I really like Her Last Death so far. This book is mostly about Sue's mother and how her behavior, but I like how Sue admits that she loves her mother regardless of the craziness in which she was raised. This way, the author seems less like she is complaining and more like she is just sharing the ridiculous stories of her life.
Sonnenberg mentions how her mother was sent to a boarding school at a young age, on page 19. I wonder why this is so. As a reader, I inferred that perhaps Daphne (the mom) did not receive much emotional love from her parents as a child. This is often seen in people with unusual psychological behavior, so I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not blaming Sue's grandparents for Sue's (or Daphne's) scarring childhood, but I wonder how life for both of them would be different if Daphne hadn't gone to boarding school.
I found the scene where Daphne "sputtered a few steps until she seized" (47) frightening. I can't imagine what a scarring image that would create for a 12 year old, your mother just dropping unconscious like that! I wonder what got Daphne hooked on painkillers. Does she really have a back problem, or is this just one of her lies? Does anybody else have trouble figuring out what are Daphne's lies as a compulsive liar and what are truths?
Well, I don't really know where to start with this book, so I guess I'll just abruptly jump into it.
I think I would like to disagree with Alex Mazarakis and go ahead and blame Sue's grandparents/Daphne's parents for how Daphne grew up. It is never the child's fault (not that Alex Mazarakis was suggesting that). Children learn how to behave and how to treat others/themselves based on how their parents treat them and other people. Just like Red Forman, the father character in the television show That 70's Show -- Red grew up in a household that didn't speak about feelings; if you did, especially if you're a boy, you were considered weak and unmanly. But becoming that type of person was not Red's fault -- it was his parents' faults.
Being sent to boarding school can be seen as the equivalent of being sent away (out of sight, out of mind, out of heart). There must have been something in Daphne that subconsciously recognized that her parents didn't really want her around, which is why they sent her away. This contributes to Daphne's mother's cold personality. (Keep in mind, though, that we readers aren't told outright that Daphne's mother is a cold person).
Plus, I know for a fact that people generally revert back to how their childhood household was, they find a way to incorporate it into their adult lives even if they try to get away from it. It is all they know. For instance, if a young girl grows up in a home where her mother is abused by her father, that girl will grow up into a young woman who ultimately finds herself in an abusive relationship. And Daphne found herself intertwined with Nat (Sue's and Penelope's father), and he was a mentally abusive person. He mentally abused Daphne and he mentally abused Sue, which was made evident when he and his girlfriend introduced 8-year-old Sue to sexual things. But we have yet to see how this carried over into Sue's adult life -- thus far it seems to be pretty peachy, besides the fact that Daphne is dying.
I have trouble figuring out what is a lie and what is a truth as well. I also wonder if Daphne is lying about back problems, preferring to lie and stay home and live a life of luxury. But at the same time, it's quite a large lie. And I've noticed that while Daphne lies to her kids, she doesn't lie to her lovers. But her lovers have known/do know that she has "back problems". So maybe it is a truth....
Why is Penelope so blind to how Daphne is and Sue's reasons for not wanting to go to her deathbed? I doubt that Daphne changed her whole persona by the time Penelope became old enough to remember things and be scarred. So why did it affect Sue so terribly? Why does Penelope still have a good relationship with Daphne?
I wonder if Daphne will be psychologically evaluated by a professional. And for that matter, will Sue? Will Nat? It seems that most of the characters need to have some extent of psychiatric help.
I somewhat agree with Kaela's claim that a child will follow the behaviors of their parents. This can hold true, if the child is naive and unwilling to be different.
For example, in the chapter entitled, "Two Beds," Daphne is living in a hotel, lying and cheating with Hugh and Colin. Right before Colin arrives, Sue and Penelope find puppies in a shed. Meanwhile, Daphne meets Colin and juggles her relationships with both men, "going back and forth" to their rooms, bringing them food. At the same time, Sue and Penelope bring "milk and scraps of bread to the shed" for their "secret puppies."
Because they are naive and ignorant, the children naturally follow the ways of their mother. However, as people mature and become able to discern the differences between right and wrong, they can make an effort to build their personalities on better principles. Therefore, Sue cannot blame her mother for her own flaws.
With that being said, I'm still aware of the fact that if a child is raised immorally, they are more likely to lack morality. Yet, I don't think that one should give up on the hope of having good character, just because their parents were corrupt.
I really wish I could just reach in and grab Sue (and Penelope too, but not as much because she seems more protected thanks to Sue) and take her away from the crazy and soul-crushing lifestyle.
When Sue was in boarding school, an incident happened with a boy she liked. While they were walking from a class back to Sue's dorm, the boy pulled and pushed her off the trail and into the bushes and assulted her -- he tried to make her give him a blow job. She pushed him off of her and ran back to the trail. I expected her to run straight to the dorm and find an adult and take action against the boy in some way. But she didn't. She stopped on the trail and smilied at the boy, as if it was a normal thing for him to do. Then they carried on. I couldn't believe it! I was so upset. Obviously, Sue learned that it's okay to tolerate those abusive things because that's what the majority of the guys have done to her and Daphne in some form or another. Sue has learned that guys are extremely important and that she doesn't have to/shouldn't respect herself enough to say no to those things in a firmer way than simply pushing him aside and smiling at him later. And Daphne didn't do anything about it, even though she said she wanted something to happen. Another broken promise.
Meanwhile, Sue is doing very well in school -- English class especially -- and it's almost like she has an attraction to her English teacher. He compliments her, he is into writing like her. He seems to sympathize for her concealed homelife, although it may be a subconscious-sympathizing: I'm not sure if he understands why he sympathizes with her, or if he even realizes he does. But I know he does because he seems so captivated with her -- it has to be for more of a reason than she is a good student. Plus, he went out to the pancake place with her.... which kind of breaches the teacher-student relationship in my book... at least the traditional one. And he's older (which can be seen as gross). But maybe he seems safe to her .... like a grandfather. He's safer than the boy who assaulted her, for example. But she is just so boy-crazy, as her friend at boarding school said.
Speaking of which, she is almost in love with her friend, the one who says she is boy-crazy. Is her name Kelly? Kate? Something like that.... (I can't go back and look for the name in my Kindle, sorry guys. T_T) Anyways, she is very attatched to her and wants her approval, yet she rebels. It's kind of a parallel between her life at school and her life at home: she always wanted her mother's approval and wanted her mother to be a mother; she wants the friend to approve and to be a best friend. But she rebels against them both: she hates her mom and ran to boarding school to escape; she continues her "boy-crazy" habits despite her friends half-hearted warnings.
I wonder how that's going to pan out as her life continues.
Does anyone else have thoughts about these particular points?
Kaela, you're right about Sue sort of accepting all behavior from men (no matter how illegal) because of her mother. Throughout the book-part two especially-Daphne has been pressuring her daughter to lose her virginity. Even if Sue often feels angry and embarrassed about her mother, her own behavior around boys reflects her mother's at this adolescent-teen age of her life. It's interesting how Sue narrates every boy encounter her mom has with anger, mentioning that she "wouldn't talk to her" (110) the morning after she has sex with a crush of Sue's. Meanwhile, throughout Sue's entire affair with her TEACHER, she doesn't even HINT that what she was doing was even a little strange. Sure, she keeps it a secret, but the author often mentions "we were in love" even though now the author is probably grown up enough to realize the creepiness of that relationship. I don't know if I'm explaining myself fully here, but what I mean is that Sue's behavior reflects her mother's at almost every page and yet the narrator seems to be naive to this. This could be on purpose, to show the ignorance of youth.
As Sue grows older, what I wonder most is what she will be like when she becomes an adult. We already know that she grows up to have what seems to be a relatively normal life with a husband and two sons. Now that we know more about Sue's psychotic childhood, this is hard to believe! Could she really shake off all the trauma and personality-changing experiences her mother caused to later leave a normal life? Since Sue seems to be acting like her mother a lot in her teen years, I wonder if she really becomes THAT much unlike her mother by the end of the story.
I have many questions about Sue and her mother's trip to Mexico. Why were they going to Mexico without Penelope? (Poor Penelope is often left out! AND YET she ends up being the only person who flies down to Barbados to visit her mother when she's dying in the beginning of the book! How did this work out??) Also about Mexico: Why is Sue so close with her mother? Mothers and daughters always love each other no matter what, but being close enough to hold hands on the beach and talk about sex openly seems strange to me. This brings me to the question of why Sue is putting herself in more confusion by getting close to her mother even though she knows Daphne will just let her down?? Sigh.
The second part of this book leaves me disgusted. What troubles me most is the relationship between Sue and Dr. Crawford. Dr. Crawford's character is deceiving. I first expected him to have a righteous character, because of an earlier part of the book, where he turned Sue down, claiming he has "an incredibly strong marriage." In the next chapter, his perverted personality is unveiled.
Sue's situation at the boarding school is ironic: she leaves her mother because of her unstable sex life, yet Sue happily commits adultery with her own teacher. From my perspective, Sue has lost the right to judge her mother, because she is practicing the same acts. As a mentioned in the last post, the behavior of one's parents does influence their character; however, if the child comes to learn that their parents' behavior is wrong, they are responsible for their actions. Sue's reason for leaving her home was because she understood that her mother's actions were wrong. Therefore, she is just as guilty because she has the knowledge that sexual immorality is wrong, yet she continues to fulfill her lusts. Sue even has dinner with Mr. Crawford and his wife (TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL)!!From this reading, my respect and sympathy for Sue have diminished.
The end of this book left me content. The gap of "what happened" between The Sue that slept with everyone and committed adultery and The Sue that is married with two children was finally explained: Chris.
I need to rant about their relationship for a second. Chris and Sue's relationship definitely changed her behavior and personality. I liked their relationship and found many of their "scenes" (when Sue is opening up about her unusual past and Chris says "poor honey", when they both decide they are ready for children) very cute. I fail to see their..."spark" though. Do you guys agree? What is making an outdoors-y guy from Montana interested in a psychologically scarred New York woman, and vice versa? A very unlikely couple. Sue never quite explains what she sees in him (though he seems far nicer than her past boyfriends.) Opposites attract, I suppose? On a note about their relationship, I found it very touching that Sue was willing to give up everything and move to Montana to follow a man who may not have been interested in her at first. I suppose she knew that he was going to change her for the better? I'm making too many inferences here, but who else felt a lack of spark between these two?
This is controvercial, but I mostly agree with Sue's statement that her abortion is "what it took to be better parents" (231). A family cannot be ready for kids until both parents feel equally ready. If they have kids and end up not being ready, mistakes can be made. This can be traced back to when the story mostly focused on Daphne. Daphne had children at 19, obviously too young for most people to be ready for children. And look what happened! Sue was left traumatized, Daphne became a divorced drug addict, and Penelope...well, who knows. Chris did not feel ready, and did not pressure Sue to get the abortion. Therefore, I think Sue made the right decision for her family. Although it was painful for her and Chris, she probably knew in the back of her mind the mistakes her mother made and did not want to make the same ones.
The very end of the story is filled with flashbacks. I felt like they did not fit quite in with the story, especially the flashback where Sue is young and "scared [she] wouldn't be able to. . .rescue" her mother when she collapses. Why isn't this anecdote in the beginning of the book with the rest of her childhood??
Her Last Death leaves me with one last question...what about Penelope?
The end of this book left me content. The gap of "what happened" between The Sue that slept with everyone and committed adultery and The Sue that is married with two children was finally explained: Chris.
I need to rant about their relationship for a second. Chris and Sue's relationship definitely changed her behavior and personality. I liked their relationship and found many of their "scenes" (when Sue is opening up about her unusual past and Chris says "poor honey", when they both decide they are ready for children) very cute. I fail to see their..."spark" though. Do you guys agree? What is making an outdoors-y guy from Montana interested in a psychologically scarred New York woman, and vice versa? A very unlikely couple. Sue never quite explains what she sees in him (though he seems far nicer than her past boyfriends.) Opposites attract, I suppose? On a note about their relationship, I found it very touching that Sue was willing to give up everything and move to Montana to follow a man who may not have been interested in her at first. I suppose she knew that he was going to change her for the better? I'm making too many inferences here, but who else felt a lack of spark between these two?
This is controvercial, but I mostly agree with Sue's statement that her abortion is "what it took to be better parents" (231). A family cannot be ready for kids until both parents feel equally ready. If they have kids and end up not being ready, mistakes can be made. This can be traced back to when the story mostly focused on Daphne. Daphne had children at 19, obviously too young for most people to be ready for children. And look what happened! Sue was left traumatized, Daphne became a divorced drug addict, and Penelope...well, who knows. Chris did not feel ready, and did not pressure Sue to get the abortion. Therefore, I think Sue made the right decision for her family. Although it was painful for her and Chris, she probably knew in the back of her mind the mistakes her mother made and did not want to make the same ones.
The very end of the story is filled with flashbacks. I felt like they did not fit quite in with the story, especially the flashback where Sue is young and "scared [she] wouldn't be able to. . .rescue" her mother when she collapses. Why isn't this anecdote in the beginning of the book with the rest of her childhood??
Her Last Death leaves me with one last question...what about Penelope?
I have to agree with Alex in that the relationship between Chris and Sue is sparkless. It doesn't really seem like it was meant to be, but that it was sealed by the children that resulted. I wonder if Sue and Chris hadn't had kids would they have left each other in search of more compatible souls? Hm hm hm ...
I also have to wonder what really drew Sue to Chris. Her following him to Montana could be hinting at her need to escape her life and her memories and her non-childhood -- essentially, her mother. And her following him to Montana when she barely knew him can on one hand seem foolish yet admirable in the way that love stories display their charcters' love for one another -- falling, so quickly, head over heels for someone, even though it may seem unlikely and unconventional to those on the outside is what the typical romance novel sells to us readers. But this is not a romance novel about a girl in love. It is a psychological memoir about a psychologically scarred woman. I think that her dropping her life for an unknown man reflects some of what her mother was. I think that the way Daphne sought after different men is something akin to the way Sue sought after Chris. It's just that same brand of foolishness that I think carried over, almost as if genetically, from mother to daughter. (I say almost genetically because Sue is like her mother despite her hatred for her and what she has done to Sue). This reminds me so much of a friend of mine though: she hates her mother and doesn't like how she treats her, herself, and others. Yet she is more like her mother than she thinks, or would like to think. She is always trying to escape her mother and her mother's ways, yet it is how she is too. It is ingrained in her to be this way for some reason. I think that this may be why Sue has such a connection to her mother and why she is able to "hold her hand on the beach and talk openly about sex," as Alex said. She wants to be close to her mother and they have always spoken together about those things, so that may be the superficial reason for that gesture. I am not sure what the deeper reason may be though. ... I am just as baffled as Alex about why she wanted this closeness but didn't go to the funeral or her mother's bedside. Perhaps she felt that it was really just too much? Did she think that, now that her mother would not be around much longer to pressure her into something else, there was no reason to go anymore? If it had been her father on the deathbed, I'm sure she would have gone because of her mother. But her father would not pressure her into going to her mom, so what's the point? Why bother? There's no threat.
I am left wondering about Penelope too. Yes, thoughout the book she was the one who was babied because Sue took all the heat and tried to protect her little sister. But Penelope, as she grew older, also seemed to be the one that was forgotten, the one that didn't really mean much. Maybe that's why she went -- she wanted a last chance to mean something to her mother. Maybe Sue's sister should write the same memoir from her point of view...
I agree with Alex about the flashbacks -- or rather, about the arrangement of them. I think they were almost just piled in there last minute, thoughtlessly. But at the same time, isn't that kind of how we think in real life? Nothing is organized in our heads like a book, as Mrs. Clapp once said in class. If we have flashbacks, especially if they're triggered by something like a smell or a sight, they are kind of clunky and don't seem to fit in with the present moment. Flashbacks are never planned. They are not called "a flash from my past that fits in with my present." That's too conveinent and makes too much sense, which is the opposite to life: life is often senseless and inconvenient.
One passage I found interesting in this last section was on p.245, where Sue discusses her daily struggle with sex. She feels guilt after her husband assures her that she "turned out well."
What is disturbing about this passage is where she confesses her conflict in changing her baby. She claims that she examines his body, having perverted thoughts about his future sex life. My first reaction to this scene was to feel disgusted with Sue, but then I realized that her behavior was influenced by her mother. Related to the posts about parents' influences over their children, this scene reveals that parents' behavior will inevitably affect their children's actions. Sue is not a pedophile, but she has an unconscious intimacy with sex, and thus, it is reflected in her normal behavior. This being said, should pedophile's actions be blamed on their parents?
Sue's fight against sexual impulses displays a struggle that can be found in many lives. Regardless of the effort one makes to escape the characteristics of their parents, their parents' ways will be reflected in them. This phenomenon could even be biological...
In addition, I agree with Kaela's comments about the randomness of flashbacks, however I feel that they weaken the story, because of their randomness. They probably would be more effective being included in her earlier descriptions of her childhood.
Okay so this book is kind of just detailing the life of a butler so far. T___T;
But there are some elements that are interesting. For example, some of the butler's nature is becoming increasingly obvious - I guess the proper term for this is character development. He says things like "it prevented my giving myself," which is very odd (9). He also says things like "my scepticism must have betrayed itself" (6). The butler, Stevens I think, cannot seem to face anything. While this is funny, it is also possesses a kind of sad edge to it: how terrible to not be able to face anything head on, to always beat around the bush. I wonder how much crazier he will turn out to be. I wonder why he is this way. o_0
Kaela, you're right that Stevens seems virtually unable to face anything. The example I found most true to this trait was when he is entering his father's room for the first time in years to discuss his jobs and he describes the room as "having stepped into a prison cell. . ." (64). However, he reassures himself almost automatically, stating that it was only the cause of the "pale early light" outside. Even though his room had "smallness and starkness" much like a prison cell, he'd rather blame it on the fact that it is early morning rather than facing the facts and realizing that his father lives in a prison-like area and is probably losing his mind.
On another topic, I've noticed how Stevens tends to enjoy narrating about the past more than the present. For example, on page 67 Stevens describes the beautiful, rolling countryside he slowly drives by and meeting a woman and her chicken who was eating on the road. After that quick, 3-page event he then changes the topic, saying that "I feel I should return just a moment to the matter of my father. . ." Rather than events of the past simply being flashbacks, it seems as though his cross-country journey in the present are the "flashbacks"...but they do not flash backwards so maybe "flashpresents"? Either way, the the narrator's journey itself seems pretty pointless so far. Journeys usually symbolize coming of age, so maybe eventually this trip will give him the time alone to work out the turmoils of his past? I am not sure yet. Perhaps past times were happier, more managable times than the present so he narrates about the past to avoid the truth (as stated earlier?)
I am still not fully clear as to how the events of the past and present will come together and relate with each other in the end, but I suppose we shall see.
I agree with Kaela's and Alex's comments that Stevens lives in the past. He seems miserable and regretful about his life, and therefore, he is nostalgic. This can be seen in his addiction to reading Mrs. Benn's old letters. These letters allow Stevens to connect with his past and the relationship he regrets not having with Mrs.Benn. He also has the tendency of calling Mrs. Benn, "Miss Kenton," and he warns readers, "you will perhaps excuse my impropriety in referrring to her as I knew her, and in my mind have continued to call her throughout these years." (48)
I also find Stevens' work ethic remarkable. Even as his father is dying, he sticks to his duties as a dignified butler. Although Stevens seems to regret decisions made in his life, he makes the best of situation.
Alrighty. I'd like to talk about how Stevens is always masking himself.
When his father died upstairs, a party was going on downstairs. Rather than go to his father's deathbed, though, Stevens goes to attend to the guests of the party. But he does, in my opinion, trifling things for these guests, like helps them to a chair when their feet hurt. In comparison to a man's dying father, helping some random party-goers aching feet seems very unimportant, especially because Stevens and his father were very close. But he says that whenever he looks back on that day he is very happy and feels a large amount of triumph or something like that, because he thinks that's what his father would have wanted him to do. But I know that he must have some shadow-y feeling underneath, and so, to me, it's like his happiness in this memory is faulty. It's fake. The truth is veiled by his own doing, like he is always pretending. But what I don't completely understand is why he feels the need to pretend. Miss Kenton asks him this too (somewhere in Day Three -- Evening) , and he is unable to answer her.
And he also pretends in other ways. He often denies ever having worked for Mr. Darlington, when in fact he did for many years. And when Miss Kenton (also in Day Three -- Evening) asks him what book he is reading, he's embarrassed about it and he won't show her, and she finally grabs it from his hands and reveals that it's just a "sentimental love story" and that it's not scandalous at all. Yet he was kind of ashamed about being found out. o_o
He needs to lighten up! Stop worrying about being super duper proper all the time, Stevens! It's okay to just be human sometimes! I get that he's trying to maintain a certain image and that he's trying to be professional, but he is not able to separate his profession from his personal life. I wonder if he ever was able to? I doubt it though, because he's always had feelings for Miss Kenton and yet has never made a move partly because he was afraid and didn't know how to, and partly because (I think) he worked with her.
What causes people to mask themselves? I know (and I hope you know) that we all do it. But to what extent of this self-masking is healthy/normal? I think that poor Stevens has crossed the line of "normal masking" and he is now unhealthily masking himself. What a terrible life it must be to always hide and pretend. D:
I agree with Kaela's comments about Stevens' tendency to hide his feelings. He uses his duty as a butler as an excuse to shut off all his emotions, keeping things strictly professional. A clear example of this is when Miss Kenton's aunt dies. Stevens avoids getting involved with this sensitive situation by having conversations about work with Miss Kenton.
I also find it ironic how Stevens avoids love and emotion, yet he reads a book about romance. It's clear that he has trouble relating to people. An example of this can also be found in the scene where he fails at making a joke in a bar. Stevens's lack of feeling probably comes from his inability to have a relationship with Miss Kenton, or anyone. It is sad that he can only reminisce about the past and dream about relationships which he cannot have.
What I also question is why Stevens denies having Lord Darlington as his master, yet he claims to be so committed to being a dignified butler...Hypocritical maybe?
The ending was very Charles Dickens' "Great Expectations," with the whole thing about reuniting of Miss Kenton and Stevens years and years later. Actually, it was like a mixture between that and the song "Same Auld Lang Syne" by Dan Fogelberg -- how Stevens drives Miss Kenton back home after talking and catching up for hours, and remembering/realizing how much he loves her ... Blah blah.
I didn't like this book, though. It was unrelateable. And it was not interesting. At all. I much prefer Pride and Prejudice, but anyways. .. I digress.
Maybe this is why Stevens cannot admit to anything or really deal with anything head on. Maybe he feels guilty that he never went after Miss Kenton, which produced more beating around the bush, yet was also kind of the cause of that part of his nature. Hm hm hm.. .it's like a never-ending cycle. He is uptight and professional, but still feels love like any human being, but that makes him more uptight as he tries to kind of counter those feelings because they are not professional, but then he regrets it and becomes even more uptight. Ack! I do have a bit of sympathy for the old soul for this, though. But if only he would have relaxed more!
Was Stevens crying when the man handed him the handkerchief at Darlington Hall? What a journey Stevens has gone through -- he now admits his emotion, by the time he arrives back at Darlington Hall, his beginning. But what was he questing for in this journey? Love? A firmer sense of self? What did he learn about himself? I guess that he really loves Miss Kenton. And that it might just be okay to "banter" (haha). But oh, what a shame that he learned this too late! Too late now to get the girl.
The end was pretty depressing. How sad to think that the evening time, the "remains of the day" (heh) is the best time for Stevens. I know that when I wake up in the morning, so full of idealism and joy, when I see some sunshine peeking at me through my window around 7:00 AM, I am just so happy! And that's the best part of my day -- waking up and living and thinking that the day might hold so many surprises, thinking of all the possibilities. But I'm an optimist. :) Maybe Stevens will learn to be one. Hey - at least he didn't commit suicide: I feel like realizing that the way you live your life is terrible, that finally understanding after many years that you would have probably been happier had you lived differently, would be great motive for some people to just end it all. But maybe that, too, shows that Stevens really is one of those people who can pick themselves up of the ground, out of the dirt turned to mud by one's own tears, and carry forward. Yay. Kudos to Stevens, then.
I agree with Kaela's comments. Judging from the closing of this book, I would argue that the overall meaning is that we must live in the present, and not the past. This is shown in Miss Kenton's conclusion of her and Stevens's imaginations about the relationship they could have had: "One can't be forever dwelling on what might have been. One should realize one has as good as most, perhaps better, and be grateful." (239) Hence, Ishiguro suggests that mistakes are inevitable and we just have to accept them and be grateful for what we have. Regret will only cause misery.
Personally, I agree with this concept, but overall, the book is depressing. Because Stevens was so cautious, he passed up on the greatest opportunity (love) and can only see his mistakes. I wouldn't recommend this book because its relation to psychology is unclear.
21 Comments:
Jean, Gen, Kaela, and Me...Type here!
I really like Her Last Death so far. This book is mostly about Sue's mother and how her behavior, but I like how Sue admits that she loves her mother regardless of the craziness in which she was raised. This way, the author seems less like she is complaining and more like she is just sharing the ridiculous stories of her life.
Sonnenberg mentions how her mother was sent to a boarding school at a young age, on page 19. I wonder why this is so. As a reader, I inferred that perhaps Daphne (the mom) did not receive much emotional love from her parents as a child. This is often seen in people with unusual psychological behavior, so I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not blaming Sue's grandparents for Sue's (or Daphne's) scarring childhood, but I wonder how life for both of them would be different if Daphne hadn't gone to boarding school.
I found the scene where Daphne "sputtered a few steps until she seized" (47) frightening. I can't imagine what a scarring image that would create for a 12 year old, your mother just dropping unconscious like that! I wonder what got Daphne hooked on painkillers. Does she really have a back problem, or is this just one of her lies?
Does anybody else have trouble figuring out what are Daphne's lies as a compulsive liar and what are truths?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, I don't really know where to start with this book, so I guess I'll just abruptly jump into it.
I think I would like to disagree with Alex Mazarakis and go ahead and blame Sue's grandparents/Daphne's parents for how Daphne grew up. It is never the child's fault (not that Alex Mazarakis was suggesting that). Children learn how to behave and how to treat others/themselves based on how their parents treat them and other people. Just like Red Forman, the father character in the television show That 70's Show -- Red grew up in a household that didn't speak about feelings; if you did, especially if you're a boy, you were considered weak and unmanly. But becoming that type of person was not Red's fault -- it was his parents' faults.
Being sent to boarding school can be seen as the equivalent of being sent away (out of sight, out of mind, out of heart). There must have been something in Daphne that subconsciously recognized that her parents didn't really want her around, which is why they sent her away. This contributes to Daphne's mother's cold personality. (Keep in mind, though, that we readers aren't told outright that Daphne's mother is a cold person).
Plus, I know for a fact that people generally revert back to how their childhood household was, they find a way to incorporate it into their adult lives even if they try to get away from it. It is all they know. For instance, if a young girl grows up in a home where her mother is abused by her father, that girl will grow up into a young woman who ultimately finds herself in an abusive relationship. And Daphne found herself intertwined with Nat (Sue's and Penelope's father), and he was a mentally abusive person. He mentally abused Daphne and he mentally abused Sue, which was made evident when he and his girlfriend introduced 8-year-old Sue to sexual things. But we have yet to see how this carried over into Sue's adult life -- thus far it seems to be pretty peachy, besides the fact that Daphne is dying.
I have trouble figuring out what is a lie and what is a truth as well. I also wonder if Daphne is lying about back problems, preferring to lie and stay home and live a life of luxury. But at the same time, it's quite a large lie. And I've noticed that while Daphne lies to her kids, she doesn't lie to her lovers. But her lovers have known/do know that she has "back problems". So maybe it is a truth....
Why is Penelope so blind to how Daphne is and Sue's reasons for not wanting to go to her deathbed? I doubt that Daphne changed her whole persona by the time Penelope became old enough to remember things and be scarred. So why did it affect Sue so terribly? Why does Penelope still have a good relationship with Daphne?
I wonder if Daphne will be psychologically evaluated by a professional. And for that matter, will Sue? Will Nat? It seems that most of the characters need to have some extent of psychiatric help.
I somewhat agree with Kaela's claim that a child will follow the behaviors of their parents. This can hold true, if the child is naive and unwilling to be different.
For example, in the chapter entitled, "Two Beds," Daphne is living in a hotel, lying and cheating with Hugh and Colin. Right before Colin arrives, Sue and Penelope find puppies in a shed. Meanwhile, Daphne meets Colin and juggles her relationships with both men, "going back and forth" to their rooms, bringing them food. At the same time, Sue and Penelope bring "milk and scraps of bread to the shed" for their "secret puppies."
Because they are naive and ignorant, the children naturally follow the ways of their mother. However, as people mature and become able to discern the differences between right and wrong, they can make an effort to build their personalities on better principles. Therefore, Sue cannot blame her mother for her own flaws.
With that being said, I'm still aware of the fact that if a child is raised immorally, they are more likely to lack morality. Yet, I don't think that one should give up on the hope of having good character, just because their parents were corrupt.
I really wish I could just reach in and grab Sue (and Penelope too, but not as much because she seems more protected thanks to Sue) and take her away from the crazy and soul-crushing lifestyle.
When Sue was in boarding school, an incident happened with a boy she liked. While they were walking from a class back to Sue's dorm, the boy pulled and pushed her off the trail and into the bushes and assulted her -- he tried to make her give him a blow job. She pushed him off of her and ran back to the trail. I expected her to run straight to the dorm and find an adult and take action against the boy in some way. But she didn't. She stopped on the trail and smilied at the boy, as if it was a normal thing for him to do. Then they carried on. I couldn't believe it! I was so upset. Obviously, Sue learned that it's okay to tolerate those abusive things because that's what the majority of the guys have done to her and Daphne in some form or another. Sue has learned that guys are extremely important and that she doesn't have to/shouldn't respect herself enough to say no to those things in a firmer way than simply pushing him aside and smiling at him later. And Daphne didn't do anything about it, even though she said she wanted something to happen. Another broken promise.
Meanwhile, Sue is doing very well in school -- English class especially -- and it's almost like she has an attraction to her English teacher. He compliments her, he is into writing like her. He seems to sympathize for her concealed homelife, although it may be a subconscious-sympathizing: I'm not sure if he understands why he sympathizes with her, or if he even realizes he does. But I know he does because he seems so captivated with her -- it has to be for more of a reason than she is a good student. Plus, he went out to the pancake place with her.... which kind of breaches the teacher-student relationship in my book... at least the traditional one. And he's older (which can be seen as gross). But maybe he seems safe to her .... like a grandfather. He's safer than the boy who assaulted her, for example. But she is just so boy-crazy, as her friend at boarding school said.
Speaking of which, she is almost in love with her friend, the one who says she is boy-crazy. Is her name Kelly? Kate? Something like that.... (I can't go back and look for the name in my Kindle, sorry guys. T_T) Anyways, she is very attatched to her and wants her approval, yet she rebels. It's kind of a parallel between her life at school and her life at home: she always wanted her mother's approval and wanted her mother to be a mother; she wants the friend to approve and to be a best friend. But she rebels against them both: she hates her mom and ran to boarding school to escape; she continues her "boy-crazy" habits despite her friends half-hearted warnings.
I wonder how that's going to pan out as her life continues.
Does anyone else have thoughts about these particular points?
Kaela, you're right about Sue sort of accepting all behavior from men (no matter how illegal) because of her mother. Throughout the book-part two especially-Daphne has been pressuring her daughter to lose her virginity. Even if Sue often feels angry and embarrassed about her mother, her own behavior around boys reflects her mother's at this adolescent-teen age of her life. It's interesting how Sue narrates every boy encounter her mom has with anger, mentioning that she "wouldn't talk to her" (110) the morning after she has sex with a crush of Sue's. Meanwhile, throughout Sue's entire affair with her TEACHER, she doesn't even HINT that what she was doing was even a little strange. Sure, she keeps it a secret, but the author often mentions "we were in love" even though now the author is probably grown up enough to realize the creepiness of that relationship. I don't know if I'm explaining myself fully here, but what I mean is that Sue's behavior reflects her mother's at almost every page and yet the narrator seems to be naive to this. This could be on purpose, to show the ignorance of youth.
As Sue grows older, what I wonder most is what she will be like when she becomes an adult. We already know that she grows up to have what seems to be a relatively normal life with a husband and two sons. Now that we know more about Sue's psychotic childhood, this is hard to believe! Could she really shake off all the trauma and personality-changing experiences her mother caused to later leave a normal life? Since Sue seems to be acting like her mother a lot in her teen years, I wonder if she really becomes THAT much unlike her mother by the end of the story.
I have many questions about Sue and her mother's trip to Mexico. Why were they going to Mexico without Penelope? (Poor Penelope is often left out! AND YET she ends up being the only person who flies down to Barbados to visit her mother when she's dying in the beginning of the book! How did this work out??) Also about Mexico: Why is Sue so close with her mother? Mothers and daughters always love each other no matter what, but being close enough to hold hands on the beach and talk about sex openly seems strange to me. This brings me to the question of why Sue is putting herself in more confusion by getting close to her mother even though she knows Daphne will just let her down?? Sigh.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The second part of this book leaves me disgusted. What troubles me most is the relationship between Sue and Dr. Crawford. Dr. Crawford's character is deceiving. I first expected him to have a righteous character, because of an earlier part of the book, where he turned Sue down, claiming he has "an incredibly strong marriage." In the next chapter, his perverted personality is unveiled.
Sue's situation at the boarding school is ironic: she leaves her mother because of her unstable sex life, yet Sue happily commits adultery with her own teacher. From my perspective, Sue has lost the right to judge her mother, because she is practicing the same acts. As a mentioned in the last post, the behavior of one's parents does influence their character; however, if the child comes to learn that their parents' behavior is wrong, they are responsible for their actions. Sue's reason for leaving her home was because she understood that her mother's actions were wrong. Therefore, she is just as guilty because she has the knowledge that sexual immorality is wrong, yet she continues to fulfill her lusts. Sue even has dinner with Mr. Crawford and his wife (TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL)!!From this reading, my respect and sympathy for Sue have diminished.
The end of this book left me content. The gap of "what happened" between The Sue that slept with everyone and committed adultery and The Sue that is married with two children was finally explained: Chris.
I need to rant about their relationship for a second. Chris and Sue's relationship definitely changed her behavior and personality. I liked their relationship and found many of their "scenes" (when Sue is opening up about her unusual past and Chris says "poor honey", when they both decide they are ready for children) very cute. I fail to see their..."spark" though. Do you guys agree? What is making an outdoors-y guy from Montana interested in a psychologically scarred New York woman, and vice versa? A very unlikely couple. Sue never quite explains what she sees in him (though he seems far nicer than her past boyfriends.) Opposites attract, I suppose?
On a note about their relationship, I found it very touching that Sue was willing to give up everything and move to Montana to follow a man who may not have been interested in her at first. I suppose she knew that he was going to change her for the better? I'm making too many inferences here, but who else felt a lack of spark between these two?
This is controvercial, but I mostly agree with Sue's statement that her abortion is "what it took to be better parents" (231). A family cannot be ready for kids until both parents feel equally ready. If they have kids and end up not being ready, mistakes can be made. This can be traced back to when the story mostly focused on Daphne. Daphne had children at 19, obviously too young for most people to be ready for children. And look what happened! Sue was left traumatized, Daphne became a divorced drug addict, and Penelope...well, who knows. Chris did not feel ready, and did not pressure Sue to get the abortion. Therefore, I think Sue made the right decision for her family. Although it was painful for her and Chris, she probably knew in the back of her mind the mistakes her mother made and did not want to make the same ones.
The very end of the story is filled with flashbacks. I felt like they did not fit quite in with the story, especially the flashback where Sue is young and "scared [she] wouldn't be able to. . .rescue" her mother when she collapses. Why isn't this anecdote in the beginning of the book with the rest of her childhood??
Her Last Death leaves me with one last question...what about Penelope?
The end of this book left me content. The gap of "what happened" between The Sue that slept with everyone and committed adultery and The Sue that is married with two children was finally explained: Chris.
I need to rant about their relationship for a second. Chris and Sue's relationship definitely changed her behavior and personality. I liked their relationship and found many of their "scenes" (when Sue is opening up about her unusual past and Chris says "poor honey", when they both decide they are ready for children) very cute. I fail to see their..."spark" though. Do you guys agree? What is making an outdoors-y guy from Montana interested in a psychologically scarred New York woman, and vice versa? A very unlikely couple. Sue never quite explains what she sees in him (though he seems far nicer than her past boyfriends.) Opposites attract, I suppose?
On a note about their relationship, I found it very touching that Sue was willing to give up everything and move to Montana to follow a man who may not have been interested in her at first. I suppose she knew that he was going to change her for the better? I'm making too many inferences here, but who else felt a lack of spark between these two?
This is controvercial, but I mostly agree with Sue's statement that her abortion is "what it took to be better parents" (231). A family cannot be ready for kids until both parents feel equally ready. If they have kids and end up not being ready, mistakes can be made. This can be traced back to when the story mostly focused on Daphne. Daphne had children at 19, obviously too young for most people to be ready for children. And look what happened! Sue was left traumatized, Daphne became a divorced drug addict, and Penelope...well, who knows. Chris did not feel ready, and did not pressure Sue to get the abortion. Therefore, I think Sue made the right decision for her family. Although it was painful for her and Chris, she probably knew in the back of her mind the mistakes her mother made and did not want to make the same ones.
The very end of the story is filled with flashbacks. I felt like they did not fit quite in with the story, especially the flashback where Sue is young and "scared [she] wouldn't be able to. . .rescue" her mother when she collapses. Why isn't this anecdote in the beginning of the book with the rest of her childhood??
Her Last Death leaves me with one last question...what about Penelope?
I have to agree with Alex in that the relationship between Chris and Sue is sparkless. It doesn't really seem like it was meant to be, but that it was sealed by the children that resulted. I wonder if Sue and Chris hadn't had kids would they have left each other in search of more compatible souls? Hm hm hm ...
I also have to wonder what really drew Sue to Chris. Her following him to Montana could be hinting at her need to escape her life and her memories and her non-childhood -- essentially, her mother. And her following him to Montana when she barely knew him can on one hand seem foolish yet admirable in the way that love stories display their charcters' love for one another -- falling, so quickly, head over heels for someone, even though it may seem unlikely and unconventional to those on the outside is what the typical romance novel sells to us readers. But this is not a romance novel about a girl in love. It is a psychological memoir about a psychologically scarred woman. I think that her dropping her life for an unknown man reflects some of what her mother was. I think that the way Daphne sought after different men is something akin to the way Sue sought after Chris. It's just that same brand of foolishness that I think carried over, almost as if genetically, from mother to daughter. (I say almost genetically because Sue is like her mother despite her hatred for her and what she has done to Sue). This reminds me so much of a friend of mine though: she hates her mother and doesn't like how she treats her, herself, and others. Yet she is more like her mother than she thinks, or would like to think. She is always trying to escape her mother and her mother's ways, yet it is how she is too. It is ingrained in her to be this way for some reason. I think that this may be why Sue has such a connection to her mother and why she is able to "hold her hand on the beach and talk openly about sex," as Alex said. She wants to be close to her mother and they have always spoken together about those things, so that may be the superficial reason for that gesture. I am not sure what the deeper reason may be though. ... I am just as baffled as Alex about why she wanted this closeness but didn't go to the funeral or her mother's bedside. Perhaps she felt that it was really just too much? Did she think that, now that her mother would not be around much longer to pressure her into something else, there was no reason to go anymore? If it had been her father on the deathbed, I'm sure she would have gone because of her mother. But her father would not pressure her into going to her mom, so what's the point? Why bother? There's no threat.
I am left wondering about Penelope too. Yes, thoughout the book she was the one who was babied because Sue took all the heat and tried to protect her little sister. But Penelope, as she grew older, also seemed to be the one that was forgotten, the one that didn't really mean much. Maybe that's why she went -- she wanted a last chance to mean something to her mother. Maybe Sue's sister should write the same memoir from her point of view...
I agree with Alex about the flashbacks -- or rather, about the arrangement of them. I think they were almost just piled in there last minute, thoughtlessly. But at the same time, isn't that kind of how we think in real life? Nothing is organized in our heads like a book, as Mrs. Clapp once said in class. If we have flashbacks, especially if they're triggered by something like a smell or a sight, they are kind of clunky and don't seem to fit in with the present moment. Flashbacks are never planned. They are not called "a flash from my past that fits in with my present." That's too conveinent and makes too much sense, which is the opposite to life: life is often senseless and inconvenient.
Food for thought.
One passage I found interesting in this last section was on p.245, where Sue discusses her daily struggle with sex. She feels guilt after her husband assures her that she "turned out well."
What is disturbing about this passage is where she confesses her conflict in changing her baby. She claims that she examines his body, having perverted thoughts about his future sex life. My first reaction to this scene was to feel disgusted with Sue, but then I realized that her behavior was influenced by her mother. Related to the posts about parents' influences over their children, this scene reveals that parents' behavior will inevitably affect their children's actions. Sue is not a pedophile, but she has an unconscious intimacy with sex, and thus, it is reflected in her normal behavior. This being said, should pedophile's actions be blamed on their parents?
Sue's fight against sexual impulses displays a struggle that can be found in many lives. Regardless of the effort one makes to escape the characteristics of their parents, their parents' ways will be reflected in them. This phenomenon could even be biological...
In addition, I agree with Kaela's comments about the randomness of flashbacks, however I feel that they weaken the story, because of their randomness. They probably would be more effective being included in her earlier descriptions of her childhood.
Okay so this book is kind of just detailing the life of a butler so far. T___T;
But there are some elements that are interesting. For example, some of the butler's nature is becoming increasingly obvious - I guess the proper term for this is character development. He says things like "it prevented my giving myself," which is very odd (9). He also says things like "my scepticism must have betrayed itself" (6). The butler, Stevens I think, cannot seem to face anything. While this is funny, it is also possesses a kind of sad edge to it: how terrible to not be able to face anything head on, to always beat around the bush. I wonder how much crazier he will turn out to be. I wonder why he is this way. o_0
Kaela, you're right that Stevens seems virtually unable to face anything. The example I found most true to this trait was when he is entering his father's room for the first time in years to discuss his jobs and he describes the room as "having stepped into a prison cell. . ." (64). However, he reassures himself almost automatically, stating that it was only the cause of the "pale early light" outside. Even though his room had "smallness and starkness" much like a prison cell, he'd rather blame it on the fact that it is early morning rather than facing the facts and realizing that his father lives in a prison-like area and is probably losing his mind.
On another topic, I've noticed how Stevens tends to enjoy narrating about the past more than the present. For example, on page 67 Stevens describes the beautiful, rolling countryside he slowly drives by and meeting a woman and her chicken who was eating on the road. After that quick, 3-page event he then changes the topic, saying that "I feel I should return just a moment to the matter of my father. . ." Rather than events of the past simply being flashbacks, it seems as though his cross-country journey in the present are the "flashbacks"...but they do not flash backwards so maybe "flashpresents"?
Either way, the the narrator's journey itself seems pretty pointless so far. Journeys usually symbolize coming of age, so maybe eventually this trip will give him the time alone to work out the turmoils of his past? I am not sure yet. Perhaps past times were happier, more managable times than the present so he narrates about the past to avoid the truth (as stated earlier?)
I am still not fully clear as to how the events of the past and present will come together and relate with each other in the end, but I suppose we shall see.
I agree with Kaela's and Alex's comments that Stevens lives in the past. He seems miserable and regretful about his life, and therefore, he is nostalgic. This can be seen in his addiction to reading Mrs. Benn's old letters. These letters allow Stevens to connect with his past and the relationship he regrets not having with Mrs.Benn. He also has the tendency of calling Mrs. Benn, "Miss Kenton," and he warns readers, "you will perhaps excuse my impropriety in referrring to her as I knew her, and in my mind have continued to call her throughout these years." (48)
I also find Stevens' work ethic remarkable. Even as his father is dying, he sticks to his duties as a dignified butler. Although Stevens seems to regret decisions made in his life, he makes the best of situation.
Alrighty. I'd like to talk about how Stevens is always masking himself.
When his father died upstairs, a party was going on downstairs. Rather than go to his father's deathbed, though, Stevens goes to attend to the guests of the party. But he does, in my opinion, trifling things for these guests, like helps them to a chair when their feet hurt. In comparison to a man's dying father, helping some random party-goers aching feet seems very unimportant, especially because Stevens and his father were very close. But he says that whenever he looks back on that day he is very happy and feels a large amount of triumph or something like that, because he thinks that's what his father would have wanted him to do. But I know that he must have some shadow-y feeling underneath, and so, to me, it's like his happiness in this memory is faulty. It's fake. The truth is veiled by his own doing, like he is always pretending. But what I don't completely understand is why he feels the need to pretend. Miss Kenton asks him this too (somewhere in Day Three -- Evening) , and he is unable to answer her.
And he also pretends in other ways. He often denies ever having worked for Mr. Darlington, when in fact he did for many years. And when Miss Kenton (also in Day Three -- Evening) asks him what book he is reading, he's embarrassed about it and he won't show her, and she finally grabs it from his hands and reveals that it's just a "sentimental love story" and that it's not scandalous at all. Yet he was kind of ashamed about being found out. o_o
He needs to lighten up! Stop worrying about being super duper proper all the time, Stevens! It's okay to just be human sometimes! I get that he's trying to maintain a certain image and that he's trying to be professional, but he is not able to separate his profession from his personal life. I wonder if he ever was able to? I doubt it though, because he's always had feelings for Miss Kenton and yet has never made a move partly because he was afraid and didn't know how to, and partly because (I think) he worked with her.
What causes people to mask themselves? I know (and I hope you know) that we all do it. But to what extent of this self-masking is healthy/normal? I think that poor Stevens has crossed the line of "normal masking" and he is now unhealthily masking himself. What a terrible life it must be to always hide and pretend. D:
I agree with Kaela's comments about Stevens' tendency to hide his feelings. He uses his duty as a butler as an excuse to shut off all his emotions, keeping things strictly professional. A clear example of this is when Miss Kenton's aunt dies. Stevens avoids getting involved with this sensitive situation by having conversations about work with Miss Kenton.
I also find it ironic how Stevens avoids love and emotion, yet he reads a book about romance. It's clear that he has trouble relating to people. An example of this can also be found in the scene where he fails at making a joke in a bar. Stevens's lack of feeling probably comes from his inability to have a relationship with Miss Kenton, or anyone. It is sad that he can only reminisce about the past and dream about relationships which he cannot have.
What I also question is why Stevens denies having Lord Darlington as his master, yet he claims to be so committed to being a dignified butler...Hypocritical maybe?
The ending was very Charles Dickens' "Great Expectations," with the whole thing about reuniting of Miss Kenton and Stevens years and years later. Actually, it was like a mixture between that and the song "Same Auld Lang Syne" by Dan Fogelberg -- how Stevens drives Miss Kenton back home after talking and catching up for hours, and remembering/realizing how much he loves her ... Blah blah.
I didn't like this book, though. It was unrelateable. And it was not interesting. At all. I much prefer Pride and Prejudice, but anyways. .. I digress.
Maybe this is why Stevens cannot admit to anything or really deal with anything head on. Maybe he feels guilty that he never went after Miss Kenton, which produced more beating around the bush, yet was also kind of the cause of that part of his nature. Hm hm hm.. .it's like a never-ending cycle. He is uptight and professional, but still feels love like any human being, but that makes him more uptight as he tries to kind of counter those feelings because they are not professional, but then he regrets it and becomes even more uptight. Ack! I do have a bit of sympathy for the old soul for this, though. But if only he would have relaxed more!
Was Stevens crying when the man handed him the handkerchief at Darlington Hall? What a journey Stevens has gone through -- he now admits his emotion, by the time he arrives back at Darlington Hall, his beginning. But what was he questing for in this journey? Love? A firmer sense of self? What did he learn about himself? I guess that he really loves Miss Kenton. And that it might just be okay to "banter" (haha). But oh, what a shame that he learned this too late! Too late now to get the girl.
The end was pretty depressing. How sad to think that the evening time, the "remains of the day" (heh) is the best time for Stevens. I know that when I wake up in the morning, so full of idealism and joy, when I see some sunshine peeking at me through my window around 7:00 AM, I am just so happy! And that's the best part of my day -- waking up and living and thinking that the day might hold so many surprises, thinking of all the possibilities. But I'm an optimist. :) Maybe Stevens will learn to be one. Hey - at least he didn't commit suicide: I feel like realizing that the way you live your life is terrible, that finally understanding after many years that you would have probably been happier had you lived differently, would be great motive for some people to just end it all. But maybe that, too, shows that Stevens really is one of those people who can pick themselves up of the ground, out of the dirt turned to mud by one's own tears, and carry forward. Yay. Kudos to Stevens, then.
I agree with Kaela's comments. Judging from the closing of this book, I would argue that the overall meaning is that we must live in the present, and not the past. This is shown in Miss Kenton's conclusion of her and Stevens's imaginations about the relationship they could have had: "One can't be forever dwelling on what might have been. One should realize one has as good as most, perhaps better, and be grateful." (239) Hence, Ishiguro suggests that mistakes are inevitable and we just have to accept them and be grateful for what we have. Regret will only cause misery.
Personally, I agree with this concept, but overall, the book is depressing. Because Stevens was so cautious, he passed up on the greatest opportunity (love) and can only see his mistakes. I wouldn't recommend this book because its relation to psychology is unclear.
Post a Comment
<< Home