This book annoyed me so much. Not just because it was bad. No. But, because it made me want to storm through it to see what happened in the ending. I This book annoyed me so much. Not just because it was bad. No. But, because it made me want to storm through it to see what happened in the ending. I hated the effect it had on me because this books is terrible and not worthy of my enthralment. When I finished it, I looked back and realised how cheap the book was and how, essentially, it is the first book again. I hated the first book, and to have it repeated on myself again was frustrating and poor taste. Did I say cheap already? It was like the author had only one trick up her sleeve, so she reused it on me.
The first book in disguise
The capitol fears uprising in its districts. In the last games it was clear that they had accidently created a beacon of hope, though I don’t know why anybody would be inspired by Katniss Everdeen. The Capitol then, in an incredibly idiotic move, tours the beacon that they detest around the districts. The districts see their beacon and, quite naturally, are inspired by the flame. I just can’t understand why the Capitol would do this; it is completely self-defeating. They are fuelling the fires of the rebellion they wish to quench. Why not simply kill Katniss and make it look like an accident? It wouldn’t be hard to do; I’d fake a train crash. The Capitol is absolutely terrible at being an overlord, again.
[image]
So, the first books’ tributes were picked at random; this time the tributes are the champions of previous games. Therefore, you would naturally suppose that this next batch of contestants would be quite effective killing machines. The reverse is quite true because most of them are weak and one’s completely deranged. They don’t seem to do a lot either when they’re in the games; they just hang around in a reluctant manner. It was quite surprising that any of these actually managed to win their respective games as they’re quite useless and get themselves killed in what is, quite frankly, amateur ways. These guys are supposed to be experts. The only ones that actually manage to do some killing are just characterised as generic brutes, so not really survival experts.
Cheap writing
Katniss really began to grate on me in this novel. I found her flat to begin with, but now I just hate her entire characterisation. She is so naïve and just plain unpleasant to Peter. Their relationship, at this point, is clearly for the stage, but she doesn’t have to be so mean to the poor guy. He is clearly in love with her. And she clearly will be in love with him eventually. This was such an obvious route to take with the story. I think it would have been much more interesting if Katniss has continued to have proper feelings for Gale. Or somehow fell in love with the enemy. I hate this predictable book.
Her internal monologue is completely terrible; it’s like the author doesn’t know how to write down someone’s thoughts. Katniss seems to think in a series of questions at points. She has no meaningful thoughts or observations of the world, and she comes across as quite detached and stoic when describing the games. I found this odd because she appears to be quite an emotional girl, nothing wrong with that, but it didn’t quite add up with her bland observations of the world. She really is a weak protagonist because she is written so badly.
Moreover, the idea that she has become, essentially, a messiah and a leader of a rebellion is even harder to accept. I think her actions are completely uninspiring and are, of course, self-serving because she is just fighting for her own survival. The believability of her new status is very minimal and almost forced; it just didn’t quite work for me. Thus, I gave this novel a very low rating; it is essentially a verbatim repeating of the first book. I do not feel like believable progress was made nor has any of the characters has any believable development. For me, this is another terrible book by Suzanne Collins.
I’ve had this book recommended to me several times over the years. I don’t know why. Not only is this book completely terrible, but it is also not theI’ve had this book recommended to me several times over the years. I don’t know why. Not only is this book completely terrible, but it is also not the sort of thing I would normally read. I did, however, approach this book with an open mind. I expected to like it, but not love it. What I didn’t expect was to hate it so passionately. There are just too many things wrong with it. In all honesty I do not understand the success this book has achieved. For me, it is complete rubbish.
Far too unrealistic
I find it impossible to accept this world. It wasn’t because it was a nasty place, but because it wasn’t believable. The Capitol puts on these Hunger Games and sacrifices countless children in the process. I mean….what? Children. Why would the Capitol do this? If I was in charge of the Capitol I would have developed a much more effective system. I’d have fixed the games so the leaders of each district were sacrificed each year. That way there would be no one left to lead an uprising against the Capitol. And those left in the districts wouldn’t have the courage or reason to lead an uprising. They’d want to keep their heads down because they would be sacrificed next if they too led a rebellion. Problem solved. Capitol rules the districts in oppressive peace.
That’s beside the point, though, because the cruelty of sacrificing is also too far-fetched. The residents of the Capitol are vain and greedy, but vain and greedy is a long way off from sadistic and brutal. I found it difficult to accept that in the Capitol there wasn’t streets filled with violent protestors trying to save the lives of these kids. It just didn’t work for me. The children are far too accepting and almost stoic when they are selected. I would go kicking and screaming. Their families just watch them go and accept; then they rebel later, idiots. The children also don’t seem to be that afraid. They may have become used to the process, but surely the horror of this situation would lead to panic attacks and break downs?
Then there are the games themselves. The whole thing is recorded by invisible cameras. There is a whole world of wrong with that. It seems to me like Collins wrote herself into a box and the only solution she could come up with was “I know I’ll make the cameras invisible!” Then there is the idea of Peeta’s camouflage skills. Basically, Collins suggests that because Peeta was a baker and decorated his cakes artfully, despite the district being in poverty, he can then camouflage his entire body into the surroundings of the arena using his said cake decorating skills. Now, that was plain stupid. I don’t think she thought these ideas through enough.
[image]
Annoyingly simple writing
Suzanne Collins writes in an incredibly simple manner. There is no eloquence in her expression and prose; it is all very lifeless and flat, just like her world and characters. This may be for a younger audience, but that doesn’t excuse the blandness of her writing: it’s weak and unimaginative. I’m not sure if she purposely wrote in this way or if that’s just how she writes in general, but either way the result is a book that appears as if it’s been written by a ten year old. The sentence structure is basic, and very rarely changes. This can work if the language feels powerful, but if doesn’t. The whole novel feels elementary.
The characters are just as bad. The obvious romance that has, and is, being created is just tiresome. I don’t think this should have included the romance complication. I think Collins should have focused more upon writing a realistic story before she delved into the complexities of teenage relationships. This, again, was simple and straightforward. I literally have nothing positive to say about this book. For me, it doesn’t have a single redeeming feature or quality: it is just utter drivel.
Everything about this book is basic and weak. No doubt, I shall receive a string of comments from people defending this book, but this is just my opinion of it. I’m not wrong and neither are you. This is simply my opinion of a terribly overrated, poorly considered and badly written book. Deal with it. I welcome discussion, but not those who are going to simply say that I’m wrong with no reasoning behind their argument. Also, this is another of those rare cases when the movie is actually better than the book. This says a lot because the movie is awful.
Needless to say, I absolutely hate this book and don’t recommend it to anyone.
The Hunger Games 1. The Hunger Games- A transparent one star 2. Catching Fire- A cheap one star 3. Mockingjay- (Review to come)...more
I read them straight away. I’I bought this book for two reasons:
1. George R R Martin’s The Princess and the Queen
2. Joe Abercrombie’s Some Desperado
I read them straight away. I’ve been reading the rest of the book rather sporadically since, adding to this review as time went on. But I didn’t want to update it again until they were all finished. And now that I’ve finished them all, I can safely say that the title of the collection does not fit the stories. Certainly, it fits some of the stories. So as a collection it is an epic fail with authors pretty much writing about anything unrelated to the idea behind the book, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad book. There’s some good pieces in here, and also some very bad ones:
-Joe Abercrombie, Some Desperado -(4*)- This is an action packed story that is, in essence, an encounter between an outlaw and some bounty hunters. This is told from the point of view of Shy, one of the main characters from Red Country. The events of this short story appear to have happened before the book due to her perception of Lamb being a coward. Readers of Red Country will be aware that Shy is a very dangerous woman, so this story is a real smack in the mouth of an opener for this book.
-George R R Martin- The Princess and the Queen- (5*)- A sibling rivalry over the matter of succession leaves Westeros soaked in the blood of both man and dragon. This is told as a history rather than a characters point of view and explains how all the dragons died off (The event known as the Dance of Dragons). A must read for those who have read A Song of Ice and Fire. I’m keeping my review of this fairly brief because I think this in itself is worthy of its own review. There’s much to talk about here!
[image]
-Joe R. Lansdale, Wrestling Jesus- (5*)- This is hilariously funny, entertaining and thoroughly gripping. Two men, now in their eighties, meet every five years to have a wrestling match and the winner gets the girl. Jesus always wins though; this time, however, with the help of a new protégé, X-man may stand a chance. This is an extraordinary read and a very memorable short story. I like this author’s style that much I bought one of his books after reading this. This is the best story in here.
-Melinda Snoddgrass, The Hands That Are Not There- (4*)- What starts as a seemingly boring conversation in a strip club erupts into a short tale of love and woe ,of betrayal and injustice. Poor, poor Rohan, I cannot say too much in the way of a review without spoiling the story, though I must emphasize that this is a tantalizing read. Not for the faint hearted.
-Brandan Sanderson, Shadows For Silence in the Forrest of Hell- (3*)- This tale had elements of magic, characters of a treacherous nature and an interesting setting. It’s good stuff, but by Sanderson’s standards it’s a little mundane.
-Nancy Kress, Second Arabesque, Very Slowly- (2*)- This depicts a world in which 99% of women are infertile and thus most of the population has died off. The remnants of society are forced to roam in packs and protect their few fertile women from rival packs. Women are treated as children bearers and nothing more until Guy finds a working TV and a love for ballet. Sounds odd, but it’s worth a read.
-Megan Abbot, My heart is either broken- (2*)- This short story revolves around a couple’s missing daughter and their attempt to locate her. The dangerous woman is “revealed” at the end, but I called it after the first page. Not an overly remarkable piece of writing. Lorrie was obviously a nut case.
-Cecelia Howard, Nora’s Song – (3*)- Though Nora isn’t as violent as shy or as unhinged as Lorrie, in her own way she is out of place. To be a woman who wants the same rights as a man, to be a king and a lord, to ride a horse into battle is in its self a dangerous notion for the time. It is one that emits a sense of counter culture in an otherwise prim and proper society. So it’s a nice bit of feminism in fantasy.
-Caroline Spector- Lies My Mother Told Me- (4*) – Having previously read some of the Wildcard series, those that were included in George R R Martin’s Dreamsongs, I was dubious when reading this because I hated them. This however was excellent. Someone is stealing Hooda Mama’s necromancer abilities in order to mess with her friend Bubbles’ head. By using her daughter’s telepathic abilities they try to repair her emotionally vulnerable state caused by childhood trauma. A fantastic read!
-Jim Butcher, Bombshells- (1*)- I felt like I was missing something with this one. It is told in a familiar, chatty, almost annoying tone with characters that are poorly introduced. I believe this should only be read if you are familiar with the series in which these characters have come from otherwise it may just leave you puzzled as it did me.
-Carrie Vaughn, Raisa Stepanova- (2*)- Raisa is a Russian pilot fighter obsessed with becoming an ace, which is to say, accomplishing the shooting down five enemy planes. It was good to see that it did not consume her, though it did leave the ending a little flat. Not much to talk about here.
-Megan Lindholm (Robin Hobb), Neighbours- (1*)- I was very disappointed with this tale, especially considering the big name that wrote it, I found myself skim reading after about five pages. I gave up after ten. I guess a tale about a missing old woman, told in this way, is just a little bit flat. Sort of odd considering Hobb is one of my favourite fantasy authors.
-Lawrence Block, I Know How To Pick ‘Em- (2*)- A women walks into a bar with the intent of finding someone to kill her husband but she finds someone much worse. And fate takes a turn for the worse for this dangerous woman. This was fairly entertaining, though forgettable . -Sharon Penman, A Queen in Exile- (3*)- This one had a footnote explaining the why the character was a dangerous woman. (okay?) Why not just have the book evolve around the events that make her a dangerous woman rather than exile, the birth of her son, then explain how she went on to be a dangerous women in a short paragraph, a little bit silly. That being said I like the style of historical writing, but I just don’t think it has a place within this anthology.
-Lev Grossman, The Girl in the Mirror- (2*)- This tale just didn’t work for me, it seemed a little childish. The only reason I gave it two stars and not one was because the Harry Potter reference made me laugh.
-Diana Rowland, City Lazarus- (3*) – This gritty, corrupted, crime filled plot left me thinking, “Why?” as the final scene ended.
-Giana Goldom, Vigins- (1*)- I found this annoying to read. The changing POVs in this were confusing as the characters were extremely similar and were only interacting with each other. I did It just didn’t do it for me.
-S. M Stirling- Pronouncing Doom- (2*) – A case in a citizen made court for a rapist a not very entertaining to read, full of fiction laws and codes with references to unexplained gods. Far too complex for a short story.
-Samuel Sykes- Name the Beast- (2*)- This is an interesting enough read, though I just couldn’t understand the characters mind set or what the girl’s mother was talking about in relation to sound. I gave up in the end.
-Pat Cadigan, Caretakers- (3*)- Two sisters are living together whilst their Mum is in a care home. One of them starts to volunteer at the home and consequently some residents have improved health. What going on? Whilst I wouldn’t consider the women in this to be dangerous, the story was nevertheless quite good.
So it's a real mixed bag. There’s a few in here that are really worth reading but some are just plain bad writing. I don’t recommend this book at all. It’s too random to be a decent collection....more
George R. R Martin writes excellent fantasy novels. I can’t dispute that. I wouldn’t want to, A Song of Ice a"The American Tolkien?" No. I think not.
George R. R Martin writes excellent fantasy novels. I can’t dispute that. I wouldn’t want to, A Song of Ice and Fire is what got me into reading in the first place. However, to be called the American Tolkien implies that he writes like Tolkien, which, of course, he does not.
The world building, writing styles and plot tropes couldn’t be further apart. Not a bad thing for sure. It’s a rather absurd comparison because there is absolutely nothing to compare. It’s like calling Robin Hobb “The American J.K Rowling.” There’s no substance to such a label. Both are great writers, but they are nothing alike. It makes no sense whatsoever. I really don’t know why this label has stuck to Martin. Certainly, you could call it a compliment though most writers would prefer to be remembered for who they are and not who they are supposed to resemble.
I find the label so moronic and annoying. If anyone can be given the label it’s Robert Jorden. He copied Tolkien at the start of his series. He used Tolkien as a foundation, as so many other fantasy novelists have done, and then eventually he broke free with his own original ideas. But then there’s the phrase on the front cover of this book staring me in the face and making me not want to read it. Sounds silly, but there it is. Calling George R.R Martin the American Tolkien is a slant against the man’s creative powers. He was inspired by Tolkien, but he didn’t need him for this. Most of the stuff in here’s science fiction anyway.
So what about this book?
Simply put, the selection of stories in here is just not as good as those in the first volume. The inclusion of The Hedge Knight felt like filler material, it’s easily available in its own editions elsewhere. As is Tuf Voyaging. The Wild Card entries were boring. Brandon Sanderson made superheroes cool and interesting, giving them new life, in his Reckoners series. The Wild Card stories brought nothing new to the table, shame considering there was so many of them in here. The Twilight Zone also felt like plain bad writing, such a drag.
I recommend reading the first volume, but not this one. The stories were more varied and enjoyable. In here there was perhaps two I liked. This is not enough to merit a positive rating. There were too many stories I’d already read that had been grabbed from other editions. If you’ve read lots of his shorter works, then you are likely to see the same stuff here again. The first volume contained the bits from early on in his career. So that was new to me, all in all, it was just a better book....more
"I was a lot better at starting stories than I was at finishing them"
[image]
Isn’t that just terribHere’s what George R.R. Martin said in 2003:
"I was a lot better at starting stories than I was at finishing them"
[image]
Isn’t that just terribly hilarious? But let's move on.
George R.R Martin is such a versatile writer. His ease at switching numerous point of views is testimony to this in A Song of Ice and Fire. But, he has also written many other novels and short stories. He’s just as adept at writing science fiction as he is fantasy. For Martin fans who don’t read beyond his masterpiece are really missing out. There’s some good stuff in here.
A wide range of stories
What surprised me the most when reading this was that I actually enjoyed each and every short story. With collections like this there are almost always a few that stand and, inevitably, a few that are easily forgotten. With this every short story stood out. They are all unique in their own way, and demonstrate an author who is completely confident in his craft. I have nothing bad to say about this at all. It was thoroughly enjoyable. I highly recommend it to his fans.
The variety is quite astonishing. I expected many of the stories to be fairly similar or at the very least of a similar style. The Pear Shaped Man is a creepy story that had almost elements of Lovecraft to it. The Exit to San Breta was thrilling and almost sounded like it was written by Stephen King. Sankings was very unique, and very strange. Certainly, one I want to read again and provide a separate review for in the future. The Ice Dragon is the sort of thing you would expect him to write; it’s a sad little tale that will really needs to be read by all lovers of A Song of Ice and Fire. Simply because it shows how his initial idea developed into his epic.
[image]
An author’s journey
This isn’t just an impersonal collection of stories shoved together; it is a journey of the man himself. It is divided into sections of his life, sections in which he wrote different stories. He provides a mini narrative in the form of an introduction to each part, which is frank and revealing. He explains why he took up writing and describes his early experiences in the field. He is a man who has always been dedicated to what he does and one who had to work really hard to be successful.
Before A Game of Thrones he’d written a couple of books that were considered failures or at the very least not very popular. Such as the terrible Armageddon Rag. That was just dull. So these little additions made reading this all the more interesting. It’s rare that an author gives such a glimpse of himself. This was a good collection.
When I get really annoyed with a book I sometimes forget how to write a book review. I don’t approach it how I normally would, and instead I just listWhen I get really annoyed with a book I sometimes forget how to write a book review. I don’t approach it how I normally would, and instead I just list a bunch of points that really pissed me off about the work:
1. The same story AGAIN-According to the cover, this is the “untold story of Altair.” It’s not. This book is a verbatim repeating of the events in the first Assassin’s creed game (yawn.) Now don’t get me wrong they were good events. I thought the game was very clever, but I didn’t want to hear the exact same story here. It needed to move forward and tell fans something new!
2. Poor new material- And the second problem, ironically, is what I just said the book needed. After repeating the events of the first game, which comprised the first half of this book, the author moves on and gives us some information about what happened next. And I don’t think it worked. Obviously this book was approved by the video game writers, but, for me, it just deified continuity. That’s not where I thought Altair would end up judging by his previous actions.
3. This is not the same character- And this moves me swiftly on to my next point. Altair doesn’t feel like Altair. The author has completely failed to capture any sense of his voice. Simply put, the Altair here is not the knife throwing badass assassin of the video game. No. He seemed weak.
4. Irresponsibility. That’s all he has. To get the piece of Eden Altair went through hell. There is absolutely no way he would realistically lose it. On a character level, his actions were idiotic. This isn’t enough reason to criticise the book. Some people are stupid. But Altair is not, at least, not anymore. He grew as a person through the game, and he learnt to respect his abilities. He held in his hands true power, and he would have safe-guard it at all costs. No matter what.
5. Dependency-This also relies on the video game too much. I’ve read a few novels based on games in the past, and they really could exist on their own. Had I not known the plot of the game, I think I would have become a little lost here and would have completely missed the significance of some of the side characters and assassination targets.
6. Altair has a wife? Assassin’s historically speaking didn’t have wives, and so far in the series we have had no mention of one. So another continuity problem.
7. Naming fuck up- Altair’s full name is “Altair Ibn La Ahad."Ibn means son of; yet, for some reason Altair’s son has the same “son of” following his name instead of the correct one. It’s like the author has taken this Middle Eastern system for naming as the same thing as a Western surname. And he looks like an absolute idiot.
8. This is not Assassin’s Creed-All in all, the first half of this book is a plot summary of the first game, and the second is a disaster. I wish I never read it.
What surprises most about this book is the fact that it was actually published. When I read a book this poor, it give me inspiration and hope that I could be published one day. Well, if I actually managed to drag myself away from reading and reviewing and wrote something fictional for a change. I mean if a crap book like this can hit the shelves…...more
I read Frankenstein for a sixth time this week. Although it is one of my favourite novels, and in my opinion one of the fin3rd Review - August 2022
I read Frankenstein for a sixth time this week. Although it is one of my favourite novels, and in my opinion one of the finest pieces of fiction ever written, I find myself with a new appreciation of the text every time I come to it.
A large proportion of one of my PhD chapters is about this novel. I'm discussing the idea of the vegetable diet along with purity and becoming our natural selves. And I'm also considering notions of animal rights, of the idea that man is very much an animal too and he has lost this sense of original self. Frankenstein at its very core is a novel about duality, of our capability to be both good and evil and to be both human and animal.
There is so much to take from this book and there's so much that be taken apart, scrutinised and then put back together again. What's truly striking about the work is how much is reflects the anxieties of the age. It's full of insecurities about nature, god, science and our place in the world. Ultimately, it is a novel that creates a sense of unease because it highlights so much about the inauthentic nature of the lives many of us live. Running through the novel is a craving for freedom: a craving to to simply exist in a natural way.
2nd Review - January 2020
Some books teach you something new each time you revisit them.
I picked up the tragically wonderful Frankenstein for a fifth time this week, and I was totally mesmerised by the descriptive language used to describe the natural world.
In all my previous readings, I focused on all the classic tropes of man and monster though I never considered the importance of the serene beauty that surrounds the story. The natural world dominates the background of the novel. It’s there, like a pervading monster that lingers in the darkest reaches of the mind.
What struck me most about it was the fact that both Victor and his creation long for a real life, a life where one is truly alive. And they both ponder what this means at length, reaching the same conclusion: to go completely nomad. They both wish to live a life free of burden and complications, no money, no commitments and no responsibility. They just want to be totally free in the wilderness with the ultimate goal of finding happiness by looking after their most immediate and natural desires.
And for me this says a great deal about society, not just the society in which this was written, but society in general: how many of us feel truly alive?
Original Review - 2016
Let’s have a party Victor. Let’s get together and celebrate all things Gothic, and dark, and wonderful. Let’s have it in an attic in an old house in the middle of a thunderstorm, and then afterwards let’s go to the graveyard with our shovels and our body bags. Sounds good doesn’t it Victor? We could then create our own doppelgängers from the corpses of criminals and geniuses. Then we can abandon our marvellous creation to fend for itself with his childlike innocence, and then wonder why it goes so horribly wrong and blows up in our faces.
Ahh..Victor you silly, brilliant, man. On second thought we probably shouldn’t have that party.
Because if we did it would end in blood
[image]
Yes, lots of blood: the blood of everyone you love, the blood of all your family Victor. You blame the monster, but you are his creator. You should have taught him the ways of the world and guided his first steps. The things you two could have accomplished together. So I ask you this Victor, who is the real monster? Is it the creature that has gone on a murderous rampage or it you? You are the man who played at god and was horrified at the consequence. You judged your creation by his physical appearance, which was more a reflection of your vain soul. Ahh..Victor you silly, brilliant, man. Surely you don’t wonder why the monster revenged himself upon you?
“I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel...”
Indeed, the real monster of this novel is Victor Frankenstein, and not his monstrous creation. The creature is a monster on the outside but Victor is on the inside, which is a form much worse. By abandoning the creature he has taught him to become what his appearance is. The first human experience he receives is rejection based upon his physicality. His own creator recoils in disgust from him. He cannot be blamed for his actions if all he has been taught is negative emotion, he will only respond in one way. He is innocent and childlike but also a savage brute. These are two things that should never be put together. Woe to Victor Frankenstein’s family.
“There is love in me the likes of which you've never seen. There is rage in me the likes of which should never escape. If I am not satisfied in the one, I will indulge the other.”
[image]
Mary Shelley raises questions of the danger of knowledge, and shows a probable consequence of trying to play god; the novel portrays nineteen century fears for the rising field of science and knowledge and questions how far it could go. Indeed, in this case Victor takes on the role of a God by creating new life. She also shows us what can happen to a man if he so driven by this thirst for knowledge and how it will ultimately lead to a fall. Victor reminds me somewhat of Doctor Faustus (The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus) in this regard. Faustus is a man who sold his soul to Lucifer for unlimited knowledge in the form of arcane magic. Victor, like Faustus, has stopped at nothing to gain his goal, but in the end is ultimately dissatisfied with the result.
Suffice to say, I simply adore this book as you may have gathered from my ramblings. I think this, alongside Dracula, are amongst the strongest representations of Gothic literature. Furthermore, I have a real soft spot for epistolary means of storytelling. I’m not sure why, perhaps it’s the stronger sense of intimacy you fell with the characters as you see their words on the page rather than an impartial narrators. You see inside their heads more and understand their motifs and feelings.
My favourite quote:
"This was then the reward of my benevolence! I had saved a human being from destruction, and as a recompense I now writhed under the miserable pain of a wound which shattered the flesh and bone. The feelings of kindness and gentleness which I had entertained but a few moments before gave place to hellish rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind.
Listen to the passion, to the intellect and witness such a wasted opportunity. Victor, you’re a silly, silly, man.
___________________________________
You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree. __________________________________...more
Sean Barrs
>
Books:
sci-fi
(127)
Loading...
