Friday, October 21, 2005
Cool Icelandic History Moment of the Day
What was the Long Friday? This is the reason the Interwebs is neat. Thanks, Amanda.
The Crazification Factor
A fresh bump link to here, from some e-mail requests. Don't know why, but I aim to please.
D. A. C. M. A.
As you are well aware, a debate is raging in this country about gay marriage. Specifically , that allowing gay couples the right to enter into the institution of marriage will destroy the Fabric of American Life, in this case the Fabric most likely being a rough cotton blend, not too comfortable lest there be some accidental pleasurable friction in your Satan's Playground Spots.
This sociological approach is the only remotely viable (and yet still fatally weak) argument against gay marriage -- it cannot be opposed on any reasonable grounds in a civil rights sense. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, gay marriage neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Two gay people getting married in my general vicinity do not change my legal rights. They do not affect my earning potential, they do not raise my taxes, they do not infringe on either my rights to certain freedoms or opportunities to practice such freedoms. They do not, in a negative way, affect the legal status of other marriages. Divorce case law and evolving property law defines my legal relationship with my wife far more than any other factor. The "slippery slope" argument will always be there, but again -- case law, people. Legal Armageddon has been predicted from pretty much every sociological and technical advance in the last two centuries. We've limped along. If you can skate past the idea that it's legal in Georgia for a 60 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl but not cool for two 30 year old men to share a life insurance policy -- good for you.
One may oppose gay marriage from a religious standpoint, but one's religious rights are not abridged. If one belongs to a religion which opposes gay marriage, then odds are there will not be any gay marriage in your church. Gay people will not paratroop in and occupy your vestry. You will not have to worship with them, change the personal nature of your relationship to God, or even like them.
Kiernan at Crooked Timber tackles a well-known opponent of gay marriage. This Maggie Gallagher is taking the "marriage is an institution necessary for the functioning of society" road, with the tour bus painted a lovely shade of "and by marriage I'm going to use what marriage has meant legally for the last hundred years or so and blithely pretend that's the tradition stretching back to the dawn of Western Civilization" primer. The engine for this bus will be the ever popular "societies make babies and the best way for society to raise babies is through marriage as it's traditionally defined" -- again, the "tradition" being whatever version of marriage in the history western civilization best fits the argument in each specific paragraph of her essay.
By the way, I have no problem with arguing that children are better off with one parent than two -- although I am reminded of my friend Jeff Rothpan's joke: "My parents stayed together for the sake of the children. Thank God, because there's nothing better for children than fifteen years of screaming, spite and death threats." No, to take a detour for a moment, my bone to pick with the above concept is that as a married couple with no children, my wife and I are are in this argument's throes a de facto gay couple. Indeed, by that logic there's no real reason for us to be married at all -- and if your argument is meant to encourage marriage, you've rather shot yourself in the foot, eh? I will, however, accept my role as some sort of cultural fringe benefit in the main battle of breeding, and try not to unravel society too much as I dump enormous amounts of tax money into a system for other peoples' children's benefits, and take no parallel benefits of my own. Oh, and by the way, you're goddam welcome.
But accepting the basis of her argument before Ms. Gallagher mangles it in the sales job, let's say I spot her: marriage is a Very Important Institution, and we'll even spot her the why based on whatever shambling argument she constructs. But if one's argument is that Marriage is "under attack", then I would argue --as Kiernan does -- that no-fault divorce and the cultural acceptance of divorce is a far more devastating "attack" on marriage.
If we want marriage to continue as a viable societal tradition, then we have to teach our young 'uns that marriage has value -- but how are we to do this when their role models treat marriage so shabbily? Move past the prevalence of divorce in modern society and look at the glamorization of it by those most craven of cultural beasts -- celebrities. Many very smart people have argued about the nature of "celebrity", but I think we can all agree, part of the nature of fascination with celebrities is that they are rich, they are good-looking, they are famous, they are desired ... as are their lifestyles. And what do their lifestyles say? Divorce is okay. Divorce is nothing more than tabloid fodder as you move onto the next glamorous sex object.
To wit, what makes a stronger impact on the perceived value of marriage as an institution: skads of people lining up desperate to join in it despite great opposition; or people not only discarding their marriages, but discarding multiple marriages as if they were Dunkin' Donut cups? What "attacks" marriage more than people actually dissolving their marriages, often within mere days of entering into that holiest of sacraments?
Look, people, never mind the celebrity divorce boom of the 60's. Kenny Chesney and Renee Zellweger bailing within months, Britney Spears and J-Lo's infamous micro-marriages, The whole Jen/Brad/Angelina affair has risen to mythological proportions ... and now Nick and Jessica's are-they-or-aren't-they ... folks, find me some celebrities who aren't on at least their second marriage.
Logic, that cruelest of mistresses with the pointiest of spanking paddles, has brought us to this point, my friends. When prioritizing our threats against marriage, widespread rejection of the sanctity of marriage by our cultural icons propogated relentlessly through 24/7 media saturation is unarguably a greater threat against marriage's status as a societal value than the efforts of a few thousand malcontent high-school drama teachers standing in lines outside City Hall in two states of the Union.
So how do we stop this cultural plague? Well, we'll never win the fight to just out-and-out outlaw divorce: far too many powerful politicians and pundits depend on it as a way to mark their rise in power and income through progressive wife trade-ins. No, the roundabout solution here is to ban the marriage of celebrities in the first place, to keep them from spreading their disgusting guerilla free-love meme when they eventually, inevitably dissolve these shams perpetrated in the Kabbalah ceremony of their choice. We at Kung Fu Monkey are proud to make the Defense Against Celebrity Marriage Amendment our first political cause.
There is hard work to be done in the planning and implementation of such a Constitutional Amendment, not the least of which being the definition of "celebrity". Countless court challenges, I'm sure, will occur around the fine line between "public figure" and "celebrity". I am suggesting that we trust the private sector to do the work here, as opposed to creating yet another burdensome government department. A simple computer algorithm based around mentions in Us Magazine, People Magazine, Entertainment Tonight, what will eventually be dubbed the "E! Saturation Index", and the ever useful Defamer will move individuals on and off the Non-Celebrity Marriage Eligibility List.
The great thing here is that there's no way the average American will find his rights abridged by this Amendment ... because by definition, a celebrity is not average!
We will begin fund-raising mail-outs soon, followed by focus groups and position polling among the 2006 and 2008 candidates. We look forward to you joining us in our campaign to preserve marriage in America by denying it to other people!
(EDIT: Find something here interesting, amusing, or at least offensive in a a novel way? Toss a buck in the tip jar for the the victims of the Kasmir Earthquake -- Kung Fu Monkey will match every donation! Also, an index of previous articles here.)
This sociological approach is the only remotely viable (and yet still fatally weak) argument against gay marriage -- it cannot be opposed on any reasonable grounds in a civil rights sense. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, gay marriage neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Two gay people getting married in my general vicinity do not change my legal rights. They do not affect my earning potential, they do not raise my taxes, they do not infringe on either my rights to certain freedoms or opportunities to practice such freedoms. They do not, in a negative way, affect the legal status of other marriages. Divorce case law and evolving property law defines my legal relationship with my wife far more than any other factor. The "slippery slope" argument will always be there, but again -- case law, people. Legal Armageddon has been predicted from pretty much every sociological and technical advance in the last two centuries. We've limped along. If you can skate past the idea that it's legal in Georgia for a 60 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl but not cool for two 30 year old men to share a life insurance policy -- good for you.
One may oppose gay marriage from a religious standpoint, but one's religious rights are not abridged. If one belongs to a religion which opposes gay marriage, then odds are there will not be any gay marriage in your church. Gay people will not paratroop in and occupy your vestry. You will not have to worship with them, change the personal nature of your relationship to God, or even like them.
Kiernan at Crooked Timber tackles a well-known opponent of gay marriage. This Maggie Gallagher is taking the "marriage is an institution necessary for the functioning of society" road, with the tour bus painted a lovely shade of "and by marriage I'm going to use what marriage has meant legally for the last hundred years or so and blithely pretend that's the tradition stretching back to the dawn of Western Civilization" primer. The engine for this bus will be the ever popular "societies make babies and the best way for society to raise babies is through marriage as it's traditionally defined" -- again, the "tradition" being whatever version of marriage in the history western civilization best fits the argument in each specific paragraph of her essay.
By the way, I have no problem with arguing that children are better off with one parent than two -- although I am reminded of my friend Jeff Rothpan's joke: "My parents stayed together for the sake of the children. Thank God, because there's nothing better for children than fifteen years of screaming, spite and death threats." No, to take a detour for a moment, my bone to pick with the above concept is that as a married couple with no children, my wife and I are are in this argument's throes a de facto gay couple. Indeed, by that logic there's no real reason for us to be married at all -- and if your argument is meant to encourage marriage, you've rather shot yourself in the foot, eh? I will, however, accept my role as some sort of cultural fringe benefit in the main battle of breeding, and try not to unravel society too much as I dump enormous amounts of tax money into a system for other peoples' children's benefits, and take no parallel benefits of my own. Oh, and by the way, you're goddam welcome.
But accepting the basis of her argument before Ms. Gallagher mangles it in the sales job, let's say I spot her: marriage is a Very Important Institution, and we'll even spot her the why based on whatever shambling argument she constructs. But if one's argument is that Marriage is "under attack", then I would argue --as Kiernan does -- that no-fault divorce and the cultural acceptance of divorce is a far more devastating "attack" on marriage.
If we want marriage to continue as a viable societal tradition, then we have to teach our young 'uns that marriage has value -- but how are we to do this when their role models treat marriage so shabbily? Move past the prevalence of divorce in modern society and look at the glamorization of it by those most craven of cultural beasts -- celebrities. Many very smart people have argued about the nature of "celebrity", but I think we can all agree, part of the nature of fascination with celebrities is that they are rich, they are good-looking, they are famous, they are desired ... as are their lifestyles. And what do their lifestyles say? Divorce is okay. Divorce is nothing more than tabloid fodder as you move onto the next glamorous sex object.
To wit, what makes a stronger impact on the perceived value of marriage as an institution: skads of people lining up desperate to join in it despite great opposition; or people not only discarding their marriages, but discarding multiple marriages as if they were Dunkin' Donut cups? What "attacks" marriage more than people actually dissolving their marriages, often within mere days of entering into that holiest of sacraments?
Look, people, never mind the celebrity divorce boom of the 60's. Kenny Chesney and Renee Zellweger bailing within months, Britney Spears and J-Lo's infamous micro-marriages, The whole Jen/Brad/Angelina affair has risen to mythological proportions ... and now Nick and Jessica's are-they-or-aren't-they ... folks, find me some celebrities who aren't on at least their second marriage.
Logic, that cruelest of mistresses with the pointiest of spanking paddles, has brought us to this point, my friends. When prioritizing our threats against marriage, widespread rejection of the sanctity of marriage by our cultural icons propogated relentlessly through 24/7 media saturation is unarguably a greater threat against marriage's status as a societal value than the efforts of a few thousand malcontent high-school drama teachers standing in lines outside City Hall in two states of the Union.
So how do we stop this cultural plague? Well, we'll never win the fight to just out-and-out outlaw divorce: far too many powerful politicians and pundits depend on it as a way to mark their rise in power and income through progressive wife trade-ins. No, the roundabout solution here is to ban the marriage of celebrities in the first place, to keep them from spreading their disgusting guerilla free-love meme when they eventually, inevitably dissolve these shams perpetrated in the Kabbalah ceremony of their choice. We at Kung Fu Monkey are proud to make the Defense Against Celebrity Marriage Amendment our first political cause.
There is hard work to be done in the planning and implementation of such a Constitutional Amendment, not the least of which being the definition of "celebrity". Countless court challenges, I'm sure, will occur around the fine line between "public figure" and "celebrity". I am suggesting that we trust the private sector to do the work here, as opposed to creating yet another burdensome government department. A simple computer algorithm based around mentions in Us Magazine, People Magazine, Entertainment Tonight, what will eventually be dubbed the "E! Saturation Index", and the ever useful Defamer will move individuals on and off the Non-Celebrity Marriage Eligibility List.
The great thing here is that there's no way the average American will find his rights abridged by this Amendment ... because by definition, a celebrity is not average!
We will begin fund-raising mail-outs soon, followed by focus groups and position polling among the 2006 and 2008 candidates. We look forward to you joining us in our campaign to preserve marriage in America by denying it to other people!
(EDIT: Find something here interesting, amusing, or at least offensive in a a novel way? Toss a buck in the tip jar for the the victims of the Kasmir Earthquake -- Kung Fu Monkey will match every donation! Also, an index of previous articles here.)
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Machinima Festival
Watch other people tell their stories with videogame engines and rail at the walls of our filthy Hollywood seige palisades. Thanks to the heads-up from Alice.
More Spec Monkeys
Listed here until I have time to change the sidebar.
The very amusing Things They Won't Tell You in Film School
A view from Down Under at Chained to the Keyboard
Currently a script reader, Fun Joel
The very amusing Things They Won't Tell You in Film School
A view from Down Under at Chained to the Keyboard
Currently a script reader, Fun Joel
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Book Review: Screenwriting The Sequence Approach
Unlike some working guys, I have a fondness for screenwriting books. I didn’t go to film school -- what passes for my writing toolbox right now is a motley collection of techniques picked up from such books; whatever the hell I gleaned in the trenches of 100-pages-in-three-days rewrites in television; and several thousand pages of honing my liar’s craft while somehow conning people into paying me while I learned the trade. Hell, all that even goes by the wayside sometimes, leaving me standing in front of the mirror in my garage, letting my fevered little imagination run dialogue until it just … hits.
I hop genres fairly regularly, so each script grinds along in a different way. I know writers, excellent writers, who have mastered their approaches, like surgeons who can calmly tackle whatever lands etherized upon their table. My scripts are strapped onto a bloody board, screaming into a leather gag while I rummage around in their guts, blood up to my elbows until finally: “I say, Hadley, this saw-toothed thingy is rather good at getting at the damnable French lead behind the rib cage. Must remember to use it on the next poor bugger.”
Just this weekend, at a meeting with Akiva Goldsman, he told me to solve a plotting problem, “the same way you did it in Killing Floor.”
“Ah. Yeah.”
“Same technique will work.”
“Mmmm.”
“… you have --“
“-- no idea what you’re talking about, no.”
On the other hand, the only explanation I have for my career is that I never really learned how not to write a script. This created some very atypical bits of prose and problem-solving, which apparently made the reads enough fun to keep bringing me back for more. If ever there was proof of “Your ‘style’ is just a collection of your mistakes” ... I’m fairly sure my mistakes paid for my house.
All this to say I think it’s worthwhile to start formally tossing you some recommendations for your tutelage, Spec Monkeys. Seeing as we’ve entertained the “sequence” vs. “three act” debate here a few times, I thought I’d take a look at the keystone book for the Sequence approach.
For those of you in Idaho: for years, the Bible of screenwriting was Syd Field’s Screenplay. In it, he laid out how the traditional dramatic three-act structure applied to a roughly 120 page screenplay. There are historical issues here, about this being a very mixed blessing, but seeing as we’re talking about extending a 2000 year old theory of dramatic development onto our new medium, it seemed to make sense. The majority of screenwriting books, although adding their own little gildings of the matzah, stayed in that structural paradigm.
The Sequence approach basically posits that the best way to attack plotting a movie is through subdividing it into eight or so mini-movies, each with its own information, complication, and partial resolution, building a momentum which leads you to the next sequence.
Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach by Paul Joseph Gulino immediately clarified a lot of my questions about the approach. The book itself is twelve chapters: one chapter on the history of film-making, geared towards both revealing the “hidden” history of Sequence structure in film and explaining how it can be practically applied during the plotting of your script: then eleven example films which are torqued apart to show how the Sequence approach drives them: from Toy Story to The Shop Around the Corner to Being John Malkovich to an odd little chapter on The Fellowship of the Ring.
The first chapter’s history lesson, on how we wound up with the screenwriting structure traditions we have, is a great read. There’s a bit of the apostate’s trick, in that the method the book is pitching is revealed to have been the original One True Method of structuring visual story-telling, lost like a Dead Sea Scroll. The explanation of how the Sequence approach actually works, however, is so clean, you have to let the sales job slide. The “theory” is dealt with in 15 precise pages, letting the analyses of the screenplays that follow do the real work of breaking down the application.
It is interesting that several times during the book, Gulino makes a point of explaining how the Sequence approach actually blends with the traditional dramatic three-act structure. The Sequences are often described as “acts” by some writers, which always threw me. The Sequences, although fractally complete, work to advance the rising tension of the movie’s overall structure even as they resolve their own mini-structures. When you actually crack open Syd Field’s text, now considered a bit hoary, you see he’s dropped what he calls “plot pinches” in similar spots to the Sequence breaks. The Sequence approach isn’t all that radical, really, from what’s considered traditional plotting. It even lays a series of first act-out/midpoint/second-act-out ideas over the Sequences. However, I will say that the internal structure of these mini-movies changes the overall momentum of your movie.
The analyses of the eleven movies are well done. Each movie is parsed in simple language, each film is chosen to showcase how the Sequence approach can be applied to a wide range of tones and genres. There are a few times where you can see the seams, a bit of the “No, these pants fit fine when I hold my breath!” But generally, illuminating. As I mentioned before, the single misfire is an odd last chapter in which Gulino shows how The Fellowship of the Ring could have been a much better movie if it had followed the Sequence approach more closely. I think this reveals Gulino doesn’t work in fantasy or science fiction particularly often -- heavy genre films that require you to immerse an audience in another world require some very specific combos of director/writer tools. I’m the last to say that particular film is beyond criticism, and several of his points are valid -- but having wrestled a bunch of these things to the ground successfully, I can see where he’s still hewing to writing choices which are always the first scenes cut in either the edit or after audience testing. Also, as soon as you argue cutting Tom Bombadil was a mistake, with all due respect you forfeit the right to any further conversation about the adaptation. Just saying.
It’s worth mentioning that once I’d read the book, I looked at a rewrite I was mired in. I realized that although I knew where I wanted to wind up at one point in the movie, the reason I kept stalling was that the previous section lacked a drive. It had conflict, but not a unified conflict. Gulino’s book helped me resolve a wee blind spot first day out. Hey, anything you can reach for when you’re stuck in the long dark soul of the second act is a plus. *
No book is ever going to be able to teach you how to write. Period. But Gulino offers a very useful tool for use while you’re plotting your film. Of course, you need to tell your story your way. Doing that, you’ll wrestle with the constraints of the script format, pacing, a helluva lot of things beyond characterization, dialogue and your emotional beats. I don’t ever want to reduce writing a film to the level of building furniture, but I have read those movie scripts that are pure, unadulterated projections of the writer’s inner narratives and visuals. They suck. They suck hard.
I would say that as long as you treat this Sequence approach as a resource rather than a formula, it’s a damn fine analytical tool to have in the back of your head. It probably shouldn’t be your virgin foray into screenwriting texts. But this goes up as a big RECOMMEND from the Kung Fu Monkey Screenwriting Library.
*(if you haven’t had a gun in your mouth at page 70 at some point, you’re not a real screenwriter)
I hop genres fairly regularly, so each script grinds along in a different way. I know writers, excellent writers, who have mastered their approaches, like surgeons who can calmly tackle whatever lands etherized upon their table. My scripts are strapped onto a bloody board, screaming into a leather gag while I rummage around in their guts, blood up to my elbows until finally: “I say, Hadley, this saw-toothed thingy is rather good at getting at the damnable French lead behind the rib cage. Must remember to use it on the next poor bugger.”
Just this weekend, at a meeting with Akiva Goldsman, he told me to solve a plotting problem, “the same way you did it in Killing Floor.”
“Ah. Yeah.”
“Same technique will work.”
“Mmmm.”
“… you have --“
“-- no idea what you’re talking about, no.”
On the other hand, the only explanation I have for my career is that I never really learned how not to write a script. This created some very atypical bits of prose and problem-solving, which apparently made the reads enough fun to keep bringing me back for more. If ever there was proof of “Your ‘style’ is just a collection of your mistakes” ... I’m fairly sure my mistakes paid for my house.
All this to say I think it’s worthwhile to start formally tossing you some recommendations for your tutelage, Spec Monkeys. Seeing as we’ve entertained the “sequence” vs. “three act” debate here a few times, I thought I’d take a look at the keystone book for the Sequence approach.
For those of you in Idaho: for years, the Bible of screenwriting was Syd Field’s Screenplay. In it, he laid out how the traditional dramatic three-act structure applied to a roughly 120 page screenplay. There are historical issues here, about this being a very mixed blessing, but seeing as we’re talking about extending a 2000 year old theory of dramatic development onto our new medium, it seemed to make sense. The majority of screenwriting books, although adding their own little gildings of the matzah, stayed in that structural paradigm.
The Sequence approach basically posits that the best way to attack plotting a movie is through subdividing it into eight or so mini-movies, each with its own information, complication, and partial resolution, building a momentum which leads you to the next sequence.
Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach by Paul Joseph Gulino immediately clarified a lot of my questions about the approach. The book itself is twelve chapters: one chapter on the history of film-making, geared towards both revealing the “hidden” history of Sequence structure in film and explaining how it can be practically applied during the plotting of your script: then eleven example films which are torqued apart to show how the Sequence approach drives them: from Toy Story to The Shop Around the Corner to Being John Malkovich to an odd little chapter on The Fellowship of the Ring.
The first chapter’s history lesson, on how we wound up with the screenwriting structure traditions we have, is a great read. There’s a bit of the apostate’s trick, in that the method the book is pitching is revealed to have been the original One True Method of structuring visual story-telling, lost like a Dead Sea Scroll. The explanation of how the Sequence approach actually works, however, is so clean, you have to let the sales job slide. The “theory” is dealt with in 15 precise pages, letting the analyses of the screenplays that follow do the real work of breaking down the application.
It is interesting that several times during the book, Gulino makes a point of explaining how the Sequence approach actually blends with the traditional dramatic three-act structure. The Sequences are often described as “acts” by some writers, which always threw me. The Sequences, although fractally complete, work to advance the rising tension of the movie’s overall structure even as they resolve their own mini-structures. When you actually crack open Syd Field’s text, now considered a bit hoary, you see he’s dropped what he calls “plot pinches” in similar spots to the Sequence breaks. The Sequence approach isn’t all that radical, really, from what’s considered traditional plotting. It even lays a series of first act-out/midpoint/second-act-out ideas over the Sequences. However, I will say that the internal structure of these mini-movies changes the overall momentum of your movie.
The analyses of the eleven movies are well done. Each movie is parsed in simple language, each film is chosen to showcase how the Sequence approach can be applied to a wide range of tones and genres. There are a few times where you can see the seams, a bit of the “No, these pants fit fine when I hold my breath!” But generally, illuminating. As I mentioned before, the single misfire is an odd last chapter in which Gulino shows how The Fellowship of the Ring could have been a much better movie if it had followed the Sequence approach more closely. I think this reveals Gulino doesn’t work in fantasy or science fiction particularly often -- heavy genre films that require you to immerse an audience in another world require some very specific combos of director/writer tools. I’m the last to say that particular film is beyond criticism, and several of his points are valid -- but having wrestled a bunch of these things to the ground successfully, I can see where he’s still hewing to writing choices which are always the first scenes cut in either the edit or after audience testing. Also, as soon as you argue cutting Tom Bombadil was a mistake, with all due respect you forfeit the right to any further conversation about the adaptation. Just saying.
It’s worth mentioning that once I’d read the book, I looked at a rewrite I was mired in. I realized that although I knew where I wanted to wind up at one point in the movie, the reason I kept stalling was that the previous section lacked a drive. It had conflict, but not a unified conflict. Gulino’s book helped me resolve a wee blind spot first day out. Hey, anything you can reach for when you’re stuck in the long dark soul of the second act is a plus. *
No book is ever going to be able to teach you how to write. Period. But Gulino offers a very useful tool for use while you’re plotting your film. Of course, you need to tell your story your way. Doing that, you’ll wrestle with the constraints of the script format, pacing, a helluva lot of things beyond characterization, dialogue and your emotional beats. I don’t ever want to reduce writing a film to the level of building furniture, but I have read those movie scripts that are pure, unadulterated projections of the writer’s inner narratives and visuals. They suck. They suck hard.
I would say that as long as you treat this Sequence approach as a resource rather than a formula, it’s a damn fine analytical tool to have in the back of your head. It probably shouldn’t be your virgin foray into screenwriting texts. But this goes up as a big RECOMMEND from the Kung Fu Monkey Screenwriting Library.
*(if you haven’t had a gun in your mouth at page 70 at some point, you’re not a real screenwriter)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)