man both to adore the MPDG and to avoid any responsibility for reciprocity,” he continues.

This is where the problem lies. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is entirely too self-sufficient. When she hits a bump along the way, she must retreat back into herself in order to overcome that obstacle, often leaving the relationship to crumble.

Therefore, we must make sure our relationships are two-sided, authentic and not an infatuation. One half of the partnership cannot merely exist to be admired and adventurous because, if we are honest, our actions are not always exciting and admirable. When they are not, we must have a support system that understands our fallibility instead of becoming disillusioned.

Leave dream girls to exist in dreams and pixies to exist in fairytales. Let us avoid anything that is “manic” because the word makes me uncomfortable, and instead focus on creating real, sustainable images for ourselves. In the end, this virtue is far more remarkable.