You are viewing snurri

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Some Comments


So.

The internets--at least, large chunks of the parts that I visit regularly--have been full of brave, puzzling, insightful, frustrating, biting, ridiculous, praiseworthy and appalling things this past week or so. I can't claim to be particularly brave. This whole thing makes my stomach hurt. I'm bad with arguments, even friendly ones, and a lot of what I've seen has been rather unfriendly. There are exceptions, and others have said things far better than I will here. But the stomach-hurting is kind of why I do this writing thing in the first place, so for the sake of my own mental health and the few folks who read this, I want to put a few things on the record.

1. I wasn't there. I have seen the video.

2. It shouldn't have happened.

3. I was under the delusion that this was an isolated incident. Clearly--Haddayr's have-you-been-living-under-a-rock expression the other night at dinner was priceless--this is not the case. On the one hand I am probably astonishingly naive and optimistic; on the other this misconception probably has something to do with my con experiences, which consist (aside from a single media con to which, ironically enough, I went solely to see Harlan Ellison) entirely of WisCon, World Fantasy, and ReaderCon. I now realize that these things may be happening even there and I am simply too thick to realize it. I'm left wondering if I really have any clue what cons (or, hell, everday life) are like for my female friends. It's not that I'm not aware of the monolithic sexism that is still our framework; but I guess for the most part I've been picturing it as something more subtle than grabbing hands. I need to be more aware of this, and realizing that is one good thing that's come out of all the shouty.

4. Conflating the actions of an individual with the work of the individual doesn't help. Whether you're a fan of one or both or neither of the writers involved, whether in general you think one is charming and the other a jerk, is irrelevant. It's the action that is the issue. As a corollary, taking back awards already given is a pointless conversation.

5. Part of my discomfort with all of this, from the beginning, has been related to what appears, to my untrained eyes, to be a disconnect between generational schools of feminism. One prominent editor commented elsewhere (I'm doing this entry sans quotes (see #7) but I'll paraphrase) that she has had to deal with these sorts of things on more than one occasion in her career, and that she simply handled it on her own; that if the field had taken up grievance on her behalf, she'd have felt as if the control of the situation had been taken away from her. I've been wondering quite a bit whether Connie Willis doesn't feel that way. I feel like this point of view is not being acknowledged. Clearly, things have changed, and I agree completely with those who have said that these sorts of things just flat shouldn't happen; that no matter any given woman's ability to deal with violations of her physical space, she shouldn't have to deal with them. Yes. But, we didn't arrive at the point of being able to demand that without intermediary steps. There first had to be women who demonstrated as individuals that they deserved respect and would not surrender their dignity in the face of abuse. They did this on their own, against a prevailing point of view (even in other women) which figured they got what they deserved. I fear that by stepping in to advocate on Willis' behalf that the blogosphere--while well-intended--may have robbed her of agency in this matter. The option of dealing with it on her own terms was taken away. I don't say this to condemn anyone. It's a misgiving that others may not share. I think the fact that the focus was widened in order to open a conversation on the question of whether cons are a safe space is laudable. But when I see folks saying that it's not about Connie, I'm a little uncomfortable with that. Because it was, in the beginning, and since the very beginning of this she's never had the control.

6. Some of the commentary from the outer fringes of the genre has been puzzling to me. The idea that the speculative fiction community should, as an entity, be speaking out and taking action against Ellison is strange. First of all, I've seen a LOT of condemnation out there, much of it from people I love and respect. They may not be Grand Masters, but they ain't chopped liver. Second, SF isn't a private club, and there's no governing body. It's not as though the genres are separate countries. If this had happened between Norman Mailer and Lorrie Moore, would Toni Morrison and Garrison Keillor and Gore Vidal be expected to vote with their peers to censure him? Um, no. There is no kingdom of speculative fiction, and there sure as hell isn't a democracy. It's just us, where "us" = whoever cares.

7. I'm not a member of SFWA and I don't have access to the fabled magical private boards. I'm eligible, but the twin moons of inclination and fundage have not so far aligned. But seeing the atmosphere of paranoia and intimidation that's converged upon David's recent post has drained any and all inclination away.

8. Whether or not this is about Connie (see #5), it's really not about Harlan. It's not like people just got the news that Harlan can be a jerk. What it should be about, at this point, is looking at ourselves. Examining the behavior and attitudes that we participate in, perpetuate and/or condone. Thinking about codes of conduct for conventions, and an atmosphere of professionalism for awards ceremonies. You know, growing up a little bit.

Now I can sleep. Feel free to comment, but please, let's have done with the shouting.

Tags:

Comments

( 25 comments — Leave a comment )
silk_noir
Sep. 5th, 2006 11:01 am (UTC)
EXcellent post.
veejane
Sep. 5th, 2006 12:03 pm (UTC)
I'm curious what your perspective is on the expressions of social rules in the SF-lit world, which is so different from the rules I use on the internet. I've always been a little fringey in SF-lit -- slow, shy, disinclined to blogs -- but the recent unpleasantness has been interesting to me in indicating how powerful status and hierarchy are in the SF-lit world.

(Media-fandom, my "home base," uses community policing via shame and shunning, and has no formalized hierarchy at all -- only what you can garner through fame and persuasiveness.)

Is it inevitable that, money being involved in SF-lit, caste will be involved as well? The SFWA list (which I'm sure has other purposes too) is in this case becoming literally the accusation that fanfic people throw at each other all the time: a private gathering-place where the important show their true colors, excluding the unimportant. How can the community police itself when the accusations of eliteness are actually true? I haven't figured that out yet.
nihilistic_kid
Sep. 5th, 2006 01:26 pm (UTC)
SFWA is trivially simple to join actually. One sale of one short story to any one of a dozen or more magazines or any one of a few dozen anthologies published every year will get you in. Two more sales, and you get to vote.

Having a private section is a) inevitable anyway (if you're heavily involved in fanfiction, are you obligated to reveal the content of email to fellow fans) and, b) a positive good, as SFWA is a writers' organization, which means that some of the conversation is better had away from editors and publishers out to exploit writers.

Anyway, the idea that there is no such thing as a private communication, or shouldn't be, because of one's vocation, is at best very silly.

Don't believe me? Post the most recent 500 personal emails you have received? What, don't I rate a gander?
veejane
Sep. 5th, 2006 04:06 pm (UTC)
There is private communication in media fandom, but generally speaking it is individual email and very small lists of personal contacts, for the same reasons that SFWA private lists are being attacked. In fanfic, it is called the "Bitter Old Fanfic Queen Cabal" -- any flaunted sign of private communication, like a private list, is automatically taken to be a conspiracy.

We're refreshingly crazy that way.

I guess the situation I am used to, because it has no professional aspect and no real-world consequences (i.e. money), is a pure internet- and personality-driven situation. Although, as you can see, I'm not so deluded as to think that media-fandom is all Mental Health and Joy (see also: sockpuppets), one of the aspects I do like about it is that it's got its own built-in sense of egalitarian mockery and public process.
(Deleted comment)
nihilistic_kid
Sep. 5th, 2006 02:41 pm (UTC)
Hmm, I think you have entirely misconstrued what I said. Pasting up people's commentary that is hidden behind password protection and in violation of an agreement, and then shrugging and saying "Well, there's no such thing as a private discussion on the Internet" is a Bad Thing.

If you doubt me, I'd be happy to post the content of any number of elements from IM convos I've had, not with you, but about you, to my ridiculously popular blog.

And by elements, of course, I mean the things that will make you look bad. And since these are private IM logs, I certainly won't be able to link to the whole thing to grant it all a level of context.

Moles did a bad thing, plain and simple. As bad as a public grope at an awards ceremony? Surely not. But "hey, it's the Internet" isn't much different than "Hey, if you really didn't want me in your apartment, you should have gotten a deadbolt that I couldn't pop open with my debit card" or, "Hey, if you didn't want the world to know what you really think of your old friends, you should have asked me before we chatted at WFC whether I had a tape recorder in my pocket."

The point I was making was simply that SFWA is in no way an elite organization. Anyone who puts a tiny bit of effort into it can join and be privvy to the discussions therein. SF fandom and elements of prodom, existing as it does in a turgid miasma of Asperger's Syndrome, is prone to people seeing themselves as the hapless victims of the Popular Lunch Table in the high school of life, but the defensive babble of the fundamentally immature doesn't make elitism an established fact.
snurri
Sep. 5th, 2006 02:47 pm (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I did misconstrue, and deleted to re-post once I realized that.

I agree that privacy on the Internet should be possible, and I'll concede that David was probably unwise to do what he did. Part of me is quite glad he did, though. In any case, the amount of sputtering and self-importance that's followed is far more distasteful to me.

As far as SFWA, you'll get no argument here.
nihilistic_kid
Sep. 5th, 2006 03:05 pm (UTC)
Yes, and if someone snuck a look into your medicine cabinet because hey, they're not locked, and you responded by spending the next year screaming out it, that would also be likely more distasteful than the initial lookie-loo.

But it wouldn't erase the initial invasion, and a lot of rhetoric surrounding the response to the pastes has just been moo-cow moronics. "They're talking about having their privacy violated instead of the boob grope!" Yeah, and? It also occured, didn't it?

Personally, I'm more than capable of talking about two things at once. I don't know why its so difficult for one of the most intelligent (if their self-congratulations are to be believed) demographics around.
veejane
Sep. 5th, 2006 04:18 pm (UTC)
Oh, media-fandom is so very instructive to this particular kerfuffle! It pleases me and appalls me at the same time.

The "popular lunch table" syndrome you describe is called Snacky's Law, and has a long history among my kind.

The exposure of private conversation, that pertains to a public inquiry, that is a violation but in many ways seems vital to the community -- it happens now and then in media-fandom, less often now than previously. And every time, it is a violation, and some people do see it as necessary, and that conflict persists.

> SFWA is in no way an elite organization

Well, it wasn't a "secret Yahoogroup of pros" list whose privacy was violated, was it? In the sense that it attracts pros, and keeps out those who can't leap their (admittedly low) barrier to entry, it's somewhat elite. And, I suspect that there's an increasing blending of behaviors between media-fandom and SF-lit, whereby, on the internet, SF-lit people pick up the publicness and community-policing of media-fandom. I can totally see (though roll my eyes at) newbies being furious at the very idea that there's a private list they're not allowed to join! Conspiracy!!

I can see there are reasons to have a closed vocational list. It makes sense. But I can also see that cultures, especially internet-based cultures, resent the everliving hell out of closed spaces.
nihilistic_kid
Sep. 5th, 2006 04:28 pm (UTC)
Indeed, but cultures resent the hell out of lots of things, like uppity women or people of different religions, or people who bathe too often or not frequently enough, or race-mixing, etc.

The real question for this small part of the discussion is whether or not showing some private comments in public sans permission led to greater positive results than negative. I tend to think not. At least one person was quoted so poorly as to have the theme of her comments inverted. This was not purposeful, but such things are inevitable when one takes snippets from conversations.

AND the comments were then taken down anyway, on request. So, if you happen to have enough of a life to go out on a Friday night, you missed the commentary anyway, but only heard how evil and horrible and awful it all was second- and third-hand. There's a smidge of elitism there, isn't there? People In The Know get to know, people for whom online existence doesn't revolve around certain blogs miss it.

It was a violation of privacy in order to encourage a public shaming, and it was rather arbitary and fumbling in its execution.
veejane
Sep. 5th, 2006 04:49 pm (UTC)
I don't know -- I'm not used to judging an event based on its usefulness outcome. It happened; some people cheered at bald speech and others frowned at context and privacy; that's all the judgement I can get out of it. I can guarantee that on the internet, it will happen again, and maybe the furor will be bigger next time, or smaller.

The only redress I've seen on the internet for quoting out of context is the quoted person reposting a whole conversation, possibly with analytical exegesis, to make clear what was meant. Kind of closing the barn door after the horse has gone, but, it can salvage a reputation.

> AND the comments were then taken down anyway, on request.

Many are the ways to retro-kerfuffle! When a post is being actively discussed, many people will take screen captures to be able to back up what they're responding to in case of deletion, alteration or lockage. It varies by local custom whether those screencaps are automatically made available, or only upon private request, but the idea is for the discussers to be able to prove they're not just whistling Dixie and knocking down straw men. Alternately, there is always Google cache, which ktempest discovered held an unaltered version of the post in question, as late as yesterday.
nihilistic_kid
Sep. 5th, 2006 04:54 pm (UTC)
Well, I presume from the hints and allusions that Moles had a result in mind when it came to pasting the commentary, so it is at least useful to measure projected results against actual results.

I'll try Google right now!
nihilistic_kid
Sep. 5th, 2006 04:55 pm (UTC)
And Google seems to have updated the cache to the expurgated version. :(
snurri
Sep. 5th, 2006 02:41 pm (UTC)
Re-posted since I misunderstood something Nick wrote.

The thing is, in some respects SF-lit hasn't really learned how to act on the Internet, in part because so many in the field--it's not fair to characterize it entirely as a generational thing, but it is at least in part--haven't really engaged with it in a significant way and hence haven't really learned to handle themselves around here. While I agree with Nick that there should be private communication on the net, experience tells me that this is an iffy proposition at best.

Another thing is that SF-lit has an enormous amount of bleed between fans and professionals, and there will always be those who want to enforce a separation of the two. At this point it kind of feels, to me, like that is one of the few purposes that SFWA serves. I don't question the need for a professional organization in and of itself, but I question the usefulness of the one we have.
nihilistic_kid
Sep. 5th, 2006 01:30 pm (UTC)
Yes. But, we didn't arrive at the point of being able to demand that without intermediary steps. There first had to be women who demonstrated as individuals that they deserved respect and would not surrender their dignity in the face of abuse.

What makes you think this is so? Collective endeavor is the essential element of social change, not individual foot-stomping. Don't believe the TV/movie hype — things don't change because random individuals get fed up and decide that they're not gonna take it. They forms groups, to commiserate and then make plans. Some are informal, some are quite formal. As far as women's groups or feminist groups, there have been collective endeavors in the US since at least 1874 (the Woman's Christian Temperance Union). There's no particular reason why your theory of aggrieved individuals need be true, and certanly no need for it to recapitulate at every site of social struggle.
snurri
Sep. 5th, 2006 02:38 pm (UTC)
No, you're right. I phrased that badly.

What I was trying to say was that there are individuals who consider themselves self-reliant and prefer to handle situations like this on their own terms. But upon reflection I think you're right that this is more of an adjacent phenomenon to actual movement towards social change.
nihilistic_kid
Sep. 5th, 2006 02:43 pm (UTC)
Well, boo-hoo for them. It's not like anyone is starting the Protect Connie's Boob Foundation, or otherwise turning her into a poster woman for some social movement against her will. It just happened to be very public; one is reminded of how the Anita Hill testimony led to many organizations (businesses, foundations) etc. to consider sexual harrassment policies. They weren't "Anita Hill Policies" and nearly 16 years later, a whole set of people have been through school and are now entering the workforce and receiving warning about harassment without any reference to Hill.
snurri
Sep. 5th, 2006 02:50 pm (UTC)
Yes. I'm not saying everyone should have stayed quiet. I just wanted to acknowledge that I was a little uncomfortable with how Connie was so quickly pushed into the background by everyone's rush to defend her.

It's possible I'm oversensitive. It wouldn't be the first time.
nihilistic_kid
Sep. 5th, 2006 03:02 pm (UTC)
It's that ridiculous midwestern ethos that needs to be eradicated from this species as quickly as possible.
veejane
Sep. 5th, 2006 04:22 pm (UTC)
I guess I don't see it as a rush to defend her -- or anyway, that's a minor part of the whole deal. Mostly I have seen comments like "I am sure Willis can take care of herself," followed by, "But my sensibilities are offended at something that happened in public, on stage," and that's the part people are frothing about.

It's turned into a general testimonial about forms and instances of sexual harassment in SF-lit over the years, but, the initial conversations -- the ones that mentioned Willis -- were about "I don't want this happening in my house," not "I don't want this happening to Connie Willis."
tacithydra
Sep. 5th, 2006 03:05 pm (UTC)
There first had to be women who demonstrated as individuals that they deserved respect and would not surrender their dignity in the face of abuse. They did this on their own, against a prevailing point of view (even in other women) which figured they got what they deserved.

Nick said this better, but my reaction to this was: Hasn't it already been demonstrated that women deserve respect? Even by women, as individuals, standing and saying something? And I guess I wonder why it would have to happen again in the SF field before it's okay to have a wider conversation about these issues. I don't think there's a big enough difference between the SF field and that nebulous "rest of the world" that it would need to be proven again.

And, actually, reading some people's blog posts about their experiences at cons, some people have directly addressed gropes and grabs, but that doesn't mean the behavior has stopped (I'm thinking in particular here of the woman who grabbed Harlan's shoulder and shook him when he was acting inapropriately toward her). Which brings me to your #6:

6. Some of the commentary from the outer fringes of the genre has been puzzling to me. The idea that the speculative fiction community should, as an entity, be speaking out and taking action against Ellison is strange. [cut] Second, SF isn't a private club, and there's no governing body. It's not as though the genres are separate countries. [cut] It's just us, where "us" = whoever cares.

I can see where you're coming from. There is no organized body that creates 'rules' for the SF field, or even some set of written commandments that everyone agreed on at one point. (Hm. Rereading your point here, and realizing that I may have twisted your words - I was responding to this as "why community is important" not necessarily "why community needs to kick Harlan Ellison". My apologies. I'm not deleting this, because I think it's pertinent to my above response, as well).

But there is still an SF community. It's hard to define its exact boundaries, in large part because there is no formal organization (one of the more useful functions of organizations being that they use membership to trace out the boundaries of certain groups, etc). SFWA comes close, which is actually why I think a lot of people are calling on them to comment, because while they don't universally Represent the SF Community, they're the closest thing to a governing body that does.

And the thing about social change, and beliefs about acceptable actions in public (or private) spaces, is that it may start with individuals, but it has to end with community. Because there is a tangible difference between "things some of us think aren't okay" and things that are, in the public discourse, simply "not okay". I feel like what's happening now is a big push to roll over the "everyone's physical spaces deserve respect" from "things some of us think is true" to "true", in the science fiction community.
snurri
Sep. 5th, 2006 03:25 pm (UTC)
I guess I wonder why it would have to happen again in the SF field before it's okay to have a wider conversation about these issues.

I don't think anybody's saying it wasn't OK to have this conversation before. I'm not, at least. People tend to be reactive (not to say reactionary), and I think there's sort of a perfect storm of factors here--the public nature of the act, the participants, the video documentation, and the Internet holding it all together and the blogosphere re-iterating it all over the place.

And the thing about social change, and beliefs about acceptable actions in public (or private) spaces, is that it may start with individuals, but it has to end with community.

I agree. But I think that something like bellwether_talk has more chance of doing something with this than SFWA does.
tacithydra
Sep. 5th, 2006 03:50 pm (UTC)
I think perfect storm is a great way to describe this - though I think it's also what tends to happen in terms of events of social change, whether in large or small groups. There's a slow build on the side pushing for change, and then something finally comes in and ignites everyone. Which does leave the poor folks on the other side sort of flabbergasted, because they were just responding to events like they have in the past, and here's this radically different result staring them in the face.

As to SFWA as an organization, you're right. It's not their responsibility, for one thing, to create cultural norms in the SF community. They're there to protect writers, not set social norms at cons. But as flattened as SF is, in terms of status differences and author/fan mixing, the fact remains that authors, particulary the Big Names, do have much higher social status, which gives them power over the social landscape that others lack (witness the story about the girl who Ellison groped in an elevator whose was told by another fan that she should be honored to be groped by Harlan Ellison). It's human instinct to attend more to those with higher status.

Which is why, as wrong as reposting the stuff from the SFWA forums was, I think David Moles's title for those comments was perfect - they were depressing. Not because "SFWA" isn't saying anything, but because its members aren't saying anything. No one's obligated to make a stand for anything. But it's depressing when people who could be addressing the issue, people who are in a position of status, are saying nothing, and privately dismissing the behavior. If they were dismissing it somewhere public, then at least there could be conversation about differing points of view, but to remain silent publicly and privately dismiss... is just depressing. Because that's the behavior that enables the status quo to continue.

Which is where Ben Rosenbaum's comment on Chrononaut I think hits it right on the head - where one set of people is seeing this as a deeply set issue that needs to be dealt with at a wider level, others are tending to see it as an isolated incident. And that's what's creating a lot of the differences. The fact that those who saw it as an isolated incident were discussing it in the private SFWA forums while those who saw it as the tip of the iceberg were doing it publicly was a quality of the situation that exacerbated things.
(Anonymous)
Sep. 6th, 2006 03:23 am (UTC)
Not because "SFWA" isn't saying anything, but because its members aren't saying anything. No one's obligated to make a stand for anything. But it's depressing when people who could be addressing the issue, people who are in a position of status, are saying nothing, and privately dismissing the behavior. If they were dismissing it somewhere public, then at least there could be conversation about differing points of view, but to remain silent publicly and privately dismiss... is just depressing. Because that's the behavior that enables the status quo to continue.



I read comments such as this and wonder what world the poster is living in, that is such an alternative reality from my own, where almost every member of SFWA has been discussing little else than this incident, publicly and privately, all over the internet.

The people that you mention: Ben Rosenbaum, David Moles, are SFWA members. Or don't they count? Are SFWA members just those other people who hang out in places where you can't go? Nick Mamatas, posting right here on this blog, is a SFWA member.

Have you gone to the public blogs of SFWA members to see what comments they have made on the subject?

And how do you know, if you have not seen their private posts, that they have privately been dismissing the incident? It would have to be hearsay. And that hearsay happens to be false, but nevertheless you will see the falsehood repeated over and over in these blogs - mostly based on misinformation and the distortion of what people actually said, as well as taking the opinions of one or two people to stand for an organization of over a thousand individuals, each with their own opinion.

But whoever says "SFWA members are dismissing the incident" or "SFWA members think groping women is OK" is repeating a malicious rumor and a damned lie.


Lois Tilton, SFWA member
veejane
Sep. 5th, 2006 04:33 pm (UTC)
You know, I'm increasingly coming over to the idea that we're all seeing a paroxysm of culture-transfer, as SF-lit culture meets the internet, and brushes up more and more against media-fandom and related internet-based cultures. Because, and I've been working this out very slowly over the course of 3 years of con-going, SF-lit is a different culture from media-fandom, and the interaction is head-spinny.

I try to participate in both worlds, and sometimes end up doing translation from one to the other, and what I've seen in the past few days is internet-based cultural practices -- shunning, shame, exposure of private discussion -- occurring in SF-lit spaces. What strikes me about it is people being shocked at it, till I remember that SF-lit isn't necessarily used to acting like that, as a whole.

And, I mean, SF-lit has been on the internet for a long, long time, right? But maybe hasn't been used to the idea that the internet isn't just in-person plus -- it's inevitably going to be a different cultural experience.
snurri
Sep. 5th, 2006 04:44 pm (UTC)
Actually, for a bunch of "futurists" and such-like, the bulk of SF-lit pros have been extremely slow to take advantage of/learn the net. Witness the number of crappy author web sites, riddled with broken links, that haven't been updated since 1998. There is Strange Horizons and there are the bloggers, but with some notable exceptions these tend to be younger writers, and not the Big Names.

SF-lit is a COMPLETELY different culture from media-fandom, despite the overlap. I think that the divide is probably more visible from the lit side, though. There's some snobbery there and there's some bemusement and there's a sense, I think, that media SF isn't very representative of the genre. But I think the lit folks could learn some things from the media fans . . .
( 25 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

snurri
David J. Schwartz
Mumble Herder

Recent and Forthcoming

Novels:

Superpowers:


US Edition


UK Edition

Novellas:

"The Sun Inside," part of the Electrum Novella Series from Rabit Transit Press



Short Stories:

"Escape to Bird Island" at The King's English, Winter 2008-9 Issue

"Bear In Contradicting Landscape" in Polyphony 7, Coming Soon

"MonstroCities" in Tumbarumba: A Frolic of Intrusions

"Mike's Place" in Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet #22

"Proof of Zero" in Spicy Slipstream Stories, Out Now!!

"The Somnambulist" in Paper Cities: An Anthology of Urban Fantasy, Out Now!!

"Oma Dortchen and the Pillar of Story" in Farrago's Wainscot, Summer 2007

"The Ichthyomancer Writes His Friend with an Account of the Yeti's Birthday Party" in Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet Number 13, Fall 2003 (Honorable Mention, The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror: Seventeenth Annual Collecion); Reprinted in The Best of Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet

Criticism:

""Stardust" at Strange Horizons

Essay:

"On Making Noise: Confessions of a Quiet Kid" in Brothers and Beasts: An Anthology of Men on Fairy Tales edited by Kate Bernheimer

FULL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tags

Latest Month

February 2013
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Emile Ong