I've been highly amused by O'Reilly's show the few times I've caught it, although I don't always agree with the stances he takes. The only time I distinctly remember not being amused was O'Reilly lambasting Vicente Fox for not helping with the illegal immigration problem from his side of the border. It sounded as if Bill had forgotten that we have a full range of unpleasant words for rulers who force their citizens to remain in the country against their will, and Fox was as flabbergasted by this memory lapse as I was. But I digress. The scary thing about The No Spin Zone was that I agreed with almost everything O'Reilly had to say. I'm not sure whether this is a credit to his writing skill, a comment on my gullibility, or not surprising at all because of course we're both completely right. ^_~
Overview
O'Reilly's book is separated into chapters by controversial issue, with one prominent guest for each chapter. It was slightly disconcerting to listen to, because sometimes the chapters flow very smoothly into each other, while other times there's a distinctive jump in topic. This resulted in my only noticing the chapter titles every now and then, and I had to check the table of contents to make sure I hadn't missed several chapters. Other than this, the book reads very well, as long as you don't mind O'Reilly's outrageous arrogance (aka, he actually believes his own opinions are right, and makes no bones about it). I don't, mostly because he makes no attempt to hide it, and because he respects people who he believes are wrong as long as they're honest. Issues covered in the book include sexual predators, working moms, fund raising scams, taxation, Bill Clinton, and the death penalty. (In other words, everything and anything came up, so the issues were probably just an overview of the significant guests O'Reilly had interviewed since his last book.)
Recommended for: Anyone, although the people who need to read it the most are probably the least likely to actually do so.
Audiobook Comments: Read by the man himself, which is as it should be. Only O'Reilly can deliver his distinctive oratory properly, and as expected for a TV personality, it is very well done.
Parental Worries: None, if they're old/smart/mature enough to make it through the book; unless you disagree with and/or dislike O'Reilly, in which case you should worry that your child might start seeing the world the way he does.
Ramblings
The opening topic is one that it's really hard to disagree with: the disgusting practice of protection for sexual predators. Specifically, protection of the rights of NAMBLA to publish information on how to molest young boys. O'Reilly interviews a representative from the ACLU for this chapter, since that organization is defending NAMBLA's right to publish information that has been directly linked to several cases of molestation. Disgusting. And O'Reilly wipes the floor with said representative, pointing out (among other things) that if nothing else, ACLU should listen to its donors, the vast majority of which are horrified by their action in this issue.
O'Reilly spends quite a bit of time describing the 'fundraising' (translation: extortion) activities of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I have no real knowledge of the topic other than what's presented in this book, but it's pretty damning stuff. According to O'Reilly, here's the way it works: Rev approaches a company, rails at them for being evil white men without a diverse enough workforce. Threatens large-scale boycotts if company does not hire one of Rev's 'diversity counselors'. Company gives in, hires the counselor, lots of Rev's friends and family get hired, Rev gets plenty of donations for his pet charities (many of which support his own very comfortable lifestyle). Wow. It's astonishing that they can get away with this, which is one reason that I'm slightly skeptical. (Only slightly though, 'cause it fits with what I've seen of the two men in question.)
O'Reilly then takes Bush to task for his support of the death penalty because of its contradiction with his Christian faith. I've been frustrated by the death penalty debate for years because both sides have a knack for twisting facts left and right and backwards on themselves. (has it been proven to be a successful deterent against crime or not? is it more expensive to run endless hearings and appeals or just support criminals for the rest of their lives? I've received completely contradictory answers to these questions, both claiming the support of data) In the Christian view, however, the data doesn't matter--it's a question of morals and the teachings of Christ. Even though I'm a Christian, I tend to take a pragmatic view of the issue. I consider abolition of the death penalty to be a luxury of a sort--if a civilization is advanced far enough, they can afford to take the moral high ground and simply remove dangerous people from society instead of having to kill them. As one of the most advanced civilizations in the world, it seems that America should have that luxury, but a close look at our prison system may suggest otherwise. (I'm not using 'may' as a substitute for 'will' here, I honestly haven't researched our prison system or the death penalty debate closely enough to make that call)
O'Reilly provides the best solution to the death penalty debate that I've ever heard. He is against the death penalty, partially because of his Christian values and partially because he considers death to be too good for many of our worst criminals. He suggests a Federal prison in Alaska for murderers, child rapists and hard-core drug dealers--life sentences, hard labor, none of the cable television nonsense that we've got in most of our prisons these days. Removing these people physically from the mainstream of US life is a harsh exile, and O'Reilly is of the opinion that the threat of this life would be more of a deterent than death.
If this plan ever goes up for a vote, it's got mine.
Labels: nonfiction
I consider Arthur C. Clarke to be one of the classic writers of sci-fi, up there with Asimov and H.G. Wells. (I'm informed that Heinlein is also a classic sci-fi author, but I've read very little of his stuff, and didn't like what I did read, so he doesn't make my list :-p ) He's probably best known as the author of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and although I loved the book and the sequels that came after it, I cannot stand the movie itself. I heard somewhere that the book was written specifically written to be adapted into a science fiction movie, and I'd have to say that either Clarke or Stanley Kubrick failed miserably at this attempt. To be fair, my idea of a great sci-fi film is the original Star Wars trilogy, so I'll take the title of philistine if any film buffs disagree.
Update: Arthur C. Clarke passed away today, at the age of 90. RIP Now I want to go back and read more of his work. I'd forgotten that he wrote two of my favorite science fiction short stories, "The Star" and "The Nine Billion Names of God."
Here's my two favorite tidbits about Clarke from his Wikipedia article: He first proposed the concept of geosynchronous telecommunication satellites in 1945, and this orbit is also known as the Clarke orbit in his honor.
Also "Clarke corresponded with C. S. Lewis in the 1940s and 1950s, and they once met in an Oxford pub, the Eastgate, to discuss science fiction and space travel. Clarke, after Lewis's death, voiced great praise for him, saying the Ransom Trilogy was one of the few works of science fiction that could be considered literature." This isn't significant at all, but I'm a huge Lewis fan, so it made me happy.
Overview
A Fall of Moondust takes place on the recently-colonized moon, in the 21st century. Clarke runs with the idea that the moon might contain giant 'dust seas' which are composed of super-fine dust that flows like water in a vacuum and lays meters thick. On a touring expedition of one such Sea of Thirst, a freakish earthquake buries the ship Selene under 15 meters of dust. The ensuing scramble to find and rescue the ship and it's 22 passengers makes for a good read, but I wouldn't give this as one of Clarke's best works.
Recommended for: All I can really recommend it to are Clarke fans or hardcore sci-fi fans. Anyone else should read the 2001 series or Childhood's End.
Audiobook Comments: Read by Robert Donnlen (sp?) who does a pretty good job. His descriptions of the moon often start sounding like nature documentaries, which I guess isn't a bad tone to set.
Parental Worries: I'd give it a PG-13 rating for one romantic scene, but only barely.
Ramblings
Clarke makes heavy use of foreshadowing throughout the book, and although it's effective at first, it becomes more hysterical and annoying as time goes by. It's fine to mention the dire consequences that said act would have when you're just getting into the story, but when you're near the end of it and another dark prophesy appears, the tension just isn't there.
The characters are fairly interesting, and its always fun to see engineers take center stage for once. The man heading the rescue effort reminded me of almost every old engineer I know, so I liked him quite a bit. The passengers trapped aboard Selene are an assorted, amusing bunch with several surprises in their midst, but I don't think they came across as vividly or interestingly as they could have done.
Its always interesting to read older science fiction works and look at what's changed in the past 50 years or so (FoM was published in 1961). The biggest change may be that the hypothetical dust seas never materialized, and of course we're not really much closer to colonizing the moon than we were 50 years ago. The really interesting bits are the 'holes' where modern technology is missing--cell phones, computer screens, digital pictures, and more. At one point a character takes the equivalent of polaroid shots, instead of pulling digital pictures on a computer screen, and transmitting said images to the moon creates a significant drop in quality, something that just isn't an issue anymore. Clarke does predict the ease with which the entire world can be informed of and connected to a story millions of miles away, and this is foresight is probably more remarkable than I can give him credit for. (Especially since he himself helped to fulfill this particular prophesy!)
Labels: scifi
Mysteries are a genre that I almost exclusively read on audiobook, both because they're easy to find in that format, and because I rarely feel like wasting my precious real-book time on them. This isn't because I don't like mysteries, but because they're casual reading by definition, and there's too many less-casual books that I can't find on audio. (Mysteries over, say, 75 years old may not fit into this category :-p if you've survived that long, you're Literature)
Overview
The Amelia Peabody series focuses around it's namesake, an Egyptologist with a knack for getting mixed up in all kinds of mysterious dealings. The books are told in the form of memoirs, and we get plenty of delightful (although occasionally tedious) commentary from the dear lady. The first book opens with the death of Amelia's father, who she'd been caring for in his old age. She inherits his considerable fortune and finds herself to be a spinster (30ish, I think?) without obligations or occupation. On a tour of the world, she meets a destitute but high-born young lady named Evelyn in the Roman forum, and they proceed to Egypt, where Amelia falls head-over-heels for the Giza pyramids. A bit later in the book, over the course of a tidy little mystery involving a mummy and an unexpected fortune, she falls head-over-heels for the hot-headed and extremely handsome Egyptologist Radcliffe Emerson. (fortunately, his first name is very rarely used)
Amelia marries Emerson, and Evelyn conveniently marries his younger brother. The series covers the next thirty-five years of the Emerson family's adventures. (currently, at least. I'm not sure if Peters is planning to write more.) I love this series dearly; I started listening to the books when I was in junior high and still enjoy re-reading the books every now and then.
Recommended for: Anyone, although women would probably enjoy it more that guys because Amelia's narrative style often reads like a romance (although mockingly so, which is half the fun)
Audiobook Comments: This series is brilliantly read by Barbara Rosenblat, who not only manages to make the characters come alive, but changes their voices appropriately as time passes. Her range of accents is also impressive, considering the many nationalities represented by Egypt's archaeological community. (I absolutely love her American accents!) One of the books included an interview with Elizabeth Peters and Barbara Rosenblat, and about half way through the voice of Emerson intrudes with some snarky comment or other--it took me a minute to remember that it was only Barbara having fun, and not an actual third party to the conversation!
Parental Worries: If your child is old enough to read these books, they're probably fine. Dubious subjects are often mentioned, (Emerson and Amelia are very fond of one another) but Amelia manages to side-step and euphemise them in true Victorian style. Re-reading the books now that I'm older reminds me of watching kids' movies for a second time and discovering the subtle jokes for the parents' benefit that I never caught as a kid.
Ramblings (Spoiler Threat: Low)
The series is very character-driven, so I might as well take the time to describe a few:
Amelia is tons of fun. She's relentlessly competent, stern but soft-hearted, and doesn't let anything stand in her way, least of all the female stereotypes of Victorian England. She lacks any sense of self-analysis, which is somewhat refreshing and often amusing. Despite her criticism of elaborate narrative styles, she consistently waxes poetic over subjects particularly dear to her heart, especially Egypt and her husband. As an example of her eccentricities, her favorite weapon is a steel-shafted parasol, which she always carries with her. This is not only useful for smiting evil-doers, but also for making a gentle (or not so gentle) point in less-hazardous situations.
Emerson is Amelia's perfect match. He's loud, belligerent and short-tempered, but even more soft-hearted than Amelia. He has an endearing habit of suspecting every man they meet to be secretly lusting after his wife, despite her frank and unflattering assessment of her own physical charms. He's also an excellent Egyptologist, and is always the last one to be dragged into mystery investigations, preferring to actually do his work.
Emerson and Amelia's only child is Ramses, (born Walter Peabody Emerson, but his swarthy complexion and regal demeanor reminds everyone of an ancient pharaoh) and he is probably my favorite character in the series. He starts out as a precocious toddler with a ridiculous vocabulary, and manages to survive childhood despite his best attempts to find any mortal peril available. (Amelia objects to the word precocious at one point, but only because it is nowhere near strong enough) He grows into a splendid combination of Indiana Jones meets James Bond, minus the womanizing and with a touch of the Byronic hero. Ramses is one of the few characters besides Amelia that get a chance to narrate every now and then, since his adventures become a staple of the plot in later books and his mother is oblivious of many of his comings and goings. His vocal changes from babe-in-arms to adventurous youngling to suave English gentleman are one of Rosenblat's greatest masterpieces.
In fact, the contributions of Ramses and his cohorts (adopted sister Nefret and best friend David) rescue the books from becoming repetitive (always a danger with long-running mystery series), and gives it a second wind halfway through. Between their romantic angst and encounters with the Cairo underworld, I barely remember the mysteries they manage to solve in the meantime.
Labels: mystery
I'm a big fan of fairy tales, so I picked this book up hoping to get an overview of the Brothers Grimm. I wanted to find out more about their lives, the sources for their stories, and their theory on the significance of fairy tales. (I think the technical term is comparative mythology and folklore?) I got all three, and I was surprised to find most of the book fairly readable for someone like me with almost no knowledge of the subject matter. There's a few chapters that go pretty deep into the history of literary criticism and the study of mythology, and I skimmed the thicker parts of those without feeling like I'd lost too much.
Overview
It turns out that the Brothers Grimm were first and foremost philologists, and would probably be slightly chagrined to discover that, except for select academic circles, they are globally and exclusively famous for their children's stories--stories that they collected almost as a hobby. The first chapter of the book covers their childhood and the course of their careers. Later chapters go over the brothers' sources, collection methods and theories, while the last bit of the book covers alternative theories on fairy tales and their place in society. The last bit was what I skimmed the most, since I was interested in the BG themselves. I was struck by the extreme closeness of the brother's relationship--except for a short period early in their careers, the two lived and worked together for their entire lives. (Then again, this may not be as extraordinary for the time frame, I dunno.) Although William was more interested in the study of mythology and folk lore than his brother, it sounds as if he largely sacrificed this interest in order to help Jacob on his more 'serious' philological work. (irony, anyone?) Another interesting tidbit about the Brothers: they spent some time as political martyrs for their support of the German constitution when the reigning monarch of the time abolished it. (or attempted to abolish it . . . I've returned the book to the library, so I can't check my facts >_< ) Recommended for: Fans of fairy tales who aren't afraid of a scholarly work, especially if you liked Tolkien's On Fairy Stories
Extended Summary
It turns out that the BG's main source of fairy tales was from local middle-class women: innkeepers, grocers, and anyone else they happened to run across. Apparently they never actually traveled around interviewing peasant women, which is a popular myth, but merely picked up stories here and there over the years. Their sister helped out quite a bit by holding social 'fairy tale parties' the way women of the time would have poetry readings, or more recently, tupperware parties. They also had several friends who collected tales, and these were passed on to the Brothers. The author credits them for being more 'scientific' in their collection methods than other folk and fairy tale publishers of the time, but I'm skeptical as to how scientific you can actually be when everything has been word-of-mouth for so long.
The book also spent some time contesting several unsavory claims that had been made about the BG and their work. One of the big ones was that they were fanatically nationalistic, and considered only German fairy and folk tales worthy of interest. This claim probably came from the Nazi era, when Hitler used the BG's work to foster a sense of national pride and superiority. The brothers were definitely patriotic and loved their fatherland, but they were not afraid to be critical of the government of said country. They also considered the fairy and folk tales of all lands to be a valuable resource, and encouraged people to study the tales of other lands. The BG focused on German folklore, both because it was readily available and because they had a particular fondness for it, but that does not imply a scorn of any other nations and their oral traditions.
Another claim was that many of the brother's tales were actually French in origin, because one of their sources had French ancestry. The author disputes this claim, pointing out that although the woman in question did have a Huguenot parent, she grew up in Germany, surrounded by German tradition. More importantly, she was the daughter of an inn-keeper, and probably learned all her tales from the local visitors.
There was also some discussion of gender-bias and so forth in their stories, but the bottom line was that sexist claims had been vastly exaggerated. I was proud of the author for not donating much time to this topic; modern feminism bores and aggravates me. (insofar as it's possible to be bored and aggravated at the same time :-p )
Ramblings
One of the first things that intrigued me about the BG was that they were primarily philoligists. This is an interesting distinction to me, because so was Tolkien, one of my favorite authors and a staunch defender of the fairy story genre. (Although Tolkien's definition of a fairy story and the BG's differed greatly) Turns out Andrew Lang, also of fairy-tale fame (the Blue Fairy Book, Red Fairy Book, etc) was also a philologist. (And so was one of my favorite characters from C.S. Lewis' writings, but he was modeled after Tolkien himself, so I don't think that counts)
So, what is it about philology and fairy tales? Probably something to do with the evolution of oral stories along with the evolution of a language. I've actually heard someone suggest that myths originally developed because of the limitations of language, and fairy and folktales followed from there. I don't personally agree with the theory, but it shows how closely language and storytelling are connected. I tend to agree with both Tolkien and the BG, that fairy tales, myths, and similar stories are tool in mankind's search for truth, and often an expression of that truth.
One concept from this book that I really liked was the Brother's distinction between naturpoesie (nature stories, or 'natural' stories) and kunstpoesie (art stories). To quote: "As Wilhelm saw it, naturpoesie derived its powerful vision and "eternal quality" from its quest for truth. In that sense, it was not a mere form of entertainment but a significant expression of the humanity of man". This struck me as a beautiful designation, and still appropriate for literature today. Many of the stories I dearly love are not remarkable for their contribution to bright and shiny truth, but merely fun. I love a good mystery series, Star Wars novel or fantasy tale, but no amount of lightsabers or sparkly magic can rival the 'beauty and truth' of books like Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Ender's Game, or Frankenstein. (Maybe I'll eventually give my reasons for these particular titles, but now is not the time :-p) Even if you disagree with my specific choices, there is definitely a distinction between mere fun reading, and a book that leaves you stunned. I'd never found quite the right words for this distinction, and I was thrilled to find it in this book.
Labels: Brothers Grimm, fairytales, folklore, nonfiction
Overview
The Dark is Rising sequence is a fantasy children's series set in modern-day England. The forces of Light and Dark are preparing for their final battle, and the fate of the world rests in the hands of a few schoolchildren. It's not a particularly original premise, but it's well-handled and quite fun. The series evokes Britain's ancient history throughout and eventually draws heavily on Arthurian legend. I really enjoyed re-reading the series recently, and I only have two complaints to make, which I'll get to in a bit. This series is a classic though, a must-read for all kids and any adults who missed it the first time around.
The books of the sequence are:
Over Sea, Under Stone
The Dark is Rising
Greenwitch
The Grey King
Silver on the Tree
The first two books actually concern two different sets of characters that do not meet until the later books, so you can read them in any order. The others should be read in order though, they tie together in an increasingly complex plot and you don't want to miss any of it.
Recommended for: Kids and kids at heart
Audiobook Comments: Good solid reading with no frills by Alex Jennings.
Ramblings (Spoiler Status: Very Low)
My first complaint is that a very strong thread of elitism runs through the books--normal humans are not considered capable of remembering anything about the events that they stumble into without suffering irreparable damage, and their memories are wiped--this includes major characters. I can understand why the story would suffer if too many people were brought into the secret struggle, but why couldn't it be addressed that way, instead of making everyone seem like weak-minded fools? As it is, I get way too much of a 'high and lonely destiny' feel from the Forces of Good.
My second complaint is that the ending of the last book is absolutely horrible! There's nothing wrong with the actual final battle, the problem is that the denouement destroys everything there is to love about a good fantasy ending. Without giving away too much, imagine the end of Lord of the Rings, the scene where Frodo leaves with the Elves. It's slightly bittersweet, but warm and fuzzy nonetheless. Now, imagine that instead of leaving for the land of sweetness and peace, Frodo is told that he gets to stick around on Earth for another century or so. That's okay though, 'cause he's still got Sam and all his other friends, right? Wrong! Because Sam wants to stick around long enough to have a family, and therefore forfeits his right as Ringbearer to end his days in the Silver Realms. And his memory is wiped, just so that he won't eventually hate his wife and family for making that choice. Merry and Pippin aren't even consulted in the matter, their memories are destroyed without even a by-your-leave, and none of the three remember ever leaving the Shire. So now Frodo's left to mope about for another hundred years, without the companionship of his friends. Warm and fuzzy, or even slightly satisfying? I don't think so!
Perhaps the idea of ending this way is to leave kids with a feeling of 'maybe something like this happened to me, and I just don't remember!' but it seems very silly. Besides, no one reads a fantasy story to find out if the heroes succeed in saving the world--that's a given. One of the joys of reading fantasy (or any fiction, for that matter) is to learn about the characters, to watch them grow and develop. If they end the story with no memory of events, they haven't changed or grown, and they are no longer the people you've come to know and care about.
Now that I've got my gripes out of the way, on to what I do like about the sequence. For one thing, there's some really neat prophetic poems that show up every now and then to foreshadow later developments. It's the poems that stick in my head long after I've finished the books, even more than the characters or events they describe. I also love the descriptions of England and the way that the history of the land ties into the plot.
Another thing I like, call it a take-home lesson, is the idea that the Light can be just as terrible and frightening as the Dark. This isn't the idea that all outside powers and entities are eventually evil, but that the true nature of Good is so bright and perfect that it can be painful to behold. All throughout the story, the forces of the Light inspire not only awe but terror in the heroes, and their actions are sometimes harsher than we might expect. Never so harsh that compassion and pity are ignored, but these are definitely not the indulgent, complacent forces of good that you often get in children's literature.
Overall though, a wonderful story of magic and England and fighting the Dark.
Darren Aronofsky
The Fountain
Isaac Asimov
The Planet That Wasn't
L. Auerbach and J. Simpson
Sagas of the Norsemen
Edgar Rice Burroughs
A Princess of Mars
Orson Scott Card
Seventh Son
Geoffrey Chaucer
Canterbury Tales
Arthur C. Clarke
Across the Sea of Stars
A Fall of Moondust
Susan Cooper
The Dark is Rising Sequence
Peter David
Iron Man
Charles Dickens
Nicholas Nickelby
The Pickwick Papers
Emura
W Juliet
P. Foglio, K. Foglio and C. Wright
Girl Genius
H. Rider Haggard
King Solomon's Mines
Lian Hearn
Heaven's Net is Wide
Across the Nightingale Floor
Grass for His Pillow
The Harsh Cry of the Heron
Christa Kamenetsky
The Brothers Grimm and Their Critics
Rudyard Kipling
The Light that Failed
Andrew Lang
The Blue Fairy Book
Jack London
South Sea Tales
George MacDonald
The Princess and the Goblin
The Princess and Curdie
George R.R. Martin
A Game of Thrones
A Clash of Kings
Stephanie Meyer
Twilight
New Moon
Eclipse
Cesar Milan
Cesar's Way
Alan Moore
Watchmen
Bill O'Reilly
The No Spin Zone
Elizabeth Peters
The Amelia Peabody Series
Terry Pratchett
Guards! Guards!
Men at Arms
Feet of Clay
Laura Ruby
The Wall and the Wing
Dai Sijie
Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress
Kurt Vonnegut
Slaughterhouse 5
Book Reviews:
Across the Nightingale Floor by Lian Hearn
Across the Sea of Stars by Arthur C. Clarke
The Amelia Peabody Series by Elizabeth Peters
Balzac & the Little Chinese Seamstress by Dai Sijie
The Blue Fairy Book by Andrew Lang
The Brothers Grimm and their Critics by Christa Kamenetsky
Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer
Cesar's Way by Cesar Milan
A Clash of Kings by George R.R. Martin
The Dark is Rising Sequence by Susan Cooper
Eclipse by Stephanie Meyer
A Fall of Moondust by Arthur C. Clarke
Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett
The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky
A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin
Girl Genius by P. Foglio, K. Foglio and C. Wright
Grass for His Pillow by Lian Hearn
Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett
The Harsh Cry of the Heron by Lian Hearn
Heaven's Net is Wide by Lian Hearn
Iron Man by Peter David
King Solomon's Mines by H. Rider Haggard
The Light that Failed by Rudyard Kipling
Men at Arms by Terry Pratchett
Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens
New Moon by Stephanie Meyer
The No Spin Zone by Bill O'Reilly
The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens
The Planet that Wasn't by Isaac Asimov
The Princess and Curdie by George MacDonald
The Princess and the Goblin by George MacDonald
A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs
Sagas of the Norsemen by L. Auerbach and J. Simpson
Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut
Seventh Son by Orson Scott Card
South Sea Tales by Jack London
Twilight by Stephanie Meyer
W Juliet by Emura
The Wall and the Wing by Laura Ruby
Watchmen by Alan Moore
Other Posts:
Back?
Rebellion
Partial Restoration
A Review of Reviews
An Educated Fangirl
Not Dead Yet!
Housekeeping