Pace yourself next time
that you read War and Peace, please
It is a big book
Anyone can write poetry and make it meaningful. Real writing talent lies in writing consistently, purposefully, and for a VERY long time. Take War and Peace for example. One of the masterpieces of all time. The writing throughout is consistent, it serves the purpose of providing the Russian point of view on the war of 1812, and it is most definitely long.
Someone could say the same thing in 100 words or less, written with stanzas and rhyme and pterodactyls--okay, maybe not pterodactyls, but something equally cleaver--but it just wouldn't compare to War and Peace. No one would remember it the way that they remember the characters in the book. No one would care as much about the war of 1812 if they read the poem compared to the epic novel. Most of all, and I dare someone to make me put my foot in my mouth on this one, no one will think the person who wrote the poem about the war of 1812 is a better writer than Leo Tolstoy.
Good writing is always consistent writing. You can't write a story and change your writing style midway through. You can't stray from a theme of symbols that you established in the beginning of your story and expect your audience to be happy. For instance, I once told a verbal story about a dog named Longdog. Longdog was a long dog. He walked with us for a long way. He had a long tail. When we drove a long way away from him, Longdog was sad.--I carried this story on for quite a long time (no pun intended, this is serious stuff!) I explained all of the adventures that Longdog, myself, and my friend had. In reality, Longdog and I only knew each other for an hour or two. He was a friendly beagle that took a liking to me. I never once said that Longdog was a beagle while telling this story--that was the point. Nor did I mention that Longdog was fat--because Longdog was supposed to be long, not fat. If I would have, at the end, started saying that Longdog was fat, he rolled with us for a while. He wanted us to carry him because he was lazy--none of that would have worked for the story.
Consistency is important, that's why there are so many rules to writing baecus eff yaa dont fullow rulls and stae consistant ppl have a hard time under ftanding u.
As reader we expect everything we read to have a distinct purpose. It needs to make sense to us, and for us to like it, it needs to have meaning. I've written about this before: in everything we do in life, we need to find closure. Just like computers with a never ending error loop, if we don't find closure in something we have a hard time getting past it. Still today people have a hard time wrapping their head around 9/11 (it's been 10.5 years) because they don't think it make sense. There are comic books and comic book movies that, to this day, I can't seem to understand or get over--why would anyone want to sit through hours of Dragon Ball Z just to watch Goku charge up and blast Vegeta?
The movie Fight Club is a good example of closure. It doesn't make 100% sense that Tyler Durdan is also the main character but because we are led on to believe that in your sleep you can do crazy things and not know it, even talk to yourself, it establishes perfect closure. The closure is so good in that film that it never gets old watching it, because the next time you watch the film you're analyzing why it makes sense, and the next time you're confirming that it does make sense. Closure is magical, it can create purpose where there is no purpose.
So that poem that T.S.Eliot wrote--nope. Doesn't establish closure. [you know which poem I'm talking about!] It doesn't serve a purpose either unless you want to use the cop-out line: "T.S. Eliot was trying to express that nothing makes sense anymore."--I don't buy that, he's correct, nothing makes sense, but when did it ever make sense? And why not simply say that in one line? Or, instead of saying it in one line and never writing it down, why not write a novel about it or a book about it? Just like there are certain things that should never be said outloud, there are also certain things that should never be written down--especially not in a poem!
Length is always an issue. Have you ever paid for a movie that was less than 60 minutes long?--sure, a television episode might be less than that, but episodes purposefully aren't the full story. If what you have to say can be said in 5 minutes, why not stand on your soap box and talk for 5 minutes? I know there are a lot of political activists that write poetry. I think that's stupid. Not even the poetry of the revolutionary war really influenced the war, the thing that influenced the war was the outstanding leaders who were on the ground in America supporting the American cause.
Poetry isn't going to make you famous, it shouldn't make you rich, and it is not going to change the world. It is too short to change the world, because the moment a person is finished with your poem, they're going to forget about it and carry on with their life. They do it with books too, but because there is so much written into a book, little things remind them about the book and they start to develop habits based around those books.
Poetry is utterly useless by itself and should never make anyone rich. There is something wrong with the MacArthur foundation for giving out an award for poetry. Have you ever heard of Kay Ryan? What has Kay Ryan done and why is he ranked with Roland Fryer who is one of the top 8 young economists in the world during a time when we need good young economists to find solutions to economic problems?
Still not convinced that poetry is the easiest thing in the world and shouldn't be considered a respectable art?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Poetry is for Wimps. pt 1
[[This is the introductory article to a new series of articles I intend to write on here.]]
Poetry is easy to write
anyone can do it
it takes a purposeful mind
and a moderate level
of clever.
I think regular poets
are cheapskates
That's right!
Anyone can write a poem
and make it enjoyable
--and my grandmother
wrote better poems
than most people! (it's true, she did)
The point is
everything you write
if you're skilled at the trade
should be written in verse
or at least poetic-like prose!
See how easy that was?--I'm not even going to revise it because I think it's perfect and has multiple levels.
The real writer writes for length. Anyone can carry on a little pattern, or write witty lines--anyone can rhyme and people rhyme all the time without knowing it--that's just how our brains work. Sure, it takes talent to write a good poem, but it's way too easy to get that talent.
Maybe I'm being too harsh--I did in fact write many poems for several years of my life and that might be why I think it's easy (I started writing poetry when I was 16 and quit when I was 21--occasionally I'll write a poem to kill time or make a point but it's so rare). It bothers me though that people can get paid to write 100 or less loaded words and that's all they've got to do. They write maybe 100 or 200 of these 100 word or less poems and they compile it into a book and can sell it to a publisher and make a few bucks off of every book sold. that's just 20,000 words.--Or maybe the industry standard is more like 100w x 500p --that's poems--and still you only have 50,000 words.
[[ Just to wrap your head around this, the poem above is only 67 words--now imagine a book of 500 of these organized into 20 different topics--25 poems of each topic about one thing: love, lust, words, life, death, family, friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, society, religion, politics, fame, wealth, individuality, divinity, nature, technology, creativity, and individuality (that makes 20 topics). The title of that book reads: 500 Short poems to incorporate into your next speech or your next life. ]]
If you self publish your 500 Short Poems book, you'll sell between 60 and 100 copies on average (that's according to some low end estimates of the self-publishing market). And you sell them for $15/book and it costs you $6 to print each one. You stand to make $540 - $900 for 50,000 words or a little more than a penny per word.
This week I wrote a 15,000 word short story. A couple weeks before that I wrote a 24,000 word pair of chapters for an imaginary book for the same class. I also wrote a 5,000 word essay about a touching, prominent theme in the movie KPAX (My favorite American movie). That's 44,000 words. I'm probably not going to make any money off of these. In fact, I had to PAY to get the opportunity to write these. [now someone do the math for me on how many words I've written on this blog alone].
Let's say you submit to a publisher though and make maybe $10,000 profit for your silly book of poems. That's $0.20 per word.
How many people do you know that read poems out of a published collection of poems? How many people do you know that read literary magazines?--You'd figure only English majors would do that right? Well each year the U.S. graduates 50,000 English majors but very few of them read literary magazines--I don't, none of my friends do. Maybe a handful of them do in my whole department--and they may or may not graduate this year.
And what does poetry do for you? Does it make you think? Does it help you escape? Does it brighten your day?--I prefer texting friends to reading poems. If I go over my texting limit each 160 characters costs $0.25 and I could probably fit more than 25 words into that.--It would be rather neat if the average price of a written word (speaking universally) was a penny. But it costs two pennies to manufacture a single penny and 9 words to say that. Go figure.
Poets used to hold an important function in society--back when their job was more than merely writing verses. The original poet was the society's record keeper. He or she would come up with lengthy, memorable phrases that could be repeated and spread across the countryside. Kings would pay these bards to make up a story about them and share it with the population so that their name and deeds could be spread around--or they'd pay to spread someone else's name around. There were also clerics and other similar "jobs" that utilized poetry to spread the religion around the world.
Why were incantations and spells written like poems? Because poetry is easier to remember than prose--it's how our minds remember things: when they are composed in a unique manner we remember them better than if they are ordinary. For example, after reading this article, you may forget what exactly I said in the article, but because I started it with a poem, you'll remember that it was "that one with the poem in the beginning." One memorizing trick is to associate words with nonassociable concepts...try thinking about bananas coming out of your nose because you need to buy bananas and the next time your nose itches at the store you'll remember to buy bananas.--rhyming is easier to remember because it's not normal to think in rhymes.
The real "bard" or "cleric" of the our day is the marketer and the entertainer. He or she will use language to sell a product, some of this language is written, most of it is visual, but there are a lot of other senses utilized in marketing. The entertainer--the musician, the actor, the director, and so on and so forth--uses language to entertain people--lots of people. In the first week of release, Eminem, the famous white rapper without a high school education, sold 379,000 copies of his single "Not Afraid." There are a little over 800 words in that song, and it costs $1.29 on iTunes. That means in the first week Eminem garnered $488,000 for his 800 words, or $610/word. Who's name or religion did he spread around for that price? His own--his own recovery and how he's the "king of [his] world."
But truthfully, poetry is only a small part of what the marketer will do in writing an ad in a magazine or the musician will do in creating a song. They put countless hours into not just the words, but every other aspect of the piece, such as the rhythm, the beat, the tone, the speed, the emotion, the energy, the marketing, the devotion of their life, &c. Music takes a lot of time to make for a product that only lasts 3.5min. It also requires a lot of expensive equipment--much more than just a pen and paper.
The point I'm getting at is three fold: 1) Real talent lies in writing consistently, purposefully, and for a very long time--go write a novel comparable to war and peace. 2) If you want to be a real poet, go work in marketing or learn music composition. 3) The modern English major shouldn't be learning about poetry, because English is so much more than written words, just like music is more than words sung or marketing is more than printed words next to pictures.
More on this later...
Poetry is easy to write
anyone can do it
it takes a purposeful mind
and a moderate level
of clever.
I think regular poets
are cheapskates
That's right!
Anyone can write a poem
and make it enjoyable
--and my grandmother
wrote better poems
than most people! (it's true, she did)
The point is
everything you write
if you're skilled at the trade
should be written in verse
or at least poetic-like prose!
See how easy that was?--I'm not even going to revise it because I think it's perfect and has multiple levels.
The real writer writes for length. Anyone can carry on a little pattern, or write witty lines--anyone can rhyme and people rhyme all the time without knowing it--that's just how our brains work. Sure, it takes talent to write a good poem, but it's way too easy to get that talent.
Maybe I'm being too harsh--I did in fact write many poems for several years of my life and that might be why I think it's easy (I started writing poetry when I was 16 and quit when I was 21--occasionally I'll write a poem to kill time or make a point but it's so rare). It bothers me though that people can get paid to write 100 or less loaded words and that's all they've got to do. They write maybe 100 or 200 of these 100 word or less poems and they compile it into a book and can sell it to a publisher and make a few bucks off of every book sold. that's just 20,000 words.--Or maybe the industry standard is more like 100w x 500p --that's poems--and still you only have 50,000 words.
[[ Just to wrap your head around this, the poem above is only 67 words--now imagine a book of 500 of these organized into 20 different topics--25 poems of each topic about one thing: love, lust, words, life, death, family, friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, society, religion, politics, fame, wealth, individuality, divinity, nature, technology, creativity, and individuality (that makes 20 topics). The title of that book reads: 500 Short poems to incorporate into your next speech or your next life. ]]
If you self publish your 500 Short Poems book, you'll sell between 60 and 100 copies on average (that's according to some low end estimates of the self-publishing market). And you sell them for $15/book and it costs you $6 to print each one. You stand to make $540 - $900 for 50,000 words or a little more than a penny per word.
This week I wrote a 15,000 word short story. A couple weeks before that I wrote a 24,000 word pair of chapters for an imaginary book for the same class. I also wrote a 5,000 word essay about a touching, prominent theme in the movie KPAX (My favorite American movie). That's 44,000 words. I'm probably not going to make any money off of these. In fact, I had to PAY to get the opportunity to write these. [now someone do the math for me on how many words I've written on this blog alone].
Let's say you submit to a publisher though and make maybe $10,000 profit for your silly book of poems. That's $0.20 per word.
How many people do you know that read poems out of a published collection of poems? How many people do you know that read literary magazines?--You'd figure only English majors would do that right? Well each year the U.S. graduates 50,000 English majors but very few of them read literary magazines--I don't, none of my friends do. Maybe a handful of them do in my whole department--and they may or may not graduate this year.
And what does poetry do for you? Does it make you think? Does it help you escape? Does it brighten your day?--I prefer texting friends to reading poems. If I go over my texting limit each 160 characters costs $0.25 and I could probably fit more than 25 words into that.--It would be rather neat if the average price of a written word (speaking universally) was a penny. But it costs two pennies to manufacture a single penny and 9 words to say that. Go figure.
Poets used to hold an important function in society--back when their job was more than merely writing verses. The original poet was the society's record keeper. He or she would come up with lengthy, memorable phrases that could be repeated and spread across the countryside. Kings would pay these bards to make up a story about them and share it with the population so that their name and deeds could be spread around--or they'd pay to spread someone else's name around. There were also clerics and other similar "jobs" that utilized poetry to spread the religion around the world.
Why were incantations and spells written like poems? Because poetry is easier to remember than prose--it's how our minds remember things: when they are composed in a unique manner we remember them better than if they are ordinary. For example, after reading this article, you may forget what exactly I said in the article, but because I started it with a poem, you'll remember that it was "that one with the poem in the beginning." One memorizing trick is to associate words with nonassociable concepts...try thinking about bananas coming out of your nose because you need to buy bananas and the next time your nose itches at the store you'll remember to buy bananas.--rhyming is easier to remember because it's not normal to think in rhymes.
The real "bard" or "cleric" of the our day is the marketer and the entertainer. He or she will use language to sell a product, some of this language is written, most of it is visual, but there are a lot of other senses utilized in marketing. The entertainer--the musician, the actor, the director, and so on and so forth--uses language to entertain people--lots of people. In the first week of release, Eminem, the famous white rapper without a high school education, sold 379,000 copies of his single "Not Afraid." There are a little over 800 words in that song, and it costs $1.29 on iTunes. That means in the first week Eminem garnered $488,000 for his 800 words, or $610/word. Who's name or religion did he spread around for that price? His own--his own recovery and how he's the "king of [his] world."
But truthfully, poetry is only a small part of what the marketer will do in writing an ad in a magazine or the musician will do in creating a song. They put countless hours into not just the words, but every other aspect of the piece, such as the rhythm, the beat, the tone, the speed, the emotion, the energy, the marketing, the devotion of their life, &c. Music takes a lot of time to make for a product that only lasts 3.5min. It also requires a lot of expensive equipment--much more than just a pen and paper.
The point I'm getting at is three fold: 1) Real talent lies in writing consistently, purposefully, and for a very long time--go write a novel comparable to war and peace. 2) If you want to be a real poet, go work in marketing or learn music composition. 3) The modern English major shouldn't be learning about poetry, because English is so much more than written words, just like music is more than words sung or marketing is more than printed words next to pictures.
More on this later...
Friday, March 9, 2012
The Quantity of Life
[[I recently spoke with one of the people in charge of a school magazine at my university who I offered to write an article for for their March issue. She seemed excited, so I've been holding off writing this article because I thought they would give me a chance to present this idea to them. However, I haven't heard back from them in a month and since the e-mag is published monthly I suppose they really aren't interested in working with me. Please pass this around so I can get more people to read it than I would have otherwise in their little e-mag ;P ]]
Most of our advances in the last 1000 years have been advances in quantity, not quality. For the last few hundred years, people have confused quantity of life with quality of life. Instead of providing better lives (quality) for individuals, our modern advances have provided more life (quantity) for individuals. Medical advances add more time to our lives (chemo therapy for example). Business advances provide more money to our lives. High-tech advances have made our lives less hard (word processors), so that we have more time or energy and we can further invest our time and energy into other things. These advances do not improve the quality of our lives, they only give us more! The only way to improve the quality of life is through refining our understanding of the human sciences.
What is the difference between qualifying and quantifying?
"To quantify" an idea means to turn that idea into a measurable number value, whereas "to qualify" an idea means to turn that idea into something competent and authoritative. Some athletic competitions involve qualifying before being admitted into them. This involves passing certain criterion, such as being a winner at several smaller venues, or proving ones' worth in test trials. A local baseball team, for example, might have to win three out of six games in order to compete in a special tournament, or they might have to provide registered, standardized uniforms to all of their players before qualifying to play in a special league. Quantifying that same team would involve measuring a specific trait of the team, such as the average number of strikes to base ratio, or the average number of points per game. Although quantified information is useful, unlike qualified information it has no purpose.
When a business produces a product,--let's use a t-shirt company, for example--they can choose to make the shirt cheaper, and therefore produce more of them, or they can make them of better quality, or capable of meeting or exceeding certain conditions. Making them more affordable might make them more available for everyone, but that doesn't make the product better, it just makes it more accessible.
As an example, in certain harsh terrains of the world, the locals handcraft their own winter coats out of materials found in the area such as sea lions or yak. These coats are expensive and often times illegal to purchase or make for yourself, but they are of high quality. They can withstand subzero temperatures and keep the wearer unharmed by weather conditions. Certain winter jackets, on the other hand, might be cheaper to purchase and easier to obtain, but they are not of the same quality--they can't survive extreme weather conditions with ease.
Qualified information is information that has a distinct purpose or meaning. Knowing that your baseball team is allowed to compete in not just in a recreation league but in a minor league gives your team some credibility. Having a winter jacket that is fit for surviving extreme weather conditions or a swimming suit that has less water resistance makes these products of higher quality..
Our society views the quality of our products as the quality of our lives.Practically the only "qualifying" that our society has relied in is whether a person has enough money to afford the greatest quality products. In other words, how much money someone possesses is an indication that they are living a quality life, but that's not true at all! What about the hypothetical situations where the poor families have found more purpose and meaning to life that the rich families, such as what occurs in a Christmas Carol? Or what about when a wealthy man realizes that his money can't buy him happiness?
The only real way to improve the quality of our lives is to make our lives more meaningful and purposeful. Literally, we can qualify our lives when we pass certain criteria, such as a physical endurance test, or a mental challenge. Realistically, though, these tests need to be valid and reliable, and the next question is what tests are valid measures of the quality of life--or rather, that's always been the question, because we know that money isn't always a valid measure of the quality of our lives and neither is the possession of goods.
Asking this question is about like asking whether one person's life is more valuable than another person's. In order to accept that a quality life is possible, we must also accept that certain peoples' lives are worth more than other peoples'. And why not? Utilitarianism admits that the life of two people is greater than the life of one person (the quantity of life), so it should come as natural to also accept that one person's life CAN be more valuable than another person's [assuming that Utilitarianism isn't flawed].
Can we make human life have more quality in the same way that we make products have more quality? This is a trick question, because we can qualify life by improving it using the same techniques used on products, but we can't qualify all life because each of us is different. Grade A apples can't be compared to Grade A oranges--certain aspects of them can, but overall an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange.
Before any comparisons can be made and before we can establish a criteria for the quality of life, we need to discover what makes a life a life. We can certainly say that this apple is sweeter than that orange, because both the apple and the orange are fruits and fruits are typically sweet. If we measured the quality of the fruit by its sweetness, its ripeness, and its nutritious content, then yes, we can compare the quality of the apple and the orange--just as long as the comparison is valid and reliable.
There are a lot of complex theories out there that seek to define human life. As a human race, we have yet to come to consensus on what constitutes human life. We even debate at what moment life begins and if it has really begun yet. As it stands right now, there is too much confusion on what constitutes human life, but that doesn't stop us from knowing what isn't life. We know a lot about death. We can pinpoint the exact second that death occurred. We recognize when many people have died at a tragic event. We focus a lot on death, and because we know what death is, we also know what is not human life.
I don't intend to solve the question of what constitutes a quality life in a single article, but I do intend to point out that the accumulation of wealth poses some tricky questions about the quality of our lives. I can prove, however, that money isn't an aspect of death, because after a person dies their money is useless to them. I would like to think, though, that life and death are related and that the things that make life have quality are the same things that make death have quality.
What are your thoughts?
Most of our advances in the last 1000 years have been advances in quantity, not quality. For the last few hundred years, people have confused quantity of life with quality of life. Instead of providing better lives (quality) for individuals, our modern advances have provided more life (quantity) for individuals. Medical advances add more time to our lives (chemo therapy for example). Business advances provide more money to our lives. High-tech advances have made our lives less hard (word processors), so that we have more time or energy and we can further invest our time and energy into other things. These advances do not improve the quality of our lives, they only give us more! The only way to improve the quality of life is through refining our understanding of the human sciences.
What is the difference between qualifying and quantifying?
"To quantify" an idea means to turn that idea into a measurable number value, whereas "to qualify" an idea means to turn that idea into something competent and authoritative. Some athletic competitions involve qualifying before being admitted into them. This involves passing certain criterion, such as being a winner at several smaller venues, or proving ones' worth in test trials. A local baseball team, for example, might have to win three out of six games in order to compete in a special tournament, or they might have to provide registered, standardized uniforms to all of their players before qualifying to play in a special league. Quantifying that same team would involve measuring a specific trait of the team, such as the average number of strikes to base ratio, or the average number of points per game. Although quantified information is useful, unlike qualified information it has no purpose.
When a business produces a product,--let's use a t-shirt company, for example--they can choose to make the shirt cheaper, and therefore produce more of them, or they can make them of better quality, or capable of meeting or exceeding certain conditions. Making them more affordable might make them more available for everyone, but that doesn't make the product better, it just makes it more accessible.
As an example, in certain harsh terrains of the world, the locals handcraft their own winter coats out of materials found in the area such as sea lions or yak. These coats are expensive and often times illegal to purchase or make for yourself, but they are of high quality. They can withstand subzero temperatures and keep the wearer unharmed by weather conditions. Certain winter jackets, on the other hand, might be cheaper to purchase and easier to obtain, but they are not of the same quality--they can't survive extreme weather conditions with ease.
Qualified information is information that has a distinct purpose or meaning. Knowing that your baseball team is allowed to compete in not just in a recreation league but in a minor league gives your team some credibility. Having a winter jacket that is fit for surviving extreme weather conditions or a swimming suit that has less water resistance makes these products of higher quality..
Our society views the quality of our products as the quality of our lives.Practically the only "qualifying" that our society has relied in is whether a person has enough money to afford the greatest quality products. In other words, how much money someone possesses is an indication that they are living a quality life, but that's not true at all! What about the hypothetical situations where the poor families have found more purpose and meaning to life that the rich families, such as what occurs in a Christmas Carol? Or what about when a wealthy man realizes that his money can't buy him happiness?
The only real way to improve the quality of our lives is to make our lives more meaningful and purposeful. Literally, we can qualify our lives when we pass certain criteria, such as a physical endurance test, or a mental challenge. Realistically, though, these tests need to be valid and reliable, and the next question is what tests are valid measures of the quality of life--or rather, that's always been the question, because we know that money isn't always a valid measure of the quality of our lives and neither is the possession of goods.
Asking this question is about like asking whether one person's life is more valuable than another person's. In order to accept that a quality life is possible, we must also accept that certain peoples' lives are worth more than other peoples'. And why not? Utilitarianism admits that the life of two people is greater than the life of one person (the quantity of life), so it should come as natural to also accept that one person's life CAN be more valuable than another person's [assuming that Utilitarianism isn't flawed].
Can we make human life have more quality in the same way that we make products have more quality? This is a trick question, because we can qualify life by improving it using the same techniques used on products, but we can't qualify all life because each of us is different. Grade A apples can't be compared to Grade A oranges--certain aspects of them can, but overall an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange.
Before any comparisons can be made and before we can establish a criteria for the quality of life, we need to discover what makes a life a life. We can certainly say that this apple is sweeter than that orange, because both the apple and the orange are fruits and fruits are typically sweet. If we measured the quality of the fruit by its sweetness, its ripeness, and its nutritious content, then yes, we can compare the quality of the apple and the orange--just as long as the comparison is valid and reliable.
There are a lot of complex theories out there that seek to define human life. As a human race, we have yet to come to consensus on what constitutes human life. We even debate at what moment life begins and if it has really begun yet. As it stands right now, there is too much confusion on what constitutes human life, but that doesn't stop us from knowing what isn't life. We know a lot about death. We can pinpoint the exact second that death occurred. We recognize when many people have died at a tragic event. We focus a lot on death, and because we know what death is, we also know what is not human life.
I don't intend to solve the question of what constitutes a quality life in a single article, but I do intend to point out that the accumulation of wealth poses some tricky questions about the quality of our lives. I can prove, however, that money isn't an aspect of death, because after a person dies their money is useless to them. I would like to think, though, that life and death are related and that the things that make life have quality are the same things that make death have quality.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)