TAMING HIS VIKING WOMAN is $1.99 on Amazon.com (which means it will be price matched elsewhere)
VIKING WARRIOR UNWILLING WIFE, TAMING HIS VIKING WOMAN, and SUMMER OF THE VIKING are 99p at Amazon.co.uk.
Showing posts with label Romance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romance. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 06, 2017
Viking romances on special offer
TAMING HIS VIKING WOMAN is $1.99 on Amazon.com (which means it will be price matched elsewhere)
VIKING WARRIOR UNWILLING WIFE, TAMING HIS VIKING WOMAN, and SUMMER OF THE VIKING are 99p at Amazon.co.uk.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Revisions, positive articles and hot cross buns
My very lovely editor sent the latest revisions for the Governess yesterday. She was apologetic as it is Easter weekend. I was very happy. It was then it struck me -- writing for most authors is a vocation. We do it not only because it pays the bills but because we love it and we believe in our characters. If someone gives me the chance to make my story stronger and better, I look on this as a gift and not a chore. And with her thoughts, I am certain that the book is going have more intensity of characterisation etc plus I can trail the now agreed sequel. Hooray for revisions!
Courtesy of the lovely Carrie Lofty, I discovered a very positive article about Romance in the New York Times. As with an severe economic turmoil, the romance genre is proving resilient. It remains to be seen though if the other maxim holds true, and society morals start becoming more conservative... The Blake Snyder blog from a few weeks ago still intrigues me. How the full frontal nudity of the 1920s films went to separate twin beds for married couples in the 1930s films.
And because it is Good Friday, I have been making the Elizabeth David recipe for hot cross buns. It is all well and good to buy the loss leading hot cross buns at the super markets (Tesco has 6 for 30p) BUT there is a certain satisfaction about using fresh spice, yeast and making your own. This means I can put in nutmeg and freshly ground cloves, raisins and mixed peel instead of currents And I get to have fun rolling the dough into snakes to make the crosses. Both my daughter and my youngest have already asked to help with the making of the crosses.
Courtesy of the lovely Carrie Lofty, I discovered a very positive article about Romance in the New York Times. As with an severe economic turmoil, the romance genre is proving resilient. It remains to be seen though if the other maxim holds true, and society morals start becoming more conservative... The Blake Snyder blog from a few weeks ago still intrigues me. How the full frontal nudity of the 1920s films went to separate twin beds for married couples in the 1930s films.
And because it is Good Friday, I have been making the Elizabeth David recipe for hot cross buns. It is all well and good to buy the loss leading hot cross buns at the super markets (Tesco has 6 for 30p) BUT there is a certain satisfaction about using fresh spice, yeast and making your own. This means I can put in nutmeg and freshly ground cloves, raisins and mixed peel instead of currents And I get to have fun rolling the dough into snakes to make the crosses. Both my daughter and my youngest have already asked to help with the making of the crosses.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Founding Father Romances: Thomas Jefferson
If John and Abigail Adams were the sort of Mr Darcy
and Elizabeth Bennet type romance, Thomas and Martha Jefferson is more the Wuthering Heights. Full of great passion and absolute tragedy. And although like Washington, he married a widow, no one has ever said that the marriage was for economic reasons. He and Martha were passionately in love and remained devoted to each other for the duration of their lives.
Thomas Jefferson famously wooed Martha with the violin. He was notorious for not speaking but he could play. He played the violin while she played the harpsichord. They married in 1772. They were well matched in intellect and temperament. Martha supported his endeavors and Monticello, the family home, was designed with her in mind.
Martha was frail, more than likely suffering from diabetes. This in turn led a number of miscarriages and stillbirths. And in 1782 four months after giving birth to her sixth child by Jefferson, she died.
Jefferson never remarried and went into severe depression after the death.
One of the few surviving bits of writing in her own hand was finished by Jefferson: and every time I kiss thy hand to bid adieu, every absence which follows it, are preludes to that eternal separation which we are shortly to make!
Long after her death, there are substantive rumours that he had an affair with her half-sister, Sally Heming and fathered several children. Sally was a half-caste slave who by some accounts looked or sounded a bit like the dead Martha. DNA testing has shown the presence of Jefferson dna but as there were several male Jeffersons who visited Monticello during the period, it is impossible to conclude definitely that it was Thomas Jefferson. However, the Heming did have a special status within the household and were referred to as servants rather than slaves. Within the Heming decendents there are stories about Thomas Jefferson being the father. You can read more here. Jefferson never freed any of his slaves, but his daughter did free Sally.
However there has never any suggestion that he strayed while Martha was alive.
and Elizabeth Bennet type romance, Thomas and Martha Jefferson is more the Wuthering Heights. Full of great passion and absolute tragedy. And although like Washington, he married a widow, no one has ever said that the marriage was for economic reasons. He and Martha were passionately in love and remained devoted to each other for the duration of their lives.
Thomas Jefferson famously wooed Martha with the violin. He was notorious for not speaking but he could play. He played the violin while she played the harpsichord. They married in 1772. They were well matched in intellect and temperament. Martha supported his endeavors and Monticello, the family home, was designed with her in mind.
Martha was frail, more than likely suffering from diabetes. This in turn led a number of miscarriages and stillbirths. And in 1782 four months after giving birth to her sixth child by Jefferson, she died.
Jefferson never remarried and went into severe depression after the death.
One of the few surviving bits of writing in her own hand was finished by Jefferson: and every time I kiss thy hand to bid adieu, every absence which follows it, are preludes to that eternal separation which we are shortly to make!
Long after her death, there are substantive rumours that he had an affair with her half-sister, Sally Heming and fathered several children. Sally was a half-caste slave who by some accounts looked or sounded a bit like the dead Martha. DNA testing has shown the presence of Jefferson dna but as there were several male Jeffersons who visited Monticello during the period, it is impossible to conclude definitely that it was Thomas Jefferson. However, the Heming did have a special status within the household and were referred to as servants rather than slaves. Within the Heming decendents there are stories about Thomas Jefferson being the father. You can read more here. Jefferson never freed any of his slaves, but his daughter did free Sally.
However there has never any suggestion that he strayed while Martha was alive.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Founding father Romances: George and Martha Washington
Compared to John and Abigail Adams, we know very little about the relationship between George and Martha Washington. Exactly three letters survive. After George Washington's death, Martha burnt their private correspondence.
What do we know?
Martha Dandridge Custis was a wealthy widow and their marriage provided Washington with the economic funds to join the elite of the Virginia planters' class. We also know from a private Washington letter that in all likelihood he was passionately in love with Sally Fairfax during the early part of 1758. Sally Fairfax was the wife of George William, and towards the end of his life, Washington wrote to the elderly Sally confessing that she was the passion of his youth and some of the happiest moments of his life were spent with her.
Washington however was a man of great self-control. He had an image of himself and what he wanted from life -- including a happy domestic arrangement. Thus in January 1759 he marries the wealthy widow and calls her an agreeable partner. Many scholars feel that there were more economic factors in this match than romantic.
But why did Martha choose Washington? What did she see in him? She is the one with the money, and thus the catch, rather than the other way around. He is the dashing soldier, but there must have been some attraction. He is known to have been good with her children. But her reasons are lost in the midst of history.
All the available evidence suggests that they did have a happy marriage. For example, she did join him on campaign during the American revolution. She certainly remained his hostess and other than the one intriguing letter to the elderly Sally, Washington's name is not linked with another woman's. Indeed the Fairfaxes were close neighbours and good friends of the Washingtons.
There again given the self-control and discipline with which Washington conducted his life, he probably required an agreeable partner rather than a passionate lover and at least had the good sense to marry one.
Unfortunately they did not have children. Whose fault this was is impossible to determine. But there is no evidence of Washington having fathered any children. And the phrase, according to Joseph J Ellis's excellent biography, His Excellency, -- Washington slept here -- is generally accepted by scholars to have NO sexual connotations.
So with the Washington marriage-- who knows. But it became the sort of marriage that Washington wanted. Stable and full of good sense. And there is nothing wrong with that.
What do we know?
Martha Dandridge Custis was a wealthy widow and their marriage provided Washington with the economic funds to join the elite of the Virginia planters' class. We also know from a private Washington letter that in all likelihood he was passionately in love with Sally Fairfax during the early part of 1758. Sally Fairfax was the wife of George William, and towards the end of his life, Washington wrote to the elderly Sally confessing that she was the passion of his youth and some of the happiest moments of his life were spent with her.
Washington however was a man of great self-control. He had an image of himself and what he wanted from life -- including a happy domestic arrangement. Thus in January 1759 he marries the wealthy widow and calls her an agreeable partner. Many scholars feel that there were more economic factors in this match than romantic.
But why did Martha choose Washington? What did she see in him? She is the one with the money, and thus the catch, rather than the other way around. He is the dashing soldier, but there must have been some attraction. He is known to have been good with her children. But her reasons are lost in the midst of history.
All the available evidence suggests that they did have a happy marriage. For example, she did join him on campaign during the American revolution. She certainly remained his hostess and other than the one intriguing letter to the elderly Sally, Washington's name is not linked with another woman's. Indeed the Fairfaxes were close neighbours and good friends of the Washingtons.
There again given the self-control and discipline with which Washington conducted his life, he probably required an agreeable partner rather than a passionate lover and at least had the good sense to marry one.
Unfortunately they did not have children. Whose fault this was is impossible to determine. But there is no evidence of Washington having fathered any children. And the phrase, according to Joseph J Ellis's excellent biography, His Excellency, -- Washington slept here -- is generally accepted by scholars to have NO sexual connotations.
So with the Washington marriage-- who knows. But it became the sort of marriage that Washington wanted. Stable and full of good sense. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Founding Father romances -- John and Abigail Adams
As Michelle Willingham asked, I thought I would do a brief bit on the romances of the Founding Fathers. Thereby revealing my geekier side and the fact I do love this period.
First up John and Abigail Adams. Because over 1000 letters survive, we actually know a lot about the relationship between John and Abigail. Above everything, it was a good marriage and the warmth of the relationship comes through in the letters.
The artist Gilbert Stuart once remarked that he wished he could have painted Mrs Adams in her youth as she must have been a perfect Venus, and John Adams wholeheartedly concurred.
They first met when Abigail Smith was a frail 15 year old and married when she was not quite 20.
Abigail had been considered too delicate for school and was taught at home by her mother. She also had access to her father's vast library and developed a love of learning. Her letters are sprinkled with quotes from her favourite poems etc. There are often slight mistakes as she is most probably quoting from memory.
When they met, John was a short, stout young lawyer. His first impression of her was not favourable. Saying the Smith daughters were not 'fond nor frank, nor candid.' However, because his good friend Richard Cranch married Abigail's elder sister --Mary Smith, they became more better acquainted and found much to like about each other. Adams' family legend has it that Abigail's mother opposed the match, thinking her daughter could do better. But it is John Adam's great heart that called to her. Both were strong minded as both had views on nearly everything. Once John calls her parrot-toed and she replies he is too severe in his judgements of people and besides 'a gentleman has no business to concern himself about the legs of a lady.'
Abigail became Diana after the goddess of the moon in their private correspondence and John became Lysander after the Spartan hero. Their letters to each other begin My Dearest Friend.
Interestingly in the final year of their courtship,John has almost no diary entries and only refers to her once before their marriage and then only in code. 'Di was a constant feast. Tender, feeling, sensible, friendly. A friend.'
It was a marriage of equals and a partnership. It was this marriage that enabled John to go off and achieve. Abigail, for all her frailty as a child became a robust woman who managed the house with classic New England good sense. She kept hens and ducks,sewed, baked and churned her butter. She believed that her butter was vastly superior.
Anyway, the letters between John and Abigail shine with their love for each other. And she was the constant good in his life.
First up John and Abigail Adams. Because over 1000 letters survive, we actually know a lot about the relationship between John and Abigail. Above everything, it was a good marriage and the warmth of the relationship comes through in the letters.
The artist Gilbert Stuart once remarked that he wished he could have painted Mrs Adams in her youth as she must have been a perfect Venus, and John Adams wholeheartedly concurred.
They first met when Abigail Smith was a frail 15 year old and married when she was not quite 20.
Abigail had been considered too delicate for school and was taught at home by her mother. She also had access to her father's vast library and developed a love of learning. Her letters are sprinkled with quotes from her favourite poems etc. There are often slight mistakes as she is most probably quoting from memory.
When they met, John was a short, stout young lawyer. His first impression of her was not favourable. Saying the Smith daughters were not 'fond nor frank, nor candid.' However, because his good friend Richard Cranch married Abigail's elder sister --Mary Smith, they became more better acquainted and found much to like about each other. Adams' family legend has it that Abigail's mother opposed the match, thinking her daughter could do better. But it is John Adam's great heart that called to her. Both were strong minded as both had views on nearly everything. Once John calls her parrot-toed and she replies he is too severe in his judgements of people and besides 'a gentleman has no business to concern himself about the legs of a lady.'
Abigail became Diana after the goddess of the moon in their private correspondence and John became Lysander after the Spartan hero. Their letters to each other begin My Dearest Friend.
Interestingly in the final year of their courtship,John has almost no diary entries and only refers to her once before their marriage and then only in code. 'Di was a constant feast. Tender, feeling, sensible, friendly. A friend.'
It was a marriage of equals and a partnership. It was this marriage that enabled John to go off and achieve. Abigail, for all her frailty as a child became a robust woman who managed the house with classic New England good sense. She kept hens and ducks,sewed, baked and churned her butter. She believed that her butter was vastly superior.
Anyway, the letters between John and Abigail shine with their love for each other. And she was the constant good in his life.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
On defining Romance
There was an excellent post on Romancing the Blog about the perceived problems with Romance as a genre title. Actually I do not have a problem with it. It is highly sucessful genre and one of the classic genres of the novel. Why mess with success? I love Romance. I love writing it and reading it.
Anyway I gave my definition of a Romance as a story where the growth of the emotional relationship between the two central protagonists forms the spine/core. I should have added AND there is an emotionally satisfying resolution at the end. But I didn't and that was a mistake on my part. Basically I know that the Romance genre operates on the archplot/classic design. Therefore it has a closed ending and must release all emotional tension built in the story by resolving the major plot. (It was one of the quarrels I had with Raintree Inferno -- it does not end until the third book and so major threads are left hanging.)
Another poster Virginia pointed out that there was another attempt at defining Romance:
This definition leaves a lot more “fudge room” (speaking about my definition) than the one Pamela Regis used in A Natural History of the Romance Novel (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007). She defines the genre by eight necessary elements, one of which is that the book end with betrothal (or, at a stretch, the marriage) of the two protagonists. The chapter on “The Definition Expanded” requires eight “essential” elements:
Society Defined
The Meeting
The Barrier
The Attraction
The Declaration
Point of Ritual Death
The Recognition
The Betrothal.
Um... Pamela Regis has definitely been supping at the Christopher Vogler/Joseph Campbell table. She has basically taken the Hero's journey and given them slightly different labels. The hero's journey is
1. Ordinary World
2. Call to Adventure
3 Refusal of the Call
4 Meeting with the Mentor
5 Crossing the first threshold
6 Tests Allies Enemies
7 Approach to the Innermost cave
8 Ordeal
9 Reward
10 the Road Back
11 resurrection
12 Return with the Exlir
(p 14 Christopher Vogler The Writer's Journey)
I leave you to compare and contrast the differences.
Vogler's basic theory is that ALL good stories can be made to fit the Journey. It is a diadatic approach. You can make an arguement for it, but I think Regis's labels are far too narrow and miss the essence of the Romance's novel.
It is possible to start a romance novel with the two main protagonists already married/ or to have them married quite early on. The marriage of Convienance is a very popular theme. The Secret Baby theme or the non final divorce theme have also prove popular over the years.
Sold and Seduced for example starts with a forced marriage. It does not end in a betrothal. They are already married. It ends with a meeting of true minds and is hopefully emotionally satisfying. It is a Happily Ever After after all.
Basically, one has to wonder how many Romance novels Ms Regis read before she started doing her thesis.
I stand by my definition.
Anyway I gave my definition of a Romance as a story where the growth of the emotional relationship between the two central protagonists forms the spine/core. I should have added AND there is an emotionally satisfying resolution at the end. But I didn't and that was a mistake on my part. Basically I know that the Romance genre operates on the archplot/classic design. Therefore it has a closed ending and must release all emotional tension built in the story by resolving the major plot. (It was one of the quarrels I had with Raintree Inferno -- it does not end until the third book and so major threads are left hanging.)
Another poster Virginia pointed out that there was another attempt at defining Romance:
This definition leaves a lot more “fudge room” (speaking about my definition) than the one Pamela Regis used in A Natural History of the Romance Novel (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007). She defines the genre by eight necessary elements, one of which is that the book end with betrothal (or, at a stretch, the marriage) of the two protagonists. The chapter on “The Definition Expanded” requires eight “essential” elements:
Society Defined
The Meeting
The Barrier
The Attraction
The Declaration
Point of Ritual Death
The Recognition
The Betrothal.
Um... Pamela Regis has definitely been supping at the Christopher Vogler/Joseph Campbell table. She has basically taken the Hero's journey and given them slightly different labels. The hero's journey is
1. Ordinary World
2. Call to Adventure
3 Refusal of the Call
4 Meeting with the Mentor
5 Crossing the first threshold
6 Tests Allies Enemies
7 Approach to the Innermost cave
8 Ordeal
9 Reward
10 the Road Back
11 resurrection
12 Return with the Exlir
(p 14 Christopher Vogler The Writer's Journey)
I leave you to compare and contrast the differences.
Vogler's basic theory is that ALL good stories can be made to fit the Journey. It is a diadatic approach. You can make an arguement for it, but I think Regis's labels are far too narrow and miss the essence of the Romance's novel.
It is possible to start a romance novel with the two main protagonists already married/ or to have them married quite early on. The marriage of Convienance is a very popular theme. The Secret Baby theme or the non final divorce theme have also prove popular over the years.
Sold and Seduced for example starts with a forced marriage. It does not end in a betrothal. They are already married. It ends with a meeting of true minds and is hopefully emotionally satisfying. It is a Happily Ever After after all.
Basically, one has to wonder how many Romance novels Ms Regis read before she started doing her thesis.
I stand by my definition.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Latest Romance Stats
The November edition of the RWR has the latest romance reading stats. I found them interesting.
Romance had 26.4% share of all market categories. It was only surpassed by the religion/inspirational category. Romance fiction sales were $1,370 million compared to Mystery sales of $422 million or Sci fi sales of $495 million. You do the math. In my view the basic reason why so much more advertising is spent on mystery etc is that far fewer mystery books are published as opposed to the 6,400 titles of romance that were published.
In the new technology of ebooks, the trend continues. According to Peter Wayner writing in the New York Times last August, early ebook lists were dominated by sci fi and other genres favoured by men, but now the lists showed romance and women's fiction were coming to dominate. This fact should not surprise anyone as according an AP/IPOS poll, women read more than men -- nearly twice as much. On average women read nine books per year while men only manage five. Women are also more likely to read every major category of books. And of people who read books, one in five reads romance novels.
As a general rule of thumb, men are more likely to be early adopters of technology. The shift in the ebook lists could be interpreted to mean that ebooks are here to stay. BUT the amount spent on ebook, despite doubling in 2006 remains tiny at $24 million. Print is not dead yet.
The leading sub genres of Romance appearing on the best seller lists were suspense, historical and paranormal. Harlequin remains the top Romance book publisher, according to Simba estimates. The leading US romance novelists were Nora Roberts, Sandra Brown, Catherine Coulter and Debbie Macomber. All of whom started out by writing category. I think they were all with Sil, Debbie Macomber is the one I have a question about as I can't think of which line she wrote for. Super? Nora Roberts and Sandra Brown were SR and Catherine Coulter was SIM. Shades of my college free time reading...
If you look at romance books published -- 40% were series romance. 17% historical single title, 16 percent were contemporary. Paranormal accounted for 9%. This shows the massive increase in the paranormal romance market in recent years as not so very long ago it was under 5% of books published. The big unanswered question is how large is the paranormal market and has it peaked.
For 2007, sales of romance fiction are expected to hold steady. The projected increase in book sales (2.6%) is down to the last book of Harry Potter hitting the stands.
Anyway, I thought it very interesting.
Romance had 26.4% share of all market categories. It was only surpassed by the religion/inspirational category. Romance fiction sales were $1,370 million compared to Mystery sales of $422 million or Sci fi sales of $495 million. You do the math. In my view the basic reason why so much more advertising is spent on mystery etc is that far fewer mystery books are published as opposed to the 6,400 titles of romance that were published.
In the new technology of ebooks, the trend continues. According to Peter Wayner writing in the New York Times last August, early ebook lists were dominated by sci fi and other genres favoured by men, but now the lists showed romance and women's fiction were coming to dominate. This fact should not surprise anyone as according an AP/IPOS poll, women read more than men -- nearly twice as much. On average women read nine books per year while men only manage five. Women are also more likely to read every major category of books. And of people who read books, one in five reads romance novels.
As a general rule of thumb, men are more likely to be early adopters of technology. The shift in the ebook lists could be interpreted to mean that ebooks are here to stay. BUT the amount spent on ebook, despite doubling in 2006 remains tiny at $24 million. Print is not dead yet.
The leading sub genres of Romance appearing on the best seller lists were suspense, historical and paranormal. Harlequin remains the top Romance book publisher, according to Simba estimates. The leading US romance novelists were Nora Roberts, Sandra Brown, Catherine Coulter and Debbie Macomber. All of whom started out by writing category. I think they were all with Sil, Debbie Macomber is the one I have a question about as I can't think of which line she wrote for. Super? Nora Roberts and Sandra Brown were SR and Catherine Coulter was SIM. Shades of my college free time reading...
If you look at romance books published -- 40% were series romance. 17% historical single title, 16 percent were contemporary. Paranormal accounted for 9%. This shows the massive increase in the paranormal romance market in recent years as not so very long ago it was under 5% of books published. The big unanswered question is how large is the paranormal market and has it peaked.
For 2007, sales of romance fiction are expected to hold steady. The projected increase in book sales (2.6%) is down to the last book of Harry Potter hitting the stands.
Anyway, I thought it very interesting.
Monday, July 23, 2007
HEA -- a requirement
One of the periodic issues that raises its head is the Happily Ever After and why a romance has to have one.
It always amazes me. People don't want an emotionally satisfying ending? They don't want the major plot arc resolved?
If all that happens in your book is that the people take up the threads of their ordinary life at the end, it does not work. It is the sort of -- it was all a dream. Characters need to grow and change.
Because Romance belongs to the archplot category of genres, it does mean at the end of a story, all major threads should be tied up. In particular the spine of the story must be resolved. Time has shown that a greater percentage of the audience prefer a happy ever after.
Think of this another way -- would a crime novel be enjoyable if the killer was never caught, and the mystery went unsolved?
This is not a rule but a very important part of the form that has to be mastered. If a writer does not want to master this form, they are free to write in another genre. And there are other genres -- for example sagas where the romance is secondary and the spine of the book is held by the character's growth.
But if a writer DOES want to use the highly successful romance format, they do have to adhere to its most basic form.
The emotional satisfaction that readers get at the end is why people read romance. They want that buzz.
The real trick is to create a situation which gives the reader a white knuckle ride.She is positive until that last climatic scene that the principals won't get together. She wants that. And the writer should never cheat the reader. Well not if she wants her readers to come back for more.
For my part, I write historical ROMANCE and that means an emotionally satisfying ending with threads tied up.
It always amazes me. People don't want an emotionally satisfying ending? They don't want the major plot arc resolved?
If all that happens in your book is that the people take up the threads of their ordinary life at the end, it does not work. It is the sort of -- it was all a dream. Characters need to grow and change.
Because Romance belongs to the archplot category of genres, it does mean at the end of a story, all major threads should be tied up. In particular the spine of the story must be resolved. Time has shown that a greater percentage of the audience prefer a happy ever after.
Think of this another way -- would a crime novel be enjoyable if the killer was never caught, and the mystery went unsolved?
This is not a rule but a very important part of the form that has to be mastered. If a writer does not want to master this form, they are free to write in another genre. And there are other genres -- for example sagas where the romance is secondary and the spine of the book is held by the character's growth.
But if a writer DOES want to use the highly successful romance format, they do have to adhere to its most basic form.
The emotional satisfaction that readers get at the end is why people read romance. They want that buzz.
The real trick is to create a situation which gives the reader a white knuckle ride.She is positive until that last climatic scene that the principals won't get together. She wants that. And the writer should never cheat the reader. Well not if she wants her readers to come back for more.
For my part, I write historical ROMANCE and that means an emotionally satisfying ending with threads tied up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)