HP7--the Laz Review
It should go without saying that if you haven't yet read HP7, you might not want to read any further--I'm not going to spare the details. Also, if your passion for the series is so deep-rooted that you cannot be at all objective (that is to say, if my perspective will risk wounding you--nay, even offending you!) then this post is not for you.
I reiterate: While I think Rowling's HP series is very good as children's literature, the difference between it and "Great Literature" that will stand the test of time and find equal meaning for both child and adult audiences is pretty huge--in fact, I'd go so far as to say insurmountable.
If the crowd in attendance at the midnight premiere was any indication, I'd hazard a guess that the primary readership demographic is middle-school aged (preteen/young teen) girls. That does not mean others cannot find value and meaning in HP--but I'm hard pressed to identify what the series can do for an adult audience that other books (read: better developed, more complicated, greater depth) can't. Possibilities? Recapturing youth, for one--Rowling does understand the essentials of the adolescent dilemma. HP is about coming to maturity--the magic and mystery are just the window dressing for this core archetypal challenge. Minus the wands and robes and house-elves and life-or-death battles, it's the same old song we've been singing for thousands of years. And of course there's nothing wrong with that! We'll keep telling that story--and others like it--for as long as we need to, for as long as they still prove instructive. Adults may want to immerse themselves in a world where the decisions the characters face are ones the readers have already mastered--there's a certain reaffirmation value there. It renews the sense that the current generation of young people are not so very far removed after all. Or to create a feeling of belonging--in a world where society is becoming increasingly fragmented, and the individuals increasingly isolated, cultural bombshells like this become touchstones by which disenchanted adults can shake off their disconnectedness for a while. Remember Hawyakawa's principles on the value of language as social cohesion! For a week or so, HP fans felt drawn together--united by their common bond. They had something new to talk about, an excuse to be something other than their daily selves.
HOWEVER...
I don't think this final volume was particularly brilliant, even accounting for my overall opinion of the series. But as you might expect, there were a number of elements that disappointed me with this volume as a work of literature. Here are some of my key points (I won't try to be comprehensive):
1. I have always been a little bit bothered by the narrative style. Is it a valid choice? Certainly--nothing technically wrong with third-person limited (or the fact that Rowling chooses calculated moments--see the first chapter in each book!--to deliberately violate it in order to extend our understanding of events). Her reasoning is also sound--if his is a journey toward maturity that recapitulates our own, then we are likewise restricted in our perspectives. We cannot know what anyone else is doing if we can't see them, or thinking if they don't tell us. Quite frankly, however, I simply got tired of it after 7 volumes. I hazard that Rowling did as well--thus the gradual inclusion of the two-way link between HP and Voldemort, which provided a more 3rd-person omniscient perspective that relieved some of the tedium.
2. The Battle of Hogwarts--disappointing. I do not think that strategic battle-writing is Rowling's skill area. Admittedly, such writing is quite difficult to do, and there are few who can present such chaotic action in a way that truly defines the moment well--consider as counterpoint Tolkien's writing of the Moria, Helm's Deep, or the Pelennor Fields (a completely fair comparison, BTW--I first read The Hobbit in 5th grade, and LOTR in middle school). But more than just the quality of those chapters--there was a philosophical edge noticeably missing. I remember the Sorting Hat scene from one of the early volumes, when the Hat recited a poem about how the time would come when each of the Houses would have to set aside their rivalries and join together for the common good, making use of the individual skills, traits and characteristics that prompted their placement to begin with. So while they school did come together (for the most part) to defend against the Death Eaters, that total unity, with full philosophical understanding--we are at our strongest when all 4 of these innately human values work together--did not occur. I wanted someone--Harry? Minerva? Neville! Anyone!--to look at the assemblage and say "We are more than our Houses--the things that tie us together are stronger than the things that separate us--in fact, we need to recognize our differences in order to find our bond together!" Instead--we got three houses of Griffs, with bravery triumphant as the highest virtue. And Slytherin, which represents values no less human and no less significant, became the cast-out stepchild. There was no growth! No change! No reaching across the aisle, to bring the school together! And no recognition from Slytherin's side to say, wait, we know this is wrong, no matter who founded the House. Instead, a reluctant Slughorn relents to the demands of his colleagues, and Pansy Parkinson is utterly unrepentant. There are no Slytherin students named during the final battle, and no recognition that any of them perished in Hogwart's defense. I find this to be a grave mistake...
Certainly--there are unrepentant elements within our own society. Didn't Henry Ford uphold the wisdom of isolationist policies, and decry the US entry into WWII? But HP isn't history--it's fiction, reflecting reality--but as archetype, it is also instructive. Where is the higher virtue of forgiveness and the appeal to solidarity? This is a rift that remains, even to the end--witness the train station +19 years, as Harry and Draco catch each other's eyes. What lesson does this inculcate into the young readers' minds? That there are some people we just refuse to forgive? We'd prefer to ignore them, to bottle up our feelings about them and leave our issues unresolved, to fester inside of us? That sounds an awful lot like a lifetime of psychotherapy bills.
3. Speaking of Draco--I can only hope Rowling at least considered doing this character more justice, before she ruined one of the best opportunities the story had to make a real and elegant point. In the end, the good characters were always good (even when they were in disguise, i.e. Snape) and the evil characters always evil (and I don't see Kreatur counting--he is only loyal to the one he calls Master, and Harry was clever enough to renew his loyalty for Sirius's brother). If there was ONE out of the bunch who should have been allowed to fully realize the error of his ways, it was Draco. He witnessed what he believed was the murder of Dumbledore, saw the unfathomable cruelty of Voldemort, saw the humiliation of his own family--yet was left in limbo, suffering no outward physical or social punishment, but likewise unredeemed. To give that development to Draco would have catapulted the level of the story into profoundly more significant territory--Draco then becomes an archetypal figure as well--the "Vader" character who falls into darkness, but through his own action struggles back up to achieve some level of vindication and redemption for himself. No doubt there are legions of Draco fans out there who are VERY cross with his final portrayal.
4. One more for the road--the epilogue. Perhaps the MOST unsatisfying aspect of all. Could Rowling have left out any MORE critical developmental details? Let's see...in the 2 preceding volumes, much exposition was expended on the subject of everyone's potential future careers--passing the OWLS & NEWTS, deciding on courses, etc. This was perfect--what high school student doesn't spend time thinking (worrying) about where they're headed in life?
THEN HOW IS IT THAT THE BOOK ENDS AND WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHERE THEY'VE ENDED UP? How can you make SUCH a big deal out of academic and career choices, only to ignore them completely at the end? I'm hard pressed to even come up with a logical reason for this omission. Out of the multitude of characters we've known through 7 volumes, only Neville gets mentioned as having a job? (and we can all honestly say we could easily have called that one!) I'ts incredibly bad that we have no idea where Harry's and Ron's lives have taken them--but I think it might even be worse for Ginny, positively atrocious for Hermione, and I'll add Luna on as well (in a way, her insult was the worst of all--she's not even mentioned!) Hermione, and Ginny to a little lesser extent, were profoundly positive female role models--intelligent, dedicated, courageous, and loyal. Yet, even Hermione, touted as the greatest witch of her age, is reduced to Harry's baby-maker! I am personally infuriated by this tragic misdeed--and considering the demographic I mentioned at the top of this post, Rowling should be ashamed to have added such a worthless coda for charcters that have such profound impact.
My son actually brought this last point up, and I agreed with him--why is it that we have no knowledge of how the wizarding community has changed after almost 20 years? Rowling dared to broach matters of real social importance--racial discrimination and power imbalances, for example, with the goblins, centaurs, house-elves, etc.--yet the epilogue does not give us any sense that the wizarding world has changed at all--in fact, we have an affirmation of status quo! We're back at King's Cross, sending another trainload of youngsters to Hogwart's. What stopped Rowling from putting an elf or goblin on that train as well? Another wasted opportunity--what did Rowling fear? After all that development on the subject--since book 2!--she couldn't put a sock on it at last? (a deliberate house-elf reference--my apologies).
What I fear--she's got $$ in her eyes. Some media outlet has made her an offer; my guess is it's the comic industry, which is hot-to-trot with the latest boom in graphic novels. There's room for at least 3 series: pre-Harry "Legends of Hogwarts"...the 19 year gap...and "Hogwarts: The Next Generation." I'm also not ruling out TV (animated half-hour? or hour-long primetime a la "Smallville"?)
So, there's my rant. I've thrown down the gauntlet--who's out there to pick it up?
LAZ
I reiterate: While I think Rowling's HP series is very good as children's literature, the difference between it and "Great Literature" that will stand the test of time and find equal meaning for both child and adult audiences is pretty huge--in fact, I'd go so far as to say insurmountable.
If the crowd in attendance at the midnight premiere was any indication, I'd hazard a guess that the primary readership demographic is middle-school aged (preteen/young teen) girls. That does not mean others cannot find value and meaning in HP--but I'm hard pressed to identify what the series can do for an adult audience that other books (read: better developed, more complicated, greater depth) can't. Possibilities? Recapturing youth, for one--Rowling does understand the essentials of the adolescent dilemma. HP is about coming to maturity--the magic and mystery are just the window dressing for this core archetypal challenge. Minus the wands and robes and house-elves and life-or-death battles, it's the same old song we've been singing for thousands of years. And of course there's nothing wrong with that! We'll keep telling that story--and others like it--for as long as we need to, for as long as they still prove instructive. Adults may want to immerse themselves in a world where the decisions the characters face are ones the readers have already mastered--there's a certain reaffirmation value there. It renews the sense that the current generation of young people are not so very far removed after all. Or to create a feeling of belonging--in a world where society is becoming increasingly fragmented, and the individuals increasingly isolated, cultural bombshells like this become touchstones by which disenchanted adults can shake off their disconnectedness for a while. Remember Hawyakawa's principles on the value of language as social cohesion! For a week or so, HP fans felt drawn together--united by their common bond. They had something new to talk about, an excuse to be something other than their daily selves.
HOWEVER...
I don't think this final volume was particularly brilliant, even accounting for my overall opinion of the series. But as you might expect, there were a number of elements that disappointed me with this volume as a work of literature. Here are some of my key points (I won't try to be comprehensive):
1. I have always been a little bit bothered by the narrative style. Is it a valid choice? Certainly--nothing technically wrong with third-person limited (or the fact that Rowling chooses calculated moments--see the first chapter in each book!--to deliberately violate it in order to extend our understanding of events). Her reasoning is also sound--if his is a journey toward maturity that recapitulates our own, then we are likewise restricted in our perspectives. We cannot know what anyone else is doing if we can't see them, or thinking if they don't tell us. Quite frankly, however, I simply got tired of it after 7 volumes. I hazard that Rowling did as well--thus the gradual inclusion of the two-way link between HP and Voldemort, which provided a more 3rd-person omniscient perspective that relieved some of the tedium.
2. The Battle of Hogwarts--disappointing. I do not think that strategic battle-writing is Rowling's skill area. Admittedly, such writing is quite difficult to do, and there are few who can present such chaotic action in a way that truly defines the moment well--consider as counterpoint Tolkien's writing of the Moria, Helm's Deep, or the Pelennor Fields (a completely fair comparison, BTW--I first read The Hobbit in 5th grade, and LOTR in middle school). But more than just the quality of those chapters--there was a philosophical edge noticeably missing. I remember the Sorting Hat scene from one of the early volumes, when the Hat recited a poem about how the time would come when each of the Houses would have to set aside their rivalries and join together for the common good, making use of the individual skills, traits and characteristics that prompted their placement to begin with. So while they school did come together (for the most part) to defend against the Death Eaters, that total unity, with full philosophical understanding--we are at our strongest when all 4 of these innately human values work together--did not occur. I wanted someone--Harry? Minerva? Neville! Anyone!--to look at the assemblage and say "We are more than our Houses--the things that tie us together are stronger than the things that separate us--in fact, we need to recognize our differences in order to find our bond together!" Instead--we got three houses of Griffs, with bravery triumphant as the highest virtue. And Slytherin, which represents values no less human and no less significant, became the cast-out stepchild. There was no growth! No change! No reaching across the aisle, to bring the school together! And no recognition from Slytherin's side to say, wait, we know this is wrong, no matter who founded the House. Instead, a reluctant Slughorn relents to the demands of his colleagues, and Pansy Parkinson is utterly unrepentant. There are no Slytherin students named during the final battle, and no recognition that any of them perished in Hogwart's defense. I find this to be a grave mistake...
Certainly--there are unrepentant elements within our own society. Didn't Henry Ford uphold the wisdom of isolationist policies, and decry the US entry into WWII? But HP isn't history--it's fiction, reflecting reality--but as archetype, it is also instructive. Where is the higher virtue of forgiveness and the appeal to solidarity? This is a rift that remains, even to the end--witness the train station +19 years, as Harry and Draco catch each other's eyes. What lesson does this inculcate into the young readers' minds? That there are some people we just refuse to forgive? We'd prefer to ignore them, to bottle up our feelings about them and leave our issues unresolved, to fester inside of us? That sounds an awful lot like a lifetime of psychotherapy bills.
3. Speaking of Draco--I can only hope Rowling at least considered doing this character more justice, before she ruined one of the best opportunities the story had to make a real and elegant point. In the end, the good characters were always good (even when they were in disguise, i.e. Snape) and the evil characters always evil (and I don't see Kreatur counting--he is only loyal to the one he calls Master, and Harry was clever enough to renew his loyalty for Sirius's brother). If there was ONE out of the bunch who should have been allowed to fully realize the error of his ways, it was Draco. He witnessed what he believed was the murder of Dumbledore, saw the unfathomable cruelty of Voldemort, saw the humiliation of his own family--yet was left in limbo, suffering no outward physical or social punishment, but likewise unredeemed. To give that development to Draco would have catapulted the level of the story into profoundly more significant territory--Draco then becomes an archetypal figure as well--the "Vader" character who falls into darkness, but through his own action struggles back up to achieve some level of vindication and redemption for himself. No doubt there are legions of Draco fans out there who are VERY cross with his final portrayal.
4. One more for the road--the epilogue. Perhaps the MOST unsatisfying aspect of all. Could Rowling have left out any MORE critical developmental details? Let's see...in the 2 preceding volumes, much exposition was expended on the subject of everyone's potential future careers--passing the OWLS & NEWTS, deciding on courses, etc. This was perfect--what high school student doesn't spend time thinking (worrying) about where they're headed in life?
THEN HOW IS IT THAT THE BOOK ENDS AND WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHERE THEY'VE ENDED UP? How can you make SUCH a big deal out of academic and career choices, only to ignore them completely at the end? I'm hard pressed to even come up with a logical reason for this omission. Out of the multitude of characters we've known through 7 volumes, only Neville gets mentioned as having a job? (and we can all honestly say we could easily have called that one!) I'ts incredibly bad that we have no idea where Harry's and Ron's lives have taken them--but I think it might even be worse for Ginny, positively atrocious for Hermione, and I'll add Luna on as well (in a way, her insult was the worst of all--she's not even mentioned!) Hermione, and Ginny to a little lesser extent, were profoundly positive female role models--intelligent, dedicated, courageous, and loyal. Yet, even Hermione, touted as the greatest witch of her age, is reduced to Harry's baby-maker! I am personally infuriated by this tragic misdeed--and considering the demographic I mentioned at the top of this post, Rowling should be ashamed to have added such a worthless coda for charcters that have such profound impact.
My son actually brought this last point up, and I agreed with him--why is it that we have no knowledge of how the wizarding community has changed after almost 20 years? Rowling dared to broach matters of real social importance--racial discrimination and power imbalances, for example, with the goblins, centaurs, house-elves, etc.--yet the epilogue does not give us any sense that the wizarding world has changed at all--in fact, we have an affirmation of status quo! We're back at King's Cross, sending another trainload of youngsters to Hogwart's. What stopped Rowling from putting an elf or goblin on that train as well? Another wasted opportunity--what did Rowling fear? After all that development on the subject--since book 2!--she couldn't put a sock on it at last? (a deliberate house-elf reference--my apologies).
What I fear--she's got $$ in her eyes. Some media outlet has made her an offer; my guess is it's the comic industry, which is hot-to-trot with the latest boom in graphic novels. There's room for at least 3 series: pre-Harry "Legends of Hogwarts"...the 19 year gap...and "Hogwarts: The Next Generation." I'm also not ruling out TV (animated half-hour? or hour-long primetime a la "Smallville"?)
So, there's my rant. I've thrown down the gauntlet--who's out there to pick it up?
LAZ
posted by L Lazarow | 11:40 AM
9 Comments:
You make good points.
The epilogue, though charming to see ginny and harry and ron and hermione married, does leave a lot to be desired. I was fully expecting that there'd be wizards signing accords with muggles etc, but no. The cliche'd now-the-heroes-are-grown-up-with-kids-and-they're-gonna-repeat-what-the-heroes-did idea crashes the party. The epilogue, I'm guessing, took no more than a half hour for ms. rowling to write.
I think that the third-person perspective isn't really problematic. It puts the reader in that bird's eye view and I guess isolates the reader from the sufferings of the character while at the same time the reader can relate to the hardships the hero faces. The only problem I saw sometimes was when too many pronouns appeared in the same sentence and it was hard to keep track of who's who.
You bring up a very good point about the battle. I agree that it was rather poorly written. I wasn't really on the edge of my proverbial seat when I read it but it got the idea across. As for the houses issue, couldn't it be possible that aspects of all the houses were shown by all the characters in the battle "scene?" Though, as you said, they're all overshadowed by bravery, which is Gryffindor, loyalty (Hufflepuff) was shown, as were wit (Ravenclaw) and cunning (Slytherin). While the literal union of the houses didn't happen, the values of each house became part of each fighter.
I totally agree with the lack of development of Draco. He had all the reasons to leave Voldemort's cause and join with Harry. But what kept him? Pride? I guess that's why he was put into Slytherin :P
--
I was really annoyed by the 200 some odd pages devoted to Harry, Hermione, and Ron scratching their heads wondering where they should go next. Those middle chapters after the wedding piqued little to no interest from me. It was during these chapters that I actually could break the crack-like addiction the book caused and take a nap. Perhaps she meant to do this? Make the book proceed painfully slowly as the trio proceeded painfully slowly through their quest to destroy the Horcruxes?
After reading the last book, I found that it fits almost exactly, if not perfectly into the mythic heroic archetype we were shown in class. I'll spare you the details.
--
One more point. This is pretty poorly structured so bear with me. The mythic heroic archetype does not exist to create a bridge between the hero and the layman reader, but to build a proverbial grandstand so that the layman can watch and admire the hero, always desiring the power and excitement, but never able to have it. While it certainly helps to give normal human attributes to the hero, is it necessary? Does a reader have to say "I can totally see myself in that same type of situation?" Personally, I don't need to. I read these types of stories just for that, a story. I'll stop there because I ran out of things to say and can already feel my argument falling apart... I can feel the stinkeye from laz o_o.
Anyway, yeah
there's my take
I read it in three days. How long did it take everyone else? Just out of curiosity :D
"Though, as you said, they're all overshadowed by bravery, which is Gryffindor, loyalty (Hufflepuff) was shown, as were wit (Ravenclaw) and cunning (Slytherin). While the literal union of the houses didn't happen, the values of each house became part of each fighter."
I'm not so certain of this--I can buy Loyalty, but Wit? And Cunning? There wasn't much in the way of witty banter during the battle--or even an overall need to pursue their defense with anything like deep thought! "Kill or be killed" doesn't allow for much depth...and I daresay an all-out slugfest doesn't constitute too much in the way of cunning, either...
If you're going to use Pride in its 7-Deadly-Sin form, there's enough of that to go around for all the Houses, not just Slytherin. And even at the very outset of the book, the Malfoys have lost most of what they had previously celebrated about themselves--with little hope of regaining it. So I don't think Slytherin has a stranglehold on Pride as a virtue/vice.
I agree--200 pages of "where should we go now?" irked me too.I think I would have preferred a "mystery/chase"--where our intrepid youngsters, engaged in trying to solve a puzzle, are following leads and picking up clues, but remaining only a half-step ahead of their pursuers. This would accomplish the intensity of feeling (will they get caught this time?) with the sense of purposeful movement (clue A leads us to clue B, and so on).
Of course, I disagree with your statements regarding the failure of the archetype to provide the bridge between hero and reader. You say the archetype "build[s] a proverbial grandstand so that the layman can watch and admire the hero, always desiring the power and excitement, but never able to have it." NO! The archetype forces us to realize we have always been--and will always be!--in possession of those same traits that see the hero through their most difficult trials! Do you really think that these types of stories would have last for the past 10,000 years if humans were unable to find themselves inside the characters? If we could not learn the powerful lessons reaffirming social values? No one's claiming they're not entertaining--of course they are! But the question is--which is the PRIMARY purpose: entertainment, or education? 10,000 years argues for the latter, I'm afraid.
And I think I did it in 3 as well.
LAZ
I read it in one :]
But, anyway... JK Rowling actually did an interview clarifying what happened to everyone 19 years later. Albeit, I would have liked it to be in the actual book... but, whatever. :T I'll post just to satisfy your curiosity.
Harry becomes an Auror and is named Head of the Defense Department or something by Kingsley. Ron becomes partners with George in running the joke shop. Ginny continues her Quidditch career and is Chaser for the Harpies, retires, and becomes a correspondent or some sort. Hermione...did something for animal rights and works in the Department of Magical Creatures. Luna continues with the Quibbler. Neville is a teacher...
I tried to find the interview again, but I couldn't. That's all I could remember.
Oh--and I just thought of an addendum to my first point in response--consider the chapters leading up to the battle. Stories of epic heroism often make a big deal about "arming for battle"--preparing for the coming onslaught, either by shoring up defenses and stockpiling weapons, or individually putting on one's armor and sharpening one's sword. LOTR does this very well at Helm's Deep, for example. And I once saw one of the "Nightmare on Elm Street" films where the heroine dressed herself with items that had once belong to each of her murdered friends, before she went out to face Freddy for the last time (until the next film). Rowling came close to this, with the faculty issuing orders to prepare for the seige--but because all of that happened outside of Harry's field of vision, the result LOOKED haphazard. If there was a defensive plan, it didn't show. Had there actually been a "war council," we could have clearly seen the influence of the Houses' respective qualities--Wit and Cunning above all! Their planning would have given structure and direction to the others' Bravery and Loyalty...
LAZ
One night.
Interestingly enough, I didn't view the scene with Draco from the epilogue as being purely negative. Perhaps the reader's perspective colors his/her interpretation of it because I actually felt that Harry and Draco had a sort of mutual understanding... Now that I'm examining it closely, I'm not exactly sure where I got that idea. Nevertheless, there's no seething resentment, no repressed hatred that I can see.
I liked Harry's statement to his son Albus--that it was just as respectable to be a Slytherin as it was to be a Gryffindor. That's the first time I saw JK Rowling really espouse that message.
That's my small piece. I don't know if I cam do a full-blown analysis of Harry Potter... Maybe I'll try some other time.
CRAP
I wrote stuff but forgot to post it and my browser crashed and now I have to retype it D:
Basically...
In response to Laz
By attempting to find traits of themselves (the readers) in the heroes is akin to teens today trying to find any and all similarities between them and famous celebrities. I think that the reason why we find so many similar traits is not only due to the author's deliberate inclusion of them, but the readers' desire to be like the hero.
Also, the bridge between the hero and the reader still exists, but there is also the grandstand I mentioned.
I mentioned something else but I don't think it's worth it to say :P
Albert, you're chasing a crazy circle...this is classic "Chicken or Egg"--which came first? This is similar to Rushkoff's "feedback loop" from Merchants of Cool. But I would suggest that humans FIRST identified those traits that were most valuable to society (courage, leadership, honor, virtue, loyalty, etc.), THEN created the heroes that embodied these traits as icons worthy of emulation, which THEN were idolized and followed by the masses (which THEN produced more stories of more heroes with the same traits...and so on into the future...) However, at the same time, they did so KNOWING that such emulation can never be perfect--we can never BECOME that hero; we can only strive for the heroic ideal, seeking to overcome those weaker elements of ourselves. Thus the hero is also flawed, in very human ways--they are better than us in so many ways, but can still be reduced to that lowest common denominator: flawed humanity. Do we not love to tell the "rags-to-riches" stories of famous celebs? Do we not revel in their meteoric rise to super-stardom? And at the same time, do we not habor the essential desire to see them fall, as they inevitably will? The heroic and tragic stories are separated by the thinnest line, after all--the only thing we love more than placing our heroes on their pedastals is pulling them back down again!
Yeah... I guess you're right... as always. Though my grandstand idea will stay in my mind for years to come.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the MP3 e MP4, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://mp3-mp4-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
Post a Comment
<< Home