Literary Fiction by People of Color discussion
This topic is about
A Lesson Before Dying
book discussions
>
Discussion: A Lesson Before Dying
message 51:
by
George
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Feb 12, 2014 02:23AM
I'll have to give Catherine Carmier a shot sometime, and it's been so long since I read Jane Pittman what I really remember is the show, which I'll never forget. However, I also vote for giving this particular author a pass on this particular occasion.
reply
|
flag
George wrote: "I'll have to give Catherine Carmier a shot sometime, and it's been so long since I read Jane Pittman what I really remember is the show, which I'll never forget. However, I also vote for giving thi..."I also read Miss Jane so long ago that I don't remember and I haven't read Catherine Carmier, but tell me that the title character doesn't look like the cover of the book and I'll feel much better!
It's okay with me for this to be a man's story. I would just have been happier with less typical women.
I'll have to get back to you on Catherine at some point,but the little blurb I read sounds like maybe she does. Of course, skin color in the black community wasn't exactly overlooked in this book either, just not a central theme. In any case, it sounded a bit like you were saying "ok, Ernest, but what have you done for me lately?" No big deal, but I always read your comments with considerable interest.
No, I actually like Gaines very much. He certainly isn't the only writer to use stereotypical women in his writing. Good writing about black men is probably harder to come by, especially since we seem to have more African American women writing literary fiction than men. Just wishing for more. I'm happier when I am surprised!
fair enough. I'll certainly accept that.
I finished the book earlier today. The book is pretty short and went by so quickly. It seems very simple but Gaines is saying a lot and I felt like I could probably really benefit from a reread. Wilhelmina wrote: "Does anyone else think that Gaines writes his male characters with much more depth than his female characters? You have the older black women - strong, taciturn, in charge, holding down the fort. T..."
This stood out to me too. I haven't read any of Gaines' other work (yet!) so I can't say if Miss Jane Pittman makes up for it or not. A few minutes after I finished the book, while I was reflecting on it, I realized, "oh, it's kind of a dude book." Not that it doesn't have universal themes, of course it does, and it was very well done. But I did notice the lack of depth in the female characters, who are all static and not really fleshed out. I agree that it would have been nice to have more but I'm not complaining. :)
I'm only half way through the book but I see the difference in the male and female character descriptions. I believe Gaines was providing deeper or more insightful male descriptions to emphasize his central theme if becoming a man. Grant is looked as a 'man' but this story is as much about his growth as it is Jefferson's. The other male characters described by Grant show his connection to these other 'men' in his life and how that connection has shaped the man he has become.
I do agree that becoming a 'man' is a theme of the book, and that the male characters are more fleshed out, but I've been wondering if some of the generality is lost when talked about from a 'becoming a man' or 'emasculating' terminology. I mean, aren't Tante Lou and Miss Emma also experiencing powerlessness? Aren't they also treated like animals and have to find a way to restore dignity to their lives? It seems that point is being neglected in the book, partly because their characters aren't as fleshed out.And what about a comparison between Vivian and Grant? Their education, profession, and isolation from family seem so similar, and yet Grant seems to struggle with his identity much more than Vivian. It can't all be skin color, can it? Is there something about Grant feeling pressure on his identity that Vivian doesn't feel as a woman? Or that as a woman she is taught by the culture to accept her limitations?
I think that Grant has additional pressures - first, because of the community in which he lives and which he serves, but also the issue that comes up later in the book of the black community always looking for "the one" - an idea that he expresses in Jane Pittman as well, if I remember correctly. But I'm not sure that we have reached that point in the book yet.
Mod
Why do you think we never meet Vivian’s children? What does their absence from the novel say about Grant and his relationship with Vivian?
Mod
There's also many religious references made in the book. How does religion play a part here as it relates to a Louisiana of its day? What do we know about Grants faith (or lack thereof) and how it relates to others?
nothing particularly good, in my opinion. it's a lot like the rest of his relationships and his limited ability to accept responsibility. he has a lot of growing up to do, and needs to give some thought to what he wants out of life and what that will mean. He's not really connecting with anyone, perhaps in that respect he's not that different from Jefferson, he just has no particular excuse.
Mod
well, maybe something more like a path to self-realization. and for that matter, for both of them. Yes, his efforts are admirable, perhaps the only thing he's done we know of that is. but not martyrdom. that would have required a different action on his part at the end. in any case, even if you do see it that way, it's not a path he really chose, but one he was compelled to go on, more or less. He's not a bad person, in my opinion, but he seems to be pretty much floating along. He has no real excuse for this given his education and intelligence. others expect more from him and he should demand more of himself.
I don't want to sound overly negative about Grant, because I don't feel that way exactly. I think he's clearly a decent person, but one with a lot of unrealized potential to be a far better one. He's given a shove in that direction to work with Jefferson, but it's not something he really wants to do or has any faith that he has any ability to do. not entirely unlike Moses in that respect if you like Biblical allusions, he just didn't need an Aaron to speak for him. but I think in the beginning of the book he has little more idea of meaning in his life than Jefferson. who is saving whom here?
Michael wrote: "I do agree that becoming a 'man' is a theme of the book, and that the male characters are more fleshed out, but I've been wondering if some of the generality is lost when talked about from a 'becoming a man' or 'emasculating' terminology.I guess. I suppose that does not bother me over much, because I've been reading a lot of fiction centered on women. I'm also currently reading a book on gender and transgender, so I'm currently focused on gender roles and the question of what makes a man? It may lose some of the generality, but once I noticed the masculinity theme in the book, I was really interested in how maleness was articulated in the book. So that does not make the book less appealing for me.
Michael wrote: And what about a comparison between Vivian and Grant? Their education, profession, and isolation from family seem so similar, and yet Grant seems to struggle with his identity much more than Vivian. It can't all be skin color, can it? Is there something about Grant feeling pressure on his identity that Vivian doesn't feel as a woman? Or that as a woman she is taught by the culture to accept her limitations?"
I would love to discuss the character of Vivian, but I would feel like I am reaching, because there's so little there. Obviously, there are similar ways in which black men and women are oppressed, and then there are ways in which the oppression is different. The book is set before the second wave of the women's liberation movement, as well.
Based on what we know, I honestly got the impression that Vivian's children weren't allowed to know about or meet Grant yet. I figured that if the children knew, it would come back to the father somehow. Since the divorce was not yet finalized, that would cause problems (and it did cause problems once the dad caught wind of the relationship with Grant). Whether that was convenient or unpleasant to Grant, I couldn't tell. It could also be that, given events later in the book, Vivian may have felt Grant wasn't quite ready to be a dad to her kids yet. But I didn't get the impression prior to said event, that Vivian didn't fully trust Grant yet, so I would be more inclined to go with my first impression.
As for Grant, I do feel he made a sacrifice for Jefferson. I feel that Grant created a bridge between Jefferson and his community.
At first, it seemed that those in the outside world seemed to view Jefferson as already dead. They were sad, they had lost someone, but it was already done. Grant started reminding the kids that if you had this or that behavior, you could end up in jail and on death row, like Jefferson, reminding them that Jefferson was still alive. As their relationship develops, people are able to see through Grant how Jefferson is doing. Grant is given money for the radio. It wouldn't have occurred to them on their own that Jefferson might need or want a radio. Grant asks the kids to get nuts for Jefferson, and they bring pounds and pounds of them. And so on. So it's not just about the interplay of Jefferson and Grant, or those two, and Rev. Ambrose, Lou and Emma. Jefferson and Grant's connection not only breathes life back into Jefferson, but into the entire community, I felt.
I agree that Vivian is not ready for Grant to be a part of her children's lives. Or, rather, that she doesn't think that Grant is ready for the responsibility that comes with children. She loves him, but letting a man into your children's lives is a major step. I think that she sees Grant as George does - a basically good man who could be so much more.Columbus, when you talk about the sacrifice that Grant made, do you mean staying in the community and teaching or going to see Jefferson?
George wrote: " ...who is saving whom here? ..."And that, to me, is the heart of this book.
Mod
I meant staying in the community and teaching. But, I want to ask you all something. When I read this 21 years ago it appeared clear to me -and for anyone reading at the time- that Grant was making a monumental sacrifice by acquiescing to his aunt and staying to help with Jefferson. Am I totally off-base here? It seemed fairly clear when I read this 21 years ago but I'd certainly re-read through it and not rely on a cliffs notes version if my recollection of this is off the mark. This is not necessarily hypothetical because it could be fairly clear to some, but, what would Grant's career path been if he had never been asked to assist with Jefferson?
Mod
He's not staying because of Jefferson, though. He's staying because of his teaching job and his sense of responsibility to his aunt. And he doesn't like it one bit! He's very angry and unfortunately he takes it out on his students. Going to see Jefferson is an additional burden that his aunt lays on him, and he's not happy about that either. His aunt has tremendous control over him, which is why I said earlier that, in some way, she must have saved his life because he clearly owes it to her. The only thing that has the potential to make him change his mind about staying seems to be his relationship with Vivian - if she says that they should go, he will. He is not, in my opinion, a very strong man initially in the book, unwilling to make the decision to stay or go on his own. But he does have potential and he grows in the course of the book. Always a good thing!
So to answer your question, I don't see that his career path had anything to do with Jefferson - that was an additional responsibility. He wasn't planning to leave before Jefferson's incarceration.
Mod
Ok, then I was clearly off base. I will never, ever rely of my memory again. Now to find this book.. .
Wilhelmina wrote: "George wrote: " ...who is saving whom here? ..."And that, to me, is the heart of this book."
and to me as well. Jefferson's transformation is the emotional core of the book, but Grant's transformation would be more critical to the community they live in. both leave hope for the future.
In response to George -- in my opinion. it's a lot like the rest of his relationships and his limited ability to accept responsibility. he has a lot of growing up to do, and needs to give some thought to what he wants out of life and what that will mean. He's not really connecting with anyone, perhaps in that respect he's not that different from Jefferson, he just has no particular excuse....it struck me that Grant/the narrative voice seem not quite dated, but different in a way to more contemporary writing, where a narrator might be more careful in presenting his/her own views. there is no artifice here, Grant doesn't try to make himself seem any better or more noble than he feels; he doesn't hide his disdain for so much of what he's asked to do. he's hard to like, but more interesting to know and respect
well, I don't really disagree. I would certainly agree that one of the strengths of the book is not trying to turn Grant into some sort of saint. he has a lot of flaws that he's not doing very well with at the beginning or for good chunks of the book. I was particularly bothered by the way he treated his students in the beginning. He seems to spend more time whacking them with a ruler than teaching them, even if corporal punishment was a fixture in Southern education for a long time after. I'm sure most schools had a Board of Education for such moments. But, God knows these kids need a positive influence in their lives. In any case, his transformation is a large part of the book's appeal for me as well, even if it remains a work in progress.
I agree, and his transformation, or at least the seeds of it, is written very skillfully. Grant doesn't change overnight and the changes are totally believable and in character, in my opinion.
I keep wondering what he would have been like by 57 or later. The seeds of transformation have been planted in this society as well, even if they aren't aware of it just yet as they haven't sprouted. In any case, I agree the book is very well done, even as I struggle over my feelings for Grant, probably because he does seem quite real.
Mod
Great comments, everyone!
Mod
Gaines has mentioned in interviews that many of his female characters are taken directly from his aunts and grandmothers and other strong female role models in his community. That there's a sort of "quiet strength" in the roles they play in their community and certainly in their family. A sort of womanist role, maybe -in the phrase much attributed to Alice Walker-of strong, black women protecting the home and community and being silent in the face of overwhelming and considerable odds or obstacles are not necessarily being passive or submissive.
What do you make of this?
Columbus wrote: "So, let me see if I follow this correctly here. Grant is obviously not perfect and he certainly doesn't admit to be. There's obviously some flaws and issues he needs to work out. But, do you not fe..."I see Grant as struggling with humanity. He is tasked with imparting some in Jefferson. At the same time, he's struggling to find it in his own circumstance. He doesn't see it in the sheriff or the school superintendent. He scarcely sees it in the children he's been charged with educating. We might further consider that he's struggling to find his manhood as has been suggested elsewhere in the discussion, living beneath his aunt's roof, unable to spend time as openly as he'd like with Vivian. He too feels trapped.
Columbus, I didn't say that the women weren't strong! They were, in fact, stronger than Grant was initially. Way back in Message 47, I said: " You have the older black women - strong, taciturn, in charge, holding down the fort. Then there's Vivian - beautiful, light skinned (of course), sensual, feminine, "quality" as the older ladies put it." I think that we all know older women like the ones in this book - tough as nails, won't stand for any nonsense, won't take "no" for an answer. They are in no way submissive. My only objection is that they are more icons than human beings. We see them again and again, but they are not given the depth in fiction that they embody in real life.
Mod
Mina, my apologies, you did say they were strong and that was my fault for missing that. I guess my only difference in opinion is I thought these women were rather interesting despite not being the focused players in the story per se. But, then that's just a matter of personal opinion and nothing more.
And I really don't mind this being a man's story. The men are an interesting group.
I find it bemusing that we are going back and forth on whether this is a man's story, whether the females are strong, interesting, developed, etc. The discussion on the book is two pages in and much of it is about these two points.I don't think anyone would argue that this book is a woman's story (possibly even chick lit) with stereotypical male characters, if all the characters' sexes were reversed. And if it were, it wouldn't be less of a great book. As the book exists, it is a great novel. Those who argue that it's a man's story haven't rated the book badly. Quite the opposite, in fact. I see a lot of 4-star ratings. That's not the rating you give a book which made you think, "TOO MUCH PENIS! BORING! NEXT!"
I know that this group has discussed books with interesting, developed female characters. We know what such a character looks like. We will read books like that again. As early as next month, by the sounds of Sister Mine.
This book has interesting male characters. That's fine, too. Black men's relationship to masculinity and manliness remains an interesting topic even nowadays. I feel we would gain a lot from discussing how maleness is articulated in this novel and in the Black community today, rather than defending the hypothetical interest quotient of the female characters.
I fear this comment will keep us on the subject for another string of new comments, but hopefully, we can get back to Grant, Jefferson and maybe even Reverend Ambrose? I, for one, had some mixed feelings about the latter.
Sounds good to me, Aitzber!
Wilhelmina wrote: "And I really don't mind this being a man's story. The men are an interesting group."I attribute any attempt to minimize the female characters' time in the spotlight to an overt attempt on the author's part to maintain a particular POV. Placing Grant at the center of attention adds tension to the narrative. He's closest to Jefferson in age and anatomy and you might argue sensibilities despite what initial accounts suggest. The struggle of one emasculated male attempting to rescue another emasculated male is what propels the story. Not that the women in the story don't have a meaningful purpose. Grant's aunt put him up to the task of reaching Jefferson. Vivian steadies him, holding him to the task. Seeing Grant evolve, bouncing back and forth in his understanding of his circumstance, Jefferson's, that of any brown face living in their small Parish deepens compassion for the lot of them.
One of the things that I find interesting about Grant is his anger. He does everything that his aunt expects of him, but he is furious about it, fights her every step of the way, and takes a lot of it out on his students. The haunting figure of the teacher who came before him, who was even more angry than he, is always there. That teacher left him a two-pronged legacy - he gave him the education he needed to go to college and become a teacher while cursing him with the conviction that all of his work would do no good in the long run.
Mod
Strange how books can affect you differently at various stages in your life and for a myriad of reasons. I don't recall being so upset at the level of racism and disrespect exhibited here when I first read this back in '93. Specifically, the encounter with Henri Pinchot and the sheriff at the house. Also, when the superintendent visits the school and inspects the kids. Treating them like chattel. This is the 1940's and not the 1840's, correct?! Seething!
What's your impression of some of these other characters. Speaking specifically of Reverend Ambrose, Henri Pichot, the Sheriff, Paul (deputy) of course Matthew Antoine who dies early in the book. How much influence did he really play in Grants life (if any) and what was your impression of him?
perhaps you feel more insulated from such things, now that we live in a Post Racial Society. My impression of the area was that the folks in charge had every effort to keep the area in a time warp. Old Times There are clearly not forgotten.
I didn't much care for Rev. Ambrose for the bulk of the book. I'm not particularly relgious and my experience with itinerate preachers is not terribly positive on top of that. Had one in my own family who was a circuit rider in the mountains in West Virginia, but Ambrose does come through at the end while Grant falls flat, to my profound dismay. But while I wouldn't want to drink an RC Cola with the Reverend, he does seem to have his uses.
Deputy Paul was a decent sort, makes you wonder if he stayed with that job or for how long.
Antoine, I'm still sort of processing.
George wrote: "perhaps you feel more insulated from such things, now that we live in a Post Racial Society."Ha! We had this same conversation during last February's book (Invisible Man) if memory serves.
But I think Columbus was saying he feels the anger more now, and to me that makes sense. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Columbus!) Though I didn't read A Lesson Before Dying 20 years ago, I have reread other books from my past that I suddenly was uncomfortable with. I attribute it to my own growth and to a somewhat more progressive era (if not post-racial!).
The two people that really impressed me at the end were Reverend Ambrose and Paul. That whole conversation with the Reverend is covered in highlights in my Nook. He's a very savvy man, and made some good challenges to Grant. And Paul really made himself vulnerable reaching out to Grant, I thought, even though you could see he already sympathized with the Black community more than his other white peers, it seemed like the whole experience motivated him to make further overtures. And of course both of them attended the execution, which took some doing. I am still thanking Mr. Gaines from the bottom of my heart for not "showing" the actual execution, and all I had to do was read about it.
So I've finished the book, and was just overwhelmed. Definitely some things in here worth rereading. The entire last three chapters, wow, I basically cried the whole way through, I assume I'm not the only one.Some quotes struck me in Jefferson's diary:
"reson I cry cause you been so good to me mr wigin an nobody aint never been that good to me an make me think im sombody"
"you look so tied sometime mr wigin i just feel like tellin you I like you but I don't kno how to say this cause I aint never say it to nobody before an nobody aint never say it to me"
It made me think about the meaning of the theme, "being a man", or even "being human". It seemed to me that one of the main reasons Jefferson thought of himself as a man at the end, was because other people believed in him, and he was important to them. In addition to Miss Emma and Tante Lou, Grant and the Reverend visited Jefferson regularly, the school children visited, and then basically the whole quarter visited at the end. Before all this, no one gave Jefferson a second thought, not even himself.
I am glad others felt the same way as I did about Reverend Ambrose. I was raised Atheist, with very pushy Catholic relatives, and so I have a hard time swallowing those who push religion on the unwilling. However, the time period and cultural context are radically different, and so I was wondering how the character would be received by older readers, or readers of a different background (e.g. not Atheists themselves).For much of the book, I felt that Ambrose was jealous of Grant. I couldn't believe he would go as far as saying he wouldn't visit Jefferson. It is one thing that Grant, who seems to chafe at the thought of being considered a role model, fights and gripes the whole way through his mentorship of Jefferson. Ambrose, on the other hand, accepts and relishes his role as spiritual/emotional leader of the community.
I suppose he makes up for it in the end, by attending Jefferson's execution. I just never thought he wouldn't attend, is the thing. It felt like Ambrose could be there for the big moments, but he was incapable and unwilling to reach out to Jefferson in ways that would actually have meaning for Jefferson. Obviously, that's why the book is about Grant and Jefferson. But then you have to wonder why, in choosing his narrator (and person who would change Jefferson), Gaines chose an unhappy schoolteacher, rather than the reverend who seems to thrive under the pressure of the respect and expectations placed upon him by the whole community.
Mod
Ha! We had this same conversation during last February's book ([book:Invisible Man|169..."
Haha...yes, that's exactly what I meant. George, you were being sarcastic about this "post-racial" society, correct? There's something that happens daily that perfectly debunks that myth for me. Seriously, I don't recall my blood boiling as much reading this back in '93 as it did this time. And certainly I attribute it to me changing because of course, the book doesn't change; the book is the same.
If I had thought it would be interpreted as something other than sarcasm, I never would have written it. Of course, I understood what you actually meant. As for Post Racial Society comments, it's pretty clear that Republicans in a number of states, even outside the South have made numerous efforts to suppress black Americans ability to vote. And now we're looking at two separate shootings of black male teenagers in Florida under the Stand Your Ground law where both perpetrators fired on kids who were not only unarmed but not even threatening the shooters when the incidents began, yet both shooters were found innocent of murder. Then if I ever get started on Katrina, I will go off on some sort of rant. That's the sort of thing I actually meant in my comment. That's the sort of thing that really makes my blood boil. In reality, the "post racial" tag tends to affect me in a similar way that New World Order tends to set off folks of a different persuasion.
The book, not so much, since it's set far enough back I can at least pretend its past, even if it's a past that I still remember in part. But then, I also tend to fall back on the old Faulkner quote that in the South, the past is not forgotten. It isn't even past.
Still, it's all largely a matter of expectations, and across the US ours have risen over the past 50 years or so. No one can or will accept the social system in A Lesson Before Dying in the 21st century and it would be extremely difficult to impossible to reconstruct it. Even the white characters in the novel would not speak or act in the same way now, certainly not openly in any case.
Michael wrote: "So I've finished the book, and was just overwhelmed. Definitely some things in here worth rereading. The entire last three chapters, wow, I basically cried the whole way through, I assume I'm not..."No, you weren't the only one. I came across Jefferson's writing while eating lunch in our cafeteria. I had to put it down and stop. I picked it up later when I was on my own.
Mod
As for Post Racial Society comments, it's..."
Yes, the examples you provided are exactly what was going through my mind (stand your ground shootings). Now we have this awful incident at Ole Miss and the disrespectful comments from Nugent about the President. It's like you're emotional from the incidents in the book and maybe what's going on now subconsciously affects you as well. So unfortunate.
Well, I was originally intending to restart some commentary and the Post Racial comment was intended to do just that. However, when no one said boo for several days I was beginning to wonder if it wasn't actually taken on face value and people were just too polite or too horrified to say anything.In any case, to borrow a quote from the great sage, Yogi Berra, "it ain't over 'till it's over" and on this sort of thing, it will never be over completely.
Ted's not dead and he's not in jail. So, he's just another cowardly overmedicated blowhard trailer trash fool who would be entirely forgotten and ignored, sitting on his front porch picking his banjo, if he didn't make every effort to be as outrageous as possible for the press, who eat up every word. It's more the failure of the folks he supports to comment, other than Rand Paul, that sets me off.
Wilhelmina wrote: "I think that Grant has additional pressures - first, because of the community in which he lives and which he serves, but also the issue that comes up later in the book of the black community always looking for "the one" - an idea that he expresses in Jane Pittman as well, if I remember correctly. But I'm not sure that we have reached that point in the book yet. "I'm curious about people's thoughts on "the one". The quote I'm looking at is about two paragraphs that starts on page 166 of my book (64% point):
"We black men have failed to protect our women since the time of slavery. We stay here in the South and are broken, or we run away and leave them alone to look after the children and themselves. So each time a male child is born, they hope he will be the one to change this vicious circle - which he never does. Because even though he wants to change it, and maybe even tries to change it, it is too heavy a burden because of all the others who have run away and left their burdens behind..."
Now that I've typed the excerpt, I see it is related to Columbus' question about Black men in 1948 Louisiana having three choices. My questions are 1) how true do people think this is, and 2) the way Grant defines it, "the one" has to be a man, but I wonder if this can be generalized to a more universal phenomenon in oppressed communities?
On the one hand, I can see the limitations he is talking about - even a successful graduate like Grant can't be seen as "too smart" by whites and only has one available job matching his qualifications in his town. What pride he may nurture has to be snuffed out if he wants to survive amongst the whites in that community. To a different degree this is still true of Black men in today's society (e.g. Barack Obama being forced to listen to compliments of "articulate").
So is this idea of "the one" a larger-than-life mythology in response to that, or is it something that can actually be achieved? I was thinking something like the heroism of a Frederick Douglass, or a Martin Luther King, Jr., but Grant implies that it all rests on Jefferson's shoulders: Is it as "simple" as one Black man going to his death by white hands but standing proud?
Lastly, the "man" aspect of this has me frustrated. Is it just because it is "a man's world" that Grant defines "the one" in this way? As a counter-example, didn't Rosa Parks "stand" in exactly the way Grant is talking about here? As an aspect of this, I'm wondering if it is the limited definition of manhood that restricts the options for Black men. I.e. if it was seen as a viable and positive Black male identity to "look after the children" that Grant talks about being left behind here. And then the question is, does the Black community define these roles, or is it imposed by the larger white-controlled society?
Sorry for all the question marks - my head is spinning!
Mod
Laughing at the "articulate" reference. Wasn't that even used by the current VP in a Prez debate?
Hey Michael, you George and Atziber are really comin' hard with your commentary and questions. No holds barred. I love it! Have to let this one marinate a bit.
Literary Fiction by People of Color
Books mentioned in this topic
Lost Prophet: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin (other topics)Invisible Man (other topics)
A Lesson Before Dying (other topics)
Catherine Carmier (other topics)
Catherine Carmier (other topics)
More...
