Here’s an area journal that’s looking for submissions…I always figure that if they’re asking, you’ve got a better shot. So, send out your work!
The Delmarva Review, a regional literary review, announces it is now seeking writing for an “all new” issue in the spring 2008. The publication will consider submissions from all writers, on a rolling acceptance basis, until January 31, 2008. Writers are invited to submit poetry, short fiction, creative nonfiction, and/or short reviews.
Publication guidelines call for “great story-telling and moving poetry. In creative nonfiction we are particularly interested in material influenced by the land and cultures of the Chesapeake Bay and Delmarva regions. Established and emerging writers are encouraged to submit their best work.”
“We also seek illustrative artwork in the form of line drawings and black and white photography. Our standards are for well-written, evocative prose and poetry exhibiting skillful expression,” according to the submission guidelines.
The Delmarva Review, published annually by the Eastern Shore Writers’ Association, was originally founded to feature writing from the Delmarva region, but it now welcomes all writers. Detailed submission guidelines and additional information can be found on the publication’s web site.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Baltimore Writers' Conference
Here’s an upcoming one-day conference that may be of interest. (Okay…some shameless self-promotion may be involved here, since I’m among the panelists!)
Baltimore Writers’ Conference: Poetry, Fiction, Nonfiction, Publishing
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Towson University Union
8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
My panel is shaping up to be pretty good (if I do say so; but my fellow panelists both have interesting things to say about the process of writing a novel). Here’s our blurb:
When Is a Story a Novel?
It’s a favorite comment of workshops everywhere: “You’ve got enough going on here for a novel, not a story!” Well-meaning but confusing: what is “enough” for a novel? If you really have “enough” for a novel, why do you have only 18 pages? Should you take the plunge and expand your story…if so, how to proceed? Three novelists will explore the early stages of novel-writing, offering strategies to help writers at all levels move from 18 pages to 300.
I will be speaking along with Katharine Davis and Maribeth Fischer, and here are their impressive bios:
Katharine Davis began writing fiction in 1999. Capturing Paris (St. Martin’s Press, May 2006) is her first novel. She is completing a second novel that takes place on the coast of Maine.
Maribeth Fischer is the author of two novels, The Language of Goodbye, awarded Virginia Commonwealth University's First Novel Award for 2002 and The Life You Longed For (Simon and Schuster 2007), chosen as a Book Sense Notable Book for April 2007, as well as a Literary Guild alternate selection. Fischer's literary essays have appeared in such journals as The Iowa Review and The Yale Review, and have twice been cited as notable in Robert Atwan's Best American Essays. She has also received a Pushcart Prize for her essay "Stillborn."
The conference also features one-on-one meetings about participants’ manuscripts, literary arts exhibitors, opportunities to meet journal editors, and panels about screenwriting, blogs, and various issues of craft.
Here's where to go for registration and additional information. Perhaps I'll see you there!
Baltimore Writers’ Conference: Poetry, Fiction, Nonfiction, Publishing
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Towson University Union
8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
My panel is shaping up to be pretty good (if I do say so; but my fellow panelists both have interesting things to say about the process of writing a novel). Here’s our blurb:
When Is a Story a Novel?
It’s a favorite comment of workshops everywhere: “You’ve got enough going on here for a novel, not a story!” Well-meaning but confusing: what is “enough” for a novel? If you really have “enough” for a novel, why do you have only 18 pages? Should you take the plunge and expand your story…if so, how to proceed? Three novelists will explore the early stages of novel-writing, offering strategies to help writers at all levels move from 18 pages to 300.
I will be speaking along with Katharine Davis and Maribeth Fischer, and here are their impressive bios:
Katharine Davis began writing fiction in 1999. Capturing Paris (St. Martin’s Press, May 2006) is her first novel. She is completing a second novel that takes place on the coast of Maine.
Maribeth Fischer is the author of two novels, The Language of Goodbye, awarded Virginia Commonwealth University's First Novel Award for 2002 and The Life You Longed For (Simon and Schuster 2007), chosen as a Book Sense Notable Book for April 2007, as well as a Literary Guild alternate selection. Fischer's literary essays have appeared in such journals as The Iowa Review and The Yale Review, and have twice been cited as notable in Robert Atwan's Best American Essays. She has also received a Pushcart Prize for her essay "Stillborn."
The conference also features one-on-one meetings about participants’ manuscripts, literary arts exhibitors, opportunities to meet journal editors, and panels about screenwriting, blogs, and various issues of craft.
Here's where to go for registration and additional information. Perhaps I'll see you there!
Monday, October 29, 2007
True Suspense
Sunday’s Washington Post Arts section had a short piece about a video playing at the Hirshhorn Museum called “Deeparture,” in which artist Mircea Cantor put a wolf and a deer into a small, all-white room and filmed their interaction. I’m not sure what PETA would make of that (well, yes I am), but the result is fascinating—no bloody messes, but the two animals seem hyper-aware of each other as they sniff and stare and edge about the small space.
The Post asked the artist why the wolf didn’t eat the deer and he said, “I don’t know how to answer! I was not even interested in that. For me it was a matter of the tension in the image….We all know that deer and wolves never live together. So what is beautiful is to keep this tension—as though you had a bow, and you kept bending it.”
I was reminded of one of my favorite quotations about suspense and tension, from another visual master of tension, movie director Alfred Hitchcock, which is explained here:
“In dramatizing this fear, Hitchcock employs a technique he calls the "Bomb Theory." This scenario runs as follows: Two men are sitting at a table discussing baseball. They talk for about five minutes, when suddenly, there is a huge explosion, which gives the audience a terrible shock, which lasts for about fifteen seconds. According to Hitchcock's Bomb Theory, when the scene opens, you show the audience that there is a bomb under the table, which is set to go off in five minutes. While the men are sitting casually discussing baseball, the audience is squirming in their seats, thinking Don't sit there talking about baseball... there's a bomb under the table! Get rid of it! The audience is overwhelmed with the sense to warn the characters of the danger which they perceive, and which the characters are not aware of. Hitchcock's method transfers the menace from the screen to the minds of the audience, until it becomes unbearable - at which point there is a climax. An important footnote to this theory: You must never let the bomb go off and kill anybody. Otherwise, the audience will be very mad at you.”
The theory applies to writing, too: giving information to the reader often results in greater suspense and tension than withholding it.
To watch the video of “Deeparture,” go here.
And apropos of nothing, there was a charming photo the Post ran in the Sunday print edition (that I can’t find online) of the Three Stooges with Moe Howard’s little girl. Who could imagine having a Stooge as a father?! Talk about an interesting premise for a novel! (Most amusing bit from the article, which was prompted by the release of the Stooges on DVD: “While major gags were scripted, the Stooges’ face-slapping and eye-poking were not. For such scenes, says [daughter] Joan Howard Maurer, “you know what the script says? ‘The Stooges do their stuff.’”) Stooges fans can read more here.
Finally--yay, Red Sox!!!! Sometimes you just want the great outcome without the suspense of a seven-game series!
The Post asked the artist why the wolf didn’t eat the deer and he said, “I don’t know how to answer! I was not even interested in that. For me it was a matter of the tension in the image….We all know that deer and wolves never live together. So what is beautiful is to keep this tension—as though you had a bow, and you kept bending it.”
I was reminded of one of my favorite quotations about suspense and tension, from another visual master of tension, movie director Alfred Hitchcock, which is explained here:
“In dramatizing this fear, Hitchcock employs a technique he calls the "Bomb Theory." This scenario runs as follows: Two men are sitting at a table discussing baseball. They talk for about five minutes, when suddenly, there is a huge explosion, which gives the audience a terrible shock, which lasts for about fifteen seconds. According to Hitchcock's Bomb Theory, when the scene opens, you show the audience that there is a bomb under the table, which is set to go off in five minutes. While the men are sitting casually discussing baseball, the audience is squirming in their seats, thinking Don't sit there talking about baseball... there's a bomb under the table! Get rid of it! The audience is overwhelmed with the sense to warn the characters of the danger which they perceive, and which the characters are not aware of. Hitchcock's method transfers the menace from the screen to the minds of the audience, until it becomes unbearable - at which point there is a climax. An important footnote to this theory: You must never let the bomb go off and kill anybody. Otherwise, the audience will be very mad at you.”
The theory applies to writing, too: giving information to the reader often results in greater suspense and tension than withholding it.
To watch the video of “Deeparture,” go here.
And apropos of nothing, there was a charming photo the Post ran in the Sunday print edition (that I can’t find online) of the Three Stooges with Moe Howard’s little girl. Who could imagine having a Stooge as a father?! Talk about an interesting premise for a novel! (Most amusing bit from the article, which was prompted by the release of the Stooges on DVD: “While major gags were scripted, the Stooges’ face-slapping and eye-poking were not. For such scenes, says [daughter] Joan Howard Maurer, “you know what the script says? ‘The Stooges do their stuff.’”) Stooges fans can read more here.
Finally--yay, Red Sox!!!! Sometimes you just want the great outcome without the suspense of a seven-game series!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Work in Progress: My Fabulous Writing Group
I’ve been in a writing group since 1998. I am one of two of the original members left from that first meeting (which occurred exactly as the nation was learning the name “Monica Lewinsky,” to give you an idea of how long ago all this was). As a group we’ve weathered many upheavals and arrivals/departures. The group read the entire manuscript of my second novel, A Year and a Day, in draft and was invaluable in helping me find and shape my story. We’ve read complete drafts of three novels that were subsequently published (The House on Q Street, Lost and Found, and The Bowl Is Already Broken), one that was handed in to the editor a few weeks ago, and several novels that will be published once they’re complete. This is not to mention the countless short stories and occasional essays that are handed in for critique.
When I say this group has changed my writing life, I’m not exaggerating. Yes, there are flaps; yes, there can be tedious discussions about when to meet if we have to change our regular meeting time; yes, there’s a lot of traffic when I drive from Virginia to our current meeting place in northwest DC. But it’s hard for me to imagine not having this group to show my early drafts to, though I’m sure there will be a time at some point when it feels right to move on, as many in the group have done at various points.
Since people often ask what makes a good group, I thought I’d share some of our guidelines and the decisions we’ve made that I think have ensured our longevity.
1. We decided that 6 is the optimal number of participants. With a group of 6, it’s likely that at least 4 people will be able to make each meeting, so we determined that’s the minimum for a meeting. In today’s climate of busy-ness, it’s unrealistic to expect that anyone can attend EVERY time, so we have a built-in allowance for missing meetings.
2. We decided we wanted only to invite women to participate in our group, and that seems to work for us.
3. We are primarily focused on fiction, and perhaps even more so novels, though we also read memoir. But I can’t imagine what we’d say if a poet were to attend…rather, speaking only for myself, I can’t imagine what sort of useful critique I could offer. “Um…nice poem. Great line breaks.” So, we stick to what we know best.
4. Though this may sound repellent to writerly free-spirits, we try to have a certain amount of structure in how we run things. We try to meet on the same day throughout the year (i.e. the second Thursday) to keep those tedious discussions about when to meet to a minimum. We don’t meet over dinner or any food, which encourages too much socializing (there are other places/times to socialize with these smart women); in fact, we generally chat for 10-15 minutes, then we get down to—and stick to—business. We meet in a neutral location, vs. meeting in someone’s house, so that no one has to run around vacuuming their house and hiding the clutter.
5. Logistically, we work on an every-other-month submission basis, with three submissions per time. When it’s your turn, you mail up to 35 pages. This is especially useful when working on a novel, as 35 pages is a decent-sized chunk. We follow a workshop format of each person speaking her piece in turn; the writer is silent until the open discussion at the end. If you miss a meeting, you return your comments before the next.
6. Finally, we make all our decisions by consensus, not majority. This way, everyone generally feels invested and content with the outcome of decisions. It may take a while to reach consensus on some points—especially when it comes to inviting new people to join—but we’ve found that it’s really the only approach for us.
There have been people I’ve met with horror stories about groups they’ve been in (“I never wanted to write again”; “we started meeting in secret, hoping we could ditch him”), and I empathize. A bad group is worse than no group. But a great group—like mine!—truly is priceless and is worth the effort to cultivate and maintain.
When I say this group has changed my writing life, I’m not exaggerating. Yes, there are flaps; yes, there can be tedious discussions about when to meet if we have to change our regular meeting time; yes, there’s a lot of traffic when I drive from Virginia to our current meeting place in northwest DC. But it’s hard for me to imagine not having this group to show my early drafts to, though I’m sure there will be a time at some point when it feels right to move on, as many in the group have done at various points.
Since people often ask what makes a good group, I thought I’d share some of our guidelines and the decisions we’ve made that I think have ensured our longevity.
1. We decided that 6 is the optimal number of participants. With a group of 6, it’s likely that at least 4 people will be able to make each meeting, so we determined that’s the minimum for a meeting. In today’s climate of busy-ness, it’s unrealistic to expect that anyone can attend EVERY time, so we have a built-in allowance for missing meetings.
2. We decided we wanted only to invite women to participate in our group, and that seems to work for us.
3. We are primarily focused on fiction, and perhaps even more so novels, though we also read memoir. But I can’t imagine what we’d say if a poet were to attend…rather, speaking only for myself, I can’t imagine what sort of useful critique I could offer. “Um…nice poem. Great line breaks.” So, we stick to what we know best.
4. Though this may sound repellent to writerly free-spirits, we try to have a certain amount of structure in how we run things. We try to meet on the same day throughout the year (i.e. the second Thursday) to keep those tedious discussions about when to meet to a minimum. We don’t meet over dinner or any food, which encourages too much socializing (there are other places/times to socialize with these smart women); in fact, we generally chat for 10-15 minutes, then we get down to—and stick to—business. We meet in a neutral location, vs. meeting in someone’s house, so that no one has to run around vacuuming their house and hiding the clutter.
5. Logistically, we work on an every-other-month submission basis, with three submissions per time. When it’s your turn, you mail up to 35 pages. This is especially useful when working on a novel, as 35 pages is a decent-sized chunk. We follow a workshop format of each person speaking her piece in turn; the writer is silent until the open discussion at the end. If you miss a meeting, you return your comments before the next.
6. Finally, we make all our decisions by consensus, not majority. This way, everyone generally feels invested and content with the outcome of decisions. It may take a while to reach consensus on some points—especially when it comes to inviting new people to join—but we’ve found that it’s really the only approach for us.
There have been people I’ve met with horror stories about groups they’ve been in (“I never wanted to write again”; “we started meeting in secret, hoping we could ditch him”), and I empathize. A bad group is worse than no group. But a great group—like mine!—truly is priceless and is worth the effort to cultivate and maintain.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Convergence
What to make of the following convergence of events? One can’t help but notice….
--Folger Poetry & Lecture series brochure arrives in the mail. Eleven speakers in the series, two women.
--October 29 issue of the New Yorker arrives. Twelve writers listed in the Table of Contents, one woman.
--Oprah picks another book for her book club. Despite a viewership of, oh, what—99.9 percent women??—she chooses Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Okay, fine, a modern classic…but according to blogger M.J. Rose, since January 2005, Oprah has picked 9 books—each by a man. Since 2003, she’s picked 15 books, 13 by men.
--Read an interesting interview with writer Kate Christensen in Maud Newton and came across this quotation:
“That said, and to answer your question more directly, it does seem to me that male writers are taken more seriously just because they’re men, and conversely, female writers have to work much harder to be taken seriously just because we’re women; I don’t have any hard statistics to back this up, but almost every time I open the NYTBR, I become convinced anew. Anyway, it’s a little dispiriting, but there’s nothing I can do about it but keep writing.”
--And, to top it all off, I read this in Slate’s new blog written by women:
" The Science of Female Self-Doubt -- More on women, science, and stereotype threat: A new study published by Psychological Science of undergraduate women majoring in math, science, and engineering found fresh evidence that cues of gender-imbalance negatively affect not only women's performance but their desire to perform. (The study was conducted by Claude Steele and others.) In the study, some women watched a gender-balanced video about an upcoming conference in their field, while others watched a similar video in which male speakers outnumbered female. The participants who watched the latter video "reported a lower sense of belonging and less desire to participate in the conference, than did women who viewed the gender-balanced video." (Men who watched the videos didn't report any differences in their sense of belonging--but those who watched the video with more women expressed more desire to participate in the conference.) Interestingly, the women experiencing stereotype threat also demonstrated more "cognitive vigilance"--that is, they remembered more about the video and the room in which they saw it than did the first group. More analysis here at Inside Higher Ed (scroll down).
"I suppose it hardly bolsters the case for (or against) an all-women's blog--but it may have some bearing on the perennial discussions of why there are more male bloggers than female bloggers in fields like politics. Via Inside Higher Ed. Posted Monday, October 22, 2007 2:20 PM by Meghan O'Rourke"
If you’re not depressed enough, read (or reread) Francine Prose’s essay first published in Harper’s magazine, “Scent of a Woman’s Ink: Are Women Writers Really Inferior?” It was published in June 1998 but still rings uncomfortably true:
“But some of us can't help noting how comparatively rarely stories by women seem to appear in the few major magazines that publish fiction, how rarely fiction by women is reviewed in serious literary journals, and how rarely work by women dominates short lists and year-end ten-best lists.”
Continuing on:
“In fact, as so often happens, the statistics outdo one's grisliest paranoias. In last year's New York Review of Books, twenty-five books of fiction by men were reviewed and only ten books by women--in essays written by three times as many men as women. In 1997, The New Yorker printed thirty-seven stories by men, ten by women; Harper's Magazine printed nine stories by men, three by women. Since 1992, the Editors' Choice lists in The New York Times Book Review, arguably the most powerful voice in the book-review chorus, have included twenty-two books of fiction by men and eight by women. Since 1980, sixteen men and two women have won the PEN/Faulkner Award; and fourteen men and four women, the National Book Award.”
I was in the audience when she delivered this essay as a speech at the Sewanee Writer’s Conference, and I was disgruntled for weeks after. I'm not saying someone needs to be keeping a 50-50 tally chart...but still.
--Folger Poetry & Lecture series brochure arrives in the mail. Eleven speakers in the series, two women.
--October 29 issue of the New Yorker arrives. Twelve writers listed in the Table of Contents, one woman.
--Oprah picks another book for her book club. Despite a viewership of, oh, what—99.9 percent women??—she chooses Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Okay, fine, a modern classic…but according to blogger M.J. Rose, since January 2005, Oprah has picked 9 books—each by a man. Since 2003, she’s picked 15 books, 13 by men.
--Read an interesting interview with writer Kate Christensen in Maud Newton and came across this quotation:
“That said, and to answer your question more directly, it does seem to me that male writers are taken more seriously just because they’re men, and conversely, female writers have to work much harder to be taken seriously just because we’re women; I don’t have any hard statistics to back this up, but almost every time I open the NYTBR, I become convinced anew. Anyway, it’s a little dispiriting, but there’s nothing I can do about it but keep writing.”
--And, to top it all off, I read this in Slate’s new blog written by women:
" The Science of Female Self-Doubt -- More on women, science, and stereotype threat: A new study published by Psychological Science of undergraduate women majoring in math, science, and engineering found fresh evidence that cues of gender-imbalance negatively affect not only women's performance but their desire to perform. (The study was conducted by Claude Steele and others.) In the study, some women watched a gender-balanced video about an upcoming conference in their field, while others watched a similar video in which male speakers outnumbered female. The participants who watched the latter video "reported a lower sense of belonging and less desire to participate in the conference, than did women who viewed the gender-balanced video." (Men who watched the videos didn't report any differences in their sense of belonging--but those who watched the video with more women expressed more desire to participate in the conference.) Interestingly, the women experiencing stereotype threat also demonstrated more "cognitive vigilance"--that is, they remembered more about the video and the room in which they saw it than did the first group. More analysis here at Inside Higher Ed (scroll down).
"I suppose it hardly bolsters the case for (or against) an all-women's blog--but it may have some bearing on the perennial discussions of why there are more male bloggers than female bloggers in fields like politics. Via Inside Higher Ed. Posted Monday, October 22, 2007 2:20 PM by Meghan O'Rourke"
If you’re not depressed enough, read (or reread) Francine Prose’s essay first published in Harper’s magazine, “Scent of a Woman’s Ink: Are Women Writers Really Inferior?” It was published in June 1998 but still rings uncomfortably true:
“But some of us can't help noting how comparatively rarely stories by women seem to appear in the few major magazines that publish fiction, how rarely fiction by women is reviewed in serious literary journals, and how rarely work by women dominates short lists and year-end ten-best lists.”
Continuing on:
“In fact, as so often happens, the statistics outdo one's grisliest paranoias. In last year's New York Review of Books, twenty-five books of fiction by men were reviewed and only ten books by women--in essays written by three times as many men as women. In 1997, The New Yorker printed thirty-seven stories by men, ten by women; Harper's Magazine printed nine stories by men, three by women. Since 1992, the Editors' Choice lists in The New York Times Book Review, arguably the most powerful voice in the book-review chorus, have included twenty-two books of fiction by men and eight by women. Since 1980, sixteen men and two women have won the PEN/Faulkner Award; and fourteen men and four women, the National Book Award.”
I was in the audience when she delivered this essay as a speech at the Sewanee Writer’s Conference, and I was disgruntled for weeks after. I'm not saying someone needs to be keeping a 50-50 tally chart...but still.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Fame and Fortune for DC Writers
I was reading my new issue of Poets & Writers magazine last night and came across this relevant award for DC writers, sponsored by Poets & Writers, Inc. Since it involves a free trip to my favorite city, I feel compelled to pass along the info:
Maureen Egen Writers Exchange Award
Two prizes of $500 each are awarded annually to a poet and a fiction writer from a select area, typically a state. Each winner also receives an all-expenses-paid trip to New York City to give a reading and meet with writers, editors, publishers, and agents. The 2008 contest is open to residents of Washington, DC. Poets and fiction writers who have published no more than one full-length book in the genre in which they are applying are eligible. Submit five copies of up to 10 pages of poetry or 25 pages of fiction by December 1. There is no entry fee. Required application and complete guidelines are here.
So, DC residents, this opportunity makes up for not having full representation in Congress, right?
Maureen Egen Writers Exchange Award
Two prizes of $500 each are awarded annually to a poet and a fiction writer from a select area, typically a state. Each winner also receives an all-expenses-paid trip to New York City to give a reading and meet with writers, editors, publishers, and agents. The 2008 contest is open to residents of Washington, DC. Poets and fiction writers who have published no more than one full-length book in the genre in which they are applying are eligible. Submit five copies of up to 10 pages of poetry or 25 pages of fiction by December 1. There is no entry fee. Required application and complete guidelines are here.
So, DC residents, this opportunity makes up for not having full representation in Congress, right?
Split This Rock Poetry Festival: Get Involved
Split This Rock Poetry Festival: Poems of Provocation and Witness will take place March 20-23, 2008, in Washington, DC, and the organizers invite proposals for panel discussions and workshops. The deadline is December 1, 2007. Full guidelines and additional details can be found at here.
From the website: "Split this Rock invites proposals for panel discussions and workshops on a range of topics at the intersection of poetry and social change. Possibilities are endless. Challenge us. Let’s talk about craft, let’s talk about mentoring young poets, let’s talk about working in prisons, connecting with the activist community, sustaining ourselves in dark times, the role of poetry in wartime. Let’s remember great poet activists and discover new, let’s think international, visual, collaborative, out of the box. A panel may consist of 3-4 persons, with one person designated as facilitator. Please title your panel and include brief biographical information for each participant, along with a two paragraph description of your panel—what are the questions you wish to explore—why is this conversation timely and necessary at this time—how will this panel further the goals of Split This Rock? How are the members of your panel uniquely qualified to lead a conversation on your proposed topic? We have a strong interest in interactive conversation and community building, so please indicate how you will involve participants in the discussion."
From the website: "Split this Rock invites proposals for panel discussions and workshops on a range of topics at the intersection of poetry and social change. Possibilities are endless. Challenge us. Let’s talk about craft, let’s talk about mentoring young poets, let’s talk about working in prisons, connecting with the activist community, sustaining ourselves in dark times, the role of poetry in wartime. Let’s remember great poet activists and discover new, let’s think international, visual, collaborative, out of the box. A panel may consist of 3-4 persons, with one person designated as facilitator. Please title your panel and include brief biographical information for each participant, along with a two paragraph description of your panel—what are the questions you wish to explore—why is this conversation timely and necessary at this time—how will this panel further the goals of Split This Rock? How are the members of your panel uniquely qualified to lead a conversation on your proposed topic? We have a strong interest in interactive conversation and community building, so please indicate how you will involve participants in the discussion."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)