The rules to The Big Read

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
BEST-LOVED? These are the rules to the BBC's Big Read. DO they make sense (well blatently fixeing it of course but they are rightly worried that a top ten with five Harry Potter books in it looks a bit crap).
Vote here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/form.shtml

1. Viewers should nominate/vote for their BEST-LOVED BOOK.

2. This must be a novel (non-fiction, short stories, poetry or plays do not qualify).

3. It can also be a novel from anywhere in the world, as long as it has been translated into English, and from any era.

4. There will be mechanisms in place to stop automated and block voting.

5. The nomination period to discover the Top 100 best-loved books will begin on Saturday 5 April 2003 and end at midnight on Saturday 19 April.

6. A Top 10 will be compiled from this list. Only one book per author will be allowed in the Top 10. The final top 10 will be determined by ‘shuffling’ the results to enable this to happen. For example, if an author has two books in the Top 10, the lowest scoring of these two books will be moved down the list to place number 11 and the number 11 book will enter the Top 10 at number 10.

7. The voting period for the best-loved book in the Top 10 will commence later in the year around the autumn TV series.

8. Viewers should nominate/vote for their single best-loved book. The only exception is for continuous stories such as trilogies or quartets that have been published in a single bound volume eg Lord of the Rings, The Alexandria Quartet.

9. Viewers cannot nominate/vote for a collection of books that may have been compiled in a box set. Nominations/votes should be for an individual book only eg Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.

10. If a viewer inadvertently nominates a collection rather than a single book, the nominations will be added to the top scoring book in that collection. But nominations for an author without any book title will be discounted. For example, if a viewer nominates Harry Potter rather than naming a specific book in the series, that nomination will be added to the top scoring Harry Potter title. If, however, the viewer nominates JK Rowling without the name of a book or collection, the nomination will be discounted.

11. The BBC reserves the right to disqualify any mass orchestrated vote by an individual or organisation and will discount those votes or books accordingly.

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

It sounds like they are mighty worried about the Harry Potter contingent.

Nicole (Nicole), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 14:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely they should add Harry Potter to the bottom-ranked HP book, for fairness?

I have read all the Harry Potter books twice. Anyone over 18 who nominates them as their favourite books should be sent on reading camp, where they are forcefed Heller, Irving, Roth, Woolf and Dickens until they can be trusted with heavy machinery, the vote, crossing the road etc.

Right, off to vote.

Mark C (Mark C), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 14:18 (twenty-two years ago)

ANy guesses at what'll be in that top ten. Note people can vote in other ways so it won't ll be stuff that just appeals to the computah aided. I reckon it'll be classic heavy. Austen should do well with only a few books, Dickens may have too make to choose from. Wodehouse is probably doomed by this (though I suppose just voting Blandings or Jeeves might bolster his vote).

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Why does it have to be novel?

rosemary (rosemary), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 14:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey, them's are the rules!!!

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 14:59 (twenty-two years ago)

The TV programme kept flashing 'What is your best book?' up on screen, which was dispiritingly illiterate for a project concerned with literature. Unless it is only open to published authors nominating their own works (which would be a bit dull).

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 20:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Tell me Lord of the Rings won't win.

Andrew L (Andrew L), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 20:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Lord of The Rings won't win.

William Bloody Swygart (mrswygart), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I swear I must have made a naffer post than that at one time. I just cannot remember when.

Anyway - Slaughterhouse 5 for me.

William Bloody Swygart (mrswygart), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 20:11 (twenty-two years ago)

BBC?
BBC?!?
I never understood the BBC. Can someone explain it to me?
Is it owned by the govt? Are there private TV broadcasting
corps as well? Are all the channels numerically named?
Isn't that boring?

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 20:15 (twenty-two years ago)

There are two terrestrial TV stations run by the BBC (BBC1 and BBC2). They are funded by a TV license fee that all TV owning households pay (about £100 a year). Possibly supplemented by central government funding - I'm not sure. It is editorially completely independent from government. There are three other commerical, advertising funded terrestrial stations. ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5. Numbers rock.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 9 April 2003 21:44 (twenty-two years ago)

The BBC World Service radio stations receive a grant from the Foreign Office, I believe, but the rest of the BBC is funded by the licence fee and by money it makes selling programmes to foreign TV stations.

Channel 4 is also government-owned, but doesn't receive any government money. There used to be a complex arrangement whereby if Channel 4 made excessive losses, the ITV companies had to give it money - and in return, it had to pay them money if it made lots of profits.

caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 10 April 2003 12:07 (twenty-two years ago)

''I reckon it'll be classic heavy.''

not on 'classic heavy' but 'classics that have been turned into movies/TV series' heavy.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 10 April 2003 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah - so that's Tristram Shandy fucked then.

Pete (Pete), Thursday, 10 April 2003 14:11 (twenty-two years ago)

We'll have a couple of Harry Potters at #11 and 12 and (are there 4?) #13, I guess. LotR will walk it of course. I suspect my favourite novel, Dhalgren, might make the top 10,000.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm voting for Knut Hamsun! It's a walkover!

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

So they _are_ government owned. That's some real Soviet
shit right there, y'all should do something about that.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 18 April 2003 23:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Ummm....any chance books not written originally in English will make the list? I'll be mighty right pissed if Don Quixote doesn't mount a good sally to that list.

Girolamo Savonarola, Saturday, 19 April 2003 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

#101 - 'To Mount a Good Sally' by 'Anonymous'

Andrew L (Andrew L), Saturday, 19 April 2003 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...
So where's the list?

Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 7 May 2003 19:02 (twenty-two years ago)

ppl are still voting I think. I don't know when the deadline is.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 7 May 2003 19:16 (twenty-two years ago)

revive! so they announced the 100 but not in order (a film will be made on each of the top 10 and they will be screened in the autumn).

'Ulysses' was the one thing in the top 100 that i have actually read.

there was a discussion on these choices by a 'panel of experts' on BBC four in which greer attached the 'nazi' word to tolkien and india knight (the shittiest columnist evah though i have stopped reading papers) said that ppl couldn't possibly love 'ulysses' even though it was a poll trying to find the most loved books. you know the drift: some sort of intellectual nonsense even though there was criticism of the list for being anti intellectual (ie not having enuff booker prize nominated books). I got bored halfway through.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 17 May 2003 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

So what were the results of the 100? Or can someone provide a link for our browsing amusement?

I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Monday, 19 May 2003 00:31 (twenty-two years ago)

re:greer and nazi.
i havent heard the program, but isnt tolkein a facist?

anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 19 May 2003 00:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes - he hates Nazguls.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 19 May 2003 08:15 (twenty-two years ago)

mark s to thread!

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 19 May 2003 08:16 (twenty-two years ago)

(tolkien is not a fascist)

mark s (mark s), Monday, 19 May 2003 08:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Here is the list:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml

Actually quite an interesting list. A lot less modern than one would think (still this is an area where the canon is more consistent) but if you compare it to a similar pop music type list there seems to be a bit more going on here. If you take out the multiples from Pratchett, Rowling and Wilson the top ten will be quite a good mix.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 19 May 2003 08:22 (twenty-two years ago)

mark- so where do those accusations come from?

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 19 May 2003 08:29 (twenty-two years ago)

There are pretty whacked out suggestions of racism with the orcs being black and all, plus the parochial pastoralism of the Shire being some kind of fatherland. There are probably more but equally poorly argued lines to follow up too.

Oh and he loved Hitler.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Its also been argued that its an alegory for the fight against fascism, something that tolkein strenuously denied.

Ed (dali), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:17 (twenty-two years ago)

''Oh and he loved Hitler.''

really?!

''Its also been argued that its an alegory for the fight against fascism, something that tolkein strenuously denied.''

fair enough, if that wasn't intended by him when he wrote the book.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Apparently, the book that received the most votes in the poll was "Pride and Prejudice". My reckoning that BBC will wittle down the choices until a Harry Potter book wins.

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:30 (twenty-two years ago)

The problem with that argument is that if the War Of The Ring is the allegory for WW2, which side is the Fellowship on (Fellowship is another word for Allies?) Allegory is in the eye of the reader, or in this case the flaming vagina.

Any more comments on what else is or isn't on the list. World literature in translation gets pretty short shrift - nothing French at all. Wodehouse prediction above confirmed. No Don Quixote either, (or Tom Jones bah - wasted vote). But it does have a few interesting things to say about who feels onfident to vote in these things - since Science Fiction is almost nowhere to be seen, but Fantasy is quite present.

I believe the top ten will be subject to a Great Britons style phone vote and TV program a piece.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I suspect a Dickens novel may well win, ultimately, although I'm sure the BBC will be hoping that P&P triumphs just so the Radio Times has another excuse to print lots of pictures of Colin Firth in tights.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:39 (twenty-two years ago)

heh, there was plenty of what pete talks abt that was touched on in the discussion. greer didn't like the fact that quixote wasn't on.

it was agreed that children's books showed that those first few books you read prob 'stay with you'.

there was a lot of prachett: his latest book (published last nov) is on the list. was that the sound of andrew L screaming?

''I believe the top ten will be subject to a Great Britons style phone vote and TV program a piece.''

yes. it will happen in the autumn.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Lots of Roald Dahl made the cut as well which I was a bit surprised at, but on second consideration isn't that mentalist a placing. But just so much! Stoppit! Matilda can stay, but the Twits could easily go without a great clamour of wailing.

I have read *30* of the books and am feeling quite pleased with my general literacy wot with words an ting.

I am happy to see GORMENGHAAAAAAAST up there too! Hooray for goffick horrors.

But where o where is The Dark Is Rising sequence/the book of the new gothSUN eh?

Sarah (starry), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:53 (twenty-two years ago)

the whole obsession with martial law, the love of blood lines, the distinct tinge of something better if the dirty underwhelming violent hordes didnt get in the way, the nostalgia for anglo saxons and the norse...
could this not be facist ?


also they suck.

anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Why does LOTR get in as one book instead of three?

Books I have never heard of on this list:

Artemis Fowl, Eoin Colfer
The Clan Of The Cave Bear, Jean M Auel
Double Act, Jacqueline Wilson
Girls In Love, Jacqueline Wilson
Holes, Louis Sachar
I Capture The Castle, Dodie Smith
Katherine, Anya Seton
Magician, Raymond E Feist
The Magus, John Fowles
Noughts And Crosses, Malorie Blackman
Perfume, Patrick Süskind
The Pillars Of The Earth, Ken Follett
A Prayer For Owen Meany, John Irving
The Princess Diaries, Meg Cabot, Author interview
The Ragged Trousered Philantrhopists, Robert Tressell
The Story Of Tracy Beaker, Jacqueline Wilson
The Thorn Birds, Colleen McCollough
Vicky Angel, Jacqueline Wilson

Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, notice the distinct lack of H0RNBY!

Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Antony, that all counts for the Bible though. (Well okay, not the Anglo Saxon bit).

Facism sucks. But things that suck != facist.

Read the rules above Matt for why LotR is considered as one book. They make a degree of sense and at least make room for two more in the list. You need to read more Jacqueline Wilson. (No Anne Fine - that's harsh).

Pete (Pete), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:05 (twenty-two years ago)

tolkien didn't like (what he thought of as) the reduction of the fairytale to mere political allegory, bcz he tht fairytales were important in themselves

a better way to read LoTR is to consider it a riddle (viz who IS the lord of the rings): Tolkien loved riddles

the black vs white element is generally where the fascism/racism argument arises i guess: it doesn't survive close reading — as pete points out, the fellowship is an uneasy multicultural coalition: while the elves are announced as Beyond Good, the book is the story of their ending and failing (after they put right a great wrong they introduced into the world), and the central characters — hobbits and gollum — can pass for and even sympathise (kind of) with orcs, who are introduced as the construction of pure evil (anti-elves), but nevertheless complicated the moment he starts writing from their perspective (in the gorbag and shagrat exchange, the two orcs take a highly critical and sardonic position on goings-on "on high": they don't LIKE the nazgul, they fear them... ) (it is true that from a strict internationalist sociliast perspective, the fellowship should possibly have fought for the liberation of orcs from their ethical construction rather than their liquidation, but orcs are NOT people, any more than elves are => this is a REALLY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION for tolkien, in respect of the essence of the fairytale) (also tolkien was not an internationalist socialist, but nor wz churchill...)

there's also a strand of argument which reads gollum as a classic jewish literary stereotype (wheedling speech patterns, real name schmiegel etc): however seeing as gollum is (a) tolkien's favourite character and (b) the tragic hero of the book (he battles with his dark side and throws himself into the cracks of doom that the world be purged of sauron) and thus the actual real lord of the rings (the riddle solved hurrah!), this won't really fly either

mark s (mark s), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:09 (twenty-two years ago)

ok
all of that said mark, you still havent explained away the nostalgia that tolkien felt for anglia (this was the man, when asked what his ideal state was, replied 12th century feudalism)

anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:15 (twenty-two years ago)

assuming it wasn't a joke, what is the evidence that Tolkien loved Hitler?

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:17 (twenty-two years ago)

his unpublished larkin style porno novels.

anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm assuming it was as pete hasn't expanded on this point.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:19 (twenty-two years ago)

tolkien is a royalist obv, but he thinks kings have to earn their kingship by being decent and wise ppl who attended to and respected the lowliest of their subjects (theoden and aragorn and gandalf are all good eggs bcz they admire and take counsel from hobbits): the nine ringwriaths were (some of them) kings and princes of numenor, which is the "pure" bloodline, but it was their pride and wickedness which brought ruin to the world

he wanted to *rewrite* the norse/icelandic myths (and anyway he got his love of these from william morris, a kind of ruralist marxist, who regarded icelandic society as a model for the egalitarian worker's future

mark s (mark s), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:22 (twenty-two years ago)

anyway, feudalism is totally difft from fascism!!

pete was joking abt hitler (he meant that tolkien liked momus)

mark s (mark s), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:24 (twenty-two years ago)

b-but hitler and momus are surely...oh, never mind ;-)

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:26 (twenty-two years ago)

tell me more about tolkien and morris.
maybe its not the facism thats sticking in my craw, but, yeah, the royalism, their is a strange nostaliga here that i cant quite place.

how different is it, one is 12th and the other 20th ?

also how did he and god work out, being in the same circles as two of the more well known apologists (lewis and chesteron, but you knew that)

anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:26 (twenty-two years ago)

did he really say 12th-century? that wd be post the norman junta (cf farmer giles of ham for a neat sketch of his ideal of kingship and his satire of a decadent and silly norman-style court)

giles gets to be king bcz i. he defeats a dragon w/.o killing him, ii. he is sensible and not pretentious

the ideal of anglo-saxon liberties prior to the norman arrival wz a v.widespread trope in radical english arts-and-crafts politics (cf horne tooke et al): i think tolk belongs (somewhat) here

(it's true in fact that the nazis appropriated some of these strands of ideas from the german equivalent) (but this is evidence of a kind with "hitler was a vegetarian DO YOU SEE??!!")

mark s (mark s), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:31 (twenty-two years ago)

The Beeb said that 140,000 ppl voted all told, which didn't strike me as v. many.

Andrew L (Andrew L), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:32 (twenty-two years ago)

ok mark.
me stupid.

can you explain that v. slowly, using handpuppets if nessc.

also the chesterton and lewis conundrum

anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:36 (twenty-two years ago)

It was a joke. Hitler likes Tolkein though (since Mark S = Hilter as proved in the Battle of the Moderatorz).I think the problem with aberant or alternate readings of any book, let alone LotR is that they are only really interesting if they gain popular currency. Hence if a fascist was using LotR as a major rallying call for his particular ideology then it is important. If its a literature student forgetting the big picture and trying some kind of literary archeology then the reality of Tolkein's fascism is neither here nor there. Its impossible to reclaim Mein Kampf I would imagine, but should the Ring cycle suffer from being cobbled into the justification of Aryan ideology. (Aryan being north Indian anyway haha).

Pete (Pete), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:51 (twenty-two years ago)

The Aryans left no books anyway.

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh no wait they left nothing but books, sorry.

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Books I have never heard of on this list:

Artemis Fowl, Eoin Colfer

Post-Potter cash-in with supernatural boy detectives and criminals. Fairy police etc.

The Clan Of The Cave Bear, Jean M Auel

10,000 page long stone age epic, found in every UK guesthouse.

Double Act, Jacqueline Wilson
Girls In Love, Jacqueline Wilson

Very popular children's writer, quirky tales of home life for 10-11 year olds.

Holes, Louis Sachar

No idea.

I Capture The Castle, Dodie Smith

Childrens book. Psychological themes I think.

Katherine, Anya Seton

No idea.

Magician, Raymond E Feist

"Tolkeinesque" (i.e. photocopy of Tolkein) fantasy fest.

The Magus, John Fowles

There was a thread on it a while back. Modern classic, never read it.

Noughts And Crosses, Malorie Blackman

No idea.

Perfume, Patrick Süskind

Stylish 80s lit sensation about smells and murder in 18th century. Pretty good iirc.

The Pillars Of The Earth, Ken Follett

Thriller I assume.

A Prayer For Owen Meany, John Irving

60s (?) lit fiction, don't know what it's about.

The Princess Diaries, Meg Cabot, Author interview

My First Chick Lit book.

The Ragged Trousered Philantrhopists, Robert Tressell

Socialist classic. R Hattersley will be delighted. Enormous.

The Story Of Tracy Beaker, Jacqueline Wilson

See above J Wilson entries.

The Thorn Birds, Colleen McCollough

Doorstop bodice-ripper, made into monster TV mini-series in early 80s. Another guesthouse classic.

Vicky Angel, Jacqueline Wilson

Her again.

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Monday, 19 May 2003 11:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Tico Tico is wrong, the Ragged Trousers Philanthropist actually features the tales and adventures of a younger J. The Nipper esquire, set in a swanky Covent Garden location. A particular chapter to note is the nipper's first encounter of a Muji.

Sarah (starry), Monday, 19 May 2003 11:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Can someone please kill Jacqueline Wilson already?

"Hi, I'm a girl"
"Hi, I too am a girl"
"Oh look, my mother's dead"
"Hey, we're kinda different aren't we?"
"Yes, but we're also quite similar"
"Great"

That's every JW novel ever there.

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Monday, 19 May 2003 13:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Holes, Louis Sachar

This is another kids book, which was recently made into a movie.

Nicole (Nicole), Monday, 19 May 2003 13:11 (twenty-two years ago)

apart from Vicky angel, in which case it's:

'Oh my god my best friend's just been killed'

'Oh my God, I've been killed, but I'm going to come back from the grave and manipulate you, even if you were my best friend'

'This is great.....not sure I like this...I can't cope'

'oh dear, maybe I should go'

I can't actually remember the ending, it was so crap. Not sure why I read it to the end, to be honest.

Vicky (Vicky), Monday, 19 May 2003 13:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Have you seen "Girls In Love", the TV show based on one of her novels? My god...

"Hi, I'm black. Thus, I'm ghetto and urban and sassy"
"Hi, I'm a Goth. This means I listen to Radiohead and have deep intelligent emotions"
"Hi, I'm the main character. Because I'm the main character, I have no distinguishing features."

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Monday, 19 May 2003 13:14 (twenty-two years ago)

My own choice - Lanark by Alasdair Gray - got nowhere, evidently. Another wasted vote.

caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 19 May 2003 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

FWIW, a great anecdote vis-a-vis Tolkien and the Nazis: shortly before WWII, Tolkien was contacted by a German publishing firm wanting to translate The Hobbit; however, it being Nazi-controlled like everything else, the firm wanted confirmation that he had no Jewish ancestors in his background. Tolkien wrote back a sharp response along the lines of "I regret that I have no ancestors from that excellent and worthwhile people in my family tree," denied permission for publication, and elsewhere vented about Hitler as a "ruddy ignoramus," in part because of what Mark has noted about perceptions of inaccurate study of a 'true' Nordic spirit but also because he understandably just didn't like the guy. And not many WWI vets like Tolkien would, I'd guess.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 19 May 2003 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I looked at the list today. I've read 44 of them, but I can't say there are many more I fancy reading.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Noughts and Crosses is another children's book. It isn't very good. Holes is excellent though.

Richard Jones (scarne), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I've only read five of them, oh well. I've seen a few on telly though.

I would have picked Mysteries by Knut Hamsun.

jel -- (jel), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Louis Sachar's stuff is often so so perfect – absurd and hilarious and dark and honest. Holes is not my favorite of his but do believe the hype, it is great. I hope not to see the film, though.

Fivvy (Fivvy), Monday, 19 May 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

22 definates, 2 possibles (midnight garden, brave new world) and one i'm only halfway through (100 years of solitude)

on the road sucked. catch 22 sucked.

no wasp factory, no neuromancer, no microserfs, no anne tyler. pah.

and fab though owen meany was, garp was better. i mith him.

andy

koogs (koogs), Tuesday, 20 May 2003 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.