Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
M. Leary

Is Criticism Narcissism?

Recommended Posts

I am referring to Prins comment on the matter. I have some thoughts on this, but I am wondering if anyone else out there had put time into thinking about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did he say, exactly?

I always prefer the word "review" to "critique," because yeah, i can see how critiquing something seems easy compared to creating something... It's easier to find holes in anything already built than to erect something from the ground up.

When i look at a film and try to report on it, i am typically trying to review it to share the experience with others. I know that in the past decade or so my eyes have been opened to viewing film in a different light, and i always hope to help someone else find a new way to engage the medium as well. If i can even have a small role in opening someone else up to new things that will make them a better informed and well rounded person, i am very happy about it. Then again, i only review films that i tend to enjoy. It's probably a lot harder for JRobert or Peter, who are paid to review films and told which ones they must see.

The very fact that there is an audience out there that creates room for the paid critic should show that it isn't narcissistic.

-s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(M) - For those of us who were not privileged enough to participate in the original conversation could you fill us in and then give us your thoughts so that we might partake?

I am curious to hear some thoughts on this as almost anything can become narcissistic but the idea that criticism could be narcissistic at its foundation or a least the core is an interesting topic for discussion.

Well...you know what they say,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would be interested the see the original conversation. The topic of "role of the critic" has been something that has been sparked in me due to the course I took this spring in "Literary Criticism and Theory." I think that there are certain critics (literary), Barthes and Iser come to mind, who in there proclamation that "the author is dead" seem to lend power to the critic, because it takes the critic, as the enlightened reader/interpreter, to really lend meaning and significance to the work.

Perhaps I am a bit harsh, but I believe that modern literary criticism tends to lean to far into reader response theory. I believe in a more balanced view in which the author has something to say, but where the reader/viewer's experiences still have value and cannot be discounted. I do believe in the "intentional fallacy", which states that a work can, and often does, have a meaning other than what the author intended.

The role of the critic in film is something that is a little more complicated. I don't know how much serious theory and critical work has been done in film. I think Ebert and Pauline Kael are the closest thing we have to the true film "critic", rather than merely "reviewer." I think that real film criticism, in the same sense as the literary, is becoming more widespread, and this board is an example of that. However the bulk of film criticism is still reported on websites and newspapers and not in academic journals, therefore it's readership is generally less educated. I think this may be changing however.

Alot of that probably didn't make much sense, but basically, I think that yes, criticism has an element of narcissism in it, but I don't think that a majority of what is out there is truly criticism in the same sense that Lacan or Barthes were literary critics. However I may merely be arguing semantics. Feel free to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good comments.

Perhaps I am a bit harsh, but I believe that modern literary criticism tends to lean to far into reader response theory.

I don't know how much serious theory and critical work has been done in film. I think Ebert and Pauline Kael are the closest thing we have to the true film "critic", rather than merely "reviewer."

That first comment is very true, especially in evangelical circles.

But there are mountains of very technical film criticism, it is probably film itself that redefined the notion of "critic" beyond the Romanticized versions of the late 19th cent. Ebert and Kael are fine and all, but there is so much out there. People talk about Rosenbaum and Sarris here a lot. Two great examples who I read with frequency. But there is a host more on the highways and byways of American cultural discussion all influenced either by Bazin/Denis on the one hand or Cavell/O'Brien on the other and there is always Munier and Sontag and Kracauer (who even though they are mainstream are so difficult to read) to ruminate on if you can't find any other.

I should let Prins restate his comment in his own words, because what he said was extremely coherent and worth reflecting on. I am afraid of putting words in his mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice. I'm always interested to read new critics who will challenge me and educate me.

BTW, do you read these guys on the web? It would be helpful to know where to find them. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stef wrote:

: I always prefer the word "review" to "critique," because yeah, i can see

: how critiquing something seems easy compared to creating something...

: It's easier to find holes in anything already built than to erect something

: from the ground up.

I think you're confusing "critiquing" with "criticizing". When, for example, I look at Terminator 3 and point out the ways in which the film subverts the butch masculine emphasis of the first two Terminator movies, I am not "poking holes" in the film but observing a trend between the three films that may or may not have been intended by the filmmakers. If I think this trend is a negative one, then sure, I am then making a "criticism", but the initial "critique" is a bit more objective than that. "Critiques" are about observing things -- including the holes that are already there -- and not necessarily about poking new holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I am a bit harsh, but I believe that modern literary criticism tends to lean to far into reader response theory.

That first comment is very true, especially in evangelical circles.

Ouch. I think I can easily apply this to my own film reviews of late, and I don't like it. As an artist, I've always bristled when viewers of art only want to recognize their interpretation as valid--and not the artist's intention.

Maybe I should clarify. I think there's a definite need for balance between the artist and viewer. A work of art may say much more than the artist intends. I know God uses the pieces I write to speak to me, often as I write them. When I look at the final piece it may even say something different than what I intended when I began.

On the other hand, I do have a meaning I'm trying to communicate. Although the reader can discount that, I don't think that's a fair use of art. And I don't think that's respectful to the artist who created it.

So, as a writer, perhaps I should consider more closely how I relate to others' art--particularly when I write about film. I want to take films that impact me and apply the best parts of them to my life. Yet, perhaps I read too much into them in the process.

I don't want to appropriate the film for my own ends and distort the author's meaning. Yet, I don't want to disregard the good points the filmmaker conveys because I don't agree with his/her worldview, religious beliefs, or politics. That's a fine line. It's easy to blur it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: I should let Prins restate his comment in his own words, because what

: he said was extremely coherent and worth reflecting on.

You are too kind.

I don't recall what specifically led up to my statement -- our hour-long discussion hit on topics from Rohmer to Rosenbaum -- but somehow we starting discussing the critics' role as it related to filmmaking, and I said that film criticism (and in fact any written criticism) must be, by its very nature, an narcissistic pursuit. I do not remember how I elaborated on this obscene statement at the time, so let me start from scratch.

Imagine Roger Ebert. Imagine him watching Charlie's Angels II: Good Afternoon, Angels. Imagine him writing a review of Charlie's Angels II. Imagine the Chicago Sun-Times printing said review.

Now imagine your bad self opening the paper and seeing Roger Ebert's review. You have already seen the film -- having won tickets from Hot 102's Charlie's Angels' Hot Hot Hot Giveaway -- and yet you decide to read the review anyway. Why would you decide to do that?

a) You like Ebert's writing style.

cool.gif You liked the film, and you're curious if and why Ebert agrees with you.

c) You disliked the film, and you're curious if and why Ebert agrees with you.

d) You wonder if Ebert saw anything interesting in the film that you missed.

e) You're bored, so why not.

(e) is an anamoly, but each of the other choices shows at least as much emphasis toward the author of the review than of the film itself. And why shouldn't it? In this case, you've seen the film already, so basic plot information, who is starring, etc. that might be gleaned from such a review is unnecessary; you're reading because you want to know what Ebert thinks.

Now. Slight change. Let's pretend you missed the Hot 102 screening because you had 24-hour malaria. You see Ebert's review, and you decide to read it. Why?

a) You like Ebert's writing style.

cool.gif You want to know if and why Ebert liked it, so you can decide whether or not to spend your easily earned cash on a 7:40 screening.

c) You want to know if it is the type of film you think it is -- a religious comedy about St. Charles -- so you can decide et al.

d) You want to see if it is appropriate for your child/your Amish parents.

e) You want to read the MPAA disclaimer to see if there is any nudity. Dang. There isn't.

f) You're bored, so.

(f) is (f). ©, (d) and (e) is information that could be gathered from elsewhere with very little difficulty; you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good post.

But two objections:

1. Can we not say that the critic have a social role? You use Ebert as your test model, who is such a pop critic that he really is part of pop culture itself (at least in his Sun-Times stuff). But the discipline of film criticism itself has a social function inasmuch as the critic stands as public arbiter between film and audience. They are part of the viewing process itself (I am thinking of contemporaries here like everyone's favorites: Rosenbaum and Sarris). Or they stand on one corner of Kevin Nikkel's very creative "square" analogy with the same function. It seems that your argument only works for one genre of film criticism.

2. So there is no objective standard for "quality" in film? Then how did your posse decide that your 2nd film is better than Twelve Stories....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post.

But two objections:

1. Can we not say that the critic have a social role? You use Ebert as your test model, who is such a pop critic that he really is part of pop culture itself (at least in his Sun-Times stuff). But the discipline of film criticism itself has a social function inasmuch as the critic stands as public arbiter between film and audience. They are part of the viewing process itself (I am thinking of contemporaries here like everyone's favorites: Rosenbaum and Sarris). Or they stand on one corner of Kevin Nikkel's very creative "square" analogy with the same function. It seems that your argument only works for one genre of film criticism.

2. So there is no objective standard for "quality" in film? Then how did your posse decide that your 2nd film is better than Twelve Stories....?

(sorry for repeating this post, this site logs me out often)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: 1. Can we not say that the critic have a social role? You use Ebert as

: your test model, who is such a pop critic that he really is part of pop

: culture itself (at least in his Sun-Times stuff).

Right. I regret using Ebert in my above hypothetical, because of the rationale you just set forth, but as I said later in the post, it doesn't make any difference who the critic is. Regardless of our reviewer, when she is writing a review, it is her opinion, her defense of her opinion, her stylistic devices, what she chooses to mention in her plot summary, and what she sees that connects that work to other works by the same artist, that makes up the review -- all of which is based on her worldview and, to be informally blunt, stuff she likes.

: It seems that your argument only works for one genre of film criticism.

Okay, then. Give me a working critic who you believe works in a non-narcissistic genre of film criticism. Hint: It most certainly is not J. Rosenbaum (although you can choose him, of course).

Let me make clear again: There is nothing wrong with narcissism in film criticism; in fact, I prefer critics who wear it on their sleeves -- as I would argue J. Ro. does -- rather than hiding it.

: 2. So there is no objective standard for "quality" in film? Then how did

: your posse decide that your 2nd film is better than Twelve Stories....?

They were wrong. They simply preferred it through their personal filters, just like I prefer Ghost World to Encino Man through mine.

Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

::Okay, then. Give me a working critic who you believe works in a non-narcissistic genre of film criticism.

Okay: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/03/...hage_intro.html. This is not a review per se but it is close enough, and I chose it due to the personal nature of its contents, especially the last few lines. He has a personal connection not just with S.B.'s work, but with S.B. himself. This whole review is just a personal reflection on the writer's experience of S.B. and his films. Totally narcissistic.

BUT, this guy is a pro. He knows Brakhage well, he knows his films. So just hearing him ruminate on them is ultra-educational. It is fascinating. So even though this extended review article is "narcissistic" and steeped in personal reflection and predilection, it is critically engaging.

Why? (you may ask):

1. This reviewer is part of a process that Brakhage began with his films. The reviewer is textually exploring what is implicit and impossible to say in film itself. Just as viewing a film is an act, so is reviewing a film. It is an act/event that makes the critic part of the viewing process. I think the "conversation" metaphor for film and its discussion is apt. We are not all just talking to ourselves.

2. Even though all criticism occurs in pre-existing worldview/writing style/personal preference frameworks, this does not render the "critical event" of a good reviewer void. The "critical event" is a social event, so even though the bridge between film and audience (the critic) may look different, a social exchange is still occuring. I guess I have to agree with you that: "what she chooses to mention in her plot summary, and what she sees that connects that work to other works by the same artist, that makes up the review -- all of which is based on her worldview and, to be informally blunt, stuff she likes. " But the critically intuitive reviewer will know precisely what to include in the plot summary, what connections to highlight, etc... because the critically intuitive reviewer is part of the process of film itself. His/her "tastes" and "preferences" will become shaped by good film and come out in their reviews.

::They were wrong. They simply preferred it through their personal filters, just like I prefer Ghost World to Encino Man through mine.

Would you be afraid of saying: "Ghost World is a better film."? Because it is. It has the capacity to change lives and opinions and understandings of reality. Encino Man may have this capacity I guess, so this argument doesn't really work. So perhaps in talking about "why are some films objectively better than others" we could use a "cumulative argument" approach that some people use to explicate the existence of God. (A lot of hazy arguments equal up to one solid argument)

So it would go something like this:

1. Consensus - some films are generally seen as "masterpieces" by a broad majority of viewers and critics from a variety of demographics.

2. Intention - some films intend to be "good films" (Ghost World) other films intend "simply" to entertain (Encino Man).

3. Success - some films successfully produce the script cinematically (Taxi Driver) and some don't (Gangs of New York).

4. Affectiveness - some films have an ability to affect an audience with an important experience (Ghost World), some don't (Encino Man).

5. Effectiveness - some films become important films by thier relation to other films in film history (Code Unknown), some don't (How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days)

This is just off the top of my head, but I really think that this direction of thinking enables us to talk about film in an objective qualitative sense beyond our personal preferences for them. (I am sure there needs to be some revision somewhere in here.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(an addendum)

I wonder Dale if we are butting up here also against "Ways of speaking about film". We can speak about films as historical texts, films as social texts, films as aesthetic texts, or films as something to be watched and enjoyed on an individual level (I don't quite know a word for this last category).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dale,

I have no trouble with film criticism as narcissitic. But I have trouble with the jump to "art cannot be discussed objectively".

Here's what we establish in my exploring films class, because students are not quite ready to let films they think are great be exposed as crap. Even if they're claiming that 2 Fast 2 Furious is superior to Rear Window, which they often are. We come to the point where we claim that there are absolute truths/aesthetic principles of art (For example: subtly, form/function, verisimilitude-even in abstract work, etc.) but we say that the subjectivity comes in the importance we assign to those principles. So perhaps a film scores high in cimetography, but low in dialogue. As a writer, I would probably not value this film as much as someone who comes from a photography background. And I'd not be surprised if when we discuss why I disliked the film and she (our hypothetical photographer) liked it we agree on the success or failure of the films individual elements -IF we are both somewhat educated in that particular area of expertise. If she hasn't done much reading or writing in her life, I would daresay her understanding of the quality of the writing would be insufficient. And vice versa for me and cinematography.

My point is stregthened on this website on a regular basis when people who drastically disagree on whether they like or dislike a film find themselves agreeing on every aspect of the film's strengths and weaknesses, and yet, still stand in the same place on their overall opinion of the film.

Sum up: Truth/Beauty are dictated by absolute principles (although not always knowable). However, the value we give to those principles may very from person to person. And so while the principles stay the same, the conclusions made by individuals about films remain subjective. Art can be discussed objectively, but ultimately views of films on the whole are largely subjective.

It's a bit like how I go at situational ethics. The ethics are unchanging, but how they are applied is never a no-brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny:

: We come to the point where we claim that there are absolute

: truths/aesthetic principles of art (For example: subtly, form/function,

: verisimilitude-even in abstract work, etc.) but we say that the

: subjectivity comes in the importance we assign to those principles.

There's some truth in that, I'd argue, in that there is a large percentage of the time where the majority of "learned filmgoers" believe, e.g., that Roger Dodger has great dialogue, that Am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two responses to Dale's above post:

The first is that even within a category such as dialogue there are smaller divisions of aesthetic principle. Verisimilitude, wit, rhythm, minimalism, and the dialogue of the Cohen brothers might be strong in one or more of these that the critics you mention favor, while weak in one or more attiributes that you favor.

Secondly, if I'm going to continue to extend my ideas about truth to those of aesthetics, then I look to issues of belief on metaphysics for a metaphor. There are brilliant people who believe there is no God. People who know as much, often more than people who believe in God. But the atheists are well... wrong. And this is where my wildcard comes in. While truth is absolute it is not entirely knowable to mankind. Therefore, it is quite possible that you or the three critics you have mentioned is wrong in their belief that the dialogue is excellent.

I find it interesting that like morality the world tends to have a "approximate" consensus on most issues. Murder is wrong, incest, rape, etc. I think this points to an absoulte truth. Disagreements between rational individuals on issues of morality are the result of A. differing values (someone values privacy or personal sovereignty over life or vice versa) or B. Someone is wrong.

Oh and by the way, I don't mind the nickname, but there is a "Danny" on this board and he is not me. So you may want to stick to "Bucky" and those types of variations on my name to avoid confusion. But be careful there too, jr. high taught me that some very unnice things can be made out of my last name. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: So just hearing him ruminate on them is ultra-educational. It is

: fascinating. So even though this extended review article is "narcissistic"

: and steeped in personal reflection and predilection, it is critically

: engaging.

Right. I agree with you completely. There's nothing that says that narcissism and critical engagement are mutually exclusive, and I think Camper's review shows that aptly. (Camper's an interesting, accessible avant-garde critic in general, despite some wack views regarding watching films on video.)

: I guess I have to agree with you that: "what she chooses to mention in

: her plot summary, and what she sees that connects that work to other

: works by the same artist, that makes up the review -- all of which is

: based on her worldview and, to be informally blunt, stuff she likes. " But

: the critically intuitive reviewer will know precisely what to include in the

: plot summary, what connections to highlight, etc... because the critically

: intuitive reviewer is part of the process of film itself. His/her "tastes"

: and "preferences" will become shaped by good film and come out in

: their reviews.

I'm not fond of the phrase "good film," of course, but otherwise, I'd largely agree. But that doesn't make said critic's reviews non-narcissistic; in fact, one could argue -- and I don't know if I agree with this or not -- that being "part of the process of film itself" would have the opposite effect. I dunno. I'd need to think about that more. But, as I've said before, narcissism -- at least in this case -- is not necessarily a bad thing.

: Would you be afraid of saying: "Ghost World is a better film."?

Yes. Ghost World means vastly, vastly more to me -- it was number one on my 2001 top ten list, after all -- but I am loathe to describe it as "good" or even "great" and certainly not "better." (I do use these words in reviews occasionally, but I should not. I am slapping myself on the hand. Bad, bad Dale.)

Let's talk about my wife. There is no doubt that my wife and I are intellectual equals. Our ACTs, our SATs, our GREs, our IQs, our scores on the AP Calculus (BC) exam: Every standardized test we've taken has either come out equal (ACT, AP Calc) or within what must be the margin of error (all the others). I have shown her art films up the critical wazoo. We have had numerous intense conversations about film. She proofreads my reviews, and she has no doubt improved each and every one of them.

So. What is her favorite film of all time? My Fair Lady.

What is her second favorite film of all time? Beauty and the Beast. No, the Disney version.

What does she think of Ghost World? Eh.

How can I tell her, "Ghost World is a far superior film to My Fair Lady, and you just can't see that it is because you don't have the critical acumen?" Because implicitly, every time I say that Ghost World is a better film than My Fair Lady, I am doing just that; I am (to bring this full circle) narcissistically arguing that she is not smart/learned/critically engaged enough to see why she should prefer Ghost World. And I don't see how that is fair, and I don't see why that is necessary.

: 1. Consensus - some films are generally seen as "masterpieces" by a

: broad majority of viewers and critics from a variety of demographics.

Citizen Kane's stock didn't really rise until the late '50s/early '60s. Was it not great until then? How can a film's greatness change just because people's perception of its quality has changed?

: 2. Intention - some films intend to be "good films" (Ghost World) other

: films intend "simply" to entertain (Encino Man).

But I'm sure we can all think of films that have no grander intentions than entertainment that we love, such as There's Something About Mary for all of mankind that isn't named Matthew Dale.

: 3. Success - some films successfully produce the script cinematically

: (Taxi Driver) and some don't (Gangs of New York).

People can have different opinions on said successfulness, however; I'm sure many well-informed cinema folk would disagree with your GoNY assessment, for example.

: 4. Affectiveness - some films have an ability to affect an audience with

: an important experience (Ghost World), some don't (Encino Man).

But that's always going to be a subjective measure, if only because there will be never be a film that affects each and every audience member.

I like this conversation.

Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B.N., a Duck:

: The first is that even within a category such as dialogue there are

: smaller divisions of aesthetic principle. Verisimilitude, wit, rhythm,

: minimalism, and the dialogue of the Cohen brothers might be strong in

: one or more of these that the critics you mention favor, while weak in

: one or more attributes that you favor.

Yes, but the more you start subdividing -- and one could certainly go much further than your above examples -- you start ditching "goodness" and "badness" altogether and are instead forced to make statements like, "This movie is minimalist, and minimalism is good." And when you get to that point, then you can't make judgements on the quality of films; you can only make judgements on the whether the existence of a certain quality in a film makes it better or worse. I hope I'm making sense, but I suspect I am not.

: There are brilliant people who believe there is no God. People who

: know as much, often more than people who believe in God. But the

: atheists are well... wrong. And this is where my wildcard comes in.

: While truth is absolute it is not entirely knowable to mankind.

Alas, there's not much of a way to argue against "Aesthetic truth exists, but we can't know it"; as you imply, it's like arguing for the existance of God.

Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the more you start subdividing -- and one could certainly go much further than your above examples -- you start ditching "goodness" and "badness" altogether and are instead forced to make statements like, "This movie is minimalist, and minimalism is good." And when you get to that point, then you can't make judgements on the quality of films; you can only make judgements on the whether the existence of a certain quality in a film makes it better or worse. I hope I'm making sense, but I suspect I am not.

Yeah, I saw this problem coming. It's very similar to the idea of reducing the distance between you and me by one half every ten minutes. We'd never get to each other. (Which isn't a bad metaphor for this discussion) but I can live with it as the detrimental extreme of my philosophy and just keep trying to stay away from it.

DanBuck:

: There are brilliant people who believe there is no God. People who

: know as much, often more than people who believe in God. But the

: atheists are well... wrong. And this is where my wildcard comes in.

: While truth is absolute it is not entirely knowable to mankind.

Dale:

Alas, there's not much of a way to argue against "Aesthetic truth exists, but we can't know it"; as you imply, it's like arguing for the existance of God.

Sorry to have to throw this out, but its an unavoidable part of my theory. I think the unknowability of truth is central to an understanding of a confusing universe with absolutes. I'm not saying we can't know it, we have some guides, natural rvelation, the image of God in man, divine revelation (scripture) and the Holy Spirit. But ultimately, I think there will be a few issues that when we get to heaven God says "There's now way you could've totally figured this one out, but..." And some people will be right and some people will be wrong. Luckily I don't believe that to be the case on any of the major "meat and potatoes" issues of the gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm... Not sure what do with that or even if it helps or refutes ANY of the points herein. But thanks just the same.

I'm not claiming that one's reviews or cticism can be in a vacuum, I can understand the interrelated nature of all things. But I'm just claiming that reviews cannot be entirely subjective. If they were, why would we give a rat's booty what somebody else things. If I like a film, its good - period. Who cares what Ebert thinks, if he doesn't like it its a bad film "to him". Blah blah blah. There are no abslutes? Are you sure?

Next time you're in a room full of people that will obey your every whim, have them close their eyes and then point to the direction they think is North. Then have them open their eyes. They will all be pointing in various directions. Are they all right? Are there that many Norths?

Truth is beauty and beauty is truth. If there's absolute truth there is absolute beauty.

Perhaps we're tossing around objective / subjective and absolutes / no absolutes too interchangibly. But I believe if Dale was saying we cannot speak of art objectively, that there is no objective standard of art. If he wasn't, if he is only saying we are incapable of speaking about it objectively. Than I disagree with him much less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: Next time you're in a room full of people that will obey your every whim,

: have them close their eyes and then point to the direction they think is

: North. Then have them open their eyes. They will all be pointing in

: various directions. Are they all right? Are there that many Norths?

That metaphor's begging the question; it only works if you've already assumed that there are objectively good films.

: Truth is beauty and beauty is truth.

I've never been fond of that statement.

: But I believe if Dale was saying [since] we cannot speak of art

: objectively...there is no objective standard of art.

Yep.

Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

:

: But I believe if Dale was saying [since] we cannot speak of art

: objectively...there is no objective standard of art.

This is precisely what I have trouble agreeing with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...