Long winded Vollman trashes author in book review!
by Sand Storm on January 14, 2007
This is nice when an internationally acclaimed and an award winning author, decides to take it upon himself to thoroughly trash a fellow writers work. Vollman (who always seems to me to be to more impressed with his own writing than anyone else is), now tears apart the second book from the author of Jarhead. While Anthony Swofford’s second attempt might leave something to be desired why would a talented author albeit not everyone’s cup o’ tea (me especially) take this on and write about it with the petty vindictiveness of a school yard bully? Did the PR blurb about “Swofford and the line “confirmation of Swofford as a major literary talent.” really upset Vollman so much as a threat to his self professed kingdom that he had to write this insipid nonsense. Maybe the NYT needs to address the criteria they have for picking authors to write book reviews. This is a disgrace for the paper and should have been above Vollman, however, now he has expressed part of his true character! What an asshole!
Steve Clackson
NY Times
This post has been viewed (on this page) 819 times .
PEN World Voices Festival at MetaxuCafé
Related Discussions
Comments
Ack! “The source of your ire at the bad review *is*”. I’m going to bed before I find any more embarrassing errors.
– Imani (01/14 at 14-Jan 22:57 -05:00)
Instead of taking on a new author and publicly trashing him maybe Vollman should take on Mailer, Amis or Pynchon. To me it would be like having Clint Eastwood publicly ridiculing a new actor in his second role. Hardly becoming and I would imply that he would be seen as an asshole as I view Vollman in this regard.
– Sand Storm (01/15 at 15-Jan 00:55 -05:00)
I don’t agree, Steve. I don’t think it matters who wrote the review, particularly since I wouldn’t expect the Times to assign the review to a novice just because the book was written by a (relative) novice.
Plus, I imagine Swofford is getting paid pretty decently (wasn’t Jarhead made into a film) and this is his second book, so besides the fact that the Times owes it to all of us not to treat any book tenderly, Swofford is a big boy and despite the negative review should count himself pretty damn lucky to be one of the few people in the world who get reviewed in the nation’s most prominent newspaper. The book has enough significance for the Times to review it and it turns out to be fairly bad. I thought Vollman seemed practically apoplogetic and well wishing and had good things to say about Swofford’s first book - I somehow think that if the first book weren’t good enought he would not have even bothered to write the review.
– Bud Parr (01/15 at 15-Jan 09:45 -05:00)
a) Sandstorm: nice to see you back--didn’t you say ‘bye at the end of 2006?
b) I checked out the Vollman review after reading your post. I have mixed feelings, typical for me when I read a very negative review.
On the one hand, Vollman goes out of his way to express admiration for Swofford’s “Jarhead”. On the other hand, he goes overboard on the flip side with his disappointment in Swofford’s novel, “Exit A”, to the point of (almost) vindictiveness. It’s “almost” because he does celebrate the first book as an explanation for his trashing the second.
Vollmann actually read “Jarhead”, if I understand the review, after reading “Exit A”. That seemed unusually nice, cutting the reviewee some slack.
However, it did not make up for how Vollman reviewed the novel, showing apparent spite and nastiness. It raises the question of what is fair and reasonable in a review. For me, Vollman’s lifting out of individual sentences is almost on a kindergarten playground level of criticism, verging on the petty. You can lift lousy sentences out of any novel. It felt mean. You can say you don’t like the writing, but do you have to pad out the review by lifting sentences out you don’t like multiple times?
As Vollman wrote, he was being ‘blunt’. He acknowledges being “tough”, as he would probably describe his style here. For me, it was “brutal”. No review has to be brutal.
I run a relatively new book review site, and have myself written a few reviews. I avoided writing reviews for many years. My concern was I would end up doing a “Vollman”. Some critics make a name for themselves by being nasty, to entertain.
What Vollman got into, in his critique, was exactly what I want to avoid personally and on my site--to review so negatively as to cause pain.
Even a negative review can be “kind”. You don’t have to pistol whip the author with your criticism.
– Victor Schwartzman (01/15 at 15-Jan 10:20 -05:00)
Steve, did you and I read the same review? I don’t see anything vindictive about it. I certainly don’t think Vollman is an asshole for writing that review. I thought the review was boring and, under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t have bothered to read the second page. Maybe you and I have different definitions of what constitutes vindictiveness and “assholery,” to use Imani’s word, but I thought the review was pretty tame. You and Victor make it sound meaner than it really is.
– Brandon (01/15 at 15-Jan 10:54 -05:00)
Hey Brandon. Fair questions, here are some answers.
I don’t think Vollman is an asshole (although I am sure that, like the rest of us, he has one). I did note in my first comment that he bent over backwards to cut the author some slack. That was nice of him. His concern was that the earlier, non-fiction book, was far superior to the novel--yes? And then he continually compared the two, which I’m not quite sure is fair (fiction and non-fiction are different fish, yes?)
That said, here are some examples from his review that, uh, perturbed me:
Vollman starts by quoting a publicist’s super positive remarks, then states the book does not live up to the hype. How is this fair? Did Swofford write the hype himself?
His remark comparing it to a Harlequin bothers me because it reeks of literary snobbery. Good writing is where you find it, in any genre. Has Vollman ever read a Harlequin?
Lifting out one or two sentences you don’t like is fair. Sure, show us examples. But lifting out as many as Vollman did is hitting the author over the head with a hammer. It felt like he was padding out the review rather than coming up with something different to write.
A quote: “He frequently commits the error of trying to amuse us with grotesquerie while simultaneously expecting to engage our empathy. For instance: “General Kindwall sat in his office, constipated and paranoid.”” No offense, that does not make sense to me, nor did what Vollman continued to write to conclude that paragraph. Vollman could have explained why Kindwall did become sympathetic, in his opinion, but instead just crapped on the author. Vollman is certainly entitled to his opinion, but does he not have to back it up?
Quote: ““Exit A,” already crippled by this temporary union between dislikable Virginia and uninteresting Severin, now commits hari-kari by foisting on us a mind-bogglingly implausible stretch of thrillerdom: Virginia becomes part of a North Korean kidnapping ring! Severin has already bowed out. Virginia gets caught and goes to jail. Years go by. Here’s what happens when they meet again: “He removed her shirt. No bra underneath. ‘Small,’ she said, referring to her breasts.”” Maybe it is just me, but this is mean criticism. The reviewer appears to be showing off, at the expense of the reviewee. But maybe I’m too sensitive, on behalf of a writer I’ve never actually read.
Here is more showing off by Vollman: “Interesting sentences can in fact be found in “Exit A,” but they are as rare as four-leaf clovers in a field of Astroturf.” How clever.
Asshole? No. Nasty & show-offy? In my opinion, at times. A review can be honest but still be constructive.
I once wrote a satire of a newspaper critic who was clear that she felt, to be widely read, she had to savage her review subjects. Readers, she noted, want to be entertained, including in reviews. The more “clever” and “nasty” the reviewer is, the more entertaining the review--at the expense of the reviewee. This is how critics build careers. I’m not saying Vollman is trying to build a career as a critic, but his whole approach in this one review reminded me of that satire.
Maybe this is waltzing around the real issue.
The real issue? At times it seems to me that all sorts of dialogue--whether literary, political, etc.--in the US is so often nasty. You can be honest without using a meat cleaver. I don’t know whether or not I’d ever agree with Ann Coulter (probably not), because her writing style is so unbelievably nasty that I have never finished one of her columns. Half way through, I start feeling dirty. Is this the type of dialogue we want? Whatever happened to a baseline level of respect?
Vollman’s review could have been worse, far worse...but I am glad that Sandstorm made his comments and this discussion has been initiated.
– Victor Schwartzman (01/15 at 15-Jan 11:45 -05:00)
The review seemed to go out of its way to be kind to the author. As Bud said, Swofford is a big boy who has made a good deal of money from his writing. I think Vollman was expressing his sorrow upon reading the new book that the author did not live up to the high quality of his first book. I am not a big Vollman fan, but the review made me respect him a lot.
The alternative would have been not to print the review—which probably would have been a lot worse for Swofford. Because of the review—just look at this thread and other blog posts—he’ll probably garner more sales than he otherwise would have. People will read the book for themselves to find out if the prose is as cliched as the review made it sound.
As an author who has been “trashed” in more than a couple of reviews, I’d just say that sometimes authors deserve and even need being “trashed.” To me, this was not a “trashing.”
– Richard (01/15 at 15-Jan 13:22 -05:00)
Hey, Victor.
Those are all very good points. I agree that fiction and nonfiction are entirely different monsters. However, I think Vollman’s point in comparing the two books is to highlight that while Swofford’s style might have worked in “Jarhead,” it doesn’t work in the new book.
Sure, Swofford can’t be held accountable for PR blurbs, but I think Vollman used that as a way of pointing out how underwhelming he thinks the book is. Yes, it was a cheap shot, and Vollman probably could’ve found a better way of expressing his disappointment, but I think it also served a purpose. Based on the tone of the review, I think Vollman was saying, “Come on, Swofford. You wrote ‘Jarhead,’ a great book. I know you can do better than this.” Who knows? Maybe pointing out the book’s faults will spur Swofford to hold on to his next book a bit longer and work out the kinks.
I agree that most dialogue in the U.S. is nasty and Jerry Springer-ish. People love conflict. Especially in America, we like people who are opinionated. People like Ann Coulter* get attention not because they’re right or wrong, but because they voice their opinions in vitriolic terms. It’s unfortunate, yes, but in our culture, we don’t want to see people getting along; we want to see Coulter and Al Franken fight to the death, so to speak. You could even take this thread as an example. Steve calling Vollman long-winded and an asshole got our attention, didn’t it?
*For the record, I can’t stand Coulter.
– Brandon (01/15 at 15-Jan 16:03 -05:00)
Sand Storm,I don’t see anything wrong in assigning established authors to new ones. Bud Parr effectively explained my opinion on that.
Victor you said
Vollman starts by quoting a publicist’s super positive remarks, then states the book does not live up to the hype. How is this fair? Did Swofford write the hype himself?
It’s probably similar to the hype that will be blurbed all over the book when it’s released, so it’s certainly fair to the *consumer* to see whether the book does indeed live up to the hype.
I agree with the weakness of quoting a line or two from a book as insufficent evidence, but it’s far from being “nasty” I feel, or petty. Basically, most of your points point to it being a lame review--I certainly wouldn’t have finished even the first page if it hadn’t been highlighted here--but it doesn’t live up to the hype of petty or bullyish.
– Imani (01/15 at 15-Jan 16:27 -05:00)
My main issue with this is:
This is Swofford’s first novel and while we know his nonfiction book Jarhead was a success he is still a novice.
This novice gets a review in the nations number one book review paper.
His review is by a famous award winning writer.
So either Vollman approached Tanenhaus or vice versa.
Why?
Why hit Swofford so hard in public?
Who is the story about Swofford or Vollman?
Why would Vollman care?
If Joe Blow writes his first novel you don’t see Stephen King writing this type of review.
Can you see Frederick Forsyth or Cormac McCarthy
writing this as a review on a first novel?
Come on. Vollman was pissed that Swofford got the reviews and blurbs he was getting and like the true gentleman he is he responded to it where it would serve his purpose the best. This wasn’t to help Swofford write a better book next time, this was all about Vollman!
– Sand Storm (01/15 at 15-Jan 16:30 -05:00)
No doubt the author was not entirely displeased with all of Sunday’s reviews of his book. See The San Francisco Chronicle and The Los Angeles Times.
– Richard (01/15 at 15-Jan 17:33 -05:00)
Steve, I read William Vollman’s review of Swofford’s novel before I read your take. My first thought was what an odd couple these two guys make, my second thought was what’s okay in memoir doesn’t make the grade in fiction. Vollman seems respectful of Swofford while dissecting the novel’s flaws in regretful terms. His chief complaint seems to be the author’s failure to create any emotional sparks between his characters which seems like fair comment to me.
Good to see you back by the way.
– David Thayer (01/15 at 15-Jan 18:05 -05:00)
Lots to think about. Especially when it is around -35 Celsius outside. Don’t want to think about that! And, I have the flu.
That may appear to be besides the point, even beyond the point--but it is my point: why do people, even critics, write what they write, right? And what does this situation illustrate about the whole reviewing system?
I don’t know Vollman so I can not attribute any nefarious motives to him in writing the review. I can not say he was out to “get” anyone. In fact, as I wrote earlier, he could have been a lot nastier.
My comments were intended to stimulate a discussion about reviewing, more than the review itself. What happens when a reviewer must write a review of a book the reviewer does not like? What motives do some reviewers bring to writing a review (which at times are identical to the motives of any writer, including the one they are reviewing: to win over an audience, to build a career, get attention, to get paid, etc.).
In thinking it all over, especially after a nap (woefully abrievated when my daughter came home, woke me up to tell me she was going out, and then she left), lemme sum up:
I can not say that Vollman asked to review the book or wrote his review with revenge in mind. To my knowledge, reviews are assigned. He was probably asked to review the book, and accepted the assignment, and pay cheque, in good faith. The Times did the same.
Reading the review carefully, Vollman read the novel, was very disappointed, probably wondered waht the fuss was about this author, then read the author’s first book, “Jarhead”. He was very impressed, and then wondered why the guy who wrote the first great book wrote a lousy second book.
As I wrote earlier, it says something nice about Vollman that he went back and read Jarhead, cutting Swofford some slack. He DID find something nice to write about Swofford, and noted at the end of his review that he expected better from Swofford the next time around.
That said, Vollman then wrote a poor review. It WAS a cheap shot to quote the publicist. The review was padded out by adding multiple line quotes, when one or two made the point. And I stand by my concern of literary snobbism, a side issue, with Vollman comparing it to a Harlequin. Vollman could have just as easily, probably, compared it to a Western, a Mystery, a Science Fiction piece--stereotyping by genre ain’t my bag.
Vollman also padded out his review with quotes and comparisons from/with not only the novel being reviewed, but from “Jarhead”. Given he was comparing the two, that was legitimate, but, again, one or two “Jarhead” references would have been sufficient.
Here is the real problem, returning to my first paragraph and the following sentence. I’ll wait while you go back and read them.
Back? Ok.
My impression is that Vollman accepted the review assignment, and then had to write a review of a book he hated. When he read it, he could not believe how ‘crappy’ he thought it was, so he went back and read the first book, which confirmed that Swofford could write--and that therefore made the new book even more crappy!
Yet Vollman had to write the review, and probably had a minimum copy length to meet. He was being paid, he had to produce. The Times wanted to run a review of the book. So he reluctantly produced a negative review, and it shows: padded, snippy, etc.--but he did NOT call Swofford names. As I wrote earlier, it could have been worse.
This illustrates two problems. One is the publisher contracting with the writer of a very good non-fiction book to write a fiction one. And then publishing a resulting lousy book because an investment had been made. But this post is already too long to get into that.
Why should the review have been written and printed to begin with?
Would it not have been better if Vollman and the Times had, instead, agreed that the book was NOT worth reviewing, and instead devoted the line space to a chapbook?
Perhaps the real problem is the need to review a book just because someone famous wrote it, or because a big house paid a big advance for it, or because there is an expectation about it. Clearly the reason for writing the review and publishing it was NOT to direct readers towards a great book. In the end, nor was it to warn readers about a fiction book by a well established novelist where an unsuspecting reader needed to be warned--Swofford had no fiction track record.
My preference always is to have reviews that guide people towards great books, rather than warn them away from lousy ones. Is not, perhaps, the real question why The Times devoted space to warning people about the book? Are there not a lot of “unknown” writers who could have used the column inches to get the audience they deserve?
– Victor Schwartzman (01/15 at 15-Jan 18:08 -05:00)
Some comments over at the Literary Saloon on the review:
NYTBR notes
– Bud Parr (01/15 at 15-Jan 19:00 -05:00)
Thanks to all for expressing your views!
Until I kick the rock off and climb out again Adios.
– Sand Storm (01/15 at 15-Jan 19:03 -05:00)
My quick two cents: First off, this was not a Dale Peck-style hit piece laden with generalizations. Vollmann was forthright about his stance and any perceived nastiness had more to do with Vollmann’s love of literature rather than an effort to construct a hit piece. The review was constructive, citing both positive and negative examples. And I thought that Vollmann’s forthrightness here ("I don’t like writing these reviews") was a refreshing earnestness that you don’t often see from Tanenhaus’s pages. I don’t entirely agree with the idea of defending one’s viewpoints ("I don’t like writing these reviews"). An author should simply let loose or not review the book at all. In my opinion, diffidence has no place in any book review section’s pages. But I don’t get how this review was hubristic and I think you folks are overreacting.
– ed (01/16 at 16-Jan 06:01 -05:00)
Well maybe there was some over reaction--Vollman, did note that he did not like writing such a review.
But what about the comment that he shouldn’t have had to? That, rather than publish a warning review on a first novel, the Times could have devoted the space to a chapbook or less mainstream book that deserved a wider audience?
While all reviews must be honest, should not the overall purpose of reviews be to “promote” (in the best sense of the word) good writing rather than trash bad writing? In the best of all possible worlds, yes, both should be possible. But this is not the best of all possible worlds. Online, space is not an issue, but in a newspaper there is a limited number of column inches.
Or does the argument that readers would be curious about a first novel from the author of “Jarhead” trump everything? How far should a newspaper go to meet the desires of readers (newspapers are commercial enterprises, after all) as opposed to “leading” by ignoring some of those desires? Do readers benefit more by the type of review Vollman felt compelled to write, or by a positive review of a book the readers had never heard of?
Do books get reviewed only because there is a big house & a big name behind them? Am I naive? Well, ok--yes I am naive, in this world where column inches also get devoted to whether Britney Spears wears panties, but there is no room to write about the homeless.
Not homeless panties, that is.
– Victor Schwartzman (01/16 at 16-Jan 07:30 -05:00)
You can all go ahead & be amused by the following , coming at the end of all these posts. Laugh at me if you will, laughter these days can be hard to come by:
Before Sandstorm wrote his post about William Vollman’s review of Swofford’s first novel, I had never heard of Vollman.
I’m 61. I read extensively until I was about thirty, and then I started watching movies instead. Over the past 31 years, I have read a lot of non fiction, but not much fiction. I start every day, while home on medical leave for Hypertension, reading online for about an hour--reading seven or eight different newspapers, etc.
I’m not sure why I stopped reading fiction. I enjoyed science fiction, and became disenchanted when it moved into fantasy worlds about royalty, yes. And, also, I had children.
There always seemed to be two hours available to watch a movie, but there was not the ten hours to commit to a novel. That excuse does not cut it for short stories, or course. Much less poems. Although almost all mainstream poetry is about the poet’s naval, which makes me seasick.
However, if asked, I could give you extensive information about Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, or the Hammer film series on vampires, (including The Seven Golden Vampires, a mixture of martial arts and vampires which wrecked the studio), but zippo about William Vollman.
But after writing the last post, and having shot my mouth off about Vollman and Swofford (I’ve never read “Jarhead” either, nor have I seen the film, despite Jake Glylenhall’s limpid eyes, and yes, I can neither spell nor pronounce his last name), I decided to look up Vollman, to see who Vollman was, and why he did not like writing negative reviews.
At this point, I felt I kinda owed the poor schmuck something.
Wikipedia had an interesting article, which led me to Ed Champion’s blog about the Vollman club, which led me to “Steve’s” suggestions about where to start with this author who had written something like sixty books. These days I can not even pick up sixty books without getting a hernia, much less write that much.
So I just now went to Amazon and purchased his first nonfiction book on Afghanistan, and “The Royal Family”.
Ironically, I still have no interest in reading Swofford.
I hope the books take a while to reach me, frankly. I won’t have the time to read any fiction (and there are several other books waiting on the shelf) until I finish editing the second draft of a mystery novel. It was written by a writer in Nigeria, for whom English is not a first language. I met him via email after I wrote an online piece about scam literary agents, but that’s a whole other story, and I am rambling rather than starting to work on the edit again.
– Victor Schwartzman (01/16 at 16-Jan 08:04 -05:00)
Victor: You raise some fair points about the larger question of a book review section covering less mainstream titles, of which I have taken Sam Tanenhaus repeatedly to task for. However, the onus on this point falls not on Vollmann, who was assigned the book to review, but on Sam Tanenhaus.
But I must wholeheartedly disagree with you with the idea that reviewing is a form of promotion—at least from the critic’s perspective. Promotion implies that the critic herself becomes a marketing tool. And this is not the job of the critic. The publicist might take an excerpt from a review to sell the merchandise, but it’s not her responsibility to praise the work as if offering some shady testimonial.
Reviewing, which to me involves looking at a book or a film with a critical eye, involves processing the work and using examples from that processing to then synthesize this into a review. Vollmann, to my mind, did this, citing specific examples, remaining constructive, and offering personal explanations for why he didn’t care for the book. I’m a bit stunned that so many people were offended by this. Perhaps it’s because I also don’t understand why authors react extraordinarily to something they can easily ignore. An author and her work are two entirely separate things. And an informed attack on a piece of work doesn’t mean that the author in question is under attack.
And no worries on rambling about Vollmann. He’s one of those authors who writes so copiously that inevitably a discussion of his works becomes just as protracted as the volumes in question. 
– ed (01/16 at 16-Jan 18:21 -05:00)
Ed, fair enough. By the way, thanks for your site’s excellent help in me learning about Vollman.
Yes, reviewing should Not be a form of promotion--on the one hand. But on the other hand, is not every reviewer really always looking for that “great book” which he or she can tell the world about? I suggest most reviewers undertake to do reviews, at least initially, what that thought in mind. They do not start out reviewing thinking they will let the world know about stinkers.
That is what I meant, and I could have worded it much better.
I agree, & thought I had written, that the issue was the Times assigning the book to be reviewed. Vollman was then doing his job.
However, I beg to differ that authors should not be bothered by negative reviews (and yes, the review, as I’ve noted, had positive elements, and certainly Vollman did not write that Swofford was, apart from Ricky Moody, the worst writer of his generation). Ed, even a lousy book is usually a labour of love, at least on some level. Makes no difference if the book is good or bad, a lot of time and effort went into writing it. The book is the author’s baby. A baby the author sends out into the world.
Would you have no feelings watching your baby being slapped around by a stranger?
– Victor Schwartzman (01/16 at 16-Jan 18:41 -05:00)
Having written and published books, I am pretty sure a book is not a baby.
Books are more like adult children.
And books don’t cheese up on you.
– Richard (01/16 at 16-Jan 19:11 -05:00)
Don’t you think Vollman isn’t just the meanest man in the universe, he’s also the most courageous? Perhaps an analogy to illustrate my point:
Imagine you’re a figure skater, maybe not Yamaguchi-good, but pretty good–you grew up in an ice-fishing shack in Minnesota, you were a stuntkid for Jimmy Stewart in the sledding scene in It’s a Wonderful Life. You show up at your tri-county championships, start warming up, take off your sweats, and who do you see you out of the corner of your eye? A certain T. Harding, who seems to be slipping on some brass knuckles.
Now, sure, you’d be brave if you went ahead with your triptophane double-axle pirouette. But not nearly as brave as Vollman, writing this review.
Didn’t he see that freaky picture of Swofford on the book jacket? Did he forget the guy was a sniper in the Gulf War? Yikes!
– Matt Ellsworth (01/18 at 18-Jan 13:26 -05:00)
Hmmmm...has anyone SEEN Vollman lately? I may be just taking a shot in the dark here, but perhaps I should stop watching Bullit and maybe we should rifle through my address book and give Vollman a call.
– Victor Schwartzman (01/18 at 18-Jan 15:34 -05:00)
i’m anonymously saying you have it all too dramatically venomous and have not looked between the sentences hard enough to find what was cut out and could not be insinuated in that forum.
but let us say, it’s pretty common a practice…
– Kundry (01/23 at 23-Jan 10:18 -05:00)
No offense, Kundry, but I’m not sure what you meant. Venomous, yes, although I think a number of us have cut Vollman plenty o’ slack, recognizing his point of view. But I’m not clear about what the rest of your post meant. Please clarify?
– Victor Schwartzman (01/23 at 23-Jan 10:55 -05:00)
Page 1 of 1 pages of comments
I just read the review and confess that I see no evidence of assholery or petty vindictiveness. Vollman finds the writing often trite and awful and states why, using comparisons with Swofford’s earlier work to highlight the difference and to show that, in his estimation, Swofford can and has done better. That his characterisations and plotting techniques need some work.
Was it the comparison to Harlequin novels? The “future occasions of greatness” ending? The...well I don’t know. I saw no personal insults, no unsupported assertions (although the strength of them could be arguable I suppose). There’s nothing to imply that Vollman was predisposed to dislike Swofford’s work making him a bad reviewer candidate.
Am I missing some prescriptive assumption? Should award-winning authors not give summarily negative reviews of other authors’ works?
From your post I get the impression that the source of your ire at the bad review is rooted in appal at Vollman’s ill-founded hubris.
– Imani (01/14 at 14-Jan 22:45 -05:00)