IF I had a body to die for, was maid of honour at my sister's wedding and had a dress designed and made by a famous British designer that shows off my little arse, would this bring me the fame I so deserve?
Instant fame seems easier to achieve these days. For example, for the past nine years she has been known as Kate's younger sister, the other "Wisteria sister". But on April 29 she became PIPPA MIDDLETON.
Just hours after her sister's wedding, over half a million people had joined groups on Facebook dedicated to her and her backside. She was a trending topic on Twitter.
A week after the wedding she was New Zealand's second-most-googled topic after Osama Bin Laden.
Pippa appeared on the front covers of magazines and newspapers and was the talk of gossip sites.
Paparazzi followed Pippa's every move, aiming to get a photo that would give them a substantial pay cheque.
Yet, just three weeks after the royal wedding, the Pippa Middleton frenzy felt almost over.
Had everyone gone back to worshipping Lady Gaga, who became the first celebrity to hit over 10 million followers on Twitter?
I believe the interest in Pippa Middleton didn't last because she wasn't very interesting or hadn't done anything to hold the public's attention. She looked good but that was all. Compare her to Lady Gaga, who is interesting to watch and captivates us with her outfits and songs.
Andy Warhol said, "In the future everybody will be world-famous for 15 minutes".
Pippa Middleton had her 15 minutes of fame.
Other celebrities with a famous family member seem to have made their 15 minutes last longer than they should have. Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are just some of the celebrities who are famous for doing absolutely nothing. They both constantly appear on reality TV shows and endorse cosmetics and clothing designs.
Just when their fame seems to slip away in the media, something new and exciting appears on the front pages: serving jail time, drink-driving offences, eating disorders, new boyfriends, drunken nights, family feuds and the very popular "leaking of a sex tape".
Is it really worth all that to keep your name in the spotlight? I don't think I would want the world's male population - and some females - knowing what I look like naked.
I don't understand the fascination with fame. Yet even though I don't get it, I am still guilty of buying the weekly trashy magazines and searching numerous celebrity gossip sites. Is it because we want to be like them? Perhaps I subconsciously yearn to be like Paris or Kim?
Or maybe not.
Celebrities who actually earned their fame don't seem as interesting to me. We all knew who Tiger Woods was - he was the famous golfer. It wasn't until the disclosure of his numerous extra-marital affairs that he started to seem interesting to the general public.
Other sports stars, like Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, rarely appear on magazine covers. Politicians don't usually feature - unless they have done something naughty. How else would we know who the Italian prime minister was if not for the sex romps at his mansion.
People like Paris and Kim get their 15 minutes of fame because they will do the things that get our attention, and this feeds our desire to enter the world of celebrity life.
Would you do porn if you were paid $5 million and this would enable you to keep your 15 minutes of fame?
This is where Pippa Middleton and I may have something in common. The answer would definitely be no. The Middleton family were offended that someone would even offer this to one of the newest relatives off the British Royal Family.
Is fame worth it? Who would want paparazzi following their every move and knowing everything about their "private life"? What's so great about a mere 15 minutes in the spotlight?
I think I'm going to keep the body I have and Mum can make my maid of honour dress (if my arse looks great that's just a bonus). I don't think I could handle doing the things that come with having, and keeping, 15 minutes of fame.
Siena Goldwater, Year 13, St Cuthbert's College