The Mookse and the Gripes discussion
This topic is about
The Safekeep
Booker Prize for Fiction
>
2024 Booker Shortlist - The Safekeep
message 51:
by
Meg
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Sep 10, 2024 08:13AM
I enjoyed the process of reading this but, I'm sorry, the ending was crap.
reply
|
flag
What was with the judges comments on this - I mean why would you spoil the twist … I know readers see it coming at different points but even so
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "What was with the judges comments on this - I mean why would you spoil the twist … I know readers see it coming at different points but even so"I haven’t had a chance to see the judges’ comments yet, but if they spoiled the twist, that’s a shame. I was one of the readers who didn’t see the twist coming, and the surprise was one of the best parts about this book. It put everything that came before into a new light and made me want to read the book again from the beginning.
I agree, Gwendolyn. I didn't want to reread from the beginning, but it certainly made me appreciate all that came before much more.
It works well on a re-read for that reason. But I wonder how a third read works: first time twist; second time look for the clues and rearrange your perspective. But third time?
But yes I would say the judges while not completely spoiling it made things more obvious than was justified
Definitely at the bottom of my list nudging Headshot out on my longlist rankings. Only one on the shortlist I would NOT be okay with winning. I have a bit more to go in it and will finish it but just not my cup of tea!
message 57:
by
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer
(last edited Nov 08, 2024 11:19AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
This book is suddenly very topical after the events in Amsterdam - although one could say is it ever not topical
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "This book is suddenly very topical after the events in Amsterdam - although one could say is it ever not topical"Was going to ask if you've read her essay On (Not) Reading Anne Frank, but I see that you indeed have.
With two of the shortlisted authors signing on to the literary community's efforts to silence Israelis, would be pleasing for the Dutch-Israeli author to win, and perhaps a brave statement.
It would have been brave I think given the book’s explicit treatment of anti-semitism and the theme of disputed possession and ownership of land and property
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "It would have been brave I think given the book’s explicit treatment of anti-semitism and the theme of disputed possession and ownership of land and property"Agree, I haven't come across any articles btw that suggest that the author strongly identifies as Israeli or with Israel, but rather is focused on exploring Dutch society/history and antisemitism spurred on by her thoughts about her own identity as Jewish.
Lee wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "This book is suddenly very topical after the events in Amsterdam - although one could say is it ever not topical"Was going to ask if you've read her essay ..."
I'm undecided about the effectiveness of cultural boycotts, they often seem more performative than anything else. But I didn't interpret the boycott as an attempt to 'silence' but rather a desire to withdraw support from institutions that feed into the Israeli economy and/or profess support for the conduct of the conflict in Gaza. It's not an uncommon response to a situation that many find politically problematic, similar boycotts were staged in the past in relation to Israeli administrations' policies. And were widely used to disengage, for example, with apartheid-era South Africa. Whether or not they had any real impact or were selecting appropriate/relevant targets is another matter.
To be honest, I felt the book was very topical from the beginning, but see it as having very little relation to the modern day gaza conflict. While similar questions could be explored, there is no part of the novel that made me read it as anything else but the attempt to put a spotlight on a very dubious part of dutch history.I feel uncomfortable when authors and books are put into a modern discourse about israel and palestine only because the author is jewish/has israeli roots. It oversimplifies the relation, and does not do the work justice. i see it as part of a flattening of political conflict, where everything becomes black and white and somehow the same.
Well I was taking interviews from before the book was longlisted for exampleQ: There is a huge theme of displacement in the book. There’s no way to talk about that displacement without thinking about the current displacement in Palestine. I want to know your thoughts on how this book speaks to that. I think particularly of the sense of left behind-ness, the remnants of a life that are ignored.
A: This is what the story is about. It’s about displacement, and it’s about the way that we think about ownership. Loving a place does not make us the owners of it. What I’m really afraid of is that people will read this and be like, “Naive Yael, thinking that we can all live in one house and only love could save us at the end of the day.” I know it’s not that simple. I know it’s not that, but it is what I wanted for these characters.
Also because that’s the history of me. That’s the history of where I come from [van de Wouden’s mother is an Israeli citizen; her father is Dutch]. And these are the two histories of displacement that I’ve, sort of, both lived through and had in my history. The story is about Isabel herself having to deal with complicity. I embody those two ends of the spectrum: both complicity on the one hand and, on the other hand, also a history of victimhood. Both of them are within me and that’s not even counting my Dutch grandmother, who was born in Indonesia and was part of a colonial system.
Within me, there’s all of that and all of that is also in this book.
Alwynne wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "It would have been brave I think given the book’s explicit treatment of anti-semitism and the theme of disputed possession and ownership of land and property..."Understand although for example her recent Guardian article had her as Dutch-Israeli (and you would like to think they checked) and she was born there and lived there until 10
To lighten the mood a little she seems to identify as David Attenborough more than anything and writes agony aunt columns adopting his persona!
Oh, that is interesting! However, I feel that the wording of the question is important here, as it specifically narrows the question "to the sense of left behind-ness, the remnants of a life that are ignored" - which is a very de-politicised and vague perspective on the conflict I think. But I did not know van de Wouden tied her story to both parts to her history, so thank you for pointing that out for me.
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "It would have been brave I think given the book’s explicit treatment of anti-semitism and the theme of disputed possession and ownership of l..."The agony aunt column information is hilarious. I was trying to find a more polite word, but hilarious fits.
LindaJ^ wrote: "Definitely at the bottom of my list nudging Headshot out on my longlist rankings. Only one on the shortlist I would NOT be okay with winning. I have a bit more to go in it and will finish it but ju..."I feel exactly as you. I really wanted Held to win, but would have been happy with any of them except the one that was at the bottom of my personal favorites. Even though I was a Held fan, I can understand why they went for Orbital, instead.
The Safekeep has made the 2025 Wingate Literary Prize longlist. Comprised of seven novels and seven non-fiction titles, they cover a broad spectrum of opinions, style and content, interrogating what it means to be Jewish in multiple ways.
The Safekeep has made the 2025 Wingate Literary Prize longlist. Comprised of seven novels and seven non-fiction titles, they cover a broad spectrum of opinions, style and content, interrogating what it means to be Jewish in multiple ways.
Paul wrote: "The Safekeep has made the 2025 Wingate Literary Prize longlist. Comprised of seven novels and seven non-fiction titles, they cover a broad spectrum of opinions, style and content, interrogating wha..."Thank you for letting us know, Paul. It was my least favorite book, but oh, well. I even liked Creation Lake more, and it really wasn't my type of book, either. As you said, they want to "interrogate what it means to be Jewish in multiple ways." Like GY, I was rooting for Held to win the Booker.
FFS this group is really going downhill at breakneck speed!
Alwynne wrote: "FFS this group is really going downhill at breakneck speed!"Lol you're saying stuff I'm scared to type.
Robert wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "FFS this group is really going downhill at breakneck speed!"Lol you're saying stuff I'm scared to type."
Sometimes you get to the point when you think fuck it might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, if it helps we're not alone!
Let me see...off the top of my head, so inelegantly expressed, message 70 boasts the following:- homophobic microaggressions i.e. the assumption that it’s necessary/acceptable for heterosexuals to police and then approve/disapprove of the inclusion/form of representation of queer relationships in fiction
- thinly-veiled homophobia i.e. the suggestion that queer content needs to be ‘sanitised.’ The choice of ‘sanitise’ is highly problematic here - and I think rather telling. It implies queer relationships are unclean/a form of contamination
- stereotypical assumptions about Jewish people i.e. that all Jewish people were/are automatically heterosexual; and therefore queer Dutch Jewish people either didn’t/don't exist or were/are not (doubly) discriminated against
- ableism i.e. referencing a medical condition as a form of pejorative
My comment in the James thread a few weeks ago calling out racism there was deleted (not by me). This is more egregious. We all have our limits and this is mine.
David wrote: "My comment in the James thread a few weeks ago calling out racism there was deleted (not by me). This is more egregious. We all have our limits and this is mine."As you can probably tell it was mine too!
David wrote: "My comment in the James thread a few weeks ago calling out racism there was deleted (not by me). This is more egregious. We all have our limits and this is mine."If it bothers you, all you have to do is say so, and I would delete it. There's nothing homophobic about it, though. As I wrote in the post, I don't care what a person's gender or sexual orientation is. What I object to regarding that book is what I feel is the lack of elegance in the prose. If I were homophobic, I wouldn't have said the only character I liked was Hendrik, a homosexual male living with his boyfriend. I really liked Hendrik and Sebastien. But I will edit it since you find it offensive.
There you go. If you find one of my comments offensive, I'm not going to argue with you. Is there a bigger waste of time? I don't think so. Just tell me you find it offensive, and I'll edit or delete it. It's as easy as that. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.
Calling the characters “odious” isn’t even trying to hide it.
Bella (Kiki) wrote: "If it bothers you, all you have to do is say so, and I would delete it. There's nothing homophobic about it, though. As I wrote in the post, I don't care what a person's gender or sexual orientation is. "If it bothers you, ..."
You don't get to decide for two queer people what is/isn't homophobic. The fact that you think you do is either outrageous arrogance or rank stupidity. Which is it? You choose.
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Well I was taking interviews from before the book was longlisted for exampleQ: There is a huge theme of displacement in the book. There’s no way to talk about that displacement without thinking a..."
Thank you for posting that, GY. I can see that there are themes of displacement and complicity in the book. It was at the bottom of my personal favorites, but I do see what she was going for. I think it's one of the most popular books on the shortlist because it's far more accessible to those who want a traditional book as opposed to Held or Orbital, for example. I loved Held, thought Orbital had beautiful images, lovely prose, but the book I most enjoyed reading was Enlightenment, which didn't even make the shortlist. It and Held are the ones I remember most. And James, of course. I think Orbital is a good Booker fit, James is a better fit for the NBA, which, of course, Everett won. Glad to see his work finally get the recognition it deserves.
David wrote: "Calling the characters “odious” isn’t even trying to hide it."Agree, took a screenshot of the original post so could respond to the various issues, happy to transcribe it for the moderator if our reaction is deemed disproportionate. Interesting and dispiriting that your comments about racism were deleted, if concerns about homophobia are also overlooked/objections removed that would cast doubt on this group as a safe/positive space for anyone queer and/or not white. But, then again, maybe that's precisely the desired end game?
Gwendolyn wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "What was with the judges comments on this - I mean why would you spoil the twist … I know readers see it coming at different points but even so"I haven’t h..."
I saw the twist coming before I even read one page of the book. It was clear to me in the book's description, which could be because I'm a novelist, too, with a three-book contract. I liked the twist, realizing it was coming didn't spoil the book for me. I didn't find the end believable, though. Like someone else has already said, it just wasn't my cup of tea.
David wrote: "Calling the characters “odious” isn’t even trying to hide it."I wasn't trying to hide it. That was my reaction to all but Hendrik and Sebastian. But since you find it offensive, I edited it. Not here to ruffle any feathers. There were times when I did feel a little sorry for Eva, though I still didn't like her much.
“I wasn’t trying to hide it.”If unrepentant Antisemitism flies here, I’m out.
David wrote: "“I wasn’t trying to hide it.”If unrepentant Antisemitism flies here, I’m out."
I wasn't being antisemitic in any way. Just the opposite. I said some of the Dutch did not treat the Jewish people as they should have been treated, with compassion. I studied to convert to Judaism myself, but was in an accident and couldn't continue studies. I just never went back to them. There was absolutely nothing there that could be construed as antisemitic. I have never been antisemitic. I've never made an antisemitic statement in my life or a homophobic one. I didn't like some of the characters, but religion or sexual orientation played no part. There are practicing Jews in my own family who I love.
What did I say that you construed as antisemitic? I didn't like Isabel, and she wasn't even Jewish. It was her personality I didn't care for. I felt bad for Eva, the one who was Jewish, much of the time.
There are also members of the LGBTQ+ community in my family. Wonderful people, though I'm not lumping them altogether, though I've really liked all I've known. The most successful and most loved member of my family is non-binary.
Perhaps you misinterpreted since English is not my MT, Italian is, and we don't know each other. You don't know that antisemitism and homophobia are ideas I wouldn't entertain for anyone.
I don't spend much time here on GR at all. I only come here to read posts from Paul, GY, Hugh, and some of the women whose names I can't remember. Very insightful.
A certain amount of rewriting history going on here now.In response to comments about homophobia and 'odious characters' - responses which also spectacularly miss the point btw:
Post 77 - "I really liked Hendrik and Sebastien."
Post 83 - "I wasn't trying to hide it. That was my reaction to all but Hendrik and Sebastian."
But the original post stated:
Post 70 - "With the exception of Hendrik, who we barely hear from, I found all the characters quite odious."
The inconsistency rather undermines the blatant attempt to shrug off any perceptions of homophobic sentiments in the original post by claiming wholehearted support for a gay couple featured in the novel.
There are also members of the LGBTQ+ community in my family. Wonderful people, though I'm not lumping them altogether, though I've really liked all I've known. The most successful and most loved member of my family is non-binary.Perhaps you misinterpreted since English is not my MT, Italian is, and we don't know each other. You don't know that antisemitism and homophobia are ideas I wouldn't entertain for anyone.
I don't spend much time here on GR at all. I only come here to read posts from Paul, GY, Hugh, and some of the women.
Fascinating for someone who claims to be a queer ally and an anti-racist that when challenged on comments you've made that others found offensive, rather than listen, or have the sheer decency to apologise, your response is obfuscation and deny, deny, deny.
You can't simply proclaim that you're not this, that or the other, you actually have to show a willingness to demonstrate it or it means precisely nothing. And, btw, the 'some of my best friends are...' line really won't fly here.
As for your command of English: your register, ability to shift registers, lexical choices, sentence structure etc make it clear that it's more than fine. I spent some time living in Italy and have decades of experience with students for whom English is a second language.
As for not spending much time on GR, that's not the case either is it?
Bella, as someone who has found herself (umcomfortably) on the same side of like/dislike of books as you twice now, the issue is not that you dislike a book with jewish and queer characters, but that you express it as criticism of a form of an agenda - disgusting inclusion of lesbian Sex to be hip, likewise use of the "jewish" content although I can't really quote it since you have edited the problematic rant out. Then you add "some of my best friends are gay/jewish/black" to defend yourself instead of clarifying what you actually meant. Now, after your pets health was a theme before, you claim to have wanted to become jewish before falling sick, which... really doesn't matter in this argument?
At this point I am really unsure if you are trolling or a peculiar person. But based on your comments, Alwynnes reaction is very understandable, because someone has to say something. You use so many micro-agressions that I find it difficult to believe it is not on purpose.
I missed the original post but from what’s said it did cross a line. And the right thing to do when others point out how comments made them feel, is listen rather than justify. In terms of the moderation here, below is not to excuse your experience David and Alwynne, but to explain what I think is going on in.
This forum is very lightly moderated, indeed only one active “mod” and that’s more a (very time consuming) role setting up threads and folders than moderation in sense of reviewing all comments.
And, I think as a result, any moderation tends to fall on the side of shutting down argument rather than policing comments. There is an expressed preference in the forum guidelines for comments to be highlighted direct to a moderator rather than reacted to.
I say this as someone who was once, some years ago but for several years, a mod on this forum and stopped doing it as stepping into arguments and having to read back long comment trails and deal with DMs from both sides was draining so I’m thankful to Hugh who at least keeps things going.
Not sure what the answer is. One would be others to join as moderators.
Anna wrote: "At this point I am really unsure if you are trolling or a peculiar person. But based on your comments, Alwynnes reaction is very understandable, because someone has to say something. You use so many micro-agressions that I find it difficult to believe it is not on purpose.."Appreciated Anna, since we've barely interacted there's no way that your comments can be taken as biased. And, yes, absolutely it's not the dislike of a title that's the issue here!
Paul wrote: "And, I think as a result, any moderation tends to fall on the side of shutting down argument rather than policing comments. There is an expressed preference in the forum guidelines for comments to be highlighted direct to a moderator rather than reacted to."Thanks, I would rather have highlighted to a moderator but when I went to Hugh's home page I got 'Sorry, this person isn't accepting messages.' Apologies if there's another way of contacting him that I've managed to overlook, I've not had call to contact a moderator before. In all my other groups the mods have stepped in and dealt with problematic posts.
Also, quite honestly, given David's comments about the deletion of his post related to racism I'm not that confident that the response would be constructive, even if there were to be one.
Also, on reflection, I'm with Anna on this, the sheer volume of microaggressions meant that someone needed to say something. The problem with silence is that it is extremely hard not to interpret it as complicity, and I'm really not prepared to be - or be seen as - complicit when it comes to racism/antisemitism/homophobia/ableism
Mod
Although I am not debating whether a certain forum member is troll or not here are some things I have noticed. Inconsistencies in opinions - these change from post to post
Talking about reading books then saying the same books haven’t been read.
Boasting about reading whole bibliographies when half that author’s output is out of print.
Saying things that just wouldn’t occur to people unless you’re part of some far right political party.
I have always been one to choose my battles but I really don’t know. We’re going in the same territory as mister hobgoblin (a forum member who caused polemics between people) maybe some cautionary messages?? Again not my place
I suggest doing nothing. There will be occaisional blow-ups due to people's sensitivities and other people's outspokeness. Rather than a prohibitive approach, I prefer educational. Safekeep is a marmite book and is going to provoke opinions. Those differing opinions can easily escalate, especially when on topics as sensitive as the book offered. We need to be concious of what I consider "troll books," like Safekeep, James, and All Fours that can trigger these reactions.
I do feel a personal slight. Alwynne suggest the group was going "downhill," i thought we were in consensus agreement that the group went straight to hell when I joined. I feel obliged to argue for my status in that role.
Robert wrote: "Although I am not debating whether a certain forum member is troll or not here are some things I have noticed. Inconsistencies in opinions - these change from post to post
Talking about reading ..."
I've noticed those things too Robert.
Sam wrote: "I suggest doing nothing. There will be occaisional blow-ups due to people's sensitivities and other people's outspokeness. Rather than a prohibitive approach, I prefer educational. Safekeep is a ..."
In that case those of us who do not wish to be put in a position of having to tolerate homophobia, racism, antisemitism are in rather a tight spot. Particularly if these are being dismissed as 'sensitivities'. I assume you are no longer in full-time employment? Since in most reputable, contemporary workplaces, these kinds of comment would not be considered 'outspokeness' but gross misconduct.
However, should the group decide to go down this route then there needs to be a warning to that effect posted in a prominent place, so that people can decide whether or not they wish to 'tolerate' these things. Maybe something along the lines of "this group does not moderate and/or censure racist, homophobic, antisemitic, ableist content." And, presumably, by extension ageism, religious intolerance, Islamophobia etc?
Mod
As it is, I don't see any more than the rest of you (less if something flares up at night) - the only additional levers I have are deleting posts, removing group membership and closing or deleting discussions, all of which I see as last resorts.
The MHG case was different and more clearcut in that it centred on intemperate ad hominem rants, and this happened several times.
I would welcome help with these aspects, but I don't want to stifle discussions too much either.
I would like to stress that as group members, we all have a duty to think about how what we say may affect others, whether intentionally or not, and think about how we can avoid repeating these mistakes.
Hugh wrote: "The MHG case was different and more clearcut in that it centred on intemperate ad hominem rants, and this happened several times.I would welcome help with these aspects, but I don't want to stifle discussions too much either. ..."
I appreciate you are in a difficult position but the gist of what you seem to be saying, albeit I think unintentionally, is 'let's play nicely children' but if you can't then take care to be impersonal when making homophobic and/or racist comments. So, as long as nobody directly refers to David using the F or K word, or to me using the D or N word, they're basically good to go? For those of us whose identities are such, or whose political/social awareness is sufficiently 'sensitive, that they are affected by indirect racism/homophobia, that seems rather unfair/unequal.
It's not as if there's a culturally recognised way of responding in kind to these kinds of remarks. Or can I refer to someone as a 'racist cunt' as long as I frame it impersonally enough e.g. in my opinion people who express these kinds of views tend to be 'right-wing racist cunts?' Surely those of us who are essentially being directly targeted via these impersonal/indirect discriminatory remarks, racist/homophobic innuendo, dog-whistle homophobia etc should be provided with appropriate tools with which to defend ourselves?
It would be useful to know where the line is being drawn, because right now it looks as there's a lot of space being afforded to anyone who wishes to express discriminatory opinions. And those of us on the receiving end, however impersonal the delivery are being given the option of sitting back and taking it and/or hoping the person concerned will back down and behave reasonably - in this case not looking that likely - and/or taking on the role of informal sensitivity trainer.
And please don't put me in the position of excusing these kinds of remarks as part of an ongoing discussion because that is far from the case here.
To be truthful, Hugh, I really don't understand what some of them are getting at, and Anna, I thank you for the explanation.I perhaps expressed my dislike for The Safekeep a little too strongly, and I apologize if I did. When I said I did not like the characters, save Hendrik and Sebastien, I, in no way meant that I didn't like them because of their homosexuality or Eva because of her Jewishness, etc. And, I've explained before, I am a person who was born in Italy and spoke Italian almost exclusively until I was in my late teens. Perhaps my English is the problem, though I don't really think so. What I wrote, was in no way critical of the LGBTQ+ community, nor was it critical of the Jewish community. I am not critical of those communities. I see people as people, that's all. Some I like, some I don't like. I think that holds true for any person and for any community. When David pointed out to me that he was offended, I did not understand why, but I had no problem removing what I had to guess he found offensive from my post.
Alwynne has told me several times that she cares not one whit about anything I say and wants absolutely no interactions with me at all, and those posts remain extant on this board, so I have her on Ignore and cannot see what her many posts say. I don't want drawn into anyone's argument and ad hominem attacks are, to me, like the proverbial dust in the wind. I do not make them, nor am I bothered when someone directs them to me, so I made use of the Ignore option. that's what it's there for.
To the others, I'm sorry if you feel I was too harsh in my dislike of the book, but I am not the only person who put it at the bottom of their personal favorites among the longlist or the shortlist. There are others. But my dislike for the book has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or being Jewish or the author of the book. I simply did not feel the book was anywhere near usual Booker standards. I don't think that's a bridge too far. If it is someone's favorite, I accept that and also respect it. We all have different likes, sometimes vastly different likes and dislikes, born of many and different reasons. My favorite was Held, followed by Orbital, and those two books seem to be at the bottom of many personal favorites. Fine. As I said, we all like different things for different reasons. If we all agreed on everything, this would be a bland community with no depth. I don't think anyone wants that.
And I want to stress to you, Hugh, what you stressed in your last paragraph and what you stress in the description of the community. If it's offensive, don't post. If you think it might be offensive, don't post. I always try never to offend, but like you, Hugh, I do like a lively discussion where all opinions are respected, but without attacking any poster in any way. I did not single out a poster and never would, though I have been the subject of Alwynne's ad hominem attacks time and time again. I just put her on Ignore and post around her. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument, no matter what is said about me, and I have too much self-respect and dignity to participate in anyone's online battle. I feel the Ignore option is best when a poster tries to argue with me. I've had Alwynne on Ignore for several months now, and I don't feel inclined to look at her many posts out of curiosity. I am not curious.
If someone tells me a post I wrote upsets them, I am glad to edit it or delete it. I did ask David what he found offensive, and he didn't answer me, which seemed strange to me, since he was getting what he wanted from me, which was deletion or editing, but I edited anyway. No one here has pointed out to me what he or she found offensive. But if you, and I am speaking to you, Hugh, as the moderator, would like for me to delete a post, I will be glad to do so. I will be glad to edit something if a poster tells me they feel it is offensive and why. I still think in Italian, and I have to translate thoughts in Italian to written English. I think it's natural that I sometimes make mistakes, however, I can assure you that I never wish to offend. Further, I have thought about how to avoid such mistakes in the future, and I think I need to keep my posts shorter, to begin with, even though I stand firm that I did not target anyone in any community, on this board or off, in my post.
Again, I thank Anna for trying to explain, but I feel I've been misinterpreted again, though unintentionally, and probably due in part, to me.
As Sam has said, people's sensibilities will flare with certain books. The Safekeep in such a book, a marmite book, as Sam has said.
I still would like to know what anyone found offensive, specifically, but I'm certainly not going to press that issue.
The Mookse and the Gripes
Books mentioned in this topic
The Empusium: A Health Resort Horror Story (other topics)Daughters of the House (other topics)
The Safekeep (other topics)
The Safekeep (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Michèle Roberts (other topics)Yael van der Wouden (other topics)
