|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 10, 2007 13:13:14 GMT -6
I'd like to start a new thread here devoted to reviews of other commentary writers who present their own systems of interpretation for Tolkien's Middle-earth.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 10, 2007 13:24:41 GMT -6
A Personal View of Anne C. Petty: Tolkien in the Land of Heroes, Cold Spring Press, 2003.
I have read so many secondary books that proclaim they will unravel all the meanings tied up in JRRT's Gordion-Knot; will demonstrate that he had a simple message after all; and that the many complexities can be reduced to just one message; or maybe two; or at most, no more than three...
Such books usually bore me after a few pages. They spend a lot of time trying to slip poor Tolkien into the strait-jackets of their own design: "Tolkien was a Roman Catholic, therefore his books MUST be Roman Catholic Allegories. And Gandalf is Jesus; er, no, maybe Aragorn is Jesus; er, no Maybe Frodo is Jesus; but anyway Lembas is the Eucharist!"
Or, "No, Tolkien was trying to show the struggle of World War II, the bold fight of the pure-Good English and their allies against the brutal forces of absolute Evil, the Nazis!"
Or, maybe "Tolkien was a simple moralist using the metaphors of light and sound to create the byplay of a new universe that cannot stand stable under the weight of its own structures and so must fragment from the tensions of its socio-political-economic-moral inconsistencies."
OK. Whatever.
To me, all such simple explanations tended to strip away the richness of Middle-earth, to make it less a work of alternate history, alternate reality and reduce it to a "message." I always enjoyed Tolkien because he was complex, yet still consistent enough to present a very believable "reality" to my mind. I always felt that I was reading history, real history when I read Tolkien, history capable of being, with equal validity, interpreted from many standpoints.
Consequently it was with genuine pleasure that I found Anne C. Petty's volume, Tolkien in the Land of Heroes, where she seems to agree with me that Tolkien is best read with his all complexities left unreduced. His books should be approached in the same way an archaeologist or an historian would start reading the ancient books found in some time-lost library, an entire civilization to be gradually made sense of.
So far I have only read the first 66 pages of Petty's book, but I thought I'd share my experience with her writing, thus far gained, because I have never been so favourably impressed with any book that sought to explain just what it was JRRT was trying to accomplish. Maybe my feelings here are so nicely engaged simply because she agrees with my own major interpretational stances, although her efforts in this case are far better expressed and researched than any of my own writings on all the Tolkien forums I have been pestering for the last 8 years!
In her effort to find the core meanings of Middle-earth, Petty has decided not to follow the webs of development that can be seen in all the different versions of all the tales that went into the Middle-earth mythos. They are important she says, but important for other reasons than those that bring her to write about Middle-earth. She will let other authors discuss how Tolkien changed his tales and why, she is herself more concerned with treating the final, published versions as a unit. So, she does not really use the various HOME volumes -- rather she addresses mainly the "big three" works in their latest,standardized formats, the revised Hobbit, the 1967 version of LOTR, and the 1977 version of The Silmarillion.
By doing this, she keeps her book cleaner, and does not have to make references to the myriad text changes that occurred over a 50 year period. She simply uses her professional training in "comparative literature and mythology" to look at the "grand themes" that run through the "standard" works of J.R.R.T. Here she follows some of Tolkien's own statements in his Letters, that his works are basically all about "The Myth of Fall." While the Christian mythos has its various "falls," (Lucifer from heaven, Adam and Eve from paradise, and the everyday falls of all humanity as they try to get through their own little lives) Petty points out that the concept of "fall" is common to many other religions and philosophies, and that the schemes of "fall" found in the 1977 Silmarillion are only partially comparable to those in the Biblical sources. References to Classical Graeco-Roman "falls," and Nordic saga "falls" must also be included if we are to understand how the various "falls" occur in Middle-earth, and what they mean for existence there. (p.29)
The Primary Fall, she concludes, is the Dissonance in the creative music of the Ainur, a disharmony that "mars creation" and leaves it forever flawed, and makes of Middle-earth a place of great ambiguity and danger. Everyone who enters the created realm of Arda will be influenced by this basic fact, that Evil has already entered fully into the fabric of existence, and ALL things will be twisted, to one degree or another by that basic fact. Evil and Good run concurrently in the universe of Arda/ Middle-earth, and it is an evil that cannot ever be separated from the good until the full course of its history has run out.
Under this central theme of the "Primary Fall," Petty sees three results that run as common threads throughout the Middle-earth saga: 1. the concept of "power," 2. the concept of "loss", 3. and the concept of "heroism." (p. 25) The rest of her book, some 300 pages, is then devoted to showing how these concepts are interwoven in Middle-earth history at various levels from the cosmos-wide, to the very personal. Anne Petty details a fall for Melkor, a fall for Aule, a fall for the minor sea god Osse; a fall for Feanor and the Noldor; a fall for Men, especially the Numenoreans who should have known better, a fall for Smeagol/ Gollum, a fall for Saruman, a fall even for Samwise Gamgee, and of course a fall for Frodo. But the redemption that she sees in all these Falls, comes from the saving act, not of a sacrificed messiah, not from a Christ-like Gandalf, or a Christ-like Strider, nor even a Christ-like Frodo -- but from the many small, but additive victories that occur each time an individual stands up to the evil of his/ her own heart, the selfishness of his/ her own mind, and triumphs. Even Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, becomes in this sense a part of the movement of Middle-earth salvation when she repents her personal greed, and in the sorrow of her losses, restores all she has to the other Hobbits.
It is one of Petty's main contentions, that this personalized, low-level act of many, tiny salvations is what engages so many of the readers who keep coming back to read, and re-read Tolkien's books, finding in the small heroisms of the everyday people of Middle-earth something that we might be able to emulate in our own lives in our own flawed universe.
Grand Stuff, I thought! And as I read the rest of her material I may find more upon which to expand, whether in agreement, I do not yet know.
A final note of "disharmony" between Petty and myself, as it would not do for a contentious individual like me to leave such things unsaid: while all of her material I found to be a very useful framework, it was still for me just one more explanatory system. It was logical enough in its internal development, but I had to accepted it somewhat on faith from its initial opening.
But, where I did get really excited, was in her manner of presentation: she did not try to force all this "Fall" notation into a strictly Christian interpretative form. Joy and wonder! She is one of the first of the commentators on Tolkien that I have read who points out something I've long been preaching: Tolkien's work is not in its origin a Christian allegory, it is a spiritual work, but it draws equally from the mindset of the pagan traditions. "All these themes were then glued together by an underlying spirituality as reminiscent of Icelandic sagas as of Christian parables." (p. 12)
Nor does Petty try to find in Tolkien's work the usual theme (reported in so many lesser books) that Middle-earth is merely a tale of Light vrs Dark (p. 15). But, she points out that even the supposed Lucifer/ Satan figure of Melkor/ Morgoth cannot legitimately be used as an equivalent of Christianity's Devil. Melkor is a part of Illuvatar, and hence, at sometime (after the ending of the universe of Arda) he must eventually be restored to the Oneness, probably purged of his egotism, educated by long ages of purgatory and able to find a better, more harmonious way of interacting with the other gods and the One from whom all of them descend.
Whereas Lucifer/ Satan's rebellion led to his expulsion from heaven, his being forcefully rejected by the Judaeo/ Christian/ Muslim God; Melkor is still long accepted by the company of the Valar, still accepted by Illuvatar, and is allowed to enter the bounded realm of Arda voluntarily, at first to help the others realize the Music of the Ainur, but later to try to dominate Arda. (pp 29 - 37). So Melkor has many chances at redemption, and yet he falls, and falls again, he is allowed to play out his role of his own free-will in Arda, though he harms himself thereby, as much as he harms all of that creation.
Nonetheless, and here I add a minor quibble only, I think Petty misses an opportunity at this point when she continually points out the similarities and the differences between the Roman Catholic Satan and Morgoth while she fails to give equal time addressing his similarities to a pagan character in the Nordic tradition, Loki. By not mentioning this other "Great Deceiver" -- upon whom Melkor is also, perhaps equally, or even more so modelled -- the Norse deity of divison, lies, and cheats, she seems to be abandoning her first statement that there is as much about pagan mythology in Middle-earth as there is Christianity.
On page 34, Petty describes the chain-bound Morgoth, who is thrown into the Outer Darkness until Arda shall have run all its history, as a sort of chained-up Satan "cast into a bottomless pit... that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after he must be loosed a little season." (Petty, p. 34 quoting Revealtions: 20:1-3) What would have made her book perfect, for me, at this point, would have been the addition of the tale of Loki, the deciever in the Norse sagas, who is also bound up with a chain of unbreakable strength, and hurled into the pits of the Norse Hel, to lie in torment until the final battle when he too shall be released to fight in The Twilight of the Gods that brings the universe to its end.
But, otherwise, I find Petty's book to be the most mature, fair, and open-minded treatment of both the pagan and the christian elements in JRRT's own philosophy; and did I mention, her book is so welll written, so "readable" that it flows as smoothly as Tolkien's own narratives!
I deeply reccommend Anne C. Petty's Tolkien in the Land of Heroes.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 12, 2007 1:58:36 GMT -6
Well, Ive gotten up to page 159, and I still like Annne C. Petty's book immensely, though I've started to find places where we disagree on matters that are legitimately open to personal interpretation.
1. pp. 132-134, Concerning Orc Souls: "Tolkien remains unclear on this point by evading it altogether." (Petty, p. 133)
Not so, JRRT admitted that since he once derived Orcs from a debased and corrupted Elven stock, they would have to have souls, as Morgoth could not create independent, thinking creatures on his own. The Orcs do think, can act independently, even rebel against their masters, so they must have a soul, even if it is a "fallen" one. Later, when he started in HOME X to switch to the idea that Orcs would be derived from debased and corrupted Men, these root, parents would still have had souls made by Eru, and hence, their descendenats would also have souls as no one but Eru could make, or make away with a soul.
Petty's discussion of Orcs is not as thorough and detailled as the ones we had here at TR and on the old archive boards. I kind of got the feeling she was just skipping through this subtopic. She also did not appear to have read several of Tolkien's Letters, where he DOES make some definite statements as to whether or not Orcs could have souls, and be could even be redeemable.
2. Petty has a tendency to make minor mistakes from time to time, but when four of them come up in just a few pages (trivial items though they are) it starts shaking the readers' confidence --what else has she got wrong?
Usually these "trivial" errors do not affect her overall arguments, but they are unecessary, and annoying:
"Aragorn can understand the speech of birds, as an inherited ability from his half-elvish ancestors..." p. 145 I do not recall that Aragorn had any special understanding of bird speech? Where, when? The Dwarves can understand Ravens, The Bardings of Dale can understand Thrush speech, and they have no Elven ancestry.
P. 145 "Elrond in Rivendell is acknowledged as a master healer, and it's by his skill that Frodo escapes death from the knife-tip of the Nazgul king."
No, Gandalf makes it clear that the Morgul-knife wound would not have killed Frodo, but would have reduced him to a wraith, only weaker and under the control of the Nazgul who were not trying to kill him, just subdue him.
p. 155, it is a bit unclear at this point, but it seems Petty thinks that Sauron was still not able to fashion a physical shape for himself during the LoTR events. Maybe she means earlier in the Third Age? Certainly by the time of the capture of Gollum, Sauron is a Dark, burning figure, horrible to see, with only nine fingers -- as Gollum himself tells us after having been tortured by Sauron.
pp 157-58, Petty seems to think that the Old Palantir of Minas Ithil, the Morgul Stone after Sauron got a hold of it, was the "master palantir."
p. 158: "The concept of the Seeing Stones with one primary stone that could 'see' all the others is a parallel with the rings of power and the One Ring. The balance of power becomes precarious when it's revealed that the primary stone resides in Mordor, because that knowledge indicates that both Orthanc and Minas Tirith have fallen under Sauron's control."
Hmmm, does she mean that the Master Stone of all the Palantiri is in Mordor? Doubtful, that stone is in Eldamar or even Valionor accoding to the Silmarillion. And the Stone of Osgiliath was the master stone of the four in Gondor, the Annuminas Stone the chief of Arnor's three. Both of these "chief" palantiri were lost, and never recovered.
Maybe here she just meant to say that Sauron, using the equal ranked Stone of Morgul (but with his greater personality nd power) could force Denethor, with the Anor stone, to speak only with the Morgul Stone; and could force Saruman, with the Orthanc Stone, to speak only with the Morgul Stone? That might make sense, as we never are told that Denethor and Saruman were ever able to "connect" with one another via their stones.
Otherwise, I still like her general topic outlines, the broad patterns of her discussions, and I still find her book one of the most rewarding Tolkien commentaries I've ever gotten my grubby paws on!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 12, 2007 7:22:52 GMT -6
I'm glad you are enjoying this Author and her ideas even if some of them are not correct! Does she have a website and forums there? Perhaps you could sign in as a member and discuss some of her topics there! Here is her website: www.annepetty.com/I don't see any forum there but there is a link to contact her.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 12, 2007 19:29:32 GMT -6
Thanks, Stormrider!
I never even thought about actually dropping her a question or two. I'll get my points in proper order when I've completed her book, add my citation notes, and see if a posted message gets any response! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Desi Baggins on Jan 13, 2007 8:45:53 GMT -6
As far as the Orcs go they do have there own thought process...at least two times they argue with each other over different ideas. One time when they had captured Merry and Pippin some wanted to eat them while others wanted to do what they were told (I think that was in the book and not just the movie) and then When Sam is sneaking in to save Frodo they all start fighting, but Sam does sort of trick them into that.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 13, 2007 10:09:15 GMT -6
That's right, Desi.
Saruman's orcs seemed to want to obey him and bring back the prisoners. If I am not mistaken all or most of Saruman's orcs were Uruk Hai and I believe they were bred with Men. I am not sure if all the orcs who took Merry and Pippin were only Uruk Hai or not. In the movie, it seems as though there were the regular breed of orcs involved in the trek across the land with the hobbits. I think they were orcs of Sauron. I am mixed up. I need to go watch the movie segment and read the section in The Two Towers book to straighten this out in my mind.
In the Tower of Cirith Ungol were the orcs quarreled among themselves and killed each other off before Sam arrived to rescue Frodo, I think they were mixed types of orcs in the units there, too. Some were Uruks and some were regular orcs in both the movie and the book.
Are the regular orcs more prone to acting on their own emotions and whims than those that are bred with Men? Are the Uruks more prone to listen to and obey their orders because the genes of Men?
But the regular orcs were corrupted Elves. I think that the Elves were created by Iluvatar to be finer than Men. Unless over the ages the breeding of the regular orcs to each other lessened the Elvishness in them. Then by breeding to Men, this made them more managable for their masters?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 17, 2007 1:03:16 GMT -6
Yeah, Desi, I think there were several episodes in both the book and the movie where the Orcs show their capacity for independent action. In the book format the one that stands out to my mind is near Cirith Ungol, as you mention, where they fight each other. This is where Shagrat and Gorbag talk about sneaking away from Mordor as soon as they can to set up an independent gang somewhere, some where they'll be free of all the "bosses."
RE: Stormrider "Are the regular orcs more prone to acting on their own emotions and whims than those that are bred with Men? Are the Uruks more prone to listen to and obey their orders because the genes of Men?"
Fantastic Point!!!
That is a deep look! I like it! Were the Uruk-hai of Saruman actually more "trust-worthy" and obedient than some of the other types of Orcs who showed up when Merry and Pippin were captured because they were part men?
As I recall there were three main categories of Orcs there, Northerners (from Moria?) who are not very disciplined; then a group of Mordor Orcs who wanted to take Merry and Pippin straight east to Sauron; and finally, the Uruk-hai who were obedient to Saruman's will. Apparently Saruman's Uruk-hai* were the fiercest fighters among the lot, and almost man-sized. Each group had its own ideas of loyalty, its own ideas of what should be done with the prisoners.
But what your comment started me thinking is that the Uruk-hai (and I think in both the book and the movie this group was supposed to be part-man, part-orc) were actually the most ready to follow orders. The other Orcs seemed to be willing to do whatever was easiest, readier to even betray Sauron if they thought they could get away with it. But, you are right, the Uruk-hai of Saruman, were not really forced to obey the Wizard -- yet still they did their best to over-ride the other Orcs and finish their mission. They decided to take the prisoners -- not quickly, easily across the Great River to the Nazgul -- but slogging the long road all the way back to Isengard. Their loyalty to Saruman eventually got them all killed.
I'm not sure here if Tolkien meant us to see the Uruk-hai as "better" than the other types of Orcs, better disciplined, better able to voluntarily obey their master -- or if they should be seen as even less "independent-minded," more enslaved than the Moria and Mordor Orcs? Was JRRT making some kind of double-edged comment on Mankind's ability to follow its leaders blindly, so that it takes an Orc-Human mixture to really create a "true follower" mentality?
GREAT IDEA, Stormrider!
_______________ *As I recall something Fanuidhol once wrote, the term Uruk could be applied to any large, fighting-type Orc, man-related or not. There were some Uruks in Mordor who crashed into the smaller Orcs among whom Frodo and Sam were hiding. But I think the hyphenated term, Uruk-hai, does refer just to those Uruks developed as a cross between Men and Orcs? I'll have to look up Fanuidhol's post on this!
As I recall, there were yet other Men-Orc combinations where the mannish element predominated, and they could pass as Men, like the "squint-eyed southerner" who joined Bill Ferny in Bree. I don't think this southerner would qualify as an Uruk?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 11, 2007 10:58:41 GMT -6
Just a few more words on Anne C. Petty's book Tolkien in the Land of Heroes:
Minor Gripes: Petty sometimes gets the names of the characters mixed up.
1) She takes the ancient eagle, Thorondor, "King of the Eagles." out of his proper context, The Silmarillion, and confuses him with his LotR descendant Gwaihir. In fact she confuses Thorondor with Gwaihir three or four times in her exposition.
"Thorondor serves as the agent of salvation, racing at Gandalf's command to pluck Frodo out of harm's way." (Petty, p. 293)
2) Petty seems to think that the term Dwimmerlaik -- used by Eowen when she addresses the Chief Nazgul -- refers to the beast the Witch King rides. "Eowyn challenging the dwimmerlaik (fell steed of the Nazgul that was an ancient evil older than the master it served)..." (Petty, p. 123)
I think this is a double mistake, as dwimor, the Old English root, means phantom, ghost, illusion and the beast is hardly an illusion, or even a ghost. Tolkien defines the compound term dwimmerlaik as a Rhohirric expression referring to some action or work of necromancy, a spectre (RotK index hb, p. 421). In my reading of RotK, it seemed obvious to me that Eowyn was addressing the Chief Nazgul himself when she said "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!" (Rotk, hb, p. 116) And, it is the Nazul who answers her, not his dumb brute of a steed: "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!"
So the term dwimmerlaik, in my estimation, refers to the Chief Nazgul himself, not his fell steed. I also disgree with Petty when she claims that the Nazgul's steed is older than the Nazgul himself. Tolkien tells us that Sauron took some creature of the wild, bred it along certain lines to improve its strength and size and evil, and from this strain he produced the creatures actually ridden by the Nazgul. The winged monster may in fact be quite young, the latest in a long line of such creatures.
3. "The concept of the Seeing Stones with one primary stone that could 'see' all the others is a parallel with the rings of power and the One Ring. The balance of power becomes precarious when it's revealed that the primary stone resides in Mordor..." (Petty, p. 158)
"The critical act of tragedy for him [Saruman] is the moment he looks into the palantir of Orthanc, thinking he can contend with Sauron who controls the primary palantir that once was located in Minas Ithil and now serves the Dark Tower." (Petty, p. 285)
Petty consistenly misidentifies the Ithil stone (later Morgul stone) as the chief palantir. This allows her to explain why both Denethor and Saruman were so easily trapped by Sauron when they tried to use their own palantiri -- the "subordinant" stones of Anor and Orthanc were drawn automatically to the primary Ithil stone and were dominated by it. But Tolkien explains in Unfinished Tales that the chief stones were two in number, the northern kingdom's stone at Amon Sul, and the southern kingdom's great stone at Osgiliath. Only the Great Stone at Osgiliath could be used to view all the other stones at one sighting. But this primary stone was lost in the time of Gondor's kinstrife when the Dome of the Stars was burned.
So Sauron had only one of the "regular" stones in his control, the Ithil Stone, and I suppose it was only Sauron's great personal power, working through the Morgul stone, that allowed him to draw the gazes of Denethor and Saruman, both of whom were his inferiors as stone-gazers.
Despite such "mistakes," Petty's overall explanations are still quite useful, and one theme, upon which she expounds fully, regards the Wood Elves of The Hobbit, and just how their characters may be interpreted -- but this bit I will develope later under the Hobbit discussion topic started long ago by Lanhail...
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Oct 24, 2008 11:27:50 GMT -6
I've just picked up an academically inclined book that seeks to analyze Tolkien's role as a Medieval Scholar: Tolkien the Medievalist, edited by Jane Chance, from the Routledge Studies in Medieval Religion and Culture, 2003. So far I've worked my way through two of the interesting discussions, a comparison of Galadriel, Shelob, Eowyn and Arwen by Leslie A. Donovan; and another comparative effort, by Verlyn Flieger, where Aragorn, Grendel from Beowulf, Robin Hood, Turin, Beorn, and even Gollum are all viewed as examples of the medieval "Wild Man of the Forest."
I'll soon be working up a series of posts (in book-report fashion) to cover these and other chapters of this informative volume...
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Oct 28, 2008 5:54:02 GMT -6
This sounds like a very interesting book. I can't wait to see what you tell us about it. It will be interesting to see what is said about Shelob in comparison with the other ladies and the Wild Man examples for the men.
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Aug 21, 2020 4:08:16 GMT -6
I am reading The Ring of Words, Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary by Gilliver, Marshall, Weiner. It is divided into three parts. "Tolkien as Lexicographer", the first 42 pages of the 229 page book, is the actual biography of his time at the OED. I did not find it terribly interesting. I knew he worked on "W" words, but, now I know the minutiae of how the entries were prepared. There are several picture examples of Tolkien's handwritten entries, with notes and crossouts from his supervisor. I have gotten soft since computers and the Internet, I don't know how they did it, tracking down some entomologies, earliest quotes and the like. Tolkien made his fair share of corrections to his own and others' entries when he found more information for the "supplement". One man worked for the OED for 50 years....
I skipped forward to the third part called "Word Studies" because of a particular entry for another thread. I have not read other entries, yet. This section, which is more than half the book, will interest me. I enjoy finding out the history of words, and especially how Tolkien breathed new life into archaic ones. Certain words have an entry which explains where Tolkien might have learned it and how he used it. A quick thumb through shows me that the word 'gangrel' has a paragraph, while 'hobbit' enjoys a 10 page long explanation. I'll write up some interesting finds when I actually get to this section.
I am currently reading the second section, "Tolkien as Wordwright". It does not seem to be a complete rehash of Shippey, however, it has been quite awhile since I picked up his books. So far, it has covered what Philology is and its history, linking the OED into its popularity during Tolkien's time. Of course, it talks about Tolkien's love affair with words - "...for Tolkien a word had an aesthetic pleasure in itself...This pleasure must often have consisted of a suggestiveness, a flavour bringing other things to mind, because of the power of Tolkien's linguistic creativity seems to lie in the fact that his created words have the same, or a similar, aesthetic effect on his readers as they did on him." (pg 54) They cite s few examples such as "Arkenstone, with its hints of ark in the sense of a place where something mysterious is kept, or the antediluvian Ark of Noah...." I particularly liked the example of Gil-galad. "...for some readers combines the ancient feel of Gilgamesh with the Arthurian chivalrousness of Galahad." (pg 55) I'll add more as I continue reading.
|
|
|
Post by fobria on Aug 21, 2020 9:28:35 GMT -6
There are not a few words created by the Inklings that give me aesthetic pleasure and suggest something exotic and beautiful (rolling of the tongue and rhyming even) e.g. Silmaril, Maleldil, Perelandra etc. But these seem to be all invented words without any English root or component.
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Aug 21, 2020 11:03:12 GMT -6
Paraphrasing - 'Cellar door' is more beautiful than 'beautiful'. Cellar DoorI can't track down Lewis's words, but, now I HAVE to find out where silmaril came from....LOL
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Aug 21, 2020 11:14:43 GMT -6
|
|