quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: For me, the point at which comic book deaths became meaningless was the resurrection of Jean Grey back in 1984.
Jean being brought back was definitely a tipping point in the history of this topic, if not the tipping point. The story in which she died had achieved legendary status during what had become one of comics' definitive runs. Claremont and Byrne were spoken of in awe, and all you had to do was point to X-Men #137 (and the entire Dark Phoenix story) and its perfect beauty to illustrate why this was so.
Sure, Jean was hardly the first to have a temporary death. Off the top of my head Professor X had "died" a time or to. But when you're talking about a death that had served as a benchmark in showing how comics had grown up and were capable of delivering real, palpable change to its characters, then we're really entering a different stratosphere.
I was as X-crazy as I could be at the time Jean was brought back, but having such a great story overturned and undermined really gave me pause. I was only about 15 or 16 when X-Factor came out, but I was really hoping the secret fifth female member would turn out to be someone else. I think, in hindsight, this event was the start of my slow decline out of X-craziness. Sure, I soldiered on several more years afterward, but it was around that point that the stories started being more hit-and-miss for me.
Okay, so she's dead again, I guess. But I've no doubt that she'll return very shortly. Marvel (and DC) just won't be able to help itself. And without a doubt, Jean's returned started a crack in the dam that would slowly expand into a gaping hole before eventually there was pretty much no dam at all.
There are two types of death/rebirth scenarios, one in which the character was intended to be dead when the story was written (Jean, Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, Jason Todd, etc.) and a more recent trend in which the death is planned as a temporary stunt with a return already plotted (Superman's really kicked this off, with Captain America and Batman being more recent examples).
I'm not sure which is worth, to tell you the truth. Is it worse for some comics new guns to come along and decide to undo what are often classic stories? Or is it worse for the money-grabbing conglomerates to reel us in with the illusion of change for the sake of a few extra bucks? Hard to decide. Both are pretty damn despicable.
I suppose I'd have to go with the former, if pressed. Undoing classic stories is the worse thing you can do to a fanbase that is emotionally invested in them. If it was a "good death", or even a phenomenal one, it should be allowed to stand and be sacrosanct. Barry Allen. Jean Grey. Norman Osborn. These are among those that should've been left alone.
But I'm a hypocrite, I suppose, because I approve of some other resurrections:
Hal Jordan. I was okay with it because his death literally came through assassinating his character. Turning Hal into a psychotic killer was just disrespectful.
Ollie Queen. I'm sorry, but dying in a plane explosion because he refused to sever his arm was just lame. And Ollie lends an important, individual voice among the DC pantheon that is just irreplaceable.
Bucky Barnes. Simply put, it was a great story. This was a character that modern readers never really got to know, and his death occurred in flashback, of all things. Basically, the story of his return was much, much better than the story of his death! How often can you say that about a "reborn" character. Actually, I'm more pissed about Steve Rogers' return because it means that Bucky may be shifted out of the limelight than I am about the reversal itself!
I say, if you're a Marvel or DC, simply just find other stories to tell if you can't let your deaths stick. (DC, at least, has shown us since the issue of Final Crisis immediately after the one showing Batman's "death" that Bruce Wayne isn't dead after all. That cheapens the illusion of change currently going on in the Bat-titles, sure, but at least they're upfront about it and not trying to make us think this is anything other than temporary.) And if you do decide to kill someone off, think it through and stick to your guns. Even the most rabid fan has his limits.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LardLad: But I'm a hypocrite, I suppose, because I approve of some other resurrections:
There are always exceptions.
Back in the 1980s, Jim Starlin "killed off" the character of Oedi, the cat man, in an issue of Dreadstar. A few issues later, Oedi pops up alive, but it was clear that Starlin intended for that to happen all along. Oedi had faked his death as part of the storyline. It was an original spin on the whole death and resurrection theme.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huey, I think part of the problem with comics deaths in general is that many of them were intended to be permanent. Jean Grey. Norman Osborne. Bucky Barnes. Barry Allen. Even Hal Jordan probably. But eventually, someone comes along and decides to undo them for the sake of boosting sales and interest in a comic.
I think the underlying problem here is the perception that there's a general lack of imagination and creativity being shown by recycling ideas, and specifically characters. So if Kyle Rayner and Wally West's comics seem to reach a point where sales start lagging, it's time to bring back Hal Jordan and Barry Allen to reignite interest, rather than try to salvage Kyle and Wally with better stories.
This is reflective of the readership, as well. Superhero fans seem to simultaneously want new and bolder stories while also wanting the same old thing they've been reading since they were kids. That's why we're constantly getting the illusion of change (Batman's "death" and replacement by Dick Grayson being the current illusion), followed by the inevitable restoration of the status quo (everyone knows Bruce will be back eventually).
Hell, superheroes don't even typically keep more minor, cosmetic changes (Thor's beard with Simonson, Spidey's black costume, Aquaman's harpoon hand and accompanying costume, even Hal's grey hair on the temples) for any period of time, so how do we expect death to stick?
I think if the Big Two are to evolve and keep strong, they've got to stop using death as a stunt. Either mean it or don't do it in the first place. I'm skeptical that will ever happen. Not as long as readers keep voting favorably with their dollars.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, Lardy, and it goes back to what I said earlier: Comics are a mainstream form of entertainment meant to rake in the bucks, not tell good (or even passable) stories.
This, of course, brings up the question of what exactly is a "good" story. On this thread, I posed the question, What Makes Comics Fun? A related question is, What Makes Comics Stories Good?
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been bothered by the resurrection of Barry Allen. He died a hero. He was mourned. Wally stepped up and became The Flash. He struggled with the legacy of his fallen uncle/mentor, and emerged a stronger character.
I read Flash comics when I was a kid, but I never really connected to Barry. Then, in my late teens and early twenties, Wally became my Flash. For a while, in the early '90s, it was my favorite book. To me, bringing Barry back is disrespectful to that era.
-------------------- The only character in all of literature who has been described as "badnass" while using the phrase "vile miscreant."
From: The Pyngwyn Colonies of Planet Hyustyn | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seemed to be fans of that era that pretty much badgered the point to bring him back so I don't see the disrespect at least to Flash fans of that era. I do see negatives to the legend.
My impressions of that character's death are different now. When I reread, I'm not sure I'll recall the same emotions I had to first time. I imagine that I will read those scenes with less emotion, if any emotion.
From: East Toledo | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does cheapen the whole experience for anyone who read the original Barry Allen Flash.
If you come back to life and there's someone who has taken your place, and very nicely too, maybe you should just write your memoirs and set up a superhero academy.
Leaving Barry dead would enhance the connection to the character for me; it's more real if somebody, especially in a dangerous business, dies once in a while. And, like real life, new generations take that place and put their own imprint on the character. It's a natural process.
Which makes me think of something else - have any superheroes died of cancer, or heart attack, or some non-battle related cause? I seem to recall somebody had a brain tumor but don't know who.
Set
There's not a word yet, for old friends who've just met.
posted
FC: Captain Marvel (Marvel version) died of cancer. He was a fairly tertiary character at the time, 'though.
John Byrne hinted in the first few issues of Alpha Flight that Northstar had AIDS, but the notion got dropped like a hot potato for quite a few years. He wasn't even officially 'outed' until long after Byrne was off the book.
Betsy Ross Banner died of radiation poisoning, as a result of years of exposure to gamma-irradiated freaks, but that was retconned out, apparently.
In Frank Miller's Dark Knight, Alfred dies at the end of a heart attack, but that's kind of Elseworlds-ish, and he was a supporting character, not a superhero.
Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Set
There's not a word yet, for old friends who've just met.
posted
For me, the dividing line is whether or not the character had a death that was a meaningful part of that character's story (Jean Grey, Captain Marvel, Barry Allen) or was a gimmick meant to enhance *another* character's story or reputation (anyone who died at the hands of Black Adam or Superboy Prime or when Hal Jordan went nuts or in The Bar With No Name at the hands of Scourge, all deaths that were ultimately meaningless to the characters killed, and only meant to highlight the badassness of their killer).
Jean, Barry and Mar-Vell had death scenes that mattered and were specifically crafted. They weren't cannon-fodder, and reversing their deaths is trashing a good story (and all of the good stories that came afterwards, where people like Emma Frost, Wally West or Genis Vell were introduced and slotted into their roles and developed into new, living, breathing characters).
Tara Markov is another character I want to stay dead. I don't care if another earth-manipulator comes along, and I don't care if that earth-manipulator is a clone of Tara Markov, but I want the original Tara Markov to either stay dead, or, if resurrected, to stay true to her characterization, which was of a deeply disturbed psychotic young woman. (While I would prefer her to stay dead, her brother Geo-Force demonstrated in his first appearance the ability to return from the dead when buried in the earth, drawing power from his connection to the earth to come back to life, so it's not *impossible* for his half-sister's earth-connected powerset to include a similar feature.)
Worse, IMO, is when a dead character is brought back and the people who brought them back don't seem to have a brilliant idea of how to immediately use them. A Tara Markov / Terra is back, and has been farting around doing a hell of a lot of not-much, which makes one wonder, why the hell did they bother to bring her back? Why the hell is Hal or Barry back? What vital role are they filling? What niche do they serve?
If something huge, like the return of Hal Jordan or Barry Allen, must occur, there should be a damn Flash series showcasing that return, and the cosmic significance of it, and his relations with his old family, and any issues faced by slotting back into his old role, which has been filled for *decades* by this point.
It shouldn't happen in some other book and then lie around stinking up the place like an abandoned sock. That's just a disservice to the character, to undo the last signifiant appearance of the character (his death) and have nothing planned to one-up that event.
[ July 24, 2009, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Set ]
Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Set: Worse, IMO, is when a dead character is brought back and the people who brought them back don't seem to have a brilliant idea of how to immediately use them.
Exactly. Jean Grey was brought back to do nothing more than fill out the X-Factor lineup of original X-Men. I never read any story with her in it after her return that made me say, "wow, I'm so glad they brought her back because this story was great!" Instead, we got to see Scott Summers abandon his wife and child. Marvel had to make his wife a Goblin Queen and his son Cable to eventually gloss over the abandonment. It was a big slap in the face for those of us who grew to care for Madelyn Prior. And in the end Scott cheats on Jean with Emma Frost just before Jean dies another supposed (but obviously temporary from what I've heard) death. Ugh.
Norman Osborne? Don't get me started! He was brought back as the deus ex machina to bring the mess that was the Clone Saga to a close. Then there was that horrible Gwen Stacy's kids mess. Now, he's the most important figure in the Marvel Universe? Sorry, he's perfect as Spider-man's foil, but he just doesn't work as Marvel's Big Bad. I don't see his gravitas outside of his personal war with Peter Park, which, by the way, ended in Amazing 122!
Hal and Ollie's returns, however, worked really well for me. One literally had his character assassinated, and the other died in a wtf moment airplane explosion. Hal (and Geoff Johns) brought with him a Green Lantern revival like no other that has pretty much made his title the flagship of the DC Universe. Ollie brought back with him a voice with him that was unparalleled in the DCU among so many wooden personalities. The Kevin Smith stories alone made this worthwhile.
The lesson here: if you're gonna erase a good story, make it count and exceed what you're undoing.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since things are looking bleak for JLA at the moment (Wein's wonderful fill-ins excepted), I thought it would be nice to talk about our favorite JLA stories.
I chose one of fairly recent vintage, from the controversial Joe Kelly era.
I’m generally not bothered by Joe Kelly’s tendency for self-indulgence, partly because his politics are similar to my own, partly because unlike, say, Mark Millar, he means it, maaaaaaan! That said, it is Kelly’s least political, most traditional super-hero story, that is not only my favorite work of his, but my favorite JLA arc of all time.
The Obsidian Age is one of the few super-hero epics to justify its length, what with time travel, mysticism, a near-apocalypse and THREE super-hero teams.
Now, I know what you’re saying: “How is this more than a padded-out revival of the old JLA/JSA/Et Al team-ups?” And the answer is – characterization. Kelly makes full use of the extra space afforded him to achieve the very thing where even some fans of Grant Morrison’s JLA would admit he came up short. Morrison’s run was Gardner Fox on steroids, whereas Kelly’s Obsidian Age (I’ll get to the rest of Kelly’s run shortly) was a shotgun wedding of Steve Engelhart (JLA and Avengers runs!) and the old Challenge of the Super-Friends cartoon. Amidst all the skillfully presented larger-than-life spectacle, there are tons of great character moments, from Batman’s moment of reluctant vulnerability after his team arrives in Atlantis, Nightwing’s bearing of the leadership burden, Manitou’s gradual change of heart...
Ah, yes, Manitou, the 21st Century Apache Chief, complete with “Inukchuk.” So even when Kelly’s not being political, he’s still self-indulgent.
Yes...and?
Self-indulgence is not necessarily bad when writing super-hero comics, especially team books, as long as the writer deeply believes in what he or she is doing. And Kelly...well, like I already said, he means it, maaaaan! Manitou is presented with such conviction that Kelly not only gets away with it, but justifies it! Manitou was not the new Bloodwynd, he could have been the new Firestorm!
The rest of Kelly’s JLA run (also counting JL Elite) is, in my opinion, a collection of diamonds in the rough. Flawed, certainly, but interesting in ways that JLA has never been before Kelly or after Kelly.
But The Obsidian Age? A classic for the ages.
Runners-up would be all of Wein's issues, all of Englehart's issues, Conway's # 200, and Morrison's "Crisis Times Five" arc, the one time I thought that Morrison really hit the bullseye.
posted
I've read almost every JLA story but out of all the comic runs I've done that with, I always consider the time of my life I was reading those stories as a major influence on my reaction at the time for some reason (as opposed to Spider-Man or Thor, where my opinions of certain eras are very similar now to what they were when I was 14).
For example, I don't really have many fond memories of Joe Kelly's run. In fact, I remember wondering why I was even reading it anymore at the time. Which is odd, because I'm actually quite a fan of Joe Kelly's work--specifically his Superman stuff and his recent Spider-Man/independent stuff. I think maybe I don't like his team interactions.
My JLA stories are usually reflective of the eras they were in:
Bronze Age JLA / JSA I love the JLA / JSA team-ups in the Bronze Age 1970's, much moreso than the original Silver Age ones. I actually think the Silver Age JLA stories by Gardner Fox are the weakest and most formulaic of all of Fox's work. And Fox was definitely a formulaic type of author—Adam Strange and Hawkman showcase that almost as much as the JLA. But with those stories, the mystery and intrigue was part of the reason for checking out the stories in the first place; with the JLA, you’d expect some really cool interactions would take place between these heroes and usually that wasn’t the case. Still, the JLA/JSA team-ups of the Silver Age were better than most JLA stories, but it wasn’t until several years into the title’s existence that things got really awesome. It was a combination of better writing in terms of dialogue and character interaction (the pacing and antagonists were always pretty good) and introduction of “third elements” that made it for me. The best ones IMO of that era were: The Aquarius / Death of Larry Lance story; the Seven Soldiers of Victory and the Freedom Fighters. Most of the other ones were equally as good but those are my three favorites. They are about as perfect as a team-up story could possibly be.
Justice League International Funny how this has become a controversial era given the characters treatment in recent years, but I still believe there is no denying that the Giffen/DeMatteis/MacGuire run was one of the best JLA eras of all time. My father, a pro-Silver Age reader if there ever was one, has told me many times that this was the best the JLI ever was. I agree it was that good, and in particular it was the first 12 issues that showcase this. Those first 12 issues had something additional the rest of the run did not: balance. It was funny, and it was a buddy comic, but it also had some poignant moments, some incredibly intense and suspenseful moments, and a larger sense of seriousness. Later on, the JLI / JLE would become *too* cute for its own good and I can see why some readers didn’t like this (my father agrees when Beetle started gaining weight, he was long gone as a reader). Giffen did several things really good in addition to what he’s known for: he used global-political conflict as a great background for his stories, much like Ostrander was doing at the time in Firestorm and Suicide Squad; he brought together eras and universes previously never really seen together on a recurring basis and made it seamless (Charlton, Fawcett, Golden Age, Modern, New Gods, new characters, old characters); and he interacted with the rest of the DCU on his terms. It was truly a great era.
Post-Giffen JLA/JLE runs When I was about 13-14, I began reading comics off the stands rather than just piles of back-issues from the Silver Age and 1970’s. I eventually would start reading every DC and Marvel title, but some of the very first were the JLA and JLE, right after the “Breakdowns” arc ended that era and both runs had great starting points. I still look fondly on those issues and think both titles were very good and very easy to jump into. The JLA had Superman and Dan Jurgens basically coming into Giffen’s old League and restoring some seriousness to it; the JLE brought in several Silver Age Icons like GL (Hal), Flash, Elongated Man, Aquaman, Batman (the first few issues) and then combining them with the heroines of the then recent times, Power Girl, Dr. Light and Crimson Fox. I thought that mix worked wonderfully, a combination of the Iconic Age and the Modern Era. That particular time at DC was incredibly interesting with Eclipso Annuals (which I thought was well done), Hal vs. Guy and Guy going off in another direction (which for a 14 year old, was so exciting), and then Doomsday. It all seemed to just really kick ass…up until Parallax and the end of the JLE’s good stories, a third “Task Force” comic that never worked, and Jurgen’s exit and the JLA becoming a mish-mosh of bad stories, heroes with no purpose and probably the very worst era in JLA history (Overlord? I dare you to suggest otherwise!) But for a brief spell, the Justice League comics really kicked ass! There was also an excellent JSA comic that ran 10 issues during this era and those three (along with my constantly reading Crisis every few months) introduced me to the rest of the DCU whom I didn’t recognize from the Silver Age.
There are more but I’ll stop for now. Great topic, Stealth!
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't read the League stories til Morrison restarted the group. I can think of a handful of stories (the cross-over with HAWKMAN & GUY GARDNER:WARROR) prior to that, but nothing to create an opinon.
Morrison's era was part of the big budget, blockbuster, wide-screen, HD movement. It was the DC doing the Ultimates before Millar did the Ultimates, the Authority that begot Elli's Authority. With 6 out of the 7 inital cast members having their own books, it wasn't about character development but action and adventure. Mind you, we got moments that defined/summed up each of our heroes; and when the cast expanded, Grant managed to gives us a peek of The Huntress or Big Barda between all the explosions and lightshows.
Grant did a great job of working within the shared universe that was DC. This was the League for the 90's (at the time, new and full of possibilities.) We saw Wally, Kyle, Connor, and Oracle come into their own as members of the hero community. This wasn't nostalgia, but rather continuing the adventures of DC's heroes, moving them towards the future. (My love of DC's new blood makes me a little biased here I think.)
Waid's run was a nice mix of adventure and psuedo scence. A brief run, it felt more of a placeholder than a true era. The stories were more about the characters' interactions than about their adventures. As charming as it was, it never had the excitement for me that Grant brought previously. Even when Waid filled in for Grant, his stories then seemed more energetic.
Kelly's turn was a good mix of Grant's and Mark's stories. It ran hot and cold for me. I didn't care for the Bruce/Diana suggestion (Wondy gets another new flame,) but it was a sub-plot Kelly handled well and carried for a bit. The Obsidian Age was all kinds of crazy fun, and Trial By Fire was a perfect example of Kelly's run. His single issue stories were a mixed bunch- the Plas/Bats team up was great, the Supes/Luthor parallel of current politics felt hamfisted. His work with Major Disater was fun and interesting (and I wish he got time to play with him more.) Faith was annoying from the start. Kelly's run was enjoyable, but it wasn't memorable.
We'll skip Carlin's every-writer-has-a-League-story fiasco. I truly think that killed the JLA more than any infinite crises could.
The Justice League of America relaunch I've been reading in trade form, so I'm still a bit behind on it. Meltzer was too short to give any real impact, and McDuffie has been too distracted to give any cohesive judgement.
From: Denver, CO | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cobie, I look forward to your thoughts on the Morrison era and beyond, but more importantly, your post has awakened my curiosity enough to give JLI a second chance, even given my general distaste for Giffen. I've requested all four available trades from my library, and I'll share my thoughts on them as I read them. And I hope that maybe my post awakened your curiosity enough to give The Obsidian Age a second chance (glad to hear you like The Obsidian Age, CJ.)
posted
Interestingly enough, as big of a DC guy as I am, I haven't really had the most extensive JLA experience on my resume. The only two eras that I bought the title longterm were during the JLI Giffen/DeMatteis era and the Morrison/Porter run.
Why the JLA hasn't pulled me in consistently is difficult to nail down, but generally (with the above two exceptions) I'd say that JLA often just didn't seem to matter as a title within the larger DCU. It was often just an excuse to put the biggest draws in the DCU into one title with what seemed very little of consequence happening in and of itself. Obviously, there are exceptions, particularly the importance of the JSA crossovers to the DCU's mythology, but there's usually the sense that if you skip JLA you aren't really missing anything. More often than not, what happens in JLA is never even referenced in, say, Batman's books or Superman's books.
If you compare JLA to Marvel's Avengers, I'd say there's a big difference. In my opinion the Avengers has always told stories that mattered and that have become iconic. Obviously, some eras are better regarded than others, but nearly every incarnation has at least yielded something memorable.
I'd say the difference is founded in leeway with character development. Usually, the JLA is stocked with the "Big Guns" who can only be players in the story and can't have really life-changing things happen to them when that's being saved for their own titles.
Avengers at its best mixes their Big Guns with more secondary characters like Vision, Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, Beast, Wasp, Hank Pym, etc. who can't support their own titles and provide awesome subplot-dovetailing-to-uberplot fodder for character development. Hell, even Thor, Iron Man and Cap tend to have moments and events happen in the Avengers comic that are reflected in their own books or at least enhance their characters with superb roleplaying.
The JLI era got around the usual JLA limitation by predominantly featuring second, third and fourth-tier characters who were late of their own cancelled series or had never had one of their own. Giffen and DeMatteis could do whatever the hell they wanted with them and chose to use that power to work on giving them all distinct personalities. It was a fun, unique experience that had me coming back every month first and foremost to see what these characters would be up to. And when they did use characters like Batman, they used them wisely and gave us priceless moments like his "one punch" of Guy Gardner and his mission "disguised" as Bruce Wayne.
I loved the JLI era a lot and let my then-girlfriend/future-wife borrow the early issues because I knew she would enjoy the humor. I do think it became severely diluted and began to slowly die with Kevin Maguire's departure and the arrival of JLE. Even then, it had its moments and will always be remembered fondly by me.
Morrison fully embraced the Big Guns philosophy and proved that in the hands of a talented enough writer, that approach could definitely work. The Shit was constantly hitting the fan, and Morrison knew how to throw big, impressive threats at these characters, enough to keep readers hanging by the edges of their seats.
Interspersed in Morrison's run were takes on the icons that were very influential. Foremost was Batman as The Man! Never had Batman seemed more badass, even as a normal human among people with godlike powers. For once a take on an icon in the JLA book actually influenced the main books! Of course, many would say that that has been taken too far over the intervening years. But for better or worse, it really mattered, and that was something that JLA rarely did.
As impressive as Morrison was, his stuff did feel distant for me and left me a little cold. There was so much BIG! STORY! going on that I feel Morrison didn't really take the time to emotionally invest readers in the characters. The Tomorrow Woman story was a nice exception, but overall the emotional impact of the adventures was negligible. But the quality of stories was always high and worth your hard-earned money.
I'll post more on JLA soon and highlight some particular stories from other eras and maybe hit these two a little more...
[ October 23, 2009, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Lardi the Incorruptible ]
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
