| Blogs > MarshalMeLee |
|
babylon
8765 Posts
It's the textbook definition of confusing. Here is the opening sentence: riverrun, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs. No, I did not make a mistake there. Yes, it start mid-sentence.  | ||
|
shavi
United States127 Posts
On July 14 2011 14:34 babylon wrote: It's the textbook definition of confusing. Here is the opening sentence: No, I did not make a mistake there. Yes, it start mid-sentence. And this recommendation is coming from the person who claimed Joyce's writing was confusing? lol. | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On July 14 2011 14:42 shavi wrote: And this recommendation is coming from the person who claimed Joyce's writing was confusing? lol. Finnegans Wake is written by James Joyce, dude. I believe StorkHwaiting was not so much recommending it as providing it as an example of how James Joyce's writing can be, at times, extraordinarily confusing. FW is like the exact opposite of straightforward and concise writing. | ||
|
FreshNoThyme
United States356 Posts
On July 14 2011 11:05 Aldehyde wrote: In contrast to other music which people listen to because it's displeasing and makes you feel down? It's not like the only innovation in music and literature happened 50+ years ago and yet those are always the only ones that are brought up in these "art" discussions. I, too, don't really understand why you have to analyze books/movies/music and yet we had to do it a bunch in school. To me, a book is either good/bad or mediocre and it's purely based off the entertainment value. Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think). Usually just seems to be som blibber blabber about how the writer wrote this little sentence which kind of hints at these things and they in combination with these other things hinted at in these other sentences give us this message. I apologize ahead of time; there is SO, SO, SO much to cover when introducing someone to the world of literary criticism that it can be a bit difficult to decide where to start. Please read until the end if you're going to bother reading my post at all, because each paragraph, on its own, doesn't really work without the whole here. I'll address the main point here: "Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think)." That's not really the point of literary analysis. The point isn't to have a "message". You learn that day 1 of introduction to literary studies. I honestly suggest taking a course or doing the legwork yourself, because many of the common myths associated with literary criticism are debunked day 1 by a good professor. Boiling a work down to "Oh, this is about anti-slavery!" is generally trivializing thousands of complex questions that can be asked of the work. Most professors address the question of "what's the point?" day 1 as well. The "point" (which, you'll come to learn, is often a despised term) is to better understand history. Literature is about understanding the world we live in. History is constantly contorted. Read a history book from 1920, and then read another book about the exact same subject today. The very way a text is worded completely changes its meaning. Even if an author does his/her very best to stay true to the facts, the way they say it changes how you interpret the information. When you retell this information, it is twisted again. This constant twisting completely alters our understanding of history to the point that much of what we learn today is often so far from reality that it is hard to truly understand "the past". It isn't just about history, though. It isn't about getting "just the facts". Rather, it is a method of studying humanity and how we deal with the world around here. Quite a bit literary analysis (though just a fraction of the whole) has to do with the unconscious versus the conscious. Why did the author write what he/she did? Their personal reasoning for it isn't important. Looking at the words themselves, the ones that FACTUALLY EXIST, leads to the answers. Asking an author "what did you mean?" is the least helpful question of all time. The author's intent is not important. What actually exists on the page is. Literature (and criticism) attempts to bypass this. The author creates a work, frozen in time, and their writing reflects THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR WORLD. For example, if an author from 1837 wrote a gothic murder-mystery set in the 1600s, you can STILL gain INCREDIBLE insight into history and context by analyzing the WAY the author says something, not WHAT the author says. It isn't about the words on the page. It is about how they work together, and how they interlink from page 1 until the last word. There is a wrong way to interpret a work. A common misconception is that a work (primarily poetry) can "mean whatever you want it to mean". There is ambiguity, and that is at the heart of many discussions, but so many people read works incorrectly that it leads them to think that all works have dozens of meanings. Again, there is MUCH ambiguity, which stirs the majority of debate, but if you completely misread a work, you miss out on... everything. For example, read this famous Frost poem: http://www.bartleby.com/119/1.html This work is so commonly misinterpreted that you find it on motivation posters in office buildings around the U.S. (if not the world). A bit explaining the misinterpretations: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1822225/the_road_not_taken_by_robert_frost.html The "twitch vs. wink" concerns itself with thick description, and is a good way to break into understanding literary analysis. I apologize if this link doesn't work. Just google "a twink and a wink" if not. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http://www.slgardiner.com/courses/theory/lectures/ThickDescription.doc&rct=j&q=a twitch and a wink&ei=PoseTsaaL6q1sQKPgNGfAw&usg=AFQjCNGmKXLcNMVwcDPW3l6N7u-RrLDT7g&sig2=lITdu-7OpL0SjI8E_D86Cg tl;dr: Literary criticism is about understanding the world around you through what some consider a beautiful art form. It allows you to look back into history and understand WHY things were the they were, what certain individuals thought about it, and how it affected their concept of reality. A huge part of the appeal is the ability to enter literary discourse and compare complex ideas with like-minded individuals, but MUCH of the work is very solitary, even though no piece exists in a vacuum. And please understand that this is just the way I've learned. I'm a 23 year old senior English major (with a minor in Creative Writing) who intends to continue on to graduate school and make a career out of this. Point being: I am still a student and know jack shit. I've only been heavily involved with literary criticism for the last two years (as in, being involved in the discourse), and this is what I've been taught, as flawed as it may be. I hope this helps with those who've never understood literary criticism and are interested. It isn't for everyone, but there is definitely a reason for its existence. It teaches about humanity, and history. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7771 Posts
On July 14 2011 14:05 Dante08 wrote: Guess mainstream forms of entertainment are not suitable for a profound person like you then. If you bother to read what I wrote I said I enjoy reading Tolkien, and that I liked the first HP books. But yeah, ad hominem sarcasm is great when you have little to say. | ||
|
Trufflez
Australia174 Posts
On July 13 2011 17:45 MarshalMeLee wrote: Wrote this on my blog (http://marshalmelee.tumblr.com/), but thought I'd add it to the TL list as well. Just some random thoughts. I began reading Harry Potter when I was in elementary school and was hooked pretty early. Being able to stand in line, grab the next book, and devour it with glee was a defining part of my young life. Moreover, I felt I was a part of something big: even my Mom and my military-oriented brother read them avidly, as well as classmates and society at large. Even when reading was not convenient, loaning the excellent Jim Dale audiotapes from the library was a common method of keeping up. As I look back on them now from a more critical and aged perspective, the Harry Potter novels are not the flawless creations I had remembered. But there’s no denying their effect on the young mind, and in particular my own. I reflect on this now as the Harry Potter saga draws to a close, with the final movie out in short order. An end to all things is good. It keeps things in perspective; after all, what is life without death? What is a beginning without an end? To quote: “Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again.” Even as I reflect on these words though, I realize there was a part of me that always looked forward to something coming out from the Harry Potter universe. This always maintained connection to my childhood, and to my past. Even if its only the latest installment in a movie series safely assumed to be not quite as good as the books (that’s not to call it bad). I’m going to go see Harry Potter 7 Part 2, probably very near release, probably twice (I owe it to the aforementioned family to see it with them), and I am probably going to enjoy the ride. But overlooking it all is the fact that this is the end of something that has influenced my life, and I will miss it. In a way I wish Rowling would write something more to this universe she has created: but in another way, I feel that would cheapen the experience. In a way I am sad for the end: but in a way, I am also happy to see it done. So thanks J.K. Rowling for influencing so many and writing such a readable work. And here’s to the post Harry Potter era: may it be ripe with opportunity, creativity, and maybe even something just as effectual. Dear Sir, do you ACTUALLY believe that the Harry Potter era has an end at all??? So many people love those books so much that I can't see it dying at all. People don't read harry Potter for the fantasy or the magic, the read it for the characters and the world. HOW DAMN REAL ARE THOSE CHARACTERS. They're all so flawed and awesome at the same time. It wont really die even if its less popular and if the hype dies down. But It'll still be there. The fans and community will still be there, its more like retired instead of dead. | ||
|
Vinski
505 Posts
| ||
|
Vinski
505 Posts
On July 13 2011 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: Just think that there are 40 student/year (5 male + 5 female / house). Yes, that's right. That means the total population which has been to Hogwards is 40 * 65 = 2600. Since we never ever hear of an other magic school in the UK, and that most wizard seem to have been there, you really have a problem finding where all theses guys have been educated. Now I don't think that the fact that HP world doesn't make sense is really a problem. It's not supposed to make sense, since it is a caricature of some aspect of England anyway. You sir have never read any of these books. Beauxbatons and Durmstrang. There was about 1000 students in the school Rowling said. But that doesn't make any sense because Mcgonagall called the whole class into the common room which I'm pretty sure was small. Whatever point is there are more schools. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7771 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:24 Vinski wrote: You sir have never read any of these books. Beauxbatons and Durmstrang. There was about 1000 students in the school Rowling said. But that doesn't make any sense because Mcgonagall called the whole class into the common room which I'm pretty sure was small. Whatever point is there are more schools. I counted exactly five males and five females in each house for each year. Try to count, you will see. Here are some nerds who made a list. http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Harry's_Year_Level Again, I don't think it means anything about the quality of Rowling work. It's not engineering, it's fiction writing. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4119 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:46 Biff The Understudy wrote: If you bother to read what I wrote I said I enjoy reading Tolkien, and that I liked the first HP books. But yeah, ad hominem sarcasm is great when you have little to say. I was being serious, that was a compliment. And yeah, I dont really have alot to say. | ||
|
Aldehyde
Sweden939 Posts
On July 14 2011 15:46 RANDOMCL wrote: I apologize ahead of time; there is SO, SO, SO much to cover when introducing someone to the world of literary criticism that it can be a bit difficult to decide where to start. Please read until the end if you're going to bother reading my post at all, because each paragraph, on its own, doesn't really work without the whole here. + Show Spoiler + I'll address the main point here: "Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think)." That's not really the point of literary analysis. The point isn't to have a "message". You learn that day 1 of introduction to literary studies. I honestly suggest taking a course or doing the legwork yourself, because many of the common myths associated with literary criticism are debunked day 1 by a good professor. Boiling a work down to "Oh, this is about anti-slavery!" is generally trivializing thousands of complex questions that can be asked of the work. Most professors address the question of "what's the point?" day 1 as well. The "point" (which, you'll come to learn, is often a despised term) is to better understand history. Literature is about understanding the world we live in. History is constantly contorted. Read a history book from 1920, and then read another book about the exact same subject today. The very way a text is worded completely changes its meaning. Even if an author does his/her very best to stay true to the facts, the way they say it changes how you interpret the information. When you retell this information, it is twisted again. This constant twisting completely alters our understanding of history to the point that much of what we learn today is often so far from reality that it is hard to truly understand "the past". It isn't just about history, though. It isn't about getting "just the facts". Rather, it is a method of studying humanity and how we deal with the world around here. Quite a bit literary analysis (though just a fraction of the whole) has to do with the unconscious versus the conscious. Why did the author write what he/she did? Their personal reasoning for it isn't important. Looking at the words themselves, the ones that FACTUALLY EXIST, leads to the answers. Asking an author "what did you mean?" is the least helpful question of all time. The author's intent is not important. What actually exists on the page is. Literature (and criticism) attempts to bypass this. The author creates a work, frozen in time, and their writing reflects THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR WORLD. For example, if an author from 1837 wrote a gothic murder-mystery set in the 1600s, you can STILL gain INCREDIBLE insight into history and context by analyzing the WAY the author says something, not WHAT the author says. It isn't about the words on the page. It is about how they work together, and how they interlink from page 1 until the last word. There is a wrong way to interpret a work. A common misconception is that a work (primarily poetry) can "mean whatever you want it to mean". There is ambiguity, and that is at the heart of many discussions, but so many people read works incorrectly that it leads them to think that all works have dozens of meanings. Again, there is MUCH ambiguity, which stirs the majority of debate, but if you completely misread a work, you miss out on... everything. For example, read this famous Frost poem: http://www.bartleby.com/119/1.html This work is so commonly misinterpreted that you find it on motivation posters in office buildings around the U.S. (if not the world). A bit explaining the misinterpretations: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1822225/the_road_not_taken_by_robert_frost.html The "twitch vs. wink" concerns itself with thick description, and is a good way to break into understanding literary analysis. I apologize if this link doesn't work. Just google "a twink and a wink" if not. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http://www.slgardiner.com/courses/theory/lectures/ThickDescription.doc&rct=j&q=a twitch and a wink&ei=PoseTsaaL6q1sQKPgNGfAw&usg=AFQjCNGmKXLcNMVwcDPW3l6N7u-RrLDT7g&sig2=lITdu-7OpL0SjI8E_D86Cg tl;dr: Literary criticism is about understanding the world around you through what some consider a beautiful art form. It allows you to look back into history and understand WHY things were the they were, what certain individuals thought about it, and how it affected their concept of reality. A huge part of the appeal is the ability to enter literary discourse and compare complex ideas with like-minded individuals, but MUCH of the work is very solitary, even though no piece exists in a vacuum. And please understand that this is just the way I've learned. I'm a 23 year old senior English major (with a minor in Creative Writing) who intends to continue on to graduate school and make a career out of this. Point being: I am still a student and know jack shit. I've only been heavily involved with literary criticism for the last two years (as in, being involved in the discourse), and this is what I've been taught, as flawed as it may be. I hope this helps with those who've never understood literary criticism and are interested. It isn't for everyone, but there is definitely a reason for its existence. It teaches about humanity, and history. I can get behind what you're saying but I haven't seen Biff and the people agreeing with him saying anything close to what you're saying. Perhaps I was wrong to bring up analyzing because I don't think that was what I really wanted to talk about. Biff and co. are saying that some books are better because they bring more to the table in form of new ways to write the same thing. Sure, might be to some people but I think most people just want entertainment and it doesn't really matter if it's a new way to write or just an old and non-innovative way. Kind of like how some SC pro might come up with this new way to play TvZ, he might bring more to SC as a whole but is he by default better than other players? Spanishiwa brought a whole new playstyle for zerg players to use in ZvP and in some extent, ZvT but is he better than IdrA? Hardly. This is what bugs me about all this crap about "oh but he changed the way people write!". Yeah? So what? I don't find the work very entertaining so, to me, it's not good. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7771 Posts
On July 14 2011 23:31 Aldehyde wrote: I can get behind what you're saying but I haven't seen Biff and the people agreeing with him saying anything close to what you're saying. Perhaps I was wrong to bring up analyzing because I don't think that was what I really wanted to talk about. Biff and co. are saying that some books are better because they bring more to the table in form of new ways to write the same thing. Sure, might be to some people but I think most people just want entertainment and it doesn't really matter if it's a new way to write or just an old and non-innovative way. Kind of like how some SC pro might come up with this new way to play TvZ, he might bring more to SC as a whole but is he by default better than other players? Spanishiwa brought a whole new playstyle for zerg players to use in ZvP and in some extent, ZvT but is he better than IdrA? Hardly. This is what bugs me about all this crap about "oh but he changed the way people write!". Yeah? So what? I don't find the work very entertaining so, to me, it's not good. Do you really think that comparison two problem as different as the artistic value of a book or a writer and the performance of a stracraft player is legitimate? Seriously? I gave an example with composers and music, which seems to be much much more relevant since we are comparing the criteria of artistic value of two different art forms, and I haven't heard until now, in this thread or elsewhere, any valuable objection against it: 1. Why can't we write good Beethovenian or Mozartian music today? Why can a lot of people technically do it, but can't reproduce any of Beethoven genius and spark? 2. Why has every single great composer been unique, perfectly original and in a certain extent, groundbreaking? Why don't we have any amazing composers who hasn't brought anything new at all or didn't have a perfectly new and distinct way of writing? My point is extremely simple: what JK Rowling does is what most pop musicians do: write with material and technique that existed 150 years ago. She is to Shakespeare what Oasis is to Mozart. That's fine, I don't have anything against Oasis. But I laugh when people say their music is fantastic. It's not. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
And there are awesome composers that create totally new and distinct forms of music. T-Pain is father of autotune. T-Pain > Mozart/Beethoven any day of the week. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:10 Trufflez wrote: Dear Sir, do you ACTUALLY believe that the Harry Potter era has an end at all??? So many people love those books so much that I can't see it dying at all. People don't read harry Potter for the fantasy or the magic, the read it for the characters and the world. HOW DAMN REAL ARE THOSE CHARACTERS. They're all so flawed and awesome at the same time. It wont really die even if its less popular and if the hype dies down. But It'll still be there. The fans and community will still be there, its more like retired instead of dead. ...They're actually not that real. There's a ton about them that is implausible. Starting with letting the one kid who ever stopped Voldemort from living with a dysfunctional step-family for years and then letting him run rough-shod all over some stupid preppy school instead of just putting him in a lab somewhere and tinkering with him until they figured out exactly how he stopped Voldemort. It's a fun fantasy novel, but plz don't get into the whole how "real" the characters are. Things start to fall apart very quickly when you do that with fiction. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7771 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:30 StorkHwaiting wrote: Rofl. Tolkien pioneered an entire genre of literature. He went far beyond a different way of writing. He revolutionized a different way of imagining. If you want to talk about revolutionary, Tolkien did way more than James Joyce ever did. Congrats on making zero sense. And there are awesome composers that create totally new and distinct forms of music. T-Pain is father of autotune. T-Pain > Mozart/Beethoven any day of the week. Much better than Beethoven. At least I had a good laugh. And Rowling, much better than Shakespeare. Are you kidding me. I mean, seriously, I thought it was a serious discussion. Tolkien brought nothing to literature. As I said before, he invented an important content, but stylistically, in terms of how he writes, how he tells a story, how he think novels, he is mediocre and reactionary. One of my friend is a literature teacher, and he said he never passed the first chapter because of how awfully written it was (I don't have his level of expertise, so I wouldn't go too far into technical explanation). He loves the movies though. I know you take it so personally because you want to be a fantasy writer, but really, fantasy is bit to literature what Mc Donald is to gastronomy. I do enjoy a good burger. Sometimes. | ||
|
Tippany
United States765 Posts
On July 13 2011 18:06 minus_human wrote: Find something better to read. Seriously. I don't understand how posts like this don't receive a warning at the very least. Quality wise it offers nothing. Plus it's just a pompous 1 line response to someone's entire blog, which is insulting in itself. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7771 Posts
On July 15 2011 01:06 moose162 wrote: I don't understand how posts like this don't receive a warning at the very least. Quality wise it offers nothing. Plus it's just a pompous 1 line response to someone's entire blog, which is insulting in itself. At least it created some controversy. Think that without him, this thread would be long dead instead of turning into this glorious endless (and sterile?) conversation about the criteria of artistic quality. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:57 Biff The Understudy wrote: Much better than Beethoven. At least I had a good laugh. And Rowling, much better than Shakespeare. Are you kidding me. I mean, seriously, I thought it was a serious discussion. Tolkien brought nothing to literature. As I said before, he invented an important content, but stylistically, in terms of how he writes, how he tells a story, how he think novels, he is mediocre and reactionary. One of my friend is a literature teacher, and he said he never passed the first chapter because of how awfully written it was (I don't have his level of expertise, so I wouldn't go too far into technical explanation). He loves the movies though. I know you take it so personally because you want to be a fantasy writer, but really, fantasy is bit to literature what Mc Donald is to gastronomy. I do enjoy a good burger. Sometimes. Literature teachers are useless. Tolkien was a bad writer. He was an amazing fantasist and storyteller. The two are not one and the same. Vast majority of people don't care that much about how well something is written. They care about what the STORY is. The story is what matters. Not stupid little lines that a bunch of people who make it their job to read the shit can fap over it and force everyone else to hear about how fapworthy it is since the work is so epic shit that it requires an entire field devoted to decoding it simply so they can tell others what it's actually about. Style is not everything. To most people, trying to spend time on thinking up how to resay a simple message in another, more complicated way is considered retardation. Whereas inventing an entirely new world is vastly more interesting. Hence why fantasy is incredibly popular, whereas James Joyce is read by... who nowadays? Tolkien brought everything to literature. He literally taught all those other fools how to imagine an entire world, instead of just imagining another snarky way of saying someone went to the grocery store. You are saying on the other hand it is more important to come up with a line like: ball to went fence over kids hahaha sad poignant orthoscopy. Instead of saying "Kids were playing ball and one of them broke his arm then went to the doctor." And I don't get why you keep trying to refer to "you're trying to be a fantasy writer etc." What does that add to the conversation? Does that refute any point I've made? No. It's just your sad attempt at ad hominem attacks. I'm not taking it personally, I'm responding passionately because I like fantasy stories. Tolkien, I could take a pass on because his writing really is horrible. But it's undeniable that he brought a lot to literature. Maybe not the retarded genre that you enjoy, but that doesn't make it any less of an accomplishment. In short: Literary writing sucks because they focus more on how to say something instead of focusing on what they're actually saying. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7771 Posts
On July 15 2011 01:40 StorkHwaiting wrote: Literature teachers are useless. Tolkien was a bad writer. He was an amazing fantasist and storyteller. The two are not one and the same. Vast majority of people don't care that much about how well something is written. They care about what the STORY is. The story is what matters. Not stupid little lines that a bunch of people who make it their job to read the shit can fap over it and force everyone else to hear about how fapworthy it is since the work is so epic shit that it requires an entire field devoted to decoding it simply so they can tell others what it's actually about. Style is not everything. To most people, trying to spend time on thinking up how to resay a simple message in another, more complicated way is considered retardation. Whereas inventing an entirely new world is vastly more interesting. Hence why fantasy is incredibly popular, whereas James Joyce is read by... who nowadays? Tolkien brought everything to literature. He literally taught all those other fools how to imagine an entire world, instead of just imagining another snarky way of saying someone went to the grocery store. You are saying on the other hand it is more important to come up with a line like: ball to went fence over kids hahaha sad poignant orthoscopy. Instead of saying "Kids were playing ball and one of them broke his arm then went to the doctor." And I don't get why you keep trying to refer to "you're trying to be a fantasy writer etc." What does that add to the conversation? Does that refute any point I've made? No. It's just your sad attempt at ad hominem attacks. I'm not taking it personally, I'm responding passionately because I like fantasy stories. Tolkien, I could take a pass on because his writing really is horrible. But it's undeniable that he brought a lot to literature. Maybe not the retarded genre that you enjoy, but that doesn't make it any less of an accomplishment. In short: Literary writing sucks because they focus more on how to say something instead of focusing on what they're actually saying. If I think among the greatest things ever written, the first thing that come to my mind is Balzac. He can describe the front of a house for fifteen pages and there is so much to it that it seems that you can read it over and over, endlessly and it's the most beautiful thing, as beautiful as a great symphony or an amazing painting. Your problem is that you completely miss the point with literacy. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On July 15 2011 03:12 Biff The Understudy wrote: If I think among the greatest things ever written, the first thing that come to my mind is Balzac. He can describe the front of a house for fifteen pages and there is so much to it that it seems that you can read it over and over, endlessly and it's the most beautiful thing, as beautiful as a great symphony or an amazing painting. Your problem is that you completely miss the point with literacy. No, your problem is that there are multiple points to literacy, none of them wrong. P.S. Who cares about the front of a house? I'd rather have an army of orcs burning Balzac's house down, trampling his yard flowers, and humping his pet labrador. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
OlimoLeague
StarCraft2.fi
StarCraft2.fi
The PondCast
StarCraft2.fi
|
|
|
EPT
