I have seen relatively little George Bernard Shaw and until the last two weeks had not read any (have now read Major Barbara and Mrs. Warren's ProfessI have seen relatively little George Bernard Shaw and until the last two weeks had not read any (have now read Major Barbara and Mrs. Warren's Profession). That said, I had always assumed that whenever I got around to him I would be a big fan, enjoying the language, ideas, and milieu. So far he has not lived to my high expectations.
Yes, Arms and the Man was sometimes amusing. Yes, at least one of the characters had a certain amount of depth and change (Raina, the daughter) and some of the others were interesting types. And sure, there is something valuable in puncturing the nobility of war and mocking heroism and nobility. But the ridiculous situations felt a bit stock, the characters felt a bit flat, and none of the language was so exciting that I would have felt impelled to immediately call anyone and share it with them.
I do not mean to be overly harsh, I would love to see this in a theater. And I will read more Shaw in the future, there was nothing unpleasant about this, and in fact it was somewhat pleasant (it was published in a collection, “Plays Pleasant”.) Just did not blow me away in the manner I might have hoped....more
This play is about the relationship between a prostitute-turned-madam (Mrs. Warren) who returns to England to get to know her strong willed daughter VThis play is about the relationship between a prostitute-turned-madam (Mrs. Warren) who returns to England to get to know her strong willed daughter Vivie who has grown up away from her and in ignorance of her mother's profession. A bunch of other men are thrown into the mix of various ages and various degrees of attraction and histories, sordid and otherwise, to Mrs. Warren and Vivie.
I loved Vivie as a character, liked Mrs. Warren, but found almost all of the men--and their relationships to each other and to the women--tiresome. Plus it all felt like a deliberately setup scenario rather than a splendidly plotted drama....more
This fable seems to have a clear moral--with some debate about a critical parameter in the moral. Let me explain. The gods descend on Sichuan in searcThis fable seems to have a clear moral--with some debate about a critical parameter in the moral. Let me explain. The gods descend on Sichuan in search of a good person. They find a prostitute, Shen Te, who acts kindly to them, they give her money to buy a modest tobacco shop. Then they leave. This is the beginning of Shen Te's troubles as just about everyone and uncle (literally) show up and start asking for money, asking for places to stay, claiming they should be paid exorbitant sums for work they did not do, and other ways of taking advantage of Shen Te. At first she goes along with all of it but she is on the brink of ruin--a ruin that would do no good for anybody--when she invents an alter ego, a male cousin named Shui Ta, who is a cold-hearted capitalist. Eventually Shui Ta is accused of murdering Shen Te, there is a trial, the gods preside, and Shui Ta dramatically explains that he is really Shen Te. The moral is that you cannot be pure good or pure bad (maybe selfish is the right word for it), but instead need to be a combination of the two--with some debate about the proper ratio.
All of this is related in a fantastical manner (the gods were a bit of a giveaway in that regard) that is also a bit absurd and, of course, feels artificial and distant from the normal emotional connection you might have to characters in classic literature.
I found it sort of intriguing, sort of interesting and amusing, was impressed by the enormous variety of language and approach (well translated, in my view, by Michael Hofmann), but also found it tiresome for a number of stretches as well....more
I could read every line by Andrew Undershaft, the exceedingly wealthy arms manufacturer who is one of the main characters in this play, over and over I could read every line by Andrew Undershaft, the exceedingly wealthy arms manufacturer who is one of the main characters in this play, over and over again without tiring of them. But if I never had to re-read or re-hear another one of the cockney-infused lines by the poorer characters in this play I would be fine. I am not sure if this reflects some warped and biased taste on my part or is George Bernard Shaw's fault for the way in which he created the characters, making one sparkling, counterintuitive and challenging while the others into stock and sometimes even condescending specimens of poverty with no originality or soul. I lean towards the later but am open to the former.
Stepping back, I came to this after asking a colleague in the English department whether there is any fiction with positive portrayals of capitalism or capitalists, with the positivity not related to charity or personal rectitude but the business itself doing good for the world. He suggested this as an intriguing and debatable possibility so I set out to read it (I should say, my wife has since come up with a clearer example, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and I would add bonus points for the movie Wonka which depicts both the benefits of capitalism but also the importance of antitrust enforcement against cartels).
Shaw sets out with a tough case: an absentee father arms manufacturer who is, by our conventional standards of morality, ammoral. He develops even deadlier weapons and believes in selling them to any side of a conflict. He states that "there are two things necessary to Salvation... money and gunpowder." This is contrasted with his daughter, Barbara, who is a Major in the Salvation Army and is focused on ministering to and providing crumbs for people in poverty while working on their salvation.
We visit a Salvation Army camp and see people who are pretending to have worse moral problems than they have to get assistance, who are still poor (albeit less miserable about it than they should be, for example they no longer mind the cold), and whose Salvation Army efforts end up failing. This is all a contrast with the arms factory we also end up seeing which, it is asserted more than shown, provides people with a well ordered life that takes care of most of their needs leaving them what seems like happy and busy.
It is never clear what exactly Shaw is satirizing and what he is agreeing with. I found that a good aspect of the play. I read much (but not all) of his very long preface where he complains that audiences took the wrong message from it, which seems to me a good thing about the play and the audiences--but if I'm wrong it is more of a failure on Shaw's part than on the audience's part. Regardless, it becomes clear that he meant some of his key points quite unironically: "In the millionaire Undershaft I have represented a man who has become intellectually and spiritually as well as practically conscious of the irresistible natural truth which we all abhor and repudiate: to wit, that the greatest of evils and the worst of crimes is poverty, and that our first duty—a duty to which every other consideration should be sacrificed—is not to be poor. 'Poor but honest,' 'the respectable poor,' and such phrases are as intolerable and as immoral as 'drunken but amiable,' 'fraudulent but a good after-dinner speaker,' 'splendidly criminal,' or the like."
Of course, Shaw is a Fabian socialist not a capitalist. He genuinely believes that capitalism needs poverty and that it needs a police force to impose that poverty. It is not entirely clear how you would understand this strictly limited to the play itself but from the preface and his broader writings.
The Andrew Undershaft character feels reminiscent of Dick Dudgeon from The Devil's Disciple (I haven't read or seen much Shaw, something I will set out to remedy, so he may resemble many others as well) in that he does his good for the world despite his pretenses and outward affect not as an extension of it. The opposite of, say, a Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House (although in some ways like another Dickens character, Sydney Carton). This creates an analogy between capitalism--and its unintended but positive consequences--and a certain moral outlook that is focused more on deeds and consequences than words and intentions.
As for the play as a whole, the best parts are spectacular but overall it is too long and uneven. It begins as a drawing room comedy that feels like a somewhat less witty continuation of Oscar Wilde before introducing Undershaft and his scenes. Undershaft's biological son plays an important role in illustrating his character and commenting on merit versus inheritance but I could not figure out why his other daughter and her partner, both of whom were shallow, silly and one dimensional, needed to be included in a play that was already on the very long side. But all of that is less important than what I took away from reading it--and often enjoyed immensely in the process....more
"The Great Sultana," the second of the two Cervantes plays in this volume, was really enjoyable and interesting. "The Bagnios of Algiers" was fine but"The Great Sultana," the second of the two Cervantes plays in this volume, was really enjoyable and interesting. "The Bagnios of Algiers" was fine but mostly of historical/contextual interest rather than something that stands on its own. Both were better than the only other Cervantes play I've read, The Gallant Spaniard.
"The Bagnios of Algiers" takes place among captives in Algiers, partly based on Cervantes' five years in captivity there. The best parts of it are recycled into (or taken from?) "The Captive's Tale" in Don Quixote, most notable the noble Moorish woman Zara/Zoraida who discovers her own path to Christianity and falls in love with a captain. The play has a lot of action and might even make a good movie, from Corsair raids on the Spanish coast to acquire captives and slaves to escapes from Algiers to betrayals, conversions, impalings, and more. It depicts Algiers as a mix of different types--Muslims, Christians, Jews, renegades, etc., but mostly disliking and demeaning each other (well, the Jews are just disliked and demeaned by the others without passing it on). But overall it has too many characters and incidents to form a fully coherent dramatic whole.
"The Great Sultana" is filled with disguises. Christians disguised as muslims. Men disguised as women. People disguised as people from other country's. All in the service of a story that takes place in Constantinople, again amongst captives. But "The Great Sultana" has more humor (including some silly humor, like a man who gets his freedom by promising to spend the next ten years teaching an elephant to speak, and who shows up periodically to report on his progress). Fewer characters and incidents and battles (unlike both Bagnios and the Gallant Spaniard), and thus what feels like more dramatic unity. It still does not have any characters who live and breathe in the way that characters in Don Quixote or Shakespeare do. So again is still a bit of a historical curiosity. But an enjoyable one....more
It's 2023 and Cervantes has a new book out! Actually a play (that was never performed in his lifetime) that was translated into English for the first It's 2023 and Cervantes has a new book out! Actually a play (that was never performed in his lifetime) that was translated into English for the first time. And I just ran into it in the bookstore. And now I'm the first to review it on Goodreads.
The tale is a mixture of love and war set in the sixteenth century siege of the Spanish-controlled Oran by the Ottomans (something that was a part of the broader naval struggle that culminated in the Battle of Lepanto which Cervantes was wounded in). The translation is excellent, with rhyming verse that is reminiscent of the amazing Richard Wilbur translations of Molière. Unfortunately the drama itself makes little sense.
It starts with a Muslim woman who wants a Christian knight brought to her for reasons that are never explained. Then the knight's behavior itself makes little sense, with him deserting the garrison, getting captured, fighting for the Muslims, but then returning to the Christian side all for reasons that are not really explained. And then there are coincidences so absurd they would make Shakespeare blush. All of which turns from a comedy of disguises and mistaken identities back into a history play that culminates with an epic battle.
I'm glad I read it but it has virtually nothing in common with Don Quixote. And a prose version might have been do-able as one of the (amazing) Exemplary Novels. But it does not really work in this format....more
I recently visited Elsinore Castle in Denmark (or actually Helsingør as it is written in Danish) and couldn't restrain myself from picking up a copy oI recently visited Elsinore Castle in Denmark (or actually Helsingør as it is written in Danish) and couldn't restrain myself from picking up a copy of Hamlet to re-read. You didn't need me to say that it really is an amazing play, both rip roaring drama from beginning to end, language, profound statements, canonical lines, moral ambiguity, madness, and much much more....more
A beautiful translation of a timeless play. Seamus Heaney does not make as many (or any?) changes in this as he did in The Cure at Troy: A Version of A beautiful translation of a timeless play. Seamus Heaney does not make as many (or any?) changes in this as he did in The Cure at Troy: A Version of Sophocles' Philoctetes, but at times the translation is very free--with distinctive verses and language for the different characters (e.g., the guards speak in a colloquial manner that would be fitting for lower-level soldiers today). All of this makes it very readable. Seamus Heaney's epilogue states that he was motivated by the Iraq war and the Bush administration's treatment of its critics but nothing about the translation seems to be particularly didactic or linked to any particular historical event. Creon, as Sophocles wrote it, is clearly in the wrong--but you can understand how he gets trapped in that place and he is quick to repent and change course--just not quick enough to save his wife, son, and Antigone....more
An over-the-top, absurd play about an eccentric billionaire returning to the declining industrial town of her birth and promising to give the town a mAn over-the-top, absurd play about an eccentric billionaire returning to the declining industrial town of her birth and promising to give the town a massive amount of money if they execute the person who lied about fathering her child, driving her out of town and into prostitution--before her meteoric rise. The town initially soundly rejects the offer but then...
Overall, is a comic and light exploration of some deep themes like capitalism, democracy, morality, and more--that really makes you think while also keep you entertained and engaged.
An excellent translation of Pushkin's complete plays. I've read the main ones before (Boris Godunov and The Little Tragedies) but this also has a few An excellent translation of Pushkin's complete plays. I've read the main ones before (Boris Godunov and The Little Tragedies) but this also has a few more short plays, both completed and incomplete.
The only really full play is Boris Godunov, which is also the best. After reading the play I re-read my review from over a decade ago and found myself less critical. Sure it falls short of Shakespeare but it has an epic sweep, a wide range of characters and voices, and it all hangs together--with some truly outstanding scenes. A combination of history and tragedy and comedy it also feels uniquely and weirdly Russian in the various traditions it is drawing on.
Of the little tragedies, Mozart and Salieri is the most notably, inventing a story that was popularized by Peter Shaffer in Amadeus--that Salieri was uniquely able to appreciate the genius of Mozart and murdered him out of jealousy. I also liked The Miserly Knight and was less fond of the others. The Water Nymph retells Rusalka, creating a beautful fairy tale. Most of the other plays were fragments that were derivative or even translations of others.
Definitely read Eugene Onegin and Pushkin's stories before reading this. But if you've already read all of those would recommend this too....more
It's sort of cheating to record this as a book when it is really like watching two episodes of a television series (or listening to a podcast). But itIt's sort of cheating to record this as a book when it is really like watching two episodes of a television series (or listening to a podcast). But it was fascinating--an alluring woman calling a set of powerful men and having long insightful conversations with them. I rarely like multi-voice audiobooks but this worked as a sort of radio play and was very effective with the wonderful acting of Rachel Brosnahan in the role of Miranda Grosvenor. The music and other effects worked very well also. Sort of trashy and superficial but also sort of moving and suspenseful and fun. Plus it's short--and free if you have Amazon Prime....more
In December I was browsing in the McNally Jackson bookstore in New York City. One of my favorite things about the bookstore is they organize the fictiIn December I was browsing in the McNally Jackson bookstore in New York City. One of my favorite things about the bookstore is they organize the fiction by country/region. I was looking through the Russian section, as I've done many times before, expecting that I had already read just about everything in it when this cover jumped out at me. I loved the title Woe from Wit and it was advertised as a verse comedy, a genre I love (having read all of the Richard Wilbur Moliere translations, many of them multiple times). I bought it but only just got around to reading it. And I read it with no preconceptions: I didn't read the intro or the back cover so I didn't have a confident idea of when it was written or any of the other context (I read all of that afterwards).
I was drawn in from the very beginning with the witty rhyming lines in aabb and abab format. It started out as what I thought would be a light comedy of romantic misunderstandings: the mistress of the house is in love with someone but he's in love with the maid, the father is a bit of a buffoon, and then another suitor enters the mix. But when that happens it shifts, it is still light and comic but the new character (Alexandr Chatsky) is a Russian returning to Moscow to find it changed, he is witty and biting about the army and much of the society as well. Eventually there is a splendid scene set at a ball where the mistress starts a rumor that Chatsky is mad and roughly a dozen characters, really not much more than extras, amplify and distort it. The final act wraps up with some more romantic mishaps bringing it to a sort of joyful or at least amusing conclusion....more
A beautiful retelling of the story of Eurydice--mostly from Eurydice's perspective. Like The Trojan Women (which I read right before it) it is surrealA beautiful retelling of the story of Eurydice--mostly from Eurydice's perspective. Like The Trojan Women (which I read right before it) it is surreal, but unlike The Trojan Women it has its own internal logic, rules and the surrealism adds to the emotional power and profundity of the story.
The biggest thing Sarah Ruhl introduces into the story is Eurydice's relationship with her father. At first he is dead, she is alive, and he is trying to write her letters she never gets. Then she is dead, at first like all dead people she forgets everything but he brings back her memories, ability to read and more making a tender reunion in the underworld. But then in the end when she is cast back both her father and her, like everyone else, lose their memories, their language, and their relationship to each other again. All of it was very moving about lost loved ones, communicating with them and also about forgetting.
The love story between Orpheus and Eurydice is also beautiful, with him sharing music, tying a string around her ring finger, and lots of short lines of mutual understanding and then speaking/singing together.
I would really to love to see this play, either done in a stark minimalist way that let's one enjoy the language or in a more elaborate production that fully depicts things like the elevator with rain inside on the way to the underworld....more
I enjoyed and was fascinated by this sophisticated and surreal adaptation of Euripides' play "The Trojan Women" by noted poet and classical translatorI enjoyed and was fascinated by this sophisticated and surreal adaptation of Euripides' play "The Trojan Women" by noted poet and classical translator Anne Carson and illustrator Rosanna Bruno. I did not, however, understand much of it, probably missing many references, and being puzzled by a number of the choices, but maybe one is not supposed fully understand something this surreal.
It starts out with Poseidon depicted as a wave, Troy as an old decaying hotel, and then it starts getting weirder when Athena is an empty pair of overalls. Hekabe is an old mangy dog, Helen alternates between being a fox and a mirror, Andromache and Astyanax are both trees, and then it gets really weird when Menelaos is depicted as a floating "some sort of gearbox, clutch or coupling mechanism, once sleek, not this year’s model."
The underlying play has a lot of weaknesses compared to the best of Greek drama but this was an intriguing and thought provoking way to experience it again. Unlike many simplistic graphic depictions it didn't clarify and simplify but instead moved in the opposite direction, creating some unforgettable images in the process....more
This was so different from every other Greek tragedy that I've read that I found it fascinating and exciting. Dionysus is in disguise and is arrested This was so different from every other Greek tragedy that I've read that I found it fascinating and exciting. Dionysus is in disguise and is arrested by King Pentheus who is trying to keep order even while the people around him, including elders, are being corrupted by his ecstatic and frenzied rituals. It starts out feeling like a silly comedy but then Dionysus gets his brutal and gory revenge. It doesn't not feel completely coherent but it all feels interesting and weird and engaging.
I read the Anne Carson translation and loved it. It was stylized, used interesting ways of displaying the text, and all of it worked well in the context of this play. I really didn't like her translations of An Oresteia which I found were mannered in a way that interfered with a fluid reading of the texts. I liked Antigonick because it did not have the pretense of being a translation....more
I have now read all 15 of the extant Greek tragedies set in the world of the Trojan War (nearly half of all of the extant Greek tragedies). This one, I have now read all 15 of the extant Greek tragedies set in the world of the Trojan War (nearly half of all of the extant Greek tragedies). This one, attributed to Euripides but with substantial debate, is the only one that is weak. It is also the only one that is straight out of the Iliad--the episode where Dolon is captured by Odysseus and Diomedes who then turn the tables and end up killing Rhesus (the king of the Thracians) and a bunch of Thracians. It is somewhat interesting to read this episode from the Iliad from the perspective of the Trojans but only somewhat--there are no moral dilemmas, powerful speeches, interesting plot, powerful drama, or anything else to this. (Note, I read the Richard Lattimore translation in The Complete Greek Tragedies
In general I really enjoyed the fifteen plays I read. Other than this one they all worked around the story of the Iliad, either depicting events before the war (e.g., Iphigenia at Aulis), during the war (Philocetes), but mostly after the war (8 of the plays--mostly notably the Oresteia--are about Agamemnon's return, his murder by Clytemnestra and her murder by Orestes and Electra). Several show events or their aftermath from the Trojan perspective (including this one and Andromache, Hecuba and the Trojan Women). I loved how they all centered around the same event but provided different perspectives, changed ways to understand the characters, watching them be unsympathetic in one version and sympathetic in another. Like the Iliad and the Odyssey, the ability of the Greeks to not privilege their own side or worldview but try to see things through the eyes of other people--and in the case of these male playwrights often through the eyes of women--was particularly impressive and stands in contrast to other ancient literature....more
It is clear why this is among the most performed Greek tragedies from antiquity through the present. The story is simple: Jason (no relation!) has lefIt is clear why this is among the most performed Greek tragedies from antiquity through the present. The story is simple: Jason (no relation!) has left Medea for King Creon's daughter. She is mad about it. Very mad. Possibly even goes actually mad. She poisons Creon, his daughter, and then murders her own children and flies off in a chariot with their dead bodies.
What makes it interesting is her remarkable speeches. One about the lot of women and how childbirth is more than three times as difficult as going to fight in war. Another about whether or not to kill her children. And then Jason's speech about how she should be grateful he ran off with a powerful woman because it will be good for his children. The other part of what makes it interesting is the deceit, the way she pretends to have forgiven and come around, but really is just playing a deep game and plotting murder. That level of deceit is not something that I remember anywhere else in Ancient Greek literature with the rather notable exception of Odysseus.
Some of it feels ridiculous (why exactly does she need to kill her children when she has a flying chariot she could take them away in?) It does not feel like grappling with a weighty moral dilemma but more like an out-of-control crime of passion.
I worry that it is a reflection on my middlebrow approach to literature that this was one of my favorite plays (and if I were left to my own devices II worry that it is a reflection on my middlebrow approach to literature that this was one of my favorite plays (and if I were left to my own devices I would rate it above Oedipus Rex). It feels very contemporary: the plot mostly advances through dialog, there are a number of twists and turns, the chorus plays a minimal role, there is no deus ex machina, and relatively minimal intrusions of exposition. In other ways it feels very much like a Greek tragedy as characters wrestle with moral dilemmas that (tautologically) have no good answers.
This is the 14th Greek play I've read set in the world of the Trojan War (I didn't set out to read all of them, it was more of a binge read where one led to another, and at this point only Rhesus is left so I might as well read this). Plus I've read the Iliad, Odyssey, other fictional treatments, and more. And this is the very first time that Agamemnon seemed sympathetic and interesting, instead of various combinations of arrogant, stubborn and aloof. Iphigenia at Aulis begins with his second thoughts about sacrificing his daughter and what is ultimately a ham-handed effort to stop it. He then argues with his brother Menelaus and you can feel for his balancing of an absolutely horrific act with his broader responsibility (and self interest). Menelaus is also more human than he is elsewhere, eventually persuaded by his brother that his niece shouldn't be sacrificed.
The drama really is an action-oriented one, even a melodrama. Clytemnestra shows up having believed the ruse that Iphigenia is going to be married to Achilles, she is excited about it after Achilles is described to him (which itself is fascinating since she didn't previously know him so he is described to the reader from scratch). Achilles himself is among the less interesting characters, much less interesting than the rage character that dominates the Iliad, instead he feels young, inexperienced, and his impulse to defend Iphigenia feels laudable but also naive and possibly more about his vanity than morality.
The least satisfying part was Iphigenia's abrupt and unexplained conversion to the accepting saintly victim who accepts her own sacrifice without trying to use Achilles to escape from it. She even tells her mother not to blame her father, which evidently didn't work out that well.
It's possible that this play does not repay repeated readings in the way that so many of the others do, I've only read it once so I'll tell you when I read it again in a decade or so. But for a first read it was a real page turner, made me think, and I don't think I'll forget the way these characters grapple with their fates or maybe their choices....more
I've been going through The Oresteia: Agamemnon, Women at the Graveside, Orestes in Athens, An Oresteia, and other facets of the story. Now, last, I'vI've been going through The Oresteia: Agamemnon, Women at the Graveside, Orestes in Athens, An Oresteia, and other facets of the story. Now, last, I've gotten to Euripides version. In many ways this was my favorite version. I loved how Orestes was reluctant to kill his mother and Electra pushed him into it. I loved how compelling the argument was from Clytemnestra for sparing her life (more compelling than the emotional appeal of displaying her breast in Aeschylus's version) and how Euripides more effectively shifts perspectives and sympathies than other versions do. I loved the sly ways in Euripides made fun of the previous versions, like the idea that Orestes footprints or hair would be recognizable decades later, something that felt dramatic and exciting when I first read it but is obviously preposterous. And perhaps best was the way in which Apollo seems to be wrong in his command to Orestes to kill his mother and Orestes realizes it, pushes back, but does it anyway. All around, this play felt fresh, alive and exciting to me....more
Helen is an post-Trojan war alternate history: we being with Helen alone in Egypt explaining that after Paris came for her at Sparta Hera whisked her Helen is an post-Trojan war alternate history: we being with Helen alone in Egypt explaining that after Paris came for her at Sparta Hera whisked her off to Sparta and sent Paris off with some sort of copy that he thought was Helen:
"But Hera, hating having lost, turned my affair with Paris into wind. She gave king Priam's on an empty image, not me but something like me, made of air but breathing. So he thought that he had me, but it was just an empty false appearance."
Helen was safe in Egypt until the king died and his son wants to rape and marry her. At this moment Menelaus shows up having spent seven years at sea following the war and after an initial lack of recognition they pair up and formulate a plan of escape--which is made more difficult because the king's sister is omniscient. Ultimately through disguises and a burial trick (almost identical to the plot of Iphigenia among the Taurians) and a bloody escape/chase scene they make it out--with a bit of deus ex machina by Castor and Pollux to help them along.
All of it feels like a light action/adventure story more than a fully fledged tragedy. There is a little of the lessons around politics and duty (namely that the new king's sister was right to betray him because he was doing something wrong in the eyes of his own late father and the gods), but mostly it is about the suspense of whether and how Helen and Menelaus will escape.
I should add that seeing Helen portrayed this sympathetically, hearing so much from her, and having her resist the entreaties and worse from men was an interesting twist on her general invisibility in the set of poems, plays and stories that ultimately center around her in important respects.
Loading...
