Queries contamitate clean air.
People produce minimal effort with such delight,
To ask what they don't want answered:
If God exists why does He allow war and pain - isn't He love?
I ask God all the time and He does not talk back;
Where is the Alpha and Omega to judge this accursed age, noble soul?
I laugh at you, Christian.
What ridiculous folly, wasted Carbonic lifeform.
Posits empty balloon; were it not for my restraints would I...
Pop hot air. Simple philosopher, playing in mud.
A pig knows dirt well and dives in so it swims.
Does it claim to have dug deep into the ground though?
Bold words do little to impress earth, or the vast pools of a thinking mind.
Against the beach suicidal waves crash; to die upon the rough sand.
What motivates them to such ends? Madness of moon's influence.
So quiet are most of their cries. It comes of shallow waters.
Their power is weak, so too the effect on others. It soothes not incites.
Overshadowing waves influence vastly. Simple physics and reason explain.
Powerful crashes that sweep the whole beach grain by grain, drop to drop.
Largest masses of water cause action.
Only a deep mind has that influence on... intelligent persons.
So... If sage knowledge speaks in volume, where does God's voice cry out?
What pen scribes out the Father's novelic information?
Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes! Eh.. not quite.
Coo of a baby gentle. Innocent.
If you prefer looking for God elsewhere; amongst the war torn plains.
God will be there. Despite wishes otherwise.
But it is safe to assume, blessed are the meek;
So too does God speak, of their language.
Author notes
S I C K O P A T H 3 3 3.
Well, I'm changing this all up; the original notes were in relation to a contest I entered and got canceled and out of my own annoyance and laziness in response to people commenting on it. Apologies I offer.
This was a piece I entered here because of the elements used I was trying to experiment with (at first it was free verse and dialogue, now it's more about contrast using the dialogue), it was not really a complete work (word choice and imagery was pretty weak; I rambled as well), and because I had enough interest in it to improve on it without all the corrections being too obvious it wouldn't be worth others looking at.
The main changes I've made based on comments were about some content (stronger word choice; I edited some out on my own choice because of that rambling issue) and punctuation issues (I still stick to my idea that punctuation dictates flow though because it's what I learned about studying poetry amidst all the other stuff such as counting the meter and all that). Later on I'll respond to comments directly and edit around this some more. Ha ha, how's the new title sticking; I just liked the way that word sounded as opposed to Mime.
A contest entry
- The Writers' Circle: Read, Review, Respond, Revise by MusicBoxMetaphor.
2300 points, ended November 10, 23 entries
Honorable mention
• next poem in this contest, remove from contest - My first Contest by TecumsehRoz.
700 points, ended November 6, 85 entries
• next poem in this contest, remove from contest
Philosophical prose combined with naturalistic observation; interesting, boring, or cliche?
Comments
1 - 26 of 26
-
Sickopath, I can read the piece, but someone with weaker eyes might have trouble. Just a thought.
I was thinking about the "Posits empty balloon" line: Considering that is a fragment, might you consider adding a colon or semi-colon to continue the thought? -
Just as a reminder:
***Final date for comments that count towards the contest: Tomorrow, Sunday, November 8th by midnight.
Final date for revisions towards contest: Tuesday, November 10 by noon.***
The contest will be judged on Wednesday, November 11.
Alright then. This was an interesting piece. The linguistics itself are full, but there a few grammatical bumps:
In the first stanza, "To ask..." is a fragment
But a comma after "delight" in the line before would remedy this.
In the second stanza, you should have a comma in "I laugh at you *,* Christian" unless you want "you" to be a determiner. In this second case, it might be more clear if you make the noun plural then as "I laugh at you Christians." But I still recommend that comma, especially since you use it in that way right after in "What ridiculous folly, wasted Carbonion life form."
Also, but "Carbonion" (which, yes, I looked up in merrium-webster) do you mean "Carbanion" (negative) or "Carbonium" (positive) or am I missing the mark and have even less a clue about this word than I already thought?
In the first line of stanza three, "would I..." sets up a question, or an expectation of one (though I figure it was not your intent?) and yet... no question mark! Have one after "Pop hot air?" Or, if you don't want it to be a question, clarify with
"Were it not for my restraints, I would..."
In either case, please place that comma there?
To be even more nit-picky, I don't feel the comma later on in the stanza after "impress earth" is necessary and that the lines would flow better without. Add a comma, remove a comma.
The dash in the second line of the next stanza after "such ends" seems awkwardly placed. Consider a colon or perhaps just the question mark?
Rather than the "..." later on in the stanza before "intelligent persons" why not just make a line break, which creates a pause or hesitation?
This could go for any "..." occurrence.
My final comment on this work is how inconsistent the first three lines of the second stanza are:
"If God exists
Why does He allow war and pain - isn't He love?
I ask God all the time and He does not talk back;"
The rest of your poem is so full of imagery and rich language... save here. And the fact is, this question could be asked in many other ways.
In response to some aspects of your Author's Note. You have some good points and for the most part can explain your work and defend it well.
When it comes to punctuation though, you might want to rethink comments that address that.
Your point that it seems "hypocritical that an overuse of punctuation is completely unacceptable because it isn't proper grammar, but when someone omits either entirely or mostly that is fine" would be valid if it weren't for the fact that what poems really desire is *consistency* and *intention.* I would argue that punctuation omission is only acceptable when it is done *completely* because it is *consistent.*
Therefore, when punctuation makes an appearance in a poem, it needs to either be completely wrong and distorted intentionally- see e.e. cummings' "1(a (a leaf falls on loneliness)"- or it needs to be consistently correct. Since you already express proper use so frequently throughout this work, and since extreme punctuation isn't a focal point of the work, your readers will benefit from taking in simple, consistent, proper use.
I hope this encourages you to rethink those comments. Be assured though, your revisions (even those outside of your comfort zone) were noted and viewed with a kind eye. It's been a joy to have you in this process.
Do try to be a little more receptive to the comments here. I recommend examining them once more, and even when you don't agree with them, asking yourself why they might say that, if there's another way to approach it, if it's simply invalid, and then taking it with a grain of salt. There's no need to feel defensive here. Everyone came to improve their own work and take the time to truly explore other works. I'm proud of every contestants dedication, yours included.
Best,
Mia -
-
I was right.. you commented this one extensively.. heh.
Everyone seemed to have an issue with that you Christian thing so I just changed it (it might even be better for all I know).
Heh, the Carbonian (which is now Carbonic based on someone's suggestion; think I'll change it back though) issue. I think the new title and AN should give an idea that it's a made up word, heh. It's the Carbon life form kind of thing I was getting at there.
I will fix the would I punctuation issue, but I don't see putting it as would I do something instead of I would do something (If it weren't for the law would I speed; just sounds fine to me for some reason).
I guess no one is getting the contrast I was going for with the "atheistic voice" I was using there. His mocking is simple-minded, so too I made most of his vocabulary and phrasing (I did throw in a nice little bite though because there usually is some bite in there somewhere that actually makes sense).
You make a good point about consistency, but my use of punctuation is consistent with this and all of my works. I use them to control the flow of the poem; grammar comes second to what will give the best pauses in my works, so if you look at the wrong thing it seems that way but it really isn't. I always thought that was the classic way of reading poetry anyway. Don't you stop at the punctuation instead of where the line ends? No, yes?
Eh.. I guess it could be seen as defensive, but honestly it was more annoyance than anything. I'd figure you would know that more from the other poem of mine you commented on (remember it now, ha ha). Anyways though I've changed things up a bit and definitely altered my AN and my comments. I'll do some more polishing on the poem itself too (especially my line breaks now; I don't know it's just bugging me now). -
-
Good defense.
Keep in mind that your poem is very well done and that the comments here are just suggestions. It seems that everyone has enjoyed this poem, and the fact that they are able to deeply look at it with a critical eye means that your words are being *absorbed,* not just simply glanced over and given a thumbs up like so many readers here seem to. Take pride in the fact that your words are being enjoyed.
And then, in response to the critics, take them as suggestions. Consider them. But you seem to know that they aren't an ultimate dictator. When someone makes a request, consider how you might make the same effect in a way they did not suggest. Perhaps there're words other than "I would" that you find fit better, for example.
-
-
-
Hi there, I found this piece to be more prose than poetic. A questioning of preconceived ideals and a put down of a world bent on its own annilation. While the points you bring up are valid, they have been asked and lamented upon a million times in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
Still there is enough in this piece that with a change in the style you could make this a very poetic and engaging read.
Instead of asking the question, why not try to use imagery and metaphor to make the point. As in "People produce little effort with such delight." to
"Cheshire cats purr with sinister grins"
Just an example of a metaphor that can say the same thing but not say it so matter-of-factly.
Also in your piece I find you use a little too much punctuation, when you do that it hampers the flow, giving it a broken feel. Using too many words what I call fillers slows the rhythm of a piece as well, try to get rid of as many of the "ands, as, of and the's as possible.
Again with some work this could be a great piece and one that will engage the reader's mind as well as their perceptions. -
-
As well as you should have since this is a dialogue strong piece. I know I could drown it in metaphors and imagery, but that wasn't the idea here; it was to be more direct, bring up a point, have some poetic elements and such in there, but I wanted it to be a little different and also not be colored up so much it became tacky (too many colors can be bad). Yep, these issues have been brought up before and will continue to do so; that goes with any subject poets cover though, doesn't mean you can't cover it again, heh.
Actually this piece didn't have as much punctuation as some of my other works, and when I do add extra punctuation to break up the flow there is a reason for it. It alters out the tone and flow, and for me it makes it more dramatic and powerful; some are shorter, some are longer and it adds up to this voice I create for myself as I look at and read it. I should figure out how to add a "video performance" or whatever some time and read one of these out loud so people could hear what I do when I read my own works.
-
-
Nice write here.
I like the opening stanza. As you mention in your Author Notes it is largely written as dialogue (which some might get caught up in ) but I like the straightforward way to open the poem. The word "pollute" is one that is used a lot in poetry, but I'm not sure there is a better word to convey the idea.
"To ask what they don't want answered:"
The above line sums up the problem well.
"I laugh at you Christian." I have to say that I'm not sure I really understand your choice of wording here. The poem jumped from dialogue to a poem poetic wording, and I did not really see the reason for it. Also, assuming this is still the "questioner" speaking, he's taken a leap from asking questions to just spewing insults. Not an unusual transition, but I might consider offering a line break to convey this (just a thought though as I realize that each new stanza here offers a new idea, and this might be confusing.)
The next stanza takes a much more poetic turn, something that offers contrast from the "thoughtless" comments of the second stanza. If you are trying to convey a more rational contemplative perspective I think you have. I liked the transition and I you use wonderful imagery and wording to convey your message in the last couple of stanzas tying the piece together with the idea that those who wish to ignore God will find many ways and many reasons to do so.
Nice write. -
-
This was supposed to be mostly straightforward and to the point (mixed in with a dash of other stuff, but nothing was supposed to be confusing or complicated; the whole ocean thing is just an example the speaker is using to make their own point). I have tried to change the pollute issue so if it's still cliche, just tell me and I'll just try again.
Didn't quite get what you meant by the above question summed up the problem though.. because what jumped from what to what? Where did the dialogue change to a poem poetic wording? And yes, if you'll read my other comments I made below you it should make more sense. I would make a distinction using font differences, but I figured that'd be cheap and too obvious.
Yep, more rational is correct, heh. Thanks for the comments, hope this clears things up a bit more. -
-
Thanks for the response.
I like the change from pollute. You also managed to work in a little alliteration which is a nice touch.
When I said: "The above line sums up the problem well." I was complimenting your phrasing on the line:
"To ask what they don't want answered:"
I felt the line nicely put into words the situation of people asking questions, not in the search for answers, but simply to cause trouble.
I do think your other comments explain, as does this one.
With regard to the transition, my understanding was that you began with a more straightforward approach to help illustrate that the questioners put little thought into their questions, and then offered a longer, more poetic response, to portray a retort that had far more thought and insight involved.
I enjoyed the piece.
-
-
-
Nice write.
The first 5 lines are very cliched. I've read them in countless poems, stories, fables, political speeches, and plays. Everyone wants to get rich off the same old mousetrap but no one has the wit or the balls to make a better one. Regardless, shall we move on?
Throughout the piece, your vocabulary is strong. I was impressed by quite a few of the word choices, but then saddened at the lack of creativity in a few of the lines. "I laugh at you Christian" for example. Either this line is a very bad Yoda joke, or it simply lacks a good design. With your ability to use words like "novelic" (which is not recognized as a real word by Webster's, though it should be) I would hope that you could flip open a thesaurus and find a synonym for laugh, or at least embellish upon the line a bit more.
Some of the imagery here is good, while other parts are completely lacking. If I were you, I'd delete the first 8 lines completely, then work on cleaning up the remaining 25 to make for a much stronger piece.
Let's get down to the details, shall we?
Tornados is spelled Tornadoes. (AP spell check should have flagged you on that one.)
Carbonian is not a real word, could Carbonic be more appropriate?
lifeform should be two separate words. life form
I don't agree with your use of Posits, but I suppose I can leave that one to creative liberties.
Novelic isn't defined as a real word, although I've already said my peace on that one.
There are quite a few areas in this piece that are missing punctuation. So much so that I can't go through and correct them all for you. Just a suggestion, but you may want to review your usage of commas (or lack there of, as it were).
Now that we're through all that nasty mess, let me get to the author's notes. First, "contradicitve" should be contradictory (sorry that one was bugging me). Secondly, you should never let your note overshadow your piece. We all take pride in our work, but for Christ's sake, you entered a contest called "Read, Review, Respond, Revise", what did you think was going to happen? Furthermore, the contest is not "Read, Review, Respond, Revise, add a long ass Author's note". Take the energy you spent writing that out, focus it on the piece instead, and you're bound to end up with a pretty good poem.
Sorry if it's harsh, I'm not trying to be. Sometimes you've got to be rough to wake someone up.
Best of luck in the contest, and in all your writing endeavors.
-
-
All things said I wouldn't guess you'd put Nice Write.. oh well.
Perhaps it is cliche based on your reading experience, but personally on my own I'd think other areas were more overused than that part (depends on your exposure; how unique is anything?). What's hard to know is if I concocted these ideas without their inspiration (so in my limited world it is unique) or if I referenced them so it is a mere copy. Trust me I have the balls to say whatever, I just try to be polite about things (to a point).
I was thinking having some weaker vocabulary throughout might make for an interesting contrast. I laugh at you Christian (that didn't strike you as sounding really off in that stanza any?)
??? How would getting rid of the first 8 lines make this stronger; it wouldn't have any of the "exposition" so to say. It'd just start off on a random area. Wasted Carbonian lifeform. What's that supposed to mean (it's what I'd ask).
I'll take most of your corrections and do that real quick; am I wrong in my understanding of classic punctuation use though because I understood it as flow control more than grammar (it's better to use it for flow than to care how it actually works grammatically ).
I thought it'd be easier making one long comment everyone would be more likely to read as an Author's Note (it catches the eye) instead of individual comments towards the bottom (for the new folks coming in). One of my main problems was the AN was originally just the first three little snips and apparantly no one bothered to look at it. Considering this is exactly the contest type you stated, why would you not look at that because the person is probably pointing out areas they want you to specifically address for them. What I expected was for people to have that much common sense; and I can't stand hypocrisy (not related to you, just saying).
The problem with me and poetry is how I do everything really. Nothing requires effort or energy from me, I just do it. My main issue with communication probably stems from my overly odd perspective on things, so what I see as obvious others don't get and what others get I see as a nonsensical mess. Maybe I'll never be a great poet because I'm too out there in my own head, but it's a fun hobby if nothing else. -
-
That's all we can ever really do: be our selves. In my personal opinion, I don't think an author should ever have to dumb down their work to satisfy the audience. My work, for example, I write it for me, no one else. I will tell you that half the people who read my work despise it, generally because they won't take the time to look up a word they don't know. That's why I suggested removing the first 8 lines; because I felt you dumbed it down for the reader, which is an insult to you and reader, once again in my own opinion.
Everyone writes different and to each their own. The suggestion for comma usage was a mix of grammatical and flow issues. For example "I laugh at you Christian" might read easier and flow better as "I laugh at you, Christian".
I do understand your comment, author's note, and poem. Your practices are my own, as I as well am far out from the main stream and float in my own rift. But then again, that's why I rarely enter contests like these.
And I meant what I said about nice write, each write is in their own way.
-
-
-
I have to say the title made me want to gag. Honestly religion has been a touchy subject for me lately. I got more where you were going though as I read along and it was actually pretty good. The vocabulary was almost salivating and the chaos of the world was very well depicted.
-
Verbose anger!!!
The usage of many words does not make poetry, dear Anti-Christian friend or should I say enemy? No matter, let's get to the poetry or the absence thereof; ramblings and cheap shots are seldom good companions to poetry, and especially contest poetry, if I might say so; inner anguish notwithstanding, there is actually something of value here for me: the ending exposes a slight shard of your real quality, which might just help you to turn this effort into something more palatable to the god-fearing poetry lover who may have been intimidated by this eruption of vehement anger?
Getting to the point without insulting or 'mudslinging, and keeping connection to the main point of the message helps make poetic delivery smooth and effective. Poetry is after all a way of divine communication, say what?... DW -
Long author notes but I did read them. What I love about your poem is it does bring up the vaild argument, where is God? No, I'm not christian nor would I consider myself any other denomination of any religion blah, blah, blah. It's all trash and garbage. I do believe though there is a god but thats not the point.
I enjoyed the side track of the ocean. It brought a depth to the poem about how (at least in my mind) the mind of say the average person works and how we as a society act. Also something I enjoyed most is how you began your third stanza. To me it really brings out just exactly how a human mind tends to flow. It's thoughts are scattered and not really ever consistant. And from my own personal knowledge a great sage does this. They detour into an elongated metaphor about what they speak and eventually find their way back to answer a question someone asks. Personally I would love to reach what you wrote first and not some edited version for people who bitched. I believe a work is best left untouched. Once writen its done don't go back for any reason leave it. Because reality is imperfection maybe fix little spelling errors but fuck everything else and leave it.
I will say I enjoyed this piece greatly. It is inspiring and insightful and not just some preachy fool who really doesn't seem to know what they are talking about. -
what i like about this poem:
1. it's fairly abstract without being way over the top.
2. you use some clever phrasing (examples - "questions pollute the air," "suicidal waves")
3. it's pretty existential, and your attempt at reaching a conclusion to your questions is well-intended.
some problems i have with this:
1. the things you are trying to say could be said more eloquently/fluidly, and in a more understandable manner. some of the phrases don't really make sense to me, and the progression of the stanzas seems very random.
2. the line breaks are awkwardly placed and don't allow the reader to complete a thought before moving on to the next one. for example, the first stanza/second line is really long and i find no logical reason for you to have made a line break where you did. "answered" is left in a line by itself, but for what reason?
3. "i laugh at you christian" should either be "i laugh at you, christian" or "i laugh at you christians." also, you could maybe find a more insightful term for "what a joke! what a waste!"
4. "says the empty balloon." this is awkward, and i don't know why there is a period after it because it is not a complete sentence. what empty balloon are you talking about? the sentence after that doesn't make sense to me either, and if you wanted to have an ellipsis, there has to be three periods, not two. this whole stanza confuses me a lot because of the unnecessary periods, grammatical errors, and nonsensical phrasing.
5. in the next stanza, there needs to be a comma after "against the beach." "it comes of shallow waters." what does this mean? you could find another, more understandable way of saying that. also, why the indentation for the word "noise?" i also don't understand "which the learned note." there is also no need for the ellipsis in the last line of the fourth stanza.
6. why did you make the word "So" into a sentence? perhaps this is where an ellipsis could be used properly. i don't like the word "ehhh" in this stanza - it sounds informal and lazy. why is "elsewhere" so far away from the rest of that stanza?
in general, i think you had good intentions with the poem, but you just need to work on the grammar, punctuation, phrasing, and line breaks. hope to see what you've done with this soon. -
-
I'm not sure why but I think some of your issue had to do with fully grasping where I was taking the poem. That was noted when you didn't understand what the empty balloon was; it's kind of complicated to do this without smacking people in the face with it being too obvious, but there is a change in voice here. It's where one overall voice is talking to themself (maybe an audience) about atheists mocking Christians, and the part after it and beyond is them responding to such an idea (the Christian is calling the atheist an empty balloon). Now that I kind of have explained the idea, maybe you can reread it, understanding where I was going?
Some of the other complaints were about punctuation and such, which I have now changed up so feel free to re-comment if you want.
-
-
There is rarely middle ground when discussing God, either God is real to you or not. What i find disturbing is people who believe in God because they are told to do so without ever finding the God essence within themselves. What you have written comes across as an oration rather than a poem and as such lacks intensity, It is as though you wrote with little thought or maybe it is just too deep for my understanding.
-
-
The issue of people believing in God for no reason wasn't really in here; this was basically an argument between a person of faith and a mocking atheist (sort of; it's not really between two different people, but mainly a Christian talking almost to himself about how stupid people can be when they just mock Christians when they don't know why they believe). It is more oratory than not because it's written using dialogue, though I'd argue about the intensity issue (intensity can be imbued into any statement given the right voice). The little thought statement isn't too far off though since I just kind of type it out and let it go where it does, ha ha!
-
-
This is a comment I seem to make a lot, but I think your poem could be improved with the addition (at least in some places) of a consistent meter. To be honest, it reads more like prose that you've added line breaks to and taken out pronouns from.
"I laugh at you Christian."
Do you mean "I laugh at you, Christian" or "I laugh at you, Christians"?
I'd recommend taking out the ellipsis ("...") where possible, it breaks the flow of the poem. Likewise I'd take out the "Ehhh"; it doesn't seem to add much besides the hint of a conversational tone which is conspicuously absent elsewhere.
Besides that, it's certainly a poem stemming from strong emotions. This much passion represents a lot of potential for your poem, and I'll be interested to see how you edit it. -
-
That's because it's dialogue; changed things up quite a bit anyways though (some of it on a whim actually; that's how I do most things, heh). I broke the flow of the poem here and there on purpose, and I don't believe the rest of the poem didn't have a conversational tone but maybe that has something to do with how I talk about these sorts of issues. Well, you were interested in seeing how I edited, and I have; soooo.. yeah.
-
-
Personally I love the dialogue I get from this piece, your punctuation in some parts needs some work though. I don't like the sudden stops in some places such as " Bold words. Do little to impress earth. " I think this should be rephrased.
You're well aware you have an extended vocabulary, and in contrast with the person who commented before me the second stanza is my favourite.
Again about punctuation I think you substitute in most places the use of a period for any other form of punctuation, I think it would be worthwhile to consider changing it in some places.
The lack of poetic device used in this piece make it feel more...real, to me. This isn't a pretty piece, but I think that was intended as is mentioned in your author's note. It's akward in some places but I truly believe changing the punctuation you use will go a long way in correcting this. I look forward to seeing where this goes, I'll be back to check for sure.
Best wishes,
Katie -
-
I can understand how some of the stops might have been too knee-jerk powerful, but I feel those places did need to pause so strength might have been added to the phrases. The extended vocabulary comment makes me laugh, but I guess no one ever considers their word choice to be lengthy or even that strong.
The period point was correct though, some of that was slightly done as experimentation (to contrast the playing with no punctuation so oft done in free verse), and some to see if people would notice it at all. Psychology major, what'cha expect?
Hadn't thought of it like that, but part of it is the use of poetic devices that isn't typical or maybe even that obvious (as noted by the comments I keep getting it seems). You need to check back and see what you think now though, it's different!
-
-
First thing I would do is darken the font... tough to read this poem. The imagery is nice- busy, but nice. I agree that the piece needs shortened somewhat. Personally, I would take out the third stanza. The fourth stanza is stronger and fits in better with the theme of the poem. Actually, I would go on and take out stanza two, also. Keep with a more nature oriented piece.
I look forward to seeing where you go with this. -
-
Did I darken the font.. I don't remember; is it still too hard to read (no one has complained, so if it is still hard to read just tell me again and this time I'll change it). I would have to disagree that it needed to be shortened that much though.. especially since this was not a nature oriented piece, that was just a useful metaphor to make an illustration (an example I might use in an argument for example). This is a "debate/dialogue" so to say first and foremost. With this "knowledge" tell me what you think as I have changed it.
-
-
I am not sure about the success of this as a poem so much as, perhaps, a rant. It's a bit preachy for my own personal tastes, actually. There is a surplus of superfluous punctuation and capitalization but not very much in the way of acceptable poetic devices (such as imagery, metaphor, simile, alliteration, etc).
While the subject matter is that of a lasting significance, the voice itself somehow loses impact due to a lack of illuminated insight. I would have preferred a shorter piece with a more thorough message.
However, artistically speaking, the typography is nice and the vocabulary is pleasing. I just wish that there was more to it, emotionally speaking.
Nonetheless, I do appreciate you sharing your gift with us.
- Bean Sidhe
Adding your comment:
1 - 26 of 26
