Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
04-21-2008, 01:42 PM | #1 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,458
|
The age of anxiety:
I heard this interview on Radio 4's Today programme last Friday about a symposium at Brunel, and have transcribed it since it will be available online only for a week.
It references The Lord of the Rings in comparison with Pullman's Dark Materials. Sarah Montague : Are we in an age of anxiety? And if so what effect is it having on culture? .... Fay Weldon is professor of creative writing at Brunel University, Robert Eaglestone is professor of contemporary literature and thought at London University. Do you accept, first of all RE, that we are in an age of anxiety? RE: I think we have been in an age of anxiety for a very long time, for the last 150 years or so. What is interesting is what those anxieties are and how they've changed . SM: And you think they have had an effect on culture and the way people write? RE: I think they have absolutely had an effect on culture on people's writing people's thinking and as asour anxieties change and develop so writers respond to them in different sorts of ways. SM: Before we look at how, FW.Do you accept that we are in an age of anxiety that has gone back 150 years or is it more recent? I think it goes back even further, if you go back to Bocaccio he is writing in time of plague and managing to frame stories within that extreme anxiety. It gathers momentum and pace and yes, we are running scared. SM: Running scared? Runing scared of what? FW: We are running scared of who is going to publish us. We are running scared of the present. It is quite difficult to get students to write about now becasue it is too great to encompass.They like to write either about a dystopia a few years ahead, which they are very keen on, or what happened in the past - or even ten years ago. Anything but now. SM:Hasn't that always been the case? Now is always difficult for people. FW: Now is difficult but for the last 150 years indeed there has seemed to be something we could do about it. Writers have tended to be on the left - not the right -though some very good ones areon the right. And they have always felt that there was something they could do. If they only write properly and well enough then the world will be saved or Utopia will come.That if only you can improve people's understanding and comprehension of what they are and the world are (sic) there will be no more ignorance, peace and love will arrive, but we don't feel that anymore. SM: Prof Eaglestone, do you find that with your students ? RE: I think that my students are keen to write about the issues of the day and current anxieties. And I think Fay Weldon is right about a lot of what she said but what I think is important about the current age of anxiety is that as it might be before there are always two sides, them and us and you can choose which side to be on and you had a set stock of responses . I think one of the things that has changed now is that it is a lot more complicated and murky. One example you can see from Children's Literature is the difference between the Lord of the Rings which is written after the shadow of two world wars and written in the cold war, and in that everyone is very anxious but it is quite clear who are the goodies and who are the baddies. Whereas in the recent Golden Compass, Philip Pullman's books it is very murky and unclear no one is sure who's good or who's bad and people's motives are unclear... So its much more questions raised of judgement and trying to make decisions rather than belonging to a side. SM: Sounds much more interesting? Fay Weldon? FW: Yes it is but it's a difficult thing to do - if you like we are in the age of therapy too. Writing tends to be about how we face our own internal problems rather than external problems but they're pretty anxious making SM:What would you point to now that is causing such difficulties? FW: Good lord! Global warming.. SM: That tops your list ? FW: Yeah yeah- No, no! The collapse of civilisation as of last month, collapse of capitalism, collapse of everything we know. Of course it is there in the writers imagination all the time. It is the scenario of disaster ahead that writers tend to live in and actually sometimes quite enjoy!! I thought this was quite an interesting perspective - and comments?
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
04-21-2008, 01:47 PM | #2 |
Flame Imperishable
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Right here
Posts: 3,928
|
Well, I think he oversimplified LOTR, for a start.
And don't even get me started about global warming...(In fact, I'll change my sig in honour of that)
__________________
Welcome to the Barrow Do-owns Forum / Such a lovely place
|
04-21-2008, 01:55 PM | #3 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,458
|
To be fair he wasn't on to talk about LOTR he was on to talk about the Agge of Anxiety (topic of the symposium or whatever) - but I agree that it is easy to overlook the ambiguous characters inLOTR. The interview struck me particularly because I was thinking a lot about Saruman in connection to the Radio discussion.
However I suppose the difference is that while Saruman deludes some of the characters some of the time, the reader is left in no doubt that he is a wrong-un unlike in Northern Lights where the first scene (if I remember right) we see a subtle poisoning attempt by the heroine's custodians on Lord Asriel and left in a lot of doubt about him, Mrs Coulter and many others.
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
04-21-2008, 02:03 PM | #4 | |
Alive without breath
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla
Posts: 5,912
|
This is rather interesting. They obviously teach creative writing differently here up north.
I'd like to focus on this comment: Quote:
In Middle Earth you do indeed have a divide between good and bad, there are one or two grey characters, one who redeems himself to an extent (Boromir) and one who does not (Gollum)*. The 'good' people are anxious about the enemy, but as a byproduct of this anxiety, as it were, more groups are bound together and a sort of peace can be made. Thus there is a message of hope that, no matter how terrible the enemy, people will always band together and strong relationships can be born. However, in Pullman's, as it were, 'murky' characters, there is a little less of this. The 'you can't trust anyone' motif begins to raise its head and we are left with a world of despair where each person is out for themselves. Now, it seems to me that, ultimately, Pullman does not take this rout as HDM concludes. I would still argue that there is more 'hope' in Lord of the Rings than in HDM. This may come down to the authors' differing theological stances, or perhaps, as the interview suggests, their cultural setting. Perhaps there is a lot of both. As far as the tendencies of modern writing students I will make a few observations regarding the idea of 'the age of anxiety'. A lecturer for one of my classes commented recently that she has seen a 'disturbing rise in the number of stories about murderers, paedophiles and insane people'. What makes them a little more unnerving is the fact that most of them are written in the first person. It seems that this is a good reflection on how people are more aware of 'what the dangers are', so to speak. I think people and writers have always been aware that the world is a dangerous place. In the past it seems to have come down to (I am over simplifying here, but bare with me), whose side you were on. These days, yes, things are more complicated because it is becoming difficult even for the sides to define themselves. Moreover, with the interwebs and all that we do have much more information on the more, shall we say, unnerving aspects of society. Being aware of all these things will, inevitably, lead many people to either become more anxious or to, I suppose, do something about it. I'm probably rambling now, so... end. *Although, I'm sure this could be argued further.
__________________
I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket... |
|
04-21-2008, 02:07 PM | #5 |
Flame Imperishable
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Right here
Posts: 3,928
|
I know this isn't strictly lotr (and maybe not entirely relevant), but what about the Sil? Is Feanor on the good or bad side? He's sort of more on his own side. And what does that count as?
__________________
Welcome to the Barrow Do-owns Forum / Such a lovely place
|
04-21-2008, 02:31 PM | #6 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Well, he's wrong in that LotR wasn't written after two world wars but during the second world war - maybe that's why there is such a clear division between good & evil in the book: when evil is so obvious its not too difficult to draw up sides.
Of course, the major difference between Tolkien & Pullman is that Tolkien had experienced war first hand, & knew what real evil was - he stated in one letter that there were Orcs & Angels on both sides. One thing Tolkien could not do as a result was think of evil in Miltonic terms - his 'Satan' is not a Byronic hero (a la Lord Asriel in HDM) offering defiance to God & liberation to man, but a gutless thug who, when the end comes doesn't go forth to face his foes & go down in a blaze of glory, but rather cowers in his deepest dungeon dreading the inevitable punishment for his crimes. So, while Pullman can play games with evil, Tolkien cannot. Tolkien knows evil for what it is & can't pretend its otherwise than it is. Perhaps its true that Pullman's work does reflect the belief that this is an age of anxiety & that to him things are 'more complicated & murky', but I don't think things were that way for Tolkien. He'd seen the reality of evilmore starkly & clearly than Pullman & to him things weren't at all murky - they were clear & simple. Good & Evil to him were the same as they had always been, & it was a matter of recognising them & fighting against them. I suspect Tolkien would have said the problem wasn't that good & evil had become indefinable & relative ('one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'), but that people didn't realise that its always been a case of fighting the long defeat....if you tell yourself that evil is relative you don't have to stand up to it. In short, I don't think Tolkien ever felt the kind of anxiety being discussed in the programme. All of which probably makes no sense, because I'm trying to type this while nursing a teething six month old. Please feel free to pull the forgoing to pieces.... |
04-21-2008, 02:37 PM | #7 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,458
|
I don't think you are rambling, Hookbill, after all there is perhaps a related factor that you cannot assume a common culture within a culture - if that makes sense.
When I did my A-Levels probably before most downers were born, we had to do a course on Classical Mythology because a basic knowledge of the classics was felt necessary to understanding references in a lot of earlier literature- they felt a knowledge of the bible was essential too but never managed to make classes compulsory! Until comparitively recently a thorough knowledge of both the Bible and the Graeco-Roman mythology would be presumed in an educated person. I was unusual in my generation to have gone to Sunday school and I never had the opportunity to learn latin until I studied diachronic linguistics. The references that were common place have taken on a new obscurity. There has always been things to fear but they were less explicit - fairy stories are often a way of teaching children to be scared without for want of a better expression telling the truth. Now people are less innocent, we know exactly what the bogeyman will do to the child lost in the wood and this knowledge creates it's own frisson which is exploited by the press as can been seen when a pretty little girl goes missing as opposed to an older boy. But there is also ignorance - and this I think is a cause of anxiety in modern Britain, we have the increased suspicion of the Muslim community, and a new wave of Eastern European immigration. Having lived overseas I am far from xenophobic but even in my very Shirelike corner of England it is very strange to be in the Library and surrounded by people speaking languages you can barely recognise let alone understand. It is easy to see how people less educated, less travelled and with a less international background could feel threatened indeed - especially since modern education does not seem conducive to creating a positive identity. But that maybe bias form having had a historical education that comprised almost entirely of the Industrial Revolution as if teaching us anything involving the British Empire might turn us into apologists for it... there is a big difference between knowing about history or religion and believing in it. Now I am ranting....
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
04-21-2008, 02:51 PM | #8 | |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,458
|
Quote:
LOTR is that much later and WW2 was a lot more clear cut and though it was started during the War it was published as the cold war developed. Again the younger downers may not realise that nuclear war seemed a real possibility at a time when I was young. It did seem much more "us against them" . Glaost and the fall of the Berlin Wall seemed quite miraculous. Terrorism is not a recent phenomenon - think of the clicheed drawings of the anachist with a bomb - and the threat is something Brits raised under the shadow of the IRA usually take in their stride - but it has never had such prominence, we have never perhaps been so encouraged to suspect the people around us.
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
|
04-21-2008, 03:18 PM | #9 | ||
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
I'm not wishing to pull your post to pieces but I'd like to add a different perspective to it. Quote:
Okay. Even if Morgoth or Sauron might be interpreted symbolically or allegorically to stand for evilness itself, the bad in the world, the wars he depicts look just like the absurd waste of human life in both World Wars and still the other side in his stories are just heroes and the others are purely black. And that means the basic soldiers. So I'm a bit puzzled about that. Also, today we can't make that division into the goodies and baddies that easily. It's a shame but also something we should rejoice in! I'm no relativist myself but I think we have to admit that the enlightenment views that brought relativism about are the greatest achievements in our own culture. Before the enlightenment we thought that all those who agreed with us were good / right / pure / civilised (etc.) and those who disagreed with us were bad / evil / wrong / inhumane / lower / devillish (etc.). It's only a good thing we have gotten rid of that thinking. Well most of us have. Good riddance! But as soon as we start to see shadows of grey instead of just black and white we get into problems. How can one justify a view or stance if it's all just shades of grey? It's practically impossible today to think of all the German or Russian soldiers of the second world war as immoral beasts or subhuman monsters. We know now that most of them were loving fathers of their families, brave fellows of their mates, guys who were just thrown into the situation they were thrown. But the orcs were bad by nature - because of the way they were born? Something bothers me here.
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... Last edited by Nogrod; 04-21-2008 at 03:29 PM. |
||
04-21-2008, 03:28 PM | #10 |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Mith you just bring forwards the pessimistic reality.
We tended to be "enlightened" for a couple of hundred years but now at the times of "the war on terror" we're slowly crawling back to the caves from where we will take that old stance: those thinking and behaving like us are good and right, those who don't are evil. How about we asked for the reasons for all this hatred against the western world first? If those who hate us are not evil as such (as they can't be) then there has to be a reason. And to come back to the topic of Tolkien: why didn't he make it clearer if he was such a pacifist we tend to think he were? So individual orcs weren't bad but it was the evil system that forced them to be that way? Do we ever find that on Tolkien?
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
04-21-2008, 03:40 PM | #11 | |
Alive without breath
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla
Posts: 5,912
|
Quote:
An 'evil race' is not only unrealistic but probably dangerous as well. One will probably find it much more plausible that these people have been corrupted by a powerful figure with ill motives. The orcs themselves, perhaps, are in need of liberation just as much as the 'free peoples' are. Another possibility is down to the narrative structure. In a big adventure like this you need a focus point. A goal to be a chived and barriers to overcome. Sauron, I would argue, represents a sort of ultimate obstacle, the overbearing shadow of the story to keep the narrative going. The same goes for Morgoth. These two things are related. Even in the Silmarillion we get a hint of it. Feanor curses Morgoth but not, interestingly, the Orcs (if I remember correctly). He is the focus of his ire and scorn. The Orcs, while, perhaps, representing an extension of his will, are not what he is fighting. He wants revenge on Morgoth. I'm sure I read somewhere that C.S. Lewis commented on the attitude of some British soldiers who refused to believe the propaganda in the Newspapers and thought the Germans couldn't be all that bad. Perhaps Tolkien had witnessed similar things. It's not the people who are evil, as it were, but the power that drives them. This, again, likely derives from Tolkien's theology as well as experience. But, as for the 'enlightenment', one must always be a little cautious of something that gives itself such a presumptive name. Anxiety does seem like a major factor in a lot of the Lord of the Rings anyway. Frodo comments, of Saruman, that he wasn't evil in the beginning. Perhaps the threat of Sauron isn't just his ability to destroy, but his tendency to turn things to his will, to bend the hearts of his followers. Corruption seems to be a large theme in Tolkien and there are many examples of it. We can see a lot of this fear and anxiety in the attitudes of The Hobbits. They don't like change. Bilbo, in The Hobbit, is very reluctant to go on a 'nasty disturbing' adventure that would make him 'late for tea'. The thing that Saruman does when messing with the Shire is to change it almost beyond recognition, not just in the physical land, but also in the people. Ted Sandyman was probably a good enough Hobbit when he wanted to be, but Saruman's influence couldn't have done him much good. The same probably goes for Bill Ferny and others. Maybe I'm reading too much into it... Fear of change has always been around, but the end of The Lord of the Rings points to a future in which, not only are they returning to the Golden Age of old, but are moving forward into a New Age; the Fourth Age. The Elves are leaving, their influence is pittering out. The Wizards are lost, dead or sailing away. As much as the Hobbits may dislike it, "The World is changing".
__________________
I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket... |
|
04-21-2008, 03:50 PM | #12 |
Flame Imperishable
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Right here
Posts: 3,928
|
What I find interesting are the individual Orcs that he describes. They all have different personalities which I find quite interesting, becasue at first it seemed that thaey were like machines, just blindly following Sauron, but then see them start arguments against each other, and other things. I like the idea that Tolkien has (stated above by davem) about there being Orcs & Angels on both sides. I think an example (in LOTR) of an orc on the good side (even though this is the tale where orcs are real, but just think about the symbolism) is Saruman. I'm sure there's an angel on the bad side, I just can't think of one now (possibly Gollum as Smeagol?).
I'm not sure if I made any sense there or if I actually said what I meant but, oh well.
__________________
Welcome to the Barrow Do-owns Forum / Such a lovely place
|
04-21-2008, 03:52 PM | #13 |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Will that account also for those who think they are "the righteous ones"? Or "newly born in truth", or...
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
04-21-2008, 03:53 PM | #14 |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
I think you made a lot of sense. I need to go to sleep now but I'll try come back to this later.
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
04-21-2008, 04:04 PM | #15 |
Flame Imperishable
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Right here
Posts: 3,928
|
Well, that is a recurring theme in Tolkien's books, with phrases like "sundered from the glory of old" (I don't know if that's actually a quote) or the like. All sorts of things get lost, like, for example the skill of gem-making. There is an ideological past (or sort of the opposite of a utopia, and I don't mean dystopia, though there's some of that too)................
__________________
Welcome to the Barrow Do-owns Forum / Such a lovely place
Last edited by Eönwë; 05-12-2008 at 04:35 PM. |
04-22-2008, 11:42 AM | #16 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,458
|
I may think pessimistically but I act positively on the whole.
I am running out of time today but thank you for all the responses so far ... I will come back to some tomorrow.. makes the effort to tyoe it up worth while!
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
05-11-2008, 02:38 PM | #17 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Tolkien wasn't 'all black and white' and nor does Pullman present a world where there is no trust or hope, so the statement made in the programme wasn't really correct in terms of detail. However the books have a broad 'feel' that can be described in that way; how much this is intentional in terms of what the authors intended is a moot point. I happen to think that the difference is down to style rather than down to anythign each author was trying to 'say' or 'represent'.
Tolkien was attempting to write a story which echoed folklore and myth, which operates in broad strokes, whereas Pullman writes in the modern style (post-Austen, you could maybe call it? ) which goes into characters' minds. This is why Tolkien appears to have written a black/white story and Pullman a more grey one. However, get into the detail, as I say, and things are very different... What is interesting is that until recently, we knew who our 'enemies' were - in as far as we can be instructed by our masters exactly who to despise this week or next - in Tolkien's day it was the Germans or the Russians. Today we are told to hate someone new every day so we have no idea who 'the enemy' are, and it often turns out that the enemy is ourselves (how often do you read the newspaper to find out, for example, you are a scumbag because you gave your child cows' milk before the state sanctioned age of 12 months, or you do not deserve medical treatment because you like eating burgers). I think that the difference is that Tolkien is able, through the style he attempts to use, to tell us who is good and bad, and the ambiguities stand out all the more for it; whereas Pullman's style does not permit such didacticism, in fact it's essential that the reader must decide for themselves. Though I actually feel slightly more anxious if I am told who to hate. If everyone is bad, including me, then it's not such a problem
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
05-11-2008, 03:16 PM | #18 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Two things I've come across recently. One, an interview with Susan Greenfield about her new book:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 05-11-2008 at 03:20 PM. |
||
05-11-2008, 05:37 PM | #19 | |
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,509
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, Vivendi International withdrew from the project and its partner, Turbine, gained complete control. The original title Middle-earth Online was the first to go, and the game's dimensions (both in its geographical footprint and storyline) were shrunk to Lord of the Rings Online (LotRO), to take advantage of the massive popularity of the movies (even though the game itself is licensed for the books). The virtue/corruption system was abandoned, and even the motto 'Come live in Middle-earth' was co-opted for the crass 'Prove to everyone that you are a great hero and deserve great riches' (a decidely un-Tolkienesque view of Middle-earth). The new management team announced that its primary focus was to gain marketshare from WoW (World of Warcraft), the market leader in gaming, and the emphasis of the game swerved towards more generic gaming fare in an unbridled attempt to lure the WoW subscriber base with a reasonable facsimile of WoW's controls, systems and gameplay. I gave up in disgust over a year ago before LotRo went live, as the game in no way engenders a true feeling of Middle-earth (although you do get to meet Gandalf, Tom Bombadil and Elrond...WOOT!) Needless to say, the game is all about the accrual of 'stuff', getting the best 'stuff' and wearing the best 'stuff'; evil characters are allowed to be played in what LotRo calls 'Monsterplay' (basically, battlegrounds where good and bad characters continually hack each other to bits); and, most recently, Turbine has announced their 'high level goal is to introduce magic into Tolken fiction' (they have at most 400k subscribers, whereas WoW has close to 10 million -- so they failed to attract their target market relying merely on established lore). Turbine supposedly has three 'Tolkien scholars' on staff (obviously, Larry, Moe and Curly, Associate Janitors and Ebonic Philologists at Alfred E. Neuman College of Online Cosmetology) so that they will manage a 'tasteful and intelligent way to introduce magic into Tolkien fiction.' What this means is that there will indeed be Hobbit mages in outlandish Gandalf gear flinging about colorful thunderbolts, and Dwarves invoking the power of runes to heighten their lazerbeam vision. Davem --This is all a round about way to say that I have seen firsthand the corruptive power of greed and disingenuosness in the stripping of the essential Tolkien mythos to attract attention-deficited juveniles (and more so adults, as it caters to the teen and over category) with a dumbed-down and ludicrously inappropriate version of Middle-earth that makes Peter Jackson's fallacies and lore-bending seem downright upright and conservative. In the game one indeed eventually becomes disconnected with any plot points and becomes a drudge to hunting and gathering pretty bobbles and weapons of destruction (or else you can't get to the next level quest and grind ad nauseum to reach that point of perfection where you've literally done everything and have played yourself right out of the game). There is literally a bigger light show between a low level group of hobbits, dwarves and elves vs. a pack of orcs than there was when Gandalf faced the Nazgul on Weathertop. It is rather disquieting to consider that a classic such as LotR, with a readership of millions, requires such incessant meddling to make it palatable for the general public (who obviously require flashing lights and rapid, jerky movements to maintain their interest, much like my cat). This is not only true in gaming, but in the making of the films as well. James O'Barr (creator of The Crow) once said of the Hollywood process and how they try to change the original plot of stories, "You have this beautiful tree and everyone wants to p*** on it". P.S. By the way, excellent find on the Susan Greenfield article.
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision. Last edited by Morthoron; 05-11-2008 at 08:03 PM. |
|
05-11-2008, 08:48 PM | #20 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Back on the Helcaraxe
Posts: 733
|
Quote:
__________________
Call me Ibrin (or Ibri) :) Originality is the one thing that unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of. — John Stewart Mill |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|